EU Demands Canada Rework Its Copyright, Patent Law 271
An anonymous reader writes "The draft intellectual property text of the EU - Canada Trade Agreement has leaked, with news that the EU is demanding that Canada fundamentally alter copyright, patent, and trademark law. The laundry list of demands includes copyright term extension, WIPO ratification, DMCA-style legislation, resale rights, new enforcement provisions, and following patent, trademark, and design law treaties. The net result is that when combined with the ACTA requirements, Canadian copyright law may cease to be Canadian." Reader TheTurtlesMoves stresses the "first sale doctrine" aspect of the Canada - EU negotiations. Once an artist sells a creative work, should she get a cut of any future resales of that same work? The EU says yes at least for some types of works, and it wants Canada to see things its way. "Europe's Directive 2001/84/EC says that the right covers only 'works of graphic or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs, provided they are made by the artist himself or are copies considered to be original works of art.'"
As a Canadian (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm surprised (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. has proposed provisions that would mandate a DMCA-style implementation for the WIPO Internet treaties and encourage the adoption of a three-strikes and you're out system to cut off access where there are repeated allegations of infringement.
Re:I'm surprised (Score:4, Informative)
Actually a few countries in the EU have passed DMCA-like legislation. But from the article:
Anti-circumvention provisions. The EU is demanding that Canada implement anti-circumvention provisions that include a ban on the distribution of circumvention devices. There is no such requirement in the WIPO Internet treaties.
This sounds pretty much like wanting DMCA-style legislation.
Canadians speak up! (Score:5, Informative)
If you are as pissed off about other countries trying to write our laws write your MP and the following Ministers.
Tony Clement
Minister of Industry
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/00093.html [ic.gc.ca]
minister.industry@ic.gc.ca
Bev Oda
Minister of International Cooperation
http://www.bevoda.ca/ [bevoda.ca]
Oda.B@parl.gc.ca
Re:As a Canadian... (Score:5, Informative)
The reason it would have been modded down if it were by an American is that the American Government is over there mucking about in other people's Countries before getting its house in order, making the statement completely hypocritical.
Canadians on the other hand, do very little besides peacekeeping, and combing the hills of Afghanistan.
Re:Cue the apologists... (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly? Speaking as a Spaniard, I see the official and populist line in Spain is that the EU is A Great Thing. Why?
(1) After Franco, Spain was way behind the rest of Western Europe in terms of infrastructure and social justice. When it joined the EU (then EC) in 1986, it received huge sums for investment in large scale programmes. Before this time, the big money had often come from US private investment (Spaniards were cheap labour!), which certainly provided jobs but wasn't going to build roads and railways or take care of the very sick. ...queue a couple decades of investment and the rising middle classes...
(2) Then after Aznar's monumentally stupid blaming of the local terr'ist group, ETA, for bombings in Madrid the day before the election, the pendulum swung from pro-US back to anti-US sentiment. The prevailing impression in Spain still seems to be that the EU stands as some great body to counter US influence, even though it's by and large motivated by special interests which often lie in common with the special interests of the US elite.
(3) (perhaps slightly prejudiced) Spaniards like patriarchal government. The legacy of Franco is still there, obviously. They're obsessed with a veneer of political correctness, still compensating for their once genuinely macho culture, but ultimately they don't like the idea of a nation of independent individuals, preferring a very detailed, united conception of morality and society. This sentiment is easy to take advantage of.
Re:I'm surprised (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Copyright_Directive [wikipedia.org]
Re:Canadians speak up! (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget the minister whose department is actually negotiating these things:
Stockwell Day
Minister of International Trade
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Phone: 613.995.1702
Fax: 613.995.1154
Web: http://www.stockwellday.com/EN/4984/ [stockwellday.com]
Email: DayS@parl.gc.ca
Re:Disgusting... (Score:3, Informative)
The only way it would affect anything is if these particular 7% of voters were concentrated only in the swing ridings, where the races are within a couple votes. If they were evenly distributed across the country, since we have the first past the post system, I doubt it would affect much.
In my neck of the woods, in the Taché riding in SE Manitoba, no matter who you vote for, the Conservatives win, because their candidate, Vic Toews, is a senior cabinet member. He was the Justice Minister for a while, but I think he's head of the Treasury Board now. People like that. They want their local MP to be an important person. No one has ever heard of any of the other candidates on the ballot. The Greens got like 200 votes last time around, Liberals a couple thousand, NDP less, but Toews takes the cake every time (he had something like 12,000-15,000 votes). AFAIK the majority of the population in Taché are Mennonites and they usually always stick to their kind in business, pleasure and politics, so Toews winning every time is no surprise at all. Hell, the guy had an affair publicly disclosed and it still didn't affect his popularity at all, and that's a VERY BIG no-no for a Mennonite, let me tell you. A 7% increase in Liberal votes wouldn't even dent Toews' lead, which is usually at least double what the next best candidate gets.
But yeah, like you said, with this minority government, where an election could be called at any time over any issue at all, even copyright, all it takes is a couple seats in the election for the opposition to get enough of them to be able to force the hand of the ruling party and make sure everyone works together for a consensus. They've been fairly successful at this the last couple times around, with a few exceptions, but they need to get their acts together. IMHO, the NDP need new leadership, and the Liberals need to figure out what the hell they're doing too in that area, and the Greens really need to step up their campaign and advertise just as much as the big 3. They were pretty quiet last time, but I was happy to see Elizabeth May in the CBC debate, that was really good.
