Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights
 

George Geczy, co-founder and co-owner of Battlegoat Studios, has just released a thoughtful and eloquently written document entitled: A “Canadian Content Creator’s View” of the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-32) (PDF).

While Mr Geczy has not been shy about expressing his and his company’s views regarding copyright, the need to speak out on copyright and the Canadian video game industry, Mr Geczy’s is a seasoned veteran when it comes to copyright and video games, he literally has been involved since ‘82:

I think it is important to point out that I have been a digital content creator since 1980 and a business owner since 1982…I have also been involved with digital copyright issues since the early 1980’s, and my first submissions on the “current round” of copyright reform were in September 2001. I have since made submissions to each opportunity for consultation and feedback on copyright, FTAA, and ACTA.

Reflecting on Bill C-32, Mr Geczy arrives at much the same conclusion as distinguished scholars, business coalitions, universities and colleges and federal opposition MP’s. Mr Geczy sums this up succinctly with the following assertion:

Unfortunately, Section (47) of C-32, which adds the new Technological Protection Measures regulations, is so inherently flawed and unbalanced that it not only overshadows the progress in other sections of the bill, but in facts eliminates them by its “over-riding” nature. In recent comments the Minister of Heritage has said that the bill strikes a balance and “everyone got some water in their wine”. However Section (47) is more like arsenic in the wine, it destroys the progressive elements of the bill by invalidating them, and without changes this section makes the bill unacceptable and entirely unbalanced.

Mr Geczy offers a simple solution to the contentious protection for digital locks laid out by Bill C-32 that would satisfy Canada’s WIPO requirements, allow consumers to uphold their Fair Dealing Rights and Expections and protect creators and publishers against supposed large scale infringement. Think Mr Geczy’s solution would entail another lengthy research submission to satisfy all stakeholders as well as meet Canada’s international obligations? Think again, as Bill C-32 can be fixed with 10 words, yes 10 words:

Circumvention of Technical Protection Measures be permitted for non-infringing uses.

The CCER encourages Canadians to read Mr Geczy’s paper in its entirety to see how he rightly arrives at such simple yet effective fix. And to you Mr Geczy, by George, I think you’ve got it!

In the ominous course of exactly one year to the date, what may have once been regarded as the best of times (June 22, 2009) has morphed into what can be classified as the worst of times (June 22, 2010). What was once the age of wisdom, is now the age of foolishness. Witness what has become of MP James Moore and his copyright reform ideals as evidenced in this video. It was one year ago at Canada’s Digital Economy: Moving Forward conference hosted by Industry Canada in Ottawa that Minister Moore reached out and appealed to a broad cross section of attendess for their input and ideas for copyright reform. As Moore so eloquently stated:

The future is now, it is coming and it is remarkable…never has their been a better time to be alive than right now…it’s not only Michael Geist twittering in real-time to his universe of people who care about copyright…the opportunities in front of us are remarkable…the average age of a Member of Parliament is 55, but those under the age of 25 are consuming more media than ever before, you’d be surprised the number of MP’s who’ve never held an iPhone…the old way of doing things is over and it’s great and it’s never been better and we need to be enthusiastic and embrace these things. Don’t assume that those that are making the decisions and driving this debate understand all the dynamics that are at play here and how great this can be for Canada…the opportunities are unbelieveable and are unparalleled in human history

Very heartening and encouraging words from Moore a year ago. Moore stresses that MP’s, those making the decisions and reforming copyright law do not fully understand the technology and the influence it has on every facet of Canadian lives. As Moore indicates, the old way of doing things is over and it’s great and we need to be enthusiastic and embrace these things. What a difference a year makes, witness Minister Moore a year to the date:

Those absolutists out there, who are babyish in their approach to copyright legislation who think that any idea that copyright reform would be an attack on individual citizens are people who frankly don’t get…Don’t fool yourself. These voices that are out there, these people that are out there who pretend to be experts that the media cite all the time. They don’t believe in any copyright reform whatsoever. They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect, and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a meaningful comprehensive year-long effort to get something right…Those people out there who try to pretend that they are copyright experts and they want to amend copyright in a meaningful way, don’t be fooled by some of these people. They don’t believe in any copyright. They don’t believe in individuals’ right to protect their own creations…Make sure that those voices who try to find technical, non-sensical, fear-mongering reasons to oppose copyright reform are confronted every step of the way and they are defeated.

