NDP Calls It: Bill C-56 is "ACTA Through the Backdoor"

[tay]

The government is characterizing its Bill C-56 as an anti-counterfeiting bill, yet this week NDP MP Charmaine Borg framed it more accurately as "ACTA through the backdoor." During Question Period on Monday, Borg asked Industry Minister Christian Paradis directly if the bill paves the way for ratification of the discredited treaty:

Mr. Speaker, last July the European Parliament rejected the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement over serious concerns about the regressive changes it would impose on intellectual property in the digital age. Yet on Friday, the Conservatives introduced a bill in the House that would pave the way for the ACTA without question. Canadians have concerns about goods being seized or destroyed without any oversight by the courts. Will the minister now be clear with Canadians? Are the Conservatives planning to ratify ACTA, yes or no?
Paradis refused to respond to the ACTA ratification question:

more
Michael Geist - NDP Calls It: Bill C-56 is "ACTA Through the Backdoor"

 

[Niflmir]

The government also rammed through digital locks legislation that negated all of the benefits of the fair use definitions that they simultaneously created.

And this at a time when the USA, as one of the few countries with digital lock anti-circumvention laws, is grappling with horrible problems due to cell phone locking. More laissez-faire in our marketplace would be nice. Digital locks legislation just uses taxpayer money to create false incentives to design anti-consumer business models.

This ACTA stuff is the same. Last time I was in Vancouver there wasn't much of a staggering street market for fake Gucci bags. To me, such anti-counterfeit legislation is just a trojan to slip in more onerous legal forcing of the failed equivalence between ideas and property.

 

[The Old Medic]

The simple fact is, those that do not support such laws, are in favor of stealing the intellectual property of others.

In the US, when one signs a contract between themselves and a Cell phone company, they legally agree to be bound by the provisions of that contract. Some people are trying to get this changed, so they can get a cheap, subsidized super phone, and then dump the service that subsidized its cost. That is simply not right, and it is properly not being allowed.

You don't want the restrictions, then don't use the service. It's really that simple!

 

[tay]

Without Anyone Paying Attention, Canada Is About To Change Its Laws To Support ACTA






Thought ACTA was dead? While the EU Parliament may have strongly rejected it, and even with the EU Commission (who negotiated it) admitting that ACTA is dead, a variety of other countries still did sign on to the agreement. And, now, it appears that with basically no one paying any attention at all, Canada may be about to pass some laws to effectively tie itself to ACTA's ridiculous requirements. The bill was originally introduced back in March, but was never considered by the Canadian Parliament. However, in late October, it was reintroduced under a new code, C-8, and it looks like it's moving forward, despite almost no public discussion of it anywhere.

The whole point of ACTA, and this bill, are to unite two very different issues: counterfeiting and copyright infringement. The legacy copyright players have been trying to conflate these things for years. That's because they can point to the tiny, but very real, problem of counterfeit drugs or safety equipment that can cause serious damage... and then mix it with the very "large" issue of copyright infringement (where they can't show any actual damage or harm) and pretend that it's a big problem which puts tons of people at risk. Of course, none of that is true. Counterfeiting may be an issue, but it's a very small issue, and in the vast, vast majority of cases, with little to no threat of harm. But, the copyright legacy players have figured out that tying their bandwagon to the claim that "counterfeit drugs kill people" may help them to pass draconian copyright laws.

Bizarrely, the Canadian government appears to have bought this bogus argument, despite nearly all of the evidence suggesting it's wrong. Michael Geist made exactly this point to the Canadian Parliament, but nearly everyone else they heard from were industry folks insisting that they needed this new "anti-counterfeiting" bill. And the end result is it appears that the Canadian Parliament is about to move forward on the bill without hearing from anyone other than Geist who might represent the interests of the public at large. As Howard Knopf notes:


more


Without Anyone Paying Attention, Canada Is About To Change Its Laws To Support ACTA | Techdirt