Anyway, I think all of our governments should minorities really, since they actually have to work together and agree to get anything done, and coming to an agreement means they (should) have to take the views of the entire population into account. I also wish they, and every other government around the world, would stop using emotionally charged issues, such as kiddie porn, to pass crappy laws no one would even consider if it didn't have that label attached to it. Oh, we're still allowed to dream right?
Re:I hope Canada stands up to this and says NO: (Score:3, Informative)
Technically, Bryan Adams and Celine Dion are getting paid no matter what music you are copying. The blank media levy is divvied up between the top selling artists based on commercial radio airplay.
Re:Cue the apologists... (Score:3, Informative)
I would argue that big Government is the problem here. If you take an individual country the size of Sweden or Canada it's more probable that it will be responsive to the concerns and needs of it's citizens. Take a large bloated government like the US Federal Government or EU and it seems to be more probable that it gets bought off by a combination of machine politics and special interests.
As a Canadian I would argue that our government is owned entirely by corporations. My vote goes to the politician who has sold his soul to the Canadian corporations.
Re:I hope Canada stands up to this and says NO: (Score:3, Informative)
I actually like this system, because it gives me implied governmental approval to copy as I see fit.
It's not implied, it's explicit. Copying of music for personal use is entirely 100% legal in Canada as a result of the blank media levy.
Courts have consistently ruled that way.
Re:I hope Canada stands up to this and says NO: (Score:4, Informative)
It's not implied, it's explicit. Copying of music for personal use is entirely 100% legal in Canada
Correct. Citation here [cb-cda.gc.ca] (warning, PDF), which states:
Re:As a Canadian... (Score:3, Informative)
Canadians on the other hand, do very little besides peacekeeping, and combing the hills of Afghanistan.
Sorry, but as a Canadian, I have to disagree with you. Since Harper took over, Canada has been actively working to scuttle any agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. [guardian.co.uk]
EU is the battleground (Score:3, Informative)
EU is not a monolithic body, and concerning copyrights it's a violent battleground between the two sides. New repressions are raised as proposed laws by member countries then struck down by the EU parliament majority. Laws forbidding such repressions are raised and fought over as well. Commissions (which are generally pro-copyright and do most of the work) try to circumvent the parliament (which has the final vote and is generally pro-freedom), then the parliament members notice the shenanigans, bitchslap the commissions into place and try to set things straight. Sometimes the commissions manage to slip something under the radar of parliament, sometimes the parliament passes laws that make some commissions' efforts illegal.
I'm pretty sure this treaty was a draft prepared by one of the commissions, which when it hit the parliament, would either be struck down or modified so heavily not a word would go unchanged. OTOH the commissioners could try to pass it as "pretty much final version just pending a couple signatures, please adapt to this and when the treaty goes live your law will match the requirements of the treaty 100%". Of course when the treaty goes live it would be nothing like it was when this proposition was made but the harm has been done.
Re:Cue the apologists... (Score:3, Informative)
No, but in International affairs, If Bush said jump, Aznar would ask how high. So Aznar's behavior stuck for a bit. The party that took over had awful relations with Bush, which didn't help matters.
And frankly, the anti-americanism started with the Iraq invasion. The majority of Spaniards never bought into Bush's argument. You can find pictures of million man demonstrations that occurred after Aznar, Blair and Bush met at the Azores to discuss the invasion.
Re:Cue the apologists... (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Did the US plant the bombs? Did the US tell Aznar to blame ETA?
As far as I saw the nation seeing it; this one goes up to 11:
1. The US government had a quarrel with "Arabs" (we put "Arabs" in quotes because the US couldn't really make up its mind which Arabs it had a quarrel with, but it knew they were Arabs).
2. The Spanish people did not have a quarrel with Arabs.
3. The Spanish government, however, was all BFF with the US government.
4. So, the Spanish government decides to send its troops off to help its BFF.
5. Unsurprisingly for war, Spain was met with reprisals. Because of the nature of the enemy, it couldn't drop bombs over Spanish airspace, so resorted to a tactic it was familiar with.
Aside: War is dirty and all deaths are nasty. There's no "acceptable" way to kill the enemy, in uniform or otherwise.
6. So, to recap: the Spanish government sent its troops to war over an issue between the US and Arabs, and the Spanish people had to suffer.
7. The Spanish government had a chance to say to its people, "I'm sorry, we fucked up, this is not our war, we are not using our military for the proper function of protecting our country." Instead, and without evidence, it quickly blamed a local paramilitary group, ETA, to:
(a) Prevent the need to apologise as described;
(b) Justify its approach toward ETA.
8. The Spanish government was very quickly shown to be wrong to the point of either gross incompetence or maliciousness, losing the trust of both those who had confidence in its pro-war stance and those who might at least have had faith in the government's integrity, if not its position.
9. The Spanish government was very quickly replaced with one reflecting the growing anti-US sentiment.
10. The propaganda machine switched accordingly.
11. The Spanish political and democratic voice became anti-US.
An analysis of popular sentiment, Hognoxious, is more complex than, "Find out who arranged it and hate them!" In this case, once the enemy had attacked Spain, the enemy's enemy became even less a friend.
Remember, finally, that Spain and the UK have had regular bombing campaigns within their borders over the past few decades, and could never have been expected to respond as the US.