Minister Moore has gone from encouraging broad participation and input regarding copyright reform to casting most critics of his brand of copyright reform as “radical extremists” As the omnipresent Michael Geist alludes, is Minister Moore referring to these groups which include MP’s, consumer groups, university teachers and students, library groups, business/trade groups and retail groups. So this begs the question Mr Moore: Why should Canadians now not speak out on copyright and rely only upon MP’s (who as you’ve alluded average in age over 55) to spoon feed consumers of technology (those under 25 consume the most technology) new laws that will dictate their everyday activities? Why must we ensure that those who “oppose copyright reform are confronted every step of the way and they are defeated?”

On June 2, 2010 the Government of Canada undertook an important step towards updating Canada’s copyright regime by introducing Bill C-32: the Copyright Modernization Act. Although Bill C-32 appears to be more flexible than the previous attempts at copyright reform, this bill is flawed to its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions. Understandably Canadians are concerned at how easily their rights are trumped by the overriding protection for digital locks included in this legislation and it is to this effect that the CCER has updated its online letter writing tool.

It is essential that Canadians speak up about their concerns with Bill C-32 while it is still open to amendments. Even if you have spoken out before the Government needs to hear your concerns. Send your letter now and share this tool with your friends, family and co-workers. It is essential that we all speak up now while we have the opportunity.

The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights (CCER) is pleased to see that the Government of Canada has tabled its Copyright Modernization Act (PDF). However, the CCER is deeply concerned at how easily consumer rights can be voided by the anti-circumvention provisions included in this legislation.

Albeit slightly more flexible than the Conservatives’ previous attempt at reforming copyright, Bill C-32 is flawed at its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions. These anti-circumvention provisions are modeled after those found in the oft-criticized US DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and effectively extinguish consumer and creator rights by tipping the balance of copyright law in favour of distributors and antiquated business models.

Bill C-32 includes provisions to address consumer activities such as format and time shifting, however these are all subject to digital locks. For example, consumers would now be permitted expressly by law to rip tracks from a CD into an MP3 and then transfer it their iPod or to make a backup copy of digital content to protect against loss or damage. However, what about consumers who want to watch a new DVD they bought on their iPad? No chance, as all commercially available DVDs employ digital locks and breaking a digital lock is not permitted by C-32 in this instance. Now what if a consumer wants to make a backup copy of a video game to protect their investment from undue wear and tear? Pointless, seeing as a digital lock needs to be bypassed in order to make that personal backup copy playable. According to Bill C-32 both of these reasonable consumer acts would be illegal and subject to penalties of up to $5000.00. So in actuality, the only rights Canadian consumers will get under Bill C-32 are those that the music, movie and game distributors decide they get or what has been aptly referred to as “market forces” in recent discussions surrounding the bill.

A more effective approach to the anti-circumvention provisions that inevitably seem to criminalize consumer activities in Bill C-32, would have been to link the act of circumvention to infringement as the Liberals did in their attempt at copyright reform. This approach is not only WIPO compliant but it integrates a greater deal of flexibility into copyright law by not placing a blanket prohibition on circumvention services, tools and devices. This approach would likely provide the greatest level of balance to Canada’s copyright regime by providing consumers with tangible rights and options rather than provisions that giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. Such an approach would also ensure that creators are fairly compensated for their work while at the same time provide incentives for future innovation. Unfortunately, ministers Moore and Clement are taking Canada in a different direction. A direction that may appease certain interests in the United States and European Union at the expense of Canadian consumer rights.

Another attention grabbing provision included in Bill C-32 is the legitimization of PVR devices and associated time and format shifting activities. Sounds great doesn’t it? You can now use that PVR you purchased to record your favourite TV shows for viewing at a later date and time without fear of being on the wrong side of the law…for now. This provision is also subject to digital locks (broadcast flags) that will inevitably be used in Canadian television broadcasts that will prevent a program from being recorded to your PVR or cause a recorded program to delete itself after a given period of time. Try to bypass these broadcast flags and you’ll find yourself on the wrong side of the law according to Bill C-32. Going from a consumer to a criminal just by engaging in a reasonable consumer activity will be the direct result of the anti-circumvention provisions in Bill C-32.

Bill C-32 provisions are not all as contentious as the anti-circumvention provisions are, in fact C-32 does take some positive steps forward in the areas of fair dealing, intermediary liability and educational exemptions. The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights fully supports Bill C-32’s inclusion of a “notice and notice” approach to internet service provider liability. Meaning that, after being contacted by a copyright holder about a potential infringement, an ISP will be required to notify the customer that he or she may be violating the law. The customer’s personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.

