Michael Geist

The European Commission, which initially indicated that it would not respond to the posting of the leaked CETA IP chapter, has now responded by saying that the two ACTA provisions involving Internet providers have been dropped from CETA. When asked whether those were the only changes, EU Trade spokesperson John Clancy said there may be other changes but that this was the biggest one.

While the removal of the Internet provider provisions is a good step, the European Parliament’s overwhelming rejection of ACTA was the result of far more than just the Internet provider provisions. Indeed, there has been concern about digital locks, damages, criminal provisions, and border measures. All of those provisions also appeared in the February 2012 CETA draft and Clancy’s response suggest that most, if not all, remain there.

The decision to respond to the CETA concerns is undoubtedly the result of the enormous amount of attention the connection between ACTA and CETA have received in Europe over the past 48 hours. This includes:

Read more ›

My post yesterday on how the EU plans to use the Canada – EU Trade Agreement (CETA) as a backdoor mechanism to implement the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) provisions has attracted considerable attention with coverage from European media and activists. The European Commission refused to comment, stating that it does not comment on leaks.

Some have noted that since the leaked CETA IP chapter dates from February 2012, the concern is premature since the current EC position may change in light of the recent European Parliament vote to reject ACTA. According to this view, “it’s more than likely that the European Parliament will kill CETA just as (and because of) ACTA was killed last week.”

While a change to the IP chapter would be welcome (I argued it should be removed from CETA altogether), I think the concern is warranted for several reasons.

Read more ›