Chat room from a Web-based news conference organized by Union des consommateurs (Quˆ©bec) about ACTA - 2010-01-26 01/26/2010 09:59:57 AM from John Lawford to All Participants: just wanted to ask Michael if it is DFAIT leading the charge on this from Canada? 01/26/2010 10:10:46 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: In response to John: Yes, DFAIT is the lead on ACTA in Canada. 01/26/2010 10:21:32 AM from Charles Tanguay to All Attendees: http://www.culturelibre.ca 01/26/2010 10:21:53 AM from rashmi rangnath to Host (privately): I do not know of any other pending reform efforts other than orphan works. 01/26/2010 10:22:51 AM from rashmi rangnath to Host (privately): However, some years back Congressman Boucher had introduced legislation several congresses ago to ensure protection for fair use in the digital environment. 01/26/2010 10:23:33 AM from rashmi rangnath to Host (privately): As you know the Digital Millennium Copyright Act forbids breaking DRM on works even if the purpose is to make fair use of works. His legislation would have amended that law to accomodate fair uses. 01/26/2010 10:24:02 AM from rashmi rangnath to Host (privately): If ACTA were to contain provisions relating to digital locks, Congresses ability to make such reforms would be aborted. 01/26/2010 10:24:50 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: Van Loan 01/26/2010 10:25:18 AM from anthony hˆ©mond to All Participants: www.culturelibre.ca 01/26/2010 10:25:42 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: good stuff! what can ordinary canadians do about this? 01/26/2010 10:25:58 AM from John Lawford to All Participants: write to van loan I would think 01/26/2010 10:26:47 AM from John Lawford to All Participants: Minister is Peter Van Loan and he should be copied on all correspondence to MPs on this 01/26/2010 10:27:18 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: what is the timeline for when ACTA is expected to be completed? 01/26/2010 10:27:20 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: Agreed. This is emerging as a political issue with many elected reps raising concerns. The starting point is to speak out to your MP and the Ministers responsible 01/26/2010 10:27:30 AM from Erik Wasson to All Participants: where is a copy of the declaration available? 01/26/2010 10:27:39 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: To Peter - participating countries have targeted the end of this year 01/26/2010 10:27:50 AM from Brigit-Alexandre Bussiˆ®re to Host (privately): Van Loan email: vanlop1@parl.gc.ca 01/26/2010 10:28:09 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: To Anandashanka - it has raised awareness, but thus far no movement from the USTR 01/26/2010 10:28:22 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: can you give the url of the declaration here (in chat) 01/26/2010 10:28:50 AM from David Fewer to All Participants: I believe the US political response has had an effect, although it has not so far resulted on a change of position on transparency. However, it is pressure that may be built on. 01/26/2010 10:29:16 AM from anthony hˆ©mond to All Participants: Joint declaration: http://a2knetwork.org/joint-declaration-acta 01/26/2010 10:29:26 AM from Erik Wasson to All Participants: Michael: What do you expect from this week's meeting? Do you expect the Internet chapter is close to completion? Do you expect a text to be released? 01/26/2010 10:30:11 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: As always, will be hard to know since we'll just receive a generic response about good talks. The transparency part is just an hour and has been on the agenda before. 01/26/2010 10:30:21 AM from Anandashankar Mazumdar to All Participants: What are the chances that should the negotiations continue in the current secret mode, that any resulting agreement would be killed by the U.S. Senate when it is presented for ratification? Or similar circumstances in Canada and other countries? 01/26/2010 10:30:32 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: As for the Internet chapter, I don't think it is close. The U.S. has its proposal, but no sense that there is agreement yet 01/26/2010 10:30:59 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: As for the text, sometime this year. The question is whether it will come before a deal is done. 01/26/2010 10:31:21 AM from Jˆ©rˆ©mie Zimmermann to All Participants: what is the state of the negotiation? what country is asking what? what are the disagreements? 01/26/2010 10:31:31 AM from Jˆ©rˆ©mie Zimmermann to All Participants: (to M. Geist?) 01/26/2010 10:31:46 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: Anandashankar - for Canada, there will be huge pressure to implement even if this is all completed in secret 01/26/2010 10:32:41 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: Jˆ©rˆ©mie - wish I knew. The general sense is the US is the most aggressive on the Internet provisions. EU wants to expand to patents. Canada, Australia, NZ are just playing defense. No real sense of the position of SK, Singapore,etc 01/26/2010 10:33:05 AM from Anandashankar Mazumdar to All Participants: Even if, as you stated before, both Liberals and Conservatives oppose the terms? 01/26/2010 10:33:57 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: Libs and Cons opposed the notice-and-takedown provision (or at least their bill was different). Once there is a treaty, it takes on a different hue, with trade pressures to implement via bilateral meetings, USTR Special 301, etc. 01/26/2010 10:33:58 AM from Jˆ©rˆ©mie Zimmermann to All Participants: (M.Geist: thank you. that's what I though about EU and US.) 01/26/2010 10:34:32 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: Plus lobby groups will seek to paint Canada as an outlier that is failing to meet its int'l obligations 01/26/2010 10:34:59 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: one more question 01/26/2010 10:35:30 AM from rashmi rangnath to Host (privately): That is true. The US Chamber of Commerce hosted the meeting of the US EU IP working group where representatives from US and EU gave the impression that Canada was not meeting its international obligations. 01/26/2010 10:35:43 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: this is possibly an ignorant question, but won't people be able to technologically circumvent many of ACTA's provisions, the way they've done with seemingly every other copyright obstacle? 01/26/2010 10:38:49 AM from Michael Geist to All Participants: To add to Olivier - The agt would ratchet up the legal risk to do so. Many people - educators, students, etc. - will not take that risk. Moreover, some may demand technological mandates to implement (ie. create tech limitations in devices consistent with the treaty). Moreover, some of the provisions can't be circumvented - camcording a birthday party in a movie theatre results in criminal liability (as occurred in the US recently), more invasive border searches, bigger damage awards due to statutory damages, etc. All of these can't be easily circumvented. 01/26/2010 10:39:47 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: thanks, and what was your full name and organization again? 01/26/2010 10:40:01 AM from Peter Nowak to All Participants: Olivier, that is 01/26/2010 10:40:18 AM from anthony hˆ©mond to All Participants: Olivier Charbonneau, Associate Librarian Concordia University 01/26/2010 10:40:23 AM from John Lawford to All Participants: was it Olivier Charbonneau? 01/26/2010 10:40:25 AM from anthony hˆ©mond to All Participants: www.culturelibre.ca 01/26/2010 10:40:51 AM from anthony hˆ©mond to All Participants: The names of the library associations Olivier is speaking for are on his blog 01/26/2010 10:42:48 AM from David Fewer to All Participants: To add to Oliver and Michael's comments, I'd point out that there are provisions that won't, in practice, be "circumventable" - consider ISP liability. No Canadian ISP would risk disqualifying itself for the "safe harbour" of immunity from liability for infringing activities of its customers. If ACTA requires notice & takedown PLUS a "3 strikes" policy, that is what we will see from all Canadian ISPs - regardless of Canadians' preference for a notice and notice system. Simply, ACTA takes away control over that aspect of domestic policy.