Bill C-32 is now set to make its way through the parliamentary process and be referred to a committee where it will be reviewed line by line and where hopefully the public can be heard from in a fair and representative way. Industry Minister Tony Clement has made statements in the media indicating there exists an openness to amending Bill C-32 in a way to ensure balance for all sides of the equation. Clement’s continued willingness to engage Canadian consumers in an open dialogue on the copyright issue is rare and presents a unique opportunity that must not be squandered. If Canadians remain silent there is a real possibility that Bill C-32 will become the law of the land in its current flawed form, undermining the reasonable rights of all Canadians with its draconian protection for digital locks. However, if Canadians take the time to engage themselves in this important issue and speak out, Bill C-32 can be fixed and a proper balance in Canada’s copyright regime established in a responsible and sovereign manner.

In the coming days the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights will be updating its online letter writing tool to reflect the introduction of Bill C-32 and its worrisome anti-circumvention provisions. Michael Geist has also relaunched Speak Out on Copyright to focus on this bill and encourages Canadians to join the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group (to get active) and the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook Page (to stay updated).

All reports indicate that a Bill to amend the Copyright Act will be introduced in the House of Commons this week, Thursday June 3, 2010 to be specific. It is fully expected that the Bill will include strict anti-circumvention provisions that would criminalize bypassing digital locks to access content, shift format or otherwise preserve consumer rights.

Furthermore, the Canadian Press is reporting that the Government is seeking the support of opposition parties to hold summer hearings on the Bill. Summer hearings would potentially minimize the number of voices heard on this Bill and may be a means of expediting the passage of this Bill into law. Given the latest poll results, it is highly unlikely the Liberals will rock the boat if there’s any chance that this could be a component to triggering an election they so clearly want to avoid.

Remember to send a letter to your MP with this online tool urging them to ONLY support a fair copyright reform bill.

UPDATE: The Canadian Copyright bill has been placed on the Notice Paper which means it could be introduced in the house as early as Wednesday June 2, 2010.

The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has updated its online letter writing wizard in light of recent developments in the Canadian copyright reform front. This update is intended to address the Government’s seeming willingness to ignore the voices of thousands of Canadians and proceed with the introduction of anti-consumer copyright reform legislation in as little as 6 weeks. Legislation that goes in a polar opposite direction of what Canadians demanded during the consultation process.

Send your letter now and share this tool with your friends, family and co-workers. It is essential that we all speak up now while we have the opportunity.

In the summer of 2009 the Government of Canada held public consultations on copyright and Canadians engaged in these consultations at unprecedented levels demanding a balance between consumer rights and creator rights. According to Michael Geist, recent developments indicate that these extensive consultations were “little more than theatre”. A very disheartening development indeed.

Indications are that the PMO has had to step in and make a decision on the direction of copyright reform in Canada because the Minister of Canadian Heritage, James Moore and the Minister of Industry, Tony Clement could not come to a consensus. A consensus should have been an achievable outcome given the consultation results. It is further reported that the PMO has instead given the green light on moving forward with anti-consumer copyright legislation within the next 6 weeks. A Canadian DMCA would most likely appease the US Government as well as domestic and foreign corporate interest groups.

Information has also emerged over the span of the last month indicating that James Moore had reversed his balanced approach to copyright and begun arguing for a Canadian DMCA with strong protection for digital locks and a rejection of flexible fair dealing. Tony Clement on the other hand seems to have stayed the course by continuing to endorse a flexible approach to copyright reform that would withstand the tests of time and consider both consumer and creator interests.

The bill is not expected until June, but it will have dramatic repurcussions once introduced. First, the bill represents a stunning reversal from the government’s seeming shift away from C-61 and its commitment to a bill based on the national copyright consultation. Instead, the consultation appears to have been little more than theatre, with the PMO and Moore choosing to dismiss public opinion. Second, after adopting distinctly pro-consumer positions on other issues, Moore has abandoned that approach with support for what may become the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history. Third, the bill will immediately impact the Canadian position at the ACTA and CETA negotiations, where the bill’s provisions on anti-circumvention and ISP liability will effectively become the Canadian delegation position.

