Last week, the European Commission launched what promises to be a global, multi-year debate on the regulation of artificial intelligence. Several years in development, the proposed rules would ban some uses of AI, regulate others, and establish significant penalties for those that fail to abide by the rules. European leaders believe the initiative will place them at the forefront of AI, borrowing from the data protection framework of seeking to export EU solutions to the rest of the world. Céline Castets-Renard is a colleague at the University of Ottawa, where she holds the University Research Chair on Accountable Artificial Intelligence in a Global World. She joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the EU plans, their implications for Canadian AI policy, and the road ahead for the regulation of artificial intelligence.
Post Tagged with: "european commission"
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 85: Céline Castets-Renard on Europe’s Plan to Regulate Artificial Intelligence
- All FTAs negotiated by the EU, including CETA, contain chapters on IPR enforcement. They are just one aspect of a comprehensive approach. CETA is not different.
- The Commission fully respects the vote of the EP of the European Parliament on ACTA and the IPR related text of CETA is being reviewed in order to remove or adapt elements that are considered problematic in the opinions and reports adopted by European Parliament.
- The draft text of CETA of February 2012 (on which the press comments are based) is outdated and reflects thinking at a time before the ACTA vote in EP. It should come as no surprise that certain provision resemble ACTA, which both Canada and the EU had negotiated. In the meantime, negotiations have evolved and the February 2012 text no longer represents the current state of the negotiations.
- For instance, even before the ACTA vote in the EP, the provisions on IPR enforcement on the internet had already evolved. For instance, Articles 27.3 and 27.4 of ACTA, which are considered problematic in the EP, are no longer reflected in CETA.
- The final result of the IPR chapter of CETA is likely to be very close to the IPR chapter of the Korea FTA, which was endorsed by a broad majority in the Parliament, and which has been in force for over a year now.
The European Commission statement not only confirms some changes in CETA, but suggests that the final version will look like the EU – South Korea Free Trade Agreement. This disclosure raises its own set of concerns for both Europeans and Canadians. This posts outlines six major areas of concern given the current uncertainty with CETA, its linkages to ACTA, and the influence of the EU – South Korea FTA.
The European Commission has revealed that it is currently being sued over ACTA secrecy. In October 2010, MEP Marietje Schaake asked several questions of the EC including one on non-transparency. The EC’s response now includes “since this issue is currently the object of a court case lodged by an Member […]
The full European Commission analysis:
As far as technical protection measures (TPMs) are concerned the aim of this provision is that only circumvention undertaken to commit an IP infringement can be made subject to civil or criminal liability.
The European Commission has posted a response to one of the many questions raised by members of the European Parliament about ACTA. The EC seeks to pacify the ACTA concerns by arguing that the treaty will be limited in scope and is targeted at commercial activities: The Commission can inform […]