Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05OTTAWA1990, CANADIAN COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT LEGISLATION: NOT

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05OTTAWA1990.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05OTTAWA1990 2005-06-30 14:25 2011-04-28 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Ottawa
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

301425Z Jun 05
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001990 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR CHANDLER AND ESPINEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR CA WIPO
SUBJECT: CANADIAN COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT LEGISLATION: NOT 
QUITE WIPO? 
 
REF: A. OTTAWA 1725 (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACTION PLAN) 
 
     B. OTTAWA 1168 (CANADIAN REACTION TO GOC'S PROPOSED 
        COPYRIGHT LAW AMENDMENTS) 
     C. OTTAWA 1571 (IPR FILESHARING APPEAL: 
        RIGHTS-HOLDERS LOST A BATTLE BUT WINNING 
        THE WAR) 
 
1. (SBU) Summary and Action Request: As predicted (ref Ottawa 
1725), the GOC has now tabled draft legislation amending the 
Copyright Act.  The amendments are intended to implement the 
provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO 
Performances and Phonograms Treaty; however, industry 
commentators have serious doubts about certain aspects of the 
legislative text.  Our readthrough and initial rights-holder 
feedback suggests that the legislation may provide inadequate 
protection against hackers and that Internet Service 
Providers will not be made responsible for illegal activity 
which they may make possible in their capacity as hosts since 
the legislation seems to provide for a 'notice-and-notice' 
process rather than the U.S. model of 'notice-and-takedown'. 
We have provided the text of the amendment (at www.parl.gc.ca 
then click on "bills" then "government bills" then C-60) and 
the text of the original act (at laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/) 
to various USG IPR experts.  Action Request:  To make the 
case for stronger rules in areas such as Internet Service 
Provider liability, please provide a clear USG reaction to 
the draft legislation for us to use in discussion with 
stakeholders, legislators, GOC agencies and the press.  End 
Summary. 
 
Notice-and...what? 
 
2. (SBU)  The draft legislative text was tabled on June 20, 
and a quick review with local copyright experts produced the 
following observations.  The legislation includes a detailed 
series of requirements that rights holders must meet in order 
to inform an ISP that its users are infringing copyrights 
(including a list of information that must be provided about 
the infringers, and the statement that the rights holders may 
be required to pay a fee for the privilege of informing the 
ISP).  What the amendment does not include, however, is a 
requirement for an ISP to address this problem.  Far from 
notice-and-takedown requirements which allow rights holders 
to require the ISP to remove infringing files, the 
legislation would require only that ISPs pass on complaints 
to their clients and keep records of the complaints (a press 
release from the Entertainment Software Association of Canada 
describes this as allowing ISPs "to wink and nod at illegal 
activity".)  One industry consultant points out that the 
fines if ISPs do not comply with this notice-and-keep-records 
scheme (a maximum of $5000 for not passing on the complaint 
and a maximum of $10,000 for not keeping records) are not 
even high enough to make it worth the costs of a court case. 
This consultant also emphasized the fact that the draft 
legislation seems to put privacy rights above intellectual 
property rights, by not requiring ISPs to provide any 
information about infringers.  This is in contrast to the 
judgment in the recent appeals court case (ref Ottawa 1571) 
which affirmed that "(a)lthough privacy concerns must also be 
considered...they must yield to public concerns for the 
protection of intellectual property rights in situations 
where infringement threatens to erode those rights." 
 
But did they mean it, and did they know? 
 
3.  (SBU)  As in the GOC's previous statements before tabling 
the draft text, there are lingering questions about the role 
of intent as well as new questions about the role of 
knowledge in infringement.  Various sections of the draft 
include language such as providing injunctions against anyone 
who "...circumvents, removes or in any way renders 
ineffective a technological measure protecting any material 
form of the work...for the purpose of an act that is an 
infringement of the copyright..." or anyone who "...knows, or 
ought to know, that the removal or alteration will facilitate 
or conceal any infringement of the owner's copyright."  This 
question of intent was of serious concern to certain 
interlocutors when it first arose (ref Ottawa 1571), but it 
has not yet been the focus of many of the comments we have 
received from rights-holders groups.  One analyst suggests 
that the knowledge proviso may, in fact, coincide with 
similar provisions in the WIPO language itself, while another 
states that the legislation only goes "halfway" towards 
addressing Canada's international commitments, pointing out 
that "the anti-circumvention prohibitions, as drafted, make 
it a practical impossibility for law enforcement officers and 
rights holders to pursue legal action against those who 
manufacture circumvention devices."  We anticipate further 
clarification on this issue, and we welcome any insights from 
USG copyright experts. 
 
Happy to have it, if not particularly happy with it 
 
4.  (SBU)  Local copyright experts and stakeholders generally 
seem pleased that the GOC has finally tabled legislation, 
providing them with draft text for further analysis and 
criticism.  Most rights holders, however, are not satisfied 
with the provisions of the text in current form.  Provincial 
education authorities may call for even less-stringent rules, 
while rights-holders groups will push for strengthening of 
the provisions described in paragraphs 2 and 3. 
Additionally, with an election likely to be held after 
Parliament returns in September, there is little chance that 
this legislation will pass in 2005.  While this additional 
potential delay is frustrating for many stakeholders, certain 
interlocutors have informed us that it gives them additional 
time to work towards improvements in the text. 
 
5.  (SBU)  Earlier this week we sent links to the legislation 
and the Copyright Act itself (as in the Summary) to various 
USG copyright experts.  We appreciate the feedback we have 
already received and look forward to a detailed USG position 
on the draft legislation. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
WILKINS