Indications are that this Bill will not be introduced until June but the time to act is now. The CCER has urged Canadians to speak out in the past only to have their voices ignored by the Government of Canada and for this we apologize. However, this is not the time to give up. If you have spoken out before then it is time to speak out again and again if necessary. There is clearly a range of opinions amongst MPs on copyright reform, some anti-consumer and some pro-consumer.

Your MP needs to know where you stand on the issue regardless of your views and even if you have already told them before. A physical letter or email message to your MP, the Prime Minister, James Moore, Tony Clement and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is what is needed right now. Also remember to join the Facebook group and the Facebook page and be sure to ask others do the same.

For those wondering what can be done, my only answer is to speak out now. Write a paper letter to your Member of Parliament and send copies to the Prime Minister, Moore, Clement and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. No stamp is required – be sure to include your home address and send it to the House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6. Once that is done, join the Facebook group and the Facebook page and be sure to ask others do the same. You may spoken out before, but your voice is needed yet again.

In what should come as little surprise to industry observers, Canada has again been placed on the USTR Special 301 Priority Watch List for 2010. Perhaps Canadians can take solace in the fact that we’re not in this alone, as all the countries’ populations on the Priority Watch List comprise of approximately 2/3 of the world’s population.

The specific wording of the Canada section of the report is much the same as 2009, with 2010 priorities being:

• Proceed with legislative copyright reforms to update Canada’s copyright laws.
• Address Internet piracy by fully implementing WIPO.
• Improve the IPR enforcement system to provide deterrent sentences and stronger enforcement powers, focusing on border enforcement.

2009 priorities were listed as:

• Promptly and effectively implement key copyright reforms.
• Strengthen copyright laws by implementing WIPO, ASAP.
• Curb the volume of infringing products and their distribution with stronger border enforcement.

At this point, the USTR likely feels like it is flogging a dead horse when it comes to Canada, however, this simply is not the case. As Michael Geist points out, Canada has already taken many steps to deal with the opportunities and challenges of the new digital economy including: declining piracy rates when compared to other Priority Watch List members, sales declines in the recording industry are not as sharp as those in other industrialized countries (i.e. US and Japan), enacting swift anti-camcording legislation, Canada has improved its IP standing with groups such as the BSA and some even have shown Canadian copyright laws to be stronger than the US in certain circumstances.

The USTR Special 301 Report has come under increasing criticism for being tired and out of date, being wrought with procedural and transparency issues and being a tool by which to bully foreign governments with. What’s further dis-heartening this time around is the USTR seemed to ignore the formal input by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (.pdf) whose submission highlighted the following:

CCIA opposes placing Canada on any Special 301 list in the company of nations that genuinely fail to provide adequate and effective protection. Canada’s current copyright law and practice clearly satisfy the statutory “adequate and effective” standard. Indeed, in a number respects, Canada’s laws are more protective of creators than those of the United States.

Canada has made clear its commitment to cultural creativity and to updating its copyright laws as evidenced in the 2008 and 2010 Throne Speeches. The resulting legislation is expected as early as June of this year. The CCER remains confident that the Ministers of Industry and Heritage will recognize the differences between unfair, heavily influenced international reports and Canada’s right to develop legislation that reflect the values, inputs and ideals of Canadian creators and consumers alike.

IP lawyer Richard Owens has gone on the offensive in a tirade (.pdf) criticizing the Canadian Government’s 2009 public consultations on copyright (“consultations”). The article appears to make several broad assumptions and subsequently questionable conclusions. These assumptions range from alleging that the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights (“CCER”) is a shadowy organization of criminals set on gaming a public political process on one hand to a group engaged in lobbying and other activities aimed at undermining the will of Canadians on the other hand. Why is Owens hitting the panic switch and slamming what potentially was the most successful government consultation to date as indicated by MP Cheryl Gallant (link)?

The participation was unprecedented and we welcomed the comments of rights holders, users, intermediaries and everyday Canadians. We know that Canadians are concerned with copyright and its implications in our increasingly digital environment. This was demonstrated by the thousands of Canadians who took the time to participate in one way or another.

Mr. Owens’ criticisms and accusations represent a direct attempt to discredit and silence the voice of thousands of Canadians who made submissions to the 2009 public consultations on copyright (english submissions, french submissions) using a form letter made available by the CCER. Submissions that may be the contrary view of Mr. Owens’ clients.

The CCER has acted with transparency since its inception. We have always fully disclosed who our coalition members are and what our position (.pdf) is on the future of copyright in Canada. Since the CCER’s position runs parallel with that of many Canadian consumers we have evolved from acting solely as a peer industry coalition to informally include the role of consumer advocate.

