Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda used the digital media conference at Banff to announce that Ottawa will spend $29 million over the next two years to fund new media.
Canadian Heritage Memorandum, December 8, 2020, ATIP A-2020-00498
While climate change has dominated the discussion at the G8 meeting in Germany, the summit document includes an ambitious intellectual property agenda. There is the usual talk linking stronger IP to greater innovation and the prospect of greater international IP cooperation and enforcement (as well as an IPR Task Force), yet also noteworthy is an agenda that responds to WIPO and OECD initiatives.
Following on comments from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, U.S. Senators Feinstein and Cornyn, as well as the USTR's Special 301 Report, the U.S. Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus has joined the chorus of criticism against Canada on intellectual property law. The Caucus released its annual report yesterday and while not yet […]
Two Canadian hearings on counterfeiting in one month is apparently not enough. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last week passed a motion to conduct hearings on counterfeiting and movie camcording. The Chair of the Committee acknowledged that it would be good to actually see the reports from […]
Over the next two days, two House of Commons committees will move toward finalizing their recommendations to address Canadian counterfeiting concerns – the Industry Committee will review its recommendations on the counterfeiting issue today, while tomorrow the National Security and Public Safety Committee will review its draft report on counterfeiting. While I am sure that all the witness comments and submissions will be considered, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network's Roadmap for Change [pdf] will unquestionably play a key role. During its appearances before the committees, the CACN representatives touted the document as the prescription to address the counterfeiting issue.
The Roadmap for Change was not translated at the time of the committee appearance, however, that has presumably now happened and the document has been posted online. It is generally consistent with the committee appearances – many of the anecdotes and recommendations that were raised before the committees are mentioned here too. The CACN is seeking a far larger IP enforcement framework with more resources, an IP crime task force, and an IP Coordination Council. It is also seeking stronger border measures, changes to the proceeds of crime legislation, and the creation of a criminal provisions for trademark counterfeiting as well as for camcording in a movie theatre.
While there is much to take issue with (just about every media release from the past couple of years is crammed into the report), it is the recommendations and omissions that really matter. I am skeptical about the likely effectiveness of some recommendations (for example, the reliance on stronger border measures is undermined by the GAO study on U.S. border effectiveness), yet several have little downside and will likely make their way into the Committees' reports. There are, however, several recommendations that should be rejected.