The U.S. Trade Representative has issued a public consultation on the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The consultation, which runs until March 21, 2008, notes that comments should focus on international cooperation, enforcement practices, or the development of new legal framworks. Australia has similarly consulted on its potential involvement in the ACTA negotiations. Why has the Canadian government not matched its partners by openly consulting on the issue?
USTR Invites Submissions on ACTA
February 19, 2008
Share this post
2 Comments
Law Bytes
Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
byMichael Geist
April 22, 2024
Michael Geist
April 15, 2024
Michael Geist
April 8, 2024
Michael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
- Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
- AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
Dangerous territory
I’m afraid that ACTA is not concerned about the counterfeit of money or other physical things as some might think. Rather, their interest is IP, aka Imaginary Property. This is very dangerous territory and is often about control of information, often even free speech. Canadians need to become aware of these issues.
YES, the Canadian government needs to have an open consultation process involving their OWN citizens. All democratic governments do this, otherwise who would be guiding them?
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property
There are copyrights and there are patents.
Both are temporary and limited in nature – they are “loaned not owned†– and therefore cannot be considered “property†in any real sense of the word.
Yet this term is bandied about ubiquitously – mostly by the “copyright mob†and their paid shills, presumably in an attempt to persuade the unwary that ideas can and should be owned.
Their hope is that if they say it often enough we will start to believe it.