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."
I, for one, welcome our new EU Overlords!
Global harmonization through treaties is creating a race to the bottom as far as the citizen's general welfare is concerned.
I can't imagine why Canada is still negotiating such a treaty when it seems to be so insanely one-sided.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Well, they also demanded we stop the seal hunt. Are they going to request that we all wear visors while playing hockey too? Honestly. How naive.
How do you say "fuck off" in Canadian?
Seriously, as a Canadian this disgusts me. The EU, the US... What the hell gives these assholes the right to demand ANYTHING?
Makes me absolutely sick to read this. There is nothing wrong with Canada's laws. And that is exactly why they want it changed, so there IS something wrong with it to throw the balance off hugely in favour of coporations.
Despicable.
And to think that the EU had taken such a great stand with the ACTA. Then this has to happen.
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
Don't ever give in. As a U.S. citizen, I am fully aware of an approaching need for someplace to run - not from socialism, but from corporate fascism.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Well, it's a treaty. All the Canadians have to do is to not sign it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
You're already American. North American!
lol
Is copyright ancillary to the author, or the author ancillary to the copyright? If human lifespan in becoming longer, shouldn't copyright extensions past an author's life be shortened instead of lengthened? Or does it still hold that the good die young?
and what is the EU going to do? Give them a very dirty look?
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.
~
Sign Ze Treaty or We Will Taunt You A Second Time!
The EU Commission is a non-elected body which has as it sole mandate[1] to restrict the rights of citizens, and extend the rights of EU based corporations. It is the Commission that negotiate these treaties, and in general propose new legislation.
The EU Parliament is an elected body which cannot propose new legislation, but can, and sometimes do, block the proposals from the commission. The good stuff you hear from the EU is usually from the Parliament, but they contribute their share of crap as well, as parliaments do everywhere.
[1] Judging by its actions.
...it doesn't involve granting more protections to the consumer or public interest.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
US-American?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
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
There is one in spanish: estadounidense :P
In many cases this is a myth, a nice fiction we can tell ourselves to make us feel better. Treaties can be convenient way for governments to institute unpopular measures. Here's how it works:
Keep in mind that the real push for this comes from multinational media corporations. Governments are not negotiating as independent actors: these corporations intervene on all sides to coordinate and even draft proposals. What we really have is a group of likeminded businesses who operate in concert using individual countries as a front. The treaty then appears to be the result of self-interested negotiations between independent actors: in fact the aim is to stage-manage it to appear that way. Given a means to diffuse opposition (e.g. policy laundering), governments - or, more specifically, the relevant politicians and bureaucrats within governments - may find that lobbyists make sure it is in their personal interest to cooperate.
I have no personal knowledge of how this treaty is being negotiated. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I hope that the relevant individuals in government are representing the interests of Canadians. But I have no doubt this is the kind of thing the usual suspects are trying to pull. In which case the suggestion that "we can just say no" neatly conceals what's really happening.
One final point: Canada is in no way the equal of the EU. The EU has over 500 million people to Canada's 32 million. We tend to anthropomorphize negotiations as though countries were freely contracting equal citizens. They aren't. They are unequal powers.
Would that be "Up yours, mate!" or "May I have some more, sir?"
You're thinking of Australia. Our response would be "Up yours, eh?"
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.
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"
Present the digitus impudicus.
You hit the nail on the head. If Canada don't comply we'll set Harry Potter and his school chums on you...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Seriously. The USA is by FAR our biggest trading partner. They have been trying to bend us over for years about IP, Copyright and Patent law. If we are not about to capitulate the them, what makes the EU think we give a flying fuck what they say....
Shooting them is A) the most humane way to go about it
Actually, fun fact: Shooting them isn't necessarily the most humane way to go about it. The problem is that, unless you're a very good shot, you're far more likely to wound the animal rather than killing it outright. But a well-placed strike with a hakapik is very quick and effective in trained hands, comparable with established and acceptable humane killing practices according to the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.
As you say, though, the whole thing is massively overblown thanks to organizations like PETA. Hell, in that wikipedia link, there's a rather interesting quote from a WWF study on seal hunting practices:
But, hey, what does the WWF know?
Canadian IP laws explicitly legalize fair use (e.g. format-shifting), and even limited nonprofit sharing of copyrighted works (due to fee on "recordable media"). Canada doesn't have software patents, nor any kind of DMCA-like anti-circumvention provision.
In what way do Canadian laws "mirror those in the US"? If anything, I'd say it's one of the better countries in terms of those, which is precisely why USA govt has been throwing a hissy fit about Canadian IP laws for several years now.
You guys really should read up on international politics once in a while. Not only does the EU wield enough power to do this, they have already done this against the US with steel- the European Union is estimated at 500 million people (2010), that is a really big export market, taxes need not rise 4000% to get the message across.
Canada primarily deals with U.S., any EU economic ties are relatively marginal compared to that. It's not really a big stick. Oh, sure, it would hurt, but nowhere near enough, especially since, once it's applied, it would become a matter of principle to not give in.
Also, such measures hurt the one applying them as well. Which is why they can only be used with noticeable effect in a situation where the other side is at a significant disadvantage (e.g. they primarily export to you, but you import from nay other places). Which is not the case here.
Then, of course, the laws being demanded would also have an economic effect, and one could easily argue that it would be negative overall.