The opinions in this article are mine alone, and not those of any entity of which I am a part or which I represent. As a practising technology lawyer I represent organisations with varied interests in intellectual property laws and in regulation (or not) of the Internet. Among them are creators, and those who represent their interests.

Ironically, it appears Mr. Owens did not make a submission of his own to the public consultation he so vehemently criticizes throughout his article. It is difficult to understand why an individual passionate enough to independently invest as much time as was necessary to pen this article and to research and disseminate the substance and mechanism of the consultation never took the time to make known his vision for the future of copyright in Canada publicly.

Copyright and copyright policy are as Mr. Owens states “complex, difficult and counterintuitive” in nature yet copyright affects every Canadian in one way or another. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians fail to even realize how their lives stand to be impacted by changes to Canada’s copyright regime and the minority that do and want to be heard are intimidated by the vast complexity of the issue. The CCER sought to bridge this gap with a letter writing wizard and help those Canadian’s who wanted to have their voices heard but were reluctant to do so because they feared that alone they could not effectively articulate their ideas and desires for future of Canadian copyright.

The template letter which is the basis for each submission is editable in its entirety allowing submitters to add, remove or modify any part of the letter’s content. The content of the letter itself is far from unreasonable and seeks changes to Canada’s copyright regime that are balanced and equally beneficial to consumers and creators. The eight key points of the template letter are as follows:

1. Oppose an all-encompassing prohibition on the development and manufacturing of circumvention devices and technologies, commercial trade of circumvention devices and technologies, the possession and/or utilization of any device or technology that can circumvent a TPM or DRM for a non-infringing purpose or otherwise lawful activity such as fair dealing, interoperability, time and format shifting.
2. Support an update to backup provisions to include the right to make an archival backup copy to all digital consumer products regardless of format or media.
3. Support a “notice and notice” approach when dealing with the liability of ISPs.
4. Support for limited statutory damages.
5. Support for technologically neutral legislation that does not integrate protection for specific technologies or business models.
6. Support the expansion and protection of fair dealing doctrine.
7. Support the preservation of the current term of copyright.
8. Support for transparency in the negotiations of ACTA to ensure that domestic copyright policy is not circumvented.

Each submission made using the CCER letter wizard is relayed through the CCER mail server to the official consultation email address and that of the Ministers responsible for the copyright file. The CCER also mailed a physical copy of every submission to the responsible Ministers. Mr Owens’ insinuation that because multiple submissions to the consultation originated from a single IP address belonging to the CCER they should be given less consideration or even disregarded as whole is severely misguided.

The majority of the Submissions came from a single IP address (through the CCER letter writing “Wizard”) and many of the Submissions were sent with non-verifiable, incomplete, suspect or anonymous identification.

This assumption would equate to the Government discounting or ignoring physical submissions mailed from within a single Canadian riding that may have been processed by the same local postal station. It is the view of the CCER and should be that of the Government that consultation submissions complete with name and address be considered attributable and representative regardless of origin IP address.

The validity of personal information is another aspect of the consultation brought into question by Mr. Owens. Each submission via CCER required that a Canadian address and postal code be provided, foreign mailing address were not accepted. If the sender provided false contact information along with their submission they could have just as easily done the same in a unique email or physical submission. Therefore, the information must either be assumed to be valid or the information needs to be back-checked by the Government for validity prior to being made public. Perhaps future government consultations could employ the inclusion of a unique identifier such as a SIN number referenced against a submitter’s name to ensure information validity.

We sampled twenty-five percent of the substantive individual Submissions, and of the professional authors, musicians, filmmakers, performers, photographers and designers, more than 90% were in favour of robust copyright protection as a means to secure their livelihood and protect their artistic integrity.

Creators and their distributors are generally more inclined to operate under the doctrine that stronger more robust rights protection is better and therefore necessary so Mr. Owens’ findings are unsurprising. What is revealed in this manipulation of consultation data is that without the submissions sent using the CCER letter wizard there is very little representation of the average Canadian consumer, arguably the most important group in the equation. The opinions of these Canadians deserve to be heard and not simply swept aside and discredited as they bring balance to the debate and a new perspective.

To ensure a high volume of Submissions, the CCER arranged for online forums of “modders” and BitTorrent (peer-to-peer file sharing communications protocol) information sites to encourage their readers to submit the form letter. The majority of the readership of these forums is, of course, non-Canadian.

