Intellectual property remains on the contentious issue list, but negotiators advised that a deal on the copyright rules has largely been reached. The lead IP negotiator indicated that given the European Parliament rejection of ACTA, there is now no appetite in Europe for the inclusion of controversial ACTA provisions within the agreement. In fact, when asked directly whether CETA would require legislative changes to current Canadian copyright law (ie. post C-11), Canada’s lead negotiators said he did not think changes would be required. Assuming this interpretation of CETA and the Copyright Act is accurate, it suggests no changes on issues such as copyright term, resale rights, ISP liability, and enforcement. Early drafts of CETA addressed all of these issues.
While a copyright deal has been reached, the IP rules on geographic indications and patents are both headed to a ministerial showdown. The negotiators indicated the GI issue would require a political decision. The GI issue apparently includes border measures provisions, which has implications for copyright enforcement. The negotiators also confirmed that patents, which have been the target of major lobbying campaigns from the pharmaceutical industry, have still not been the subject of negotiation. The political pressures on pharmaceutical patents are significant on both sides, with some EU member states pushing for extended protection and several Canadian provinces arguing against changes that could add billions to health care costs. The negotiators identified several additional issues that will ultimately require political intervention: rules of origin for automobiles, agriculture issues including beef, pork, dairy, and fish, government procurement, as well as services. The objective remains to conclude the deal by the end of the year.
A road not taken?
As I mentioned in a post recently, the failure of ACTA and SOPA as well as the increasing prominence of tech eclipsing media in the overall world economy, is finally playing out in the legislative sphere. My other point was as this shift occurs there is opportunity to keep new industries from taking the same road as the media conglomerates, siphoning all the capitol to themselves. Creators should take more control of their own destinies, and keep the lions share they deserve. Consumers should support only the models that provide the good and service they desire.
“The negotiators also confirmed that patents, which have been the target of major lobbying campaigns from the pharmaceutical industry, have still not been the subject of negotiation. The political pressures on pharmaceutical patents are significant on both sides, with some EU member states pushing for extended protection and several Canadian provinces arguing against changes that could add billions to health care costs.”
Wish we could get more media coverage on this. Recently made about five attempts to mention this on the CBC forums and all but one was censored.
Chained with many locks
And yet, even with no change required, another chain with padlock is wrapped around the current copyright status quo.
Is the current status quo outrageous and “freakin’ crazy”? Yes, see e.g. here:
Some great-granddaughter is trying to sue the Nova Scotia taxpayer to give her money for what her great-grandfather did in 1921. A nice, non-digital example of copyright excess.
And yet, if you want to change it, there’s Berne, there are two WIPO agreements, there are WTO agreements (which you can not get out of other then abandoning WTO altogether!). And now there’s another lock-in, CETA about to be signed.
monster beats pro