Source: https://www.wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Canada-EU_Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement_(CETA)_Intellectual_Property_chapter,_22_Sep_2009&direction=prev&oldid=65584
Timestamp: 2016-02-10 20:19:00
Document Index: 39826825

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'art. 19', 'art.29', 'art 29', 'art 30', 'art 32']

It also covers aspects related to broadcast, where intermediates would be allowed to do temporary copies of works (caching) only when transmitting for "lawful uses" (art. 5.12). This could have the dreadful consequences of turning them into private police auxiliaries. The draft also elaborates on the "technical measures" (DRM) covered by the 1996 WIPO treaty, DMCA and EUCD directive, and proposes the criminalization of advertisement, for commercial purpose, of circumvention tools. The part on "Enforcement of Intellectual Property rights", (subsection 3, page 14) recognizes the right to seek enforcement by any "professional defense body" or "collective rights management bodies". These could request for injunctions from the judicial authorities to "forbid the continuation of alleged infringements", possibly "against an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right" (art. 19). This concerns commercial as well as non-commercial infringement, whereas other dispositions are limited only to commercial scale infringement, such as the seizure or blocking of bank accounts.
The "Liability of Intermediary Service Providers" (art.29) recalls the "mere conduit" principle of the eCommerce directive, where third party are not liable for information transmitted, which is apparently in contradiction with the US request on the same topic. In the disposition called "No general obligation to monitor" (about hosting services, art 29.5), it nevertheless disturbingly establishes that rights holders "may establish obligations for information society service providers promptly to inform the competent public authorities of alleged illegal activities undertaken or information provided by recipients of their service" which seems practically impossible without monitoring their users' activities. "Border Measures" (art 30) provisions allow for the seizure of material at borders (medicine shipments for instance), in order to resolve IPR disputes (such as patent infringement). The "Cooperation" (art 32) mysteriously contains "To be specified ??? Institutional body"... maybe this leaves room for administrative authorities competences on copyright infringement, such in "three strikes" schemes similar to the French "HADOPI"?