The elaborate conspiracy that Mr. Owens alludes to between the CCER and “various BitTorrent” sites is simply not true. The CCER made press releases relating to its position and various sites picked up on this and proceed to link back to the CCER letter wizard. Some sites even employed geo-targeting to ensure that only Canadian visitors were served links and or content relating to the CCER. The CCER has no formal affiliation, agreement, or for that matter any interest in any “BitTorrent site”.

Instead of unfairly demonizing the CCER and generating the impression its letter writing wizard threatens the copyright consultation process, the CCER believes all interested parties would do well to focus the debate on amending Canada’s copyright laws for the better. A constructive and cooperative debate would better serve all Canadians and would bring about copyright laws and guiding principles that strike a balance whereby the rights of consumers and creators are considered.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

In his presentation to the Heritage Committee on Canada’s digital future Michael Geist revealed that he was sent a leaked copy of the Canadian / European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) intellectual property chapter from an anonymous source. According to Geist the contents of this agreement represent not only a significant threat to Canada’s sovereign approach to policy development but the most comprehensive change to Canadian intellectual property law seen to date.

This (CETA) will fundamentally reshape not just copyright but patents and trademark as well. In many ways what the Europeans are demanding are that Canada alter its and almost mirror intellectual property laws in all areas to match what the Europeans have done.

UPDATE:
Michael Geist has posted the updated copy of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement IP draft chapter and the contents are quite troubling. The document outlines a laundry list of demands from the EU, which according to Geist, represents nothing less than a complete overhaul of Canadian IP laws including copyright, trademark, databases, patent, geographic indications, and even plant variety rights. Given the broad scope of these demands and the contentious nature of foregoing sovereignty in the name of economics it will be very interesting to see how this agreement plays out.

Breakdown of demands via Michael Geist:

Copyright

The EU demands include:

• compliance with WIPO Internet treaties
• extension of the term of copyright to life of the author plus 70 years (Canadian law currently at life plus 50 years)
• additional copyright term extensions for audiovisual works, anonymous works, and unpublished works
• term of copyright for broadcasts for at least 50 years (Canada wants to limit to wireless broadcasts, while EU wants it to cover everything)
• greater transparency for copyright collectives
• new resale right for works of art
• new exclusive right of fixation for broadcasts (Canada wants to limit to wireless broadcasts, while EU wants it to cover everything)
• new exclusive right for broadcasters for retransmission in public places (ie. new fees for bars and other public places)
• new distribution right
• extension of the reproduction right to performers and broadcasters
• extension of the communications right for performers, phonogram producers, film producers, and broadcasters.
• anti-circumvention rules including provisions against devices that can be used to circumvent digital locks
• protection for rights management information

These are all EU demands. The only Canadian request is a yet to be specified provision on camcording.

Enforcement of IP Rights
The enforcement IP rights section contains quite literally, pages of European law that the EU wants incorporated into Canadian law. It addresses everything from ISP liability to injunctions to border measures to damages provisions. The EU even wants new criminal sanctions added, but has yet to specify what those should be. There are no Canadian requests here. Rather, the EU wants Canada to discard its approach to the enforcement of intellectual property almost completely and simply adopt the EU model.

Trademarks

The EU demands include:

• Canada to comply with the Trademark Law Treaty (Canada wants only to comply with the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and to make reasonable efforts to accede to Madrid Agreement on
• international registration)
• Canada to change its procedure for registration of trademarks
• Canada to provide protections for well-known trademarks

Geographic Indications
Canada and the EU propose competing approaches for extending protections for geographic indications. This applies to a wide range of products including agricultural products, wine, spirit drinks, and foodstuffs. The EU’s plan is far more extensive with provisions on protection, enforcement, rights of use, and scope of protection. In fact, the EU even wants to create a Joint Committee on geographic indications charged with monitoring the rules between Canada and the EU.

Designs

The EU demands include:

• Canada to accede to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs
• new protection for designs
• new rights for registration of designs
• term of protection for designs of at least five years

Patents

The EU demands include:

• Canada to comply with Articles 1 – 16 of the Patent Law Treaty (Canada wants to “endeavour to accede” to the treaty)
• further protection for medicinal or plant protection
• additional protection blocking disclosure of pharmaceutical data that is submitted to regulatory authorities to third parties
• new data protection for plant protection

Trade Secrets
Canada demands that the EU adopt the Canadian protection for trade secrets.