So what do we think about the Google China affair then? For anyone who has been hiding under a rock on Pluto lately, Google announced on January 13th that it “may end its operations in China following a “sophisticated and targeted” cyber attack origina…
Standards in financial advertising are improving, according to an independent review commissioned by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). But the regulator does not want firms to get complacent.
The Court of Appeals has asked Europe’s highest court to rule on whether UK authorities can seize counterfeit goods passing through the UK and allow brand owners to take legal action against the companies behind the fakes.
The Government will create a public sector computing ‘cloud’ where public bodies will be able to choose from and host applications. It hopes that its new ICT strategy will be cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the existing setup.
Today is international Data Privacy Day.
From the official website:
Data Privacy Day is an international celebration of the dignity of the individual expressed through personal information. In this networked world, in which we are thoroughly digitized, with our identities, locations, actions, purchases, associations, movements, and histories stored as so many bits and bytes, we have to [...]
Via my very lovely colleague Judith Rauhofer; Quote of the week by Lord Clement-Jones:” When a man is tired of the Digital Economy Bill, he is tired of life. I am sure this show will run for a long time.”And indeed, now the debates in HL Committee over…
Several UK Lords have criticized the practices of law firms that send out warning letters to alleged copyright infringers demanding big payments. These schemes have been labeled a scam, and the lawyers operating them accused of “harassment, bullying and intrusion” and “legal blackmail” in the House of Lords.
Questions about ACTA typically follow a familiar pattern – what is it (Part One of the ACTA Guide), do you have evidence (Part Two), why is this secret (Part Three), followed by what would ACTA do to my country's laws? This fourth question is the subject of this post, Part Four of the ACTA Guide. The answer is complex since the impact of ACTA will differ for each participating country: some will require limited reforms, others very significant reforms, and yet others (particularly those not even permitted to participate) complete overhauls of their domestic laws.
That is not the answer that the participating countries have been providing. Instead, most have sought to dampen fears by implausibly claiming that ACTA will not result in any domestic changes in their own country. With that in mind, we get:
Of course, if all of this is true, skeptics might reasonably ask why ACTA is needed at all. The truth is that ACTA will require changes in many countries that ratify the agreement. The EU Commissioner-designate for the Internal Market, Michel Barnier, recently acknowledged precisely that during hearings in Brussels. Meanwhile, U.S. lobby groups have stated that they view ACTA as a mechanism to pressure Canada into new copyright reforms.
While Canadian officials may put on a brave face regarding the prospect of ACTA-inspired domestic reforms, the reality is that behind-the-scenes this has been a major concern for officials since before ACTA was officially unveiled. I recently obtained under the Access to Information Act a copy of a response to the U.S. ACTA discussion paper from 2007 written by Doug George, who until recently led Canada's delegation on ACTA at DFAIT. George's response takes great pains to emphasize the differences between countries and the need to take this into account:
While there may be a need to coordinate our efforts at the international level to fight counterfeiting and piracy, including through the negotiation of an ACTA, countries have implemented different systems and legislation to address this issue. This needs to be taken into account in our discussions. For instance, the role of governments versus rights holders in enforcing IPR can vary greatly among the various systems, and specific systems for implementation have developed in different directions.
Canada's fears have quite obviously been realized as the vision of ACTA proponents is a one-size fits all solution based on the U.S. model of IP enforcement. This will, by its very definition, require domestic change in many countries.
As for the specifics of domestic reforms, they depend on the country. Countries without statutory damages would need to add those to their laws. Countries without DMCA-style anti-circumvention rules or a notice-and-takedown system would require those changes. Countries without anti-camcording rules or new border enforcement measures or a host of other ACTA-related provisions would need to address those concerns. There has been some preliminary analysis of possible changes in various countries. These include:
Not to be forgotten are those countries that are not part of the ACTA discussions. The exclusion of many major trading partners (and the alleged leading sources of counterfeit products) are a major story since those countries will likely also face pressure to implement ACTA despite not having had the opportunity to participate in the talks. I discussed that issue – and the need for developing countries to demand a seat at the table – last year in this piece.
International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan's office has responded to NDP MP Charlie Angus' public letter on ACTA. According to the Wire Report, Van Loan says that "ACTA would comply with Canadian law" and that "before acceding to any agreement, our government would need to be fully satisfied that it reflects the best interests of Canadians. The Government has been transparent in this process and will continue consulting stakeholders."
Embassy reports on the Canada – EU Trade Agreement, which concluded the second round of talks last week (Cyndee Todgham Cherniak notes the government's "failure to communicate" on the latest round of talks). Dan Ciuriak, a former deputy chief economist at the International Trade department, expresses concern with the agreement's approach on intellectual property, arguing "the process is not a sound one. In a hotly contested area, to have fundamental business regulation made in this fashion is not sound."