EU Keeps Pushing Canada To Make Massive Changes To IP Law, With No Concern For User Rights

from the if-not-acta,-then-ceta dept

Tue, Mar 30th 2010 2:01am — Mike Masnick

While everyone's been focusing on ACTA, there are other (falsely named) "trade agreements" that are being discussed as well. Last year, we mentioned one that has mostly flown under the radar, involving the EU pressuring Canada to change its copyright laws, for the "Canada - EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement" (CETA). Canada has come under some criticism for having copyright laws that the entertainment industry doesn't feel are "strong enough," and it looks like CETA is yet another attempt to change that.

Michael Geist reports on a recent leak of parts of CETA, and it's pretty extreme. As Geist notes:

The breadth of the demands are stunning -- the EU is demanding nothing less than a complete overhaul of Canadian IP laws including copyright, trademark, databases, patent, geographic indications, and even plant variety rights.

Jamie Love also has a nice analysis of the leaked documents, where he notes some of the rather telling language choices -- especially compared to the existing TRIPS agreement that concerns intellectual property. For example, in TRIPS, there's talk of balance and user rights, such as this statement in the objectives:

Objectives
The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

As for CETA? The objectives are noticeably one-sided:

Objectives
The objectives of this chapter are to:
(a) facilitate the production and commercialization of innovative and creative products between the Parties; and
(b) achieve an adequate and effective level of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Yes, this is what is happening to intellectual property law these days. Now that the industry folks have basically taken over the process, they're pretty much throwing any semblance of the supposed "bargain" between creators and society out the window, and doing their best to turn intellectual property law into a purely one-sided deal, for the benefit of producers only.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, eu

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2010 @ 2:15am

Terminology FAIL
"Yes, this is what is happening to intellectual property law these days."

Why are you using the term "intellectual property law"?

That's just marketing by monopolists to make people equate a regulatory privilege with physical ownership. By using it you're only perpetuating the misguided notion that copying is the same as theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 3:00am

Re: Terminology FAIL
Why are you using the term "intellectual property law"?

Because people understand it and the alternatives have serious problems:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dementia (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 3:54am

Certainly it's alarming, but this is surprising why??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 4:18am

I've said it before, copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies. When governments are forced to expand these monopolies based upon unelected foreign pressures, the entire purpose of granting the monopolies becomes perverted. It's no longer about giving an incentive to create, it's about protecting the cashcows of international corporations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 4:25am

Re: Re: Terminology FAIL
I like "government granted monopolies" myself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seshan (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 4:30am

When I read articles like this it makes me frustrated at what these greedy bastards are trying to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Terminology FAIL
Mike
I tend to agree with the AC here - although I can see where you are coming from. It is really inconvenient to keep calling something a different name just to make a point (although of course the "other side" have been doing this for years).

My preferred term is "intellectual monopoly concessions". The concessions bit is important because it underlines the point that these things are exceptional and makes it natural that the "concession" should run out. "Rights" and "property" don't run out with time - so the use of these words makes copyright term extension seem more natural than it should.

The word "concession" is used with exactly the right meaning elsewhere. (a limited term monopoly, granted by the government with reversion to the government or the public at the end) One good example is the channel tunnel

http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcTunnelInfrastructure/ukcDevelopment/uk pHistory#eurotunnel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2010 @ 5:38am

Language matters. As has been observed multiple times over the years in Techdirt, using the word "Property" reinforces the fallacy that drives the wrong-headed thinking about the incentives of those who create. I still like the term Steve R. used 2 years ago -- "Intellectual Monopoly". It is much more accurate, and it also does not lend itself to the deceptive conflation of "infringement" with "theft".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 30 Mar 2010 @ 6:16am

CETA
I really don't know who is greedier, the entertainment industry or Wall Street...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 6:21am

Re: CETA
Wall street is greedier they want the biggest bucks possible - and they are prepared to slog for them, the entertainment industry is lazier they still want big bucks - but they want to avoid actual work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 7:54am

I still fail to see
How all this s***t is going to help artists write better sonngs music or movie scripts or tv shows.
copyright is anti inovation. I hope Canada tell the EU where to stick their agreement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 30 Mar 2010 @ 8:26am

From canada with love
FUCK OFF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joel (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 9:43am

I want to see who this is helping..
Can the starving artists who would have made some money please stand up or raise their hands??

Incredible, can someone please explain to these people that they need to stop being greedy!! They are losing much more than they are gaining stop investing money in something so futile; even if CETA is adopted someone will find a way around it!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 30 Mar 2010 @ 9:53am

ya its called hte handbomb
i goto buddies offline and we trade
see hollywood now you have no DPI ability

haha and with lil wireless popups for short periods even if they make it illegal it will just have them running around far worse then after the drug dealers who btw they aren't catching very well either

Ya prohibition never worked and unless you free knowledge and culture people will just go do an end run around you.

BY there own stats there's like 6-8 million pirates in Canada
YOUR telling 6-8 million people to get bent?

NOT GONNA happen in the political climate the first party that shows us they are truly for us will get a MASSIVE NUMBER OF SEATS

hear that you twit politicians in canada?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 10:26am

What, exactly, does Canada get in return for this? It better be spectacular to compensate them for what they'd be giving up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 30 Mar 2010 @ 12:33pm

they get nothing and love it
sck on eggs the EU says do it or else we will NOT buy your OIL , trees and other resources we desperately need

says the 5$ a litre UK man, while canada pays 90 cents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seshan (profile), 30 Mar 2010 @ 11:02pm

Re: they get nothing and love it
Sad thing is that we still pay more then the US and it's our oil!
[ link to this | view in thread ]