Here is a copy of the article with the above title published in the January 20, 2012 edition of The Lawyers Weekly.
In early December, copyright lawyers from across the country descended on the Supreme Court to participate in a cluster of cases that may redefine the scope of copyright in the digital era.
The leaders of the G8 concluded their meetings last week with a renewed commitment to freedom and democracy. They released a declaration dealing with a variety of topics including the importance of the Internet and intellectual property as catalysts to innovation. The declaration also highlights the challenges of maintaining the privacy and security of networks and network communications.
The declaration on the Internet made the link between the Internet and innovation as follows:
For business, the Internet has become an essential and irreplaceable tool for the conduct of commerce and development of relations with consumers. The Internet is a driver of innovation, improves efficiency, and thus contributes to growth and employment…
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) just published its 2011 Special 301 Report. The 2011 Special 301 review process examined IPR protection and enforcement in 77 of the US’s trading partners. The Special 301 Report is a critical mechanism for the U.S. government to ensure that its trading partners provide adequate and effective protection of IP for America’s creators and innovators.
Following extensive research and analysis, the USTR again listed Canada on its Priority Watch List along with Algeria, Argentina, Canada, China, India, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela.
Does the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) contain provisions dealing with copyright? According to Prof. Geist it does not. Does the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) require Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to protect copyright? According to Prof. Geist it does not. NAFTA doesn’t deal with copyright.
These revelations about the FTA and NAFTA were part of Prof. Geist’s prepared opening remarks to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on International Trade on the subject of CETA, the Canada EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Prof. Geist appeared before the Committee on February 15, 2011 to warn them against including copyright as part of a potential trade agreement with the EU.
The IIC just published a report commissioned by BASCAP entitled Estimating the global economic and social impacts of counterfeiting and piracy. Researched by Frontier Economics Ltd, the report estimates that based on 2008 data, the total global economic value of counterfeit and pirated products is as much as $650 billion every year. It found that international trade accounts for more than half of counterfeiting and piracy (estimated at $285 billion to $360 billion), domestic production and consumption accounts for between $140 billion and $215 billion and digitally pirated music, movies and software accounts for between $30 billion and $75 billion. The report also estimated that counterfeiting and piracy cost G20 governments in tax revenues and consumers over $125 billion every year.
The EU just published a report reviewing the effectiveness of the EU Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. That Directive, which recognized that effective means of enforcing intellectual property rights are essential for promoting innovation and creativity, harmonized the minimum means available to right holders and public authorities for fighting infringements of intellectual property rights in the EU. It also established a general framework for exchanging information and administrative co-operation between national authorities and with the Commission.
The RCMP just published a report surveying the problems posed by counterfeiting and piracy in Canada. Some of the important findings of the report A National Intellectual Property Crime Threat Assessment, 2005 to 2008 are the following:
In a blog post yesterday, How IP Enforcement Can Be Used To Suppress Dissent, Prof. Geist argues that “tougher enforcement measures” of IP laws are connected with civil rights abuses by governments to quell political dissent. He further claims that the USTR Special 301 report was connected to the recent Russian raids against advocacy groups and news organizations in Russia. He also postulates that enforcement of IP rights under ACTA would increase such abuses and accordingly would be “a dangerous and misguided approach that is apt to cause more problems than it solves”.
I. INTRODUCTION
It was at a copyright seminar abroad that I learned about the publication of Bill C-32 by which the Canadian government intends to adapt the copyright legislation to the digital on-line environment. By the time I arrived home, some of my European colleagues, with whom we usually exchange information, had sent me the links to various blog posts that were trying to offer a first assessment of the new Bill. Some of them contained objective analysis pointing out both the commendable elements of the draft provisions and those where further improvements were found desirable, while others seemed to reflect continued opposition to the government’s intention to modernize the copyright norms the way required by the international treaties and the emerging international standards.
You are currently browsing the archives for the intellectual property category.
This site is published by Barry Sookman personally. It is not affiliated with McCarthy Tétrault or any of its clients. Full bio here.© 2012 Barry Sookman · Proudly powered by WordPress & Green Park 2 by Cordobo.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional | Valid CSS 3
