Slashdot Mirror
EU Demands Canada Gut Its Copyright and Patent Laws
An anonymous reader writes "Late last year, a draft of the European Union proposal for the
intellectual property chapter of Canada, EU Comprehensive Economic
Trade Agreement, leaked online.
The leak revealed that the EU was seeking some significant changes to
Canadian IP laws. Negotiations have continued and Michael Geist
has now obtained an updated copy
of the draft chapter, complete with proposals from both the EU and
Canada. He says the breadth of the demands is 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."
Would that be "Up yours, mate!" or "May I have some more, sir?"
It's okay, if what I've seen in BC and Ontario is anything to go buy, the rest of Canada would pay you guys to take Alberta in.
Now if they can also somehow ship Quebec off to France, I think it'll be all settled.
~
corporations make money if the seal hunt remains?
really?
corporations?
hahahahahahahah.
The seal hunt has never been about profitability. Most seal hunters, while they hope to profit, are hardly corporations making tons of cash. For aboriginals and the atlantic sealers its a tradition and way of life.
Seals are hardly going extinct. And in fact high seal numbers might be threatening populations of less photogenic animals.
The real "corporations" are PETA and their ilk. They make the real money.
Increase beef and cattle import tax to 4000%, for example. That might give Canada a message.
In soviet Russia, God creates you!
Poor Canada. The US wants your wood, fresh water, its draft dodgers, syrups and oil.
The EU wants your artistic brains and Francophone culture.
Make the US and the EU pay for both.
Let the US feel market forces and flood the EU with low cost French and English culture.
As for the length of copy control on works, talk to some local Canadian artists,musicians, lawyers, playwrights, authors and filmmakers.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It is, in the same way that Australia was treated as an extension of the USA during the "negotiation" of last "free" trade agreement between our nations. The result? Australia ended up with a DMCA-wannabe and extended copyright terms or lost other trade items. I particularly like the "Australia's IP laws will be substantially harmonised with the world’s largest intellectual property market, and a global leader in innovation and creative products." arse-kissing exercise. I'm sure that any Canada-EU equivalent will contain similar gems in English and French!
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/outcomes/08_intellectual_property.html
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
How's that universe you've imagined for yourself?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Exports from Canada to the EU are small, and imports from the EU to Canada are also economically insignificant; nearly 80% of Canada's exports go to the US.. The EU doesn't "need" Canada. But the EU could make life pretty unpleasant for Canadians in principle if it starts cancelling other agreements: travel, currency exchange, access to markets, landing rights, port privileges, etc. If Europe and Canada stop cooperating, Canada will degenerate into an appendage of the US even more so than it already is. For Europe, it would simply mean the loss of a fairly small trading partner. Big deal.
because all sides are equally in the pockets of corps. Different corps maybe, but corps non the less.
end result is that the only options are crackpot politicians that may well start ww3 over a obscure holy book quote, or refuse to vote at all.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
In the EU bureaucracy, power is pretty much split into 3 blocks:
- The European Commission - non-elected, nominated and agreed by and between the countries governments
- The Council of Europe - representatives of each country's governments
- The European Parliement - directly elected
Somehow I suspect this treaty is being negociated by the European Commission, same as ACTA. That would make the "EU's" demands it contains not surprising at all: the Commission is (unsurprisingly) the one force in Europe which is deepest in the pocket of corporate special interests (for example, they were the ones that wanted Software Patents in Europe).
The European Parliement on the other hand tends to side more with Citizens and Consumers (again, unsurprisingly).
The funny bit is that, if the Commission does manage to get this treaty signed by Canada, it might still be voted down in Europe by the European Parliement.
Dear World,
As one of the few countries in the world whose economy is not absolutely sitting in the toilet, we, the People of Canada, would like to politely ask you all to fuck off, eh. We appreciate your opinions on our intellectual property laws but, given that we're not bordering on bankruptcy and/or forcing our people to live in a Nanny-state like the rest of you seem to be, we are forced to assume we must be doing something right while the rest of you aren't exactly laying down templates of "how it should be done."
We do apologize for the broad generalizations that may be made in this message but, really, the point remains - fuck off, eh. Mind your own damn business and we'll mind our own. We've done pretty well at minding our business and are just fine with things as they are. Thanks.
Sincerely and respectfully, Canada.
The lock-in is the worst aspect by far. If the government has the majorities to ratify a treaty, fair enough, that's how government and legislation works. However, a few years later, majorities may shift and the former opposition is now the majority. But due to the way the treaty is designed, they might have a very difficult time repealing the treaty and its legislation. So the treaty effectively increases the length of a government's term of power. I guess there should be some constitutional limits to treaties above and beyond those for normal laws. (IANAL, so maybe those already exist in many countries.)
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I seem to remember (which means, I don't have a reliable source...) that last time there was a dispute between the EU and the US about trade tariffs, the EU went and put a relatively large (around 50%) tax on a whole list of implausible-seeming products. The only connection between them is that they were each important to the economy of a swing state in the (then-upcoming) US election; the EU was trying to put pressure on the incumbents to accede to their demands or be voted out by their own citizens. (I ran into this problem when trying to import some embedded microprocessors from the US to the UK; it was necessary to decide whether they were handheld computers without a calculator function (very low import duty rate), or handheld computers with a calculator function (much higher import duty rate). In the end, I think they qualified as non-calculators.)
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
That may be true, except of course that the comission members won't have any trouble whatsoever paying just about any amount of tax on it.
And they really want to get their way.
Besides, not even in the US do citizens get vote on foreign relations treaties, never mind on specific provisions of such treaties. Those treaties are negotiated by the president('s representative) and confirmed or vetoed by congress.
In the US foreign law is negotiated by the members of the executive branch of government, and ... NOT ... presented to parliament (which is why the "EU constitution", which is legally a trade agreement did not need to be ratified by parliaments, only by executive government representatives (whether that meant president, minister, or even king). Those individuals took the final decision).
Of course this is a(nother) loophole in the pseudo-democratic status that the EU somehow still maintains. The EU is not America, and executive branch politicians have final authority about import/export taxes (taking this power away from parliaments is called "harmonisation"). In the EU legislative power rests (also) in the executive branch.
Not only that, but EU courts directly enforce EU-negotiated treaties as law, despite those "laws" obviously not having passed parliament.
once the treaty is signed there is pressure to pass laws to bring the countries laws into line with the treaty.
Just be glad it's merely "pressure". In the EU treaties are law, the second they are signed. They can even override the constitution (this was originally done by a court to prevent the arrest and life imprisonment of a middle eastern dictator (yes that one) who had been convicted under the local law system, but was later accepted as a general principle : treaties can override the constitution).