The leak of the Trans Pacific Partnership intellectual property chapter generated global coverage as full access to the proposed text provided a wake-up call on U.S. demands and the clear opposition from many TPP countries. My first post highlighted Canada’s opposition to many U.S. proposals, but nowhere is that more evident than in the section on Internet service provider liability. In fact, ISP liability in the TPP is shaping up to be a battle between Canada and the U.S., with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligation (Canada) or a notice-and-takedown system with the prospect of terminating subscriber Internet access and content blocking (U.S.).
Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP
Copyright
The Trans Pacific Partnership IP Chapter Leaks: Canada Pushing Back Against Draconian U.S. Demands
Wikileaks released an updated version of the secret Trans Pacific Partnership intellectual property chapter this morning (background on the TPP from my appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade earlier this year). The leaked text, which runs 95 pages in length and is current to August 2013, provides a detailed look not only at the chapter – it includes the full text – but also the specific positions being taken by all negotiating countries.
From a Canadian perspective, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that Canada is pushing back against many U.S. demands by promoting provisions that are consistent with current Canadian law. Canada is often joined by New Zealand, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile, Vietnam, Peru, and Brunei Darussalam. Japan and Singapore are part of this same group on many issues. Interestingly, Canada has also promoted Canadian-specific solutions on many issues. The bad news is that the U.S. – often joined by Australia – is demanding that Canada rollback its recent copyright reform legislation with a long list of draconian proposals.
It is instructive to see how different the objectives of the U.S. are on intellectual property when compared to virtually all other countries. With the exception of the U.S., Japan, and Australia, all other TPP countries have proposed an objectives article (Article QQ.A.2) that references the need for balance, promotion of the public domain, protection of public health, and measures to ensure that IP rights themselves do not become barriers to trade. The opposition to these objective by the U.S. and Japan (Australia has not taken a position) speaks volumes about their goals for the TPP.
New Risks Emerge as Anti-Counterfeiting Bill Placed on the Legislative Fast Track
The government’s anti-counterfeiting legislation, which died over the summer when the Conservatives hit the parliamentary reset button, is now back on the legislative fast track. Industry Minister James Moore quickly re-introduced the bill last month and speedily sent it to the Industry Committee for review (I appeared before the committee last week).
That review has revealed that the numerous new border measures envisioned by the bill, including seizure powers without court oversight, fall short of the demands of intellectual property lobby groups. Those groups intend to use the committee hearings to seek further expansion of border seizures and to shift more enforcement costs to the public.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that since virtually everyone is opposed to harmful counterfeiting – particularly when fake goods create health and safety risks – it is unsurprising that the bill appears to enjoy all-party support. The focal point of the bill is that it grants customs officials broad new powers without court oversight. Officials will be required to assess whether goods entering or exiting the country infringe any copyright or trademark rights. Should a customs official determine that there is infringement, the goods may be seized and prevented from entering the country.
New Risks Emerge as Anti-Counterfeiting Bill Placed on the Legislative Fast Track
Appeared in the Toronto Star on November 9, 2013 as New Risks Emerge as Anti-Counterfeiting Bill Placed on Legislative Fast Track The government’s anti-counterfeiting legislation, which died over the summer when the Conservatives hit the parliamentary reset button, is now back on the legislative fast track. Industry Minister James Moore […]
Considering C-8: My Appearance Before the Industry Committee on the Anti-Counterfeiting Bill
I appeared yesterday before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for a hearing on Bill C-8, the anti-counterfeiting bill that has been placed on the legislative fast-track by the government. The panel also featured representatives from the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, the Canadian Standards Association, and the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. The hearing was cut short by a vote in the House of Commons, but there was still an opportunity for a ten minute opening presentation and to address a few questions from the committee members. My prepared remarks are posted below. Given time constraints and the comments of the other panel members, there were some adjustments (I omitted the first section on the scope of counterfeiting and noted that fellow panel members proposed the precise amendments I was discussing).
Recent Posts
When the Drumbeat of Intolerance Becomes Too Loud to Ignore: Reflections on Campus Antisemitism, Academic Freedom and My Global Technology Law Exchange Course 
Solomon’s Choice: Charting the Future of AI Policy in Canada 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government? 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation
