Entertainment Industry Flips Out At The Good Parts Of Canada's New Copyright Law, Demands Changes Via TPP

from the but-of-course dept

In discussing Canada's C-11 copyright reform, we noted that while we were troubled by the "digital locks" provision that mirrors the DMCA's ridiculous anti-circumvention rules, there was actually plenty of good things in the law, that other countries should take note of. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry feels differently. With Canada joining the TPP negotiations, entertainment industry lobbyists are seeing it as an opportunity to roll back all of the good parts of Canada's copyright law. Michael Geist has the story on how the IIPA -- an organization made up of a bunch of other copyright maximalist organizations, like the RIAA and MPAA -- have put in a filing that argues TPP should wipe out many of the reasonable parts of Canada's new copyright law:

The IIPA, which recently submitted its position on Canada's entry to the TPP as part of a U.S. regulatory process, takes particular issue with the role of Internet providers in enforcing Canadian copyright law. The Canadian "notice-and-notice" approach, which requires providers to forward thousands of infringement allegation notices to their subscribers, strikes a balance between effective enforcement and free speech, while preserving users' privacy.

The model has begun to attract global attention with countries such as Chile adopting it within its own domestic law. The IIPA sharply criticizes the approach, however, calling for dramatic reforms. It argues that Canadian law "fails to provide meaningful incentives for network service providers to co-operate with copyright owners to deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital network environment."

Instead, the copyright lobby wants Canada to implement measures that would require Internet providers "to take action to prevent recidivists from repeatedly using their services to commit copyright infringement." The plain language demand: a termination system that would cut off Internet access for subscribers accused of infringement.

The IIPA also wants Canada to undo statutory damages changes from Bill C-11 that created a liability cap of $5,000 for non-commercial infringement. It claims that the non-commercial cap renders statutory damages "ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment."

Even with the change, Canada remains one of the only developed countries with statutory damages that create the prospect of multi-million dollar damage awards for commercial infringement. The government created the non-commercial cap because it was uncomfortable with rules that could spur thousands of lawsuits against individuals.

This isn't surprising, of course. These groups have always used international trade agreements to force through IP laws that they can't get otherwise. In fact, what's slightly ironic is that the whole reason that Canada was pressured to put in place C-11 in the first place, was because all of these same trade groups kept insisting that Canada was not living up to its "international obligations" with regards to earlier copyright-related agreements. So now that Canada has updated its law with some good ideas and some bad... the industry goes running right back to international agreement negotiations to try to delete the good parts, which it doesn't like.

And, really, this is a big part of the problem with all the secrecy around the TPP. While the process in Canada to approve C-11 certainly had its issues, at least the bill itself was public and was open to significant discussion for quite some time. And if you look back to previous attempts to reform copyright law in Canada, the proposals had gone through significant public scrutiny. None of that will happen with the TPP, which is still being negotiated in secret, and will only be revealed as a done deal: take it or leave it. And none of it will involve real input from the public, who can give talks around the edges of the negotiation, but are never invited to comment on the actual proposals at all. Of course, the entertainment industry, being on various "advisory committees," do have full access to TPP negotiating docs.

Filed Under: canada, copyright
Companies: iipa

University Requires Students To Pay $180 For 'Art History' Text That Has No Photos Due To Copyright Problems

from the total-failure dept

Brent Ashley shares the absolutely crazy story of how his daughter, a student at OCAD University in Canada, is taking a class on "Global Visual and Material Culture: Prehistory to 1800" which has a textbook that is required for all students... which costs $180. Now, we all know that textbook prices are absolutely insane these days, but here's where it gets crazier. The text -- and, remember, this is an art textbook has no images because they couldn't clear the copyrights:

This year, however, the textbook for Global VISUAL and Material Culture has no pictures. Students have been told that the publisher couldn’t get the copyright permissions settled in time for the print run, so students will have to read the book, and see the pictures online by following along on their computer.

There is no discount on the $180 price for an ART textbook that has NO PICTURES. Devoid of pictures. Bereft of art. If I am going to have to pay $180 for an art history book that is of no resale value to next year’s students, it had damn well better be an excellent visual reference with hard cover and full colour plates, to keep around for years, festooning my coffee table and that of my heirs.

Students in the class have put up a petition to protest what they quite correctly call a "sham." It's even more bizarre given that recent court rulings in Canada would suggest that the images in question would be given pretty broad "fair dealing" protections for the purpose of education. But, just the threat of copyright claims, apparently, are creating an absolutely ridiculous situation.

Filed Under: art history, canada, education, pictures, prices, textbooks
Companies: ocad university

Royal Canadian Mint Claims Copyright On One Cent Piece, Threatens Indie Musician Over Album Art

from the penny-for-your-thoughts dept

Recently, we learned that Canadian musician Dave Gunning ran into some copyright troubles regarding his latest album, No More Pennies. No, he did not use music or lyrics from any other artist without permission. What he did was something far worse, at least in the eyes of one organization. What he had the audacity to do was include images of the soon-to-be-retired Canadian penny. When the Royal Canadian Mint caught wind of Dave's tribute album and the timely use of the penny in its artwork, it sent a legal threat to Dave stating that he was infringing the copyright of the Mint and that he must pay a royalty on each album sold. Of course, the Mint did decide to give him a break on this royalty by waving the fees on the first 2000 albums sold, but said he had to pay after that. That was quite generous, or so the Mint was quick to claim.

“We have helped this guy out by giving him a break,” Alex Reeves, communications manager for the Royal Canadian Mint, said Tuesday.

“Now that we have explained the rules and the policy, it’s very clear what the implications are for using the penny’s image. And we’re certainly being consistent in the applications of our policy for any for-profit use,” he said.

Dave, however, saw things a bit differently.

“It is pennies to them but is pretty substantial for me,” said Gunning, who won two East Coast Music Awards in 2011, adding “we really had no idea” the ode to the penny was going to land him in hot water.

I had to scratch my head for a bit on this little dispute. Here in the US, works of the government are automatically in the public domain and can be freely used by the public. In regards to currency, while it is illegal to create counterfeit currency, it is legal to duplicate the images of currency as long as it is clearly a fake. Things are not quite so clear cut in Canada. 

For the Canadian government, works it produces are covered by a Crown Copyright in which the government retains some control over the use. However, even this explanation might not be quite so cut and dry. As Canadian lawyer Howard Knopf explains:

To be clear, the album cover shown above does not infringe any so-called intellectual property rights of the mint because:

• If there ever was copyright in the Canadian penny, which is doubtful, it has long since expired and the above album cover would not be infringing copyright in any event
• The above album cover does not "use" or "adopt" the Canadian penny in any technical sense covered by the Trade-marks Act.

Someone over at the Mint should learn some basic facts about intellectual property law, This kind of thing makes people lose respect for IP law and for the credibility of government institutions. There’s nothing funny about that.

Knopf points out that the Mint has even attempted similar actions before, when the city of Toronto created an ad campaign which featured an image of the penny. Just as it was then, it is now: the penny, if it was ever covered by copyright, has long since entered the public domain. This is because Crown Copyright only lasts 50 years. This fact, and plenty of negative publicity, lead the Mint to drop its action against Toronto. 

Now, we learn that the Mint has turned tail and dropped its action against Dave too:

The mint did not only waive the fee for Mr. Gunning, but said it would also review its intellectual property policy to ensure that it’s fair.

“We recognize our policy as it is today may not consider the individual needs and circumstances of those who request the use of our images,” spokeswoman Christine Aquino said from Ottawa.

“We’re allowing [Gunning] to do this and we truly wish him well in his career.”

Perhaps this change of heart came about because those running the legal offices of the Mint were reminded that they don't have a solid claim on the copyright of the penny. Even if they did, as Knopf clearly pointed out, Dave's use of the penny in his album work is transformative and as such covered by fair dealing. Either way, Dave is happy to have this saga ended.

“Everything’s gonna taste better now. I’m gonna sleep better,” laughed Mr. Gunning, who said he was overwhelmed by the attention his story had generated across Canada and the United States.

“This all started very simply from the fact that I’ve got a wife and three kids and just want to be able to make a living, and felt that I had to stand up for that.”

All of this raises the question of why a government has any claim of copyright on its currency to begin with. In reality, to claim such a copyright makes no sense. If the concern is that people would attempt to print their own currency, that is what counterfeit laws are for. Otherwise, it seems to be an unneeded burden on the freedom of Canadians. 

Filed Under: artwork, canada, crown copyright, dave gunning, musician, pennies
Companies: royal canadian mint

Canada's New Startup Visa Is Progressive By U.S. Standards, But For Them It Could Be A Step Backwards

from the not-all-businesses-need-funding-from-VCs... dept

For years now, I've talked about the importance of some sort of startup visa for immigrants starting companies in the US. Lots of people in the government agree with this idea, but they haven't passed it because it's about "immigration." And no politician wants to take on immigration as a whole, because then it turns into nationalism about how those crazy foreigners are taking our jobs -- even when that's empirically not true. Canada, however, has now put in place a new startup visa that is somewhat similar to the various proposals floated down here in the US: entrepreneurs can get a visa if they have funding from a venture capitalist.

While I think that such a law would be a step forward in the US, in Canada it seems like it might actually be a step backwards. That's because Canada already had very open borders to job-creating immigrants. Its old rules allowed an immigrant a visa if they opened a business that would hire one person for one year. But those visas are no longer being offered. And that seems like a problem. My big complaint over plans for a startup visa that require venture capitalist investment is that it assumes that entrepreneurs require venture capital. But that's not true. Yes, for certain types of business, including capital-intensive, high-growth businesses, it often (though not always) makes sense to raise venture capital, but for many other successful types of businesses there are alternative sources of funding -- including (these days) things like crowdfunding and (*gasp*) revenue funding.

Imagine a couple of entrepreneurs want to build some new gadget, so they put it up on Kickstarter and it raises $1 million. Does it then make sense to also require them to get a VC to "bless" them by giving them money... and taking a ton of equity and control? Or does it make sense to just say "hey, these guys are likely to have a legitimate business that will create jobs, let them in." My other fear with linking a startup visa to VC funding is that it gives that much more control and power to VCs in negotiations. They now know that their money and investment isn't just a ticket to funding the company, it's a ticket into the country where they want to live. They can extract much more favorable terms under those conditions. While I'm not in the camp that thinks VCs are "bad," there are some who clearly take advantage of entrepreneurs, and a startup visa linked to venture money only makes that more possible.

So, yes, we need a startup visa, and Canada should have one too. But it seems like Canada is going backwards with its efforts, taking away from a visa plan that works for all kinds of companies, and instead giving venture capitalists the ability to choose who gets into the country.

Filed Under: canada, entrepreneurship, immigration, startup visa, venture capital

Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

from the maybe... dept

The Economist has an interesting article suggesting that perhaps the tide is finally turning on bad copyright laws, and we're beginning to see real efforts at reforming copyright in the right direction:

Canada passed a law in June that sets a new standard of permissiveness. It caps statutory damages if copyright is breached for non-commercial purposes. It expands the definition of “fair dealing” (“fair use” in America) and creates exemptions for educational purposes and for parody. Firms must pass warnings about infringement to the person who posted the material rather than immediately take the content down themselves. This contrasts with practice in America and Europe, where a web company alerted to infringing material must remove it. This encourages knee-jerk responses to complaints.

Britain too plans to introduce internet-friendly legislation this autumn after a review led by Ian Hargreaves, professor of digital economy at Cardiff University. As with Canada’s law, the recommended new code entails exemptions for non-commercial uses and user-generated content. Also mooted is a “digital copyright exchange” that would establish a marketplace for copyright. A musician could list her song and the licensing terms. A filmmaker wanting to use it would know quickly and simply what to do.

It also talks about how Ireland and Australia are both exploring more open and internet friendly copyright reforms. The article does note that this is not all going smoothly. There are efforts to create taxes on content to preserve old business models, for example. But it does seem like, for the first time in pretty much anyone's lifetime, there actually are real and legitimate efforts to push back on the excesses of copyright law, with the recognition that it's done more harm than good.

I'm not quite as optimistic as the Economist piece, as almost all of those efforts (Canada excepted, and even that came with bad digital locks/DRM anti-circumvention provisions) are still nascent and are facing tremendous lobbying pressure to go in the other direction. Furthermore, we just got through the SOPA and ACTA fights, and the latest round of TPP negotiations are going on as we speak. Plus, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that even as the RIAA and MPAA have had their budgets slashed, they're gearing up to continue the push for copyright maximalism in all corners. There are inklings of hope and greater and greater recognition of the problem, but I'd say that we're a long, long way from seeing the tide really turn -- and there's still an unfortunately large possibility of things going back to maximalism-as-usual.

Filed Under: australia, canada, copyright, exceptions, fair use, regulations, uk

Canadian Cities Looking To Opt-Out Of CETA Rather Than Get Roped Into An ACTA-Like Situation

from the municipalities-fight-back dept

Though the specific process differs from country to country, international agreements are generally negotiated and signed at the highest levels of government, with input from everyone else filtering up (in theory) through the hierarchy—at least until you get something like ACTA, where the public rises up en masse and essentially overrides the whole system. One thing that you don't often see is municipal governments standing up to take a direct role in international negotiations—but that's exactly what's happening now in Canada, where cities are seeking to avoid an ACTA-like situation by asking to opt out of the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) at the municipal level.

The effort is being led by The Council of Canadians, a social justice group which is working to persuade cities, towns, and municipal authorities all over Canada to request exemption from CETA. Their core concern is about the agreement's procurement chapter, which sets down rules about how governments and other public bodies can spend money on goods and services, and which they fear will unduly restrict municipalities:

For example, new rules in CETA on how public bodies spend money would:

• Prohibit municipalities from putting buy local or buy Canadian preferences on contracts, or requiring that bidders use some portion of local or Canadian goods, services or labour. This would end the ability of municipalities to use procurement as a local economic or social development tool.
• Prohibit municipalities from using public spending to create or support a market for innovative goods and services, including green technologies, if the effect would favour Canadian producers or attract investment to Canada.
• Prohibit municipalities from spending public money in ways that support sustainability, for example through buy local food policies like the one Toronto passed to reduce emissions from food miles.

As long as municipal governments are part of the CETA deal, these prohibitions will apply to local purchases. We need to make sure cities, towns, school boards and hospitals are not bound by these unnecessary rules.

So far, over 30 local governments representing over 5.5 million people have joined the exemption campaign and another 30 to 40 municipal councils, school boards or associations have asked for more information and more input in the negotiations. Unfortunately, as is common with these situations, such concerns have been largely brushed off in a weak damage control effort by the federal government. Assurances from the Candian Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministry on the Myths and Realities page are reminiscent of the EU's ACTA Facts, and the Council of Canadians have a page that debunks them. International trade strategist Peter Clark laughs off the fears Canadians have of corporate control of their water services.

CETA is not about diverting Canada’s lakes and rivers – which would not do Europeans much good in any event because we have no common borders... There is no requirement to privatize services which do not compete with private entities and do not operate on a commercial basis.

There are good reasons for the municipalities' concern about the investors' clauses, but Clark just tells them not to worry their pretty little heads about it and run along. Stonewalling and secrecy are not the way to build confidence in the benefits of CETA.

Filed Under: acta, canada, ceta, cities, opt-out

Looks Like Canada & Mexico Will Be Blocked From Next Round Of TPP Negotiations As Well

from the why-do-people-put-up-with-this-crap? dept

Last month, we noted that the US had agreed (after resisting for a while due to Hollywood pressure) to let Canada and Mexico join the TPP negotiations, with significant restrictions on their ability to go back and debate previously agreed upon terms. Both countries agreed to sign on... but were then forced to sit out the recently concluded negotiating round in San Diego.

That should already be a concern, because now you have two countries who have agreed to sign on to an agreement, without the right to object to clauses already agreed upon... and then allowing a negotiating round to take part in which they can't participate. Basically, then, they're agreeing to accept whatever comes out of that negotiation without being able to have real input. That's pretty crazy for a sovereign nation.

And now it gets even worse.

As Michael Geist has discovered, Canada isn't just being blocked from the San Diego round, but from the next round as well, which will be held in September in Virginia. One has to assume that Mexico is in the same boat, as it's likely that both were given the same 90-day period in which they are excluded. I really can't fathom how either country could agree to such terms, or how the citizens of Mexico and Canada put up with such things. Their governments have bound them to an agreement over which they don't know what's being agreed to, which they have no say in what's being negotiated for two rounds, and which they cannot object to once it's finally let in the door.

Who agrees to such things?

Filed Under: canada, mexico, negotiations, tpp

Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs

from the proud-day dept

Canadian copyright is undergoing huge changes. The copyright reform bill is very close to becoming law, bringing with it some fantastic new fair dealing provisions (though unfortunately along with a significant downside in the form of digital locks rules), and now the Supreme Court has stepped in with a series of major rulings that reinforce users' rights and begin the process of cleaning up the mess that is Canada's copyright tariff system. This morning, the court published five separate judgements in cases related to tariffs and royalties, and each one contains significant victories for smarter copyright law.

There is a lot to dig into in this series of rulings, and some complex legal questions involved in some portions, but each one also makes clear statements. In the first case, between Alberta schools and the copyright collective Access Copyright, the court found that photocopies for classroom use can be covered by the "research" provisions of fair dealing. In the second case, between videogame publishers and a music collection society, the court found that selling videogames does not constitute a new public performance of the music they contain, and thus does not require a public performance royalty (yes—the Copyright Board and Federal Court of Appeals had both previously ruled that transmitting videogames with music in them counts as "communication to the public"). Similarly, in the third case, the court found that films which contain music are also not public performances requiring an additional royalty (on that one, the lower courts had gotten it right and also refused to certify the tariff). In the fourth case, the court affirmed that while streaming music to users is a public performance, offering music for download is not—so services like iTunes also don't have to pay additional performance royalties. Finally, in the ruling that may get the most attention, the court found that 30 second previews of songs provided by online music services qualify as fair dealing for the purposes of research—a battle that has been going on for a long time in Canada and is now, finally, put to rest.

The rulings also contain a lot of very important language that will have a lasting impact beyond these specific scenarios. The Supreme Court reaffirms the fact that fair dealing must have a "large and liberal" interpretation, and set down some clear restrictions on the power of the Copyright Board. Howard Knopf does an excellent job of summing up some of the important points and broader themes of these five landmark rulings:

• Collectives cannot assume that they will be entitled to an additional "layer" of remunerated rights every time there is a new method of delivery. Technological neutrality matters.
• The Court said what it meant and meant what is said in CCH v. LSUC in 2004 and will move forward from there - not be pushed backwards.
• Users have rights that must be given a "large and liberal interpretation". Copyright doesn't exist solely for collectives.
• Educators are in a "symbiotic" relationship with students and the Copyright Act serves the goal of education, which includes access to essential material
• Copyright law is both about "protection" and "access"
• Copyright law is about "dissemination"
• "Research" is not restricted to "creative purposes". Consumer research counts too. Research can even be for "personal interest". There is no absolute requirement for "transformative" use in Canada
• The user's purpose is the one that counts in fair dealing
• Practices that increase the sale of work cannot be said to have a negative impact on the work
• The concept "public" must be considered in light of new technology, technological neutrality and the purpose of the legislation. The fact that communication may be interactive on an individual basis does not mean that it cannot be considered to be to the "public"
• When the statute uses a word such as "excludes", it means it. The word is not superfluous.
• Parliament did not intend to "recognize a superior expertise of the [Copyright] Board relative to the courts with respect to legal questions arising under the Copyright Act". On copyright questions of "first instance", the Board will get no more deference that any court would get. In other words, the Board must be "correct". It will not be sufficient that it merely be "reasonable"

One of the groups that is likely to be hit the hardest by these rulings is Access Copyright. We've covered the fact that Canada's university association struck a terrible deal with Access Copyright for the clearance of educational materials, and several major Canadian unversities are refusing to sign on. This Supreme Court case was not directly dealing with that situation (it covers only primary and secondary schools), but the ruling contains a complete tear-down of Access Copyright's entire business model which applies every bit as much to universities and colleges. Michael Geist walks through the point-by-point dismantling of all Access Copyright's standard arguments against fair dealing, leaving them very few legs to stand on moving forward. For those universities that plan to clear their own copyrights, this is a very big win—for those that didn't have the resources to keep fighting after the AUCC abandoned them, it just highlights how bad of a deal they got.

Copyright law in Canada has its problems—first and foremost the extremely bad digital locks rules that will come into effect with Bill C-11. But, increasingly, and most notably at the Supreme Court level, we've also been making significant strides in the right direction, using legal language that displays a clear understanding of both modern realities and the need for balance in copyright law. There are still important battles to be fought, but today the Supreme Court gave us a huge arsenal of new weapons.

Filed Under: c-11, canada, education, fair dealing, research, scc
Companies: access copyright

CETA Is Now Slightly Less Like ACTA (But Still Similar, And Still Secret)

from the i-suppose-it's-progress dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the revelation (via a leaked text) that the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, which is nearing completion, contains provisions in the IP chapter that are extremely similar to ACTA. It's a pretty clear attempt to reboot the ACTA process via a back door, and Michael Geist's coverage drew a lot of attention to the issue in Europe. Now, it looks like damage control is already underway: Geist reports that the European Commission has made a weak attempt to assuage concerns by announcing that two of the ACTA-like provisions in CETA have been dropped. Unfortunately, those provisions only represent a small fraction of CETA's similarities to ACTA:

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.

So... some of the bad stuff has been removed from the leaked draft that we weren't supposed to see in the first place. Also there may be other changes—who knows? Certainly not the public, and apparently not the EU Trade spokesperson either. You probably see the real issue here: even if they removed all of the controversial provisions from CETA, there would still be the little matter of how they were trying to quietly push through all the exact same stuff that citizens and politicians across Europe rose up and rejected mere weeks ago. The public still had to learn about it via a leaked document. New information comes in the form of vague descriptions, not new public drafts. This is not how you negotiate an international agreement in the 21st century, and that's what people are reacting to.

I suspect the people behind CETA are really, really annoyed: they were so close to slipping this one through, and now they might have another ACTA on their hands. How many times does this have to happen before politicians, diplomats, and the special interest groups that drive these agreements realize they no longer get to operate without public scrutiny?

Filed Under: acta, canada, ceta, europe, transparency

ACTA's Back: European Commission Trying To Sneak In Worst Parts Using Canada-EU Trade Agreement As A Trojan Horse

from the not-dead-yet dept

Even in the face of a resounding rejection of ACTA by the European Parliament last week, the European Commission seems determined to keep pushing for its eventual adoption. Techdirt noted some ways in which it might try to do that, but an important article by Michael Geist lays out what seems to be an alternative approach that is already close to fruition:

According to recently leaked documents [pdf], the EU plans to use the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA), which is nearing its final stages of negotiation, as a backdoor mechanism to implement the ACTA provisions.

Here's how that would work:

The European Commission strategy appears to be to use CETA as the new ACTA, burying its provisions in a broader Canadian trade agreement with the hope that the European Parliament accepts the same provisions it just rejected with the ACTA framework. If successful, it would likely then argue that ACTA poses no new concerns since the same rules were approved within the Canadian trade deal.

What's extraordinary is how slavishly the CETA IP chapter follows ACTA -- Geist's post provides a table comparing the two in detail, and for many key issues, CETA adopts ACTA's wording exactly.

This includes requiring the promotion of "cooperative efforts" that could see ISPs taking down content on a "voluntary" basis; the use of the meaningless term "fair process"; disclosure of a subscriber's information "expeditiously" upon accusation of infringement; civil damages that consider "any legitimate measure of value that may be submitted by the right holder, including lost profits"; the use of the vague term "commercial scale" for both civil and criminal enforcement measures; and criminal liability for "aiding and abetting" infringement.

What that means is that practically all of the key stumbling blocks that persuaded the European Parliament to vote against ACTA are also present in CETA. As Geist observes;

The backdoor ACTA approach creates enormous risks for Canada's trade ambitions. Given the huge anti-ACTA movement, the Canada-EU trade deal could face widespread European opposition with CETA becoming swept up in similar protests.

After all, if those proposals were problematic in ACTA, they are equally problematic for CETA, and so it seems likely that the European Parliament will vote against the entire Canada-EU trade deal just as it threw out ACTA. The obvious solution is to remove the intellectual property chapter from CETA altogether to avoid this risk. Geist points out there's an important precedent for this:

the U.S. and EU recently announced their own plans to negotiate a trade deal but agreed to keep intellectual property issues out of the talks. If CETA becomes known as ACTA II, the future of the Canada-EU trade deal may hinge on adopting a similar approach.

That would not only be a good idea for CETA, it would be sensible for all trade agreements, since it would return them to their original aim of promoting trade between nations, not regulating the domestic laws governing things like copyright.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: acta, canada, ceta, european parliament