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 05OTTAWA2970, CANADIAN STAKEHOLDERS' CONCERNS ON COPYRIGHT

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. #05OTTAWA2970.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05OTTAWA2970 2005-10-04 18:21 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.

041821Z Oct 05
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 002970 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR CHANDLER AND ESPINEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR CA
SUBJECT: CANADIAN STAKEHOLDERS' CONCERNS ON COPYRIGHT 
AMENDMENT, SPECIAL 301 OCR, AND ENFORCEMENT 
 
REF: A. OTTAWA 2833 (DEMARCHE ON SPECIAL 301 
 
        OUT-OF-CYCLE REVIEW) 
     B. SECSTATE 173476 (DEMARCHE ON SPECIAL 301 
        OUT-OF-CYCLE REVIEW) 
     C. OTTAWA 1168 (CANADIAN REACTION TO GOC'S PROPOSED 
        COPYRIGHT LAW AMENDMENTS) 
 
1. (SBU)  Summary:  We have met again with intellectual 
property (IP) rightsholders to discuss their views of GOC 
moves on IPR.  Canadian industry frustration with ineffective 
IPR enforcement continues to grow, and further review of the 
proposed copyright amendment legislation (C-60) has revealed 
some complexities and emerging disagreement among 
stakeholders.  The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors 
Association (CMPDA) also raised a new issue: camcording of 
new-release movies in theaters, which seems to be a 
significant problem in Canada.  End Summary. 
 
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COPYRIGHT ACT 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
2. (SBU)  In our meetings with IP rightsholders in Ottawa and 
Toronto, we found that most stakeholder concerns with C-60, 
the draft legislation to amend Canada's Copyright Act, were 
familiar (see Ottawa 1168).  However, time has fine-tuned 
industry concerns and highlighted subtle differences in 
stakeholder positions. 
 
3. (SBU)  Internet Service Provider (ISP) Liability:  For 
example, while the current USG action plan and U.S. 
stakeholders emphasize the need for a notice-and-takedown 
regime, Canadian industry opinions are mixed on the need to 
push for notice-and-takedown.  The Canadian Motion Picture 
Distributors Association (CMPDA) is satisfied with the 
current notice-and-notice proposal in the draft legislation, 
hoping that the record-keeping requirements for ISPs will 
help their industry keep track of actions against online 
infringers.  In CMPDA's view, the advent of peer-to-peer 
filesharing has lessened the need for notice-and-takedown, 
since fewer users are downloading their files from large 
websites of infringing material.  On the other hand, the 
Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), Canadian 
Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST) and U.S.-based 
Business Software Alliance (BSA) representatives strongly 
believe that their industries still need a 
notice-and-takedown regime.  This divergence seems to depend 
on how an industry's products are pirated and how 
recalcitrant they anticipate the GOC will be on the issue. 
Entertainment Software Association (ESA) representatives 
opined that the GOC "isn't going to budge" on the issue of 
notice-and-notice, possibly because of fears that a 
notice-and-takedown regime could be unconstitutional in 
Canada.  C-60's general waiver of ISP liability was deemed 
overly broad by all stakeholders; they felt that the waiver 
of liability shouldn't be a blank check and that ISPs should 
be held responsible for the content of their users' websites 
once they become aware of the presence of copyright 
infringing files. 
 
4. (SBU)  Trafficking in circumvention "tools" (devices and 
software): Even in this area, which generally prompts a 
chorus seeking a ban against trafficking in tools to 
circumvent technological protection measures (TPM), industry 
associations were not entirely in agreement. CMPDA, CRIA, 
CAAST, and ESA are all firmly pushing for trafficking in TPM 
circumvention tools to be made illegal.  Currently the draft 
legislation requires that the rightholder prove "intent to 
infringe" for trafficking in tools to be illegal, and as one 
industry representative points out, they already need to 
prove intent and therefore this legislative change doesn't 
give them any more ability to fight piracy.  Industry 
representatives would also like a law that allows them to go 
after the larger-scale pirates selling circumvention tools, 
rather than continuing to have to go after the "little guys" 
who use them. However, the Information Technology Association 
of Canada (ITAC) represents security firms who occasionally 
circumvent TPMs, either to test their efficacy or to create 
fixes for various holes in the security.  ITAC says that 
these niche activities need the protection of the "intent" 
clause, although others argue that circumvention for reasons 
other than infringement could be specifically exempted in the 
legislation or could fall under 'fair use'.  Prompted by its 
cyber-security members, ITAC therefore opposes any move to 
make trafficking in or creating TPM circumvention tools 
illegal and supports the current requirement to prove intent 
to infringe.  (SBU comment:  In an off-hand remark, an ITAC 
VP mentioned that ITAC may feel the need to "push the other 
side" to balance the anticipated lobbying from ESA, who will 
push strongly for trafficking in circumvention tools to be 
illegal regardless of intent.  End comment.) 
 
5. (SBU) Circumvention of TPMs intended to prevent access: 
In what the CMPDA characterizes as a possible oversight in 
the draft legislation, C-60 does not seem to make 
circumvention of TPMs intended to prevent access (as opposed 
to distribution) an offense.  As with other issues of TPM 
circumvention, the major industry associations hope to fix 
this omission in the upcoming committee hearings on the draft 
legislation. 
 
6. (SBU) No criminal sanctions for infringement:  CRIA, ESA 
and CMPDA note that the WIPO treaties require "effective" 
deterrents to copyright infringement.  C-60 as drafted does 
not provide any criminal provisions for circumvention, which 
CRIA and CMPDA believe will mean that Canada does not have 
adequate legal protection and effective remedies against 
copyright infringement.  An ESA representative pointed out 
that the original Heritage Committee recommendations for 
legislation included a recommendation for criminal provisions 
for circumvention. (Comment: Per reftels, Heritage Canada's 
stronger stance on IPR protection has been generally 
undermined by Industry Canada's pressure for "balance."  End 
comment.) 
 
7. (SBU) Can C-60 be saved?:  One of the most contentious 
insights that has arisen during recent consultations with IPR 
stakeholders is the question of whether stakeholders even 
want the bill to pass.  Some industry representatives 
predicted that the bill will "die on paper" and criticized 
the potential for amending it in committee as likely to 
result in "a mess".  These representatives expressed the 
expectation and hope that the legislation would be scrapped 
and described as a best-case-scenario the legislation dying 
after oral submissions (so that industries could make 
comments.)  On the other hand, when asked if they wanted the 
bill to die, other industry representative seemed surprised 
and explained that their members would rather see this draft 
fixed, since if the bill dies, progress will be delayed for 
another year. 
 
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 
-------------------- 
8. (SBU) Numerous stakeholders noted that Justice Ministry, 
Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian 
Mounted Police (RCMP) top priorities--terrorism, the border, 
and counterfeits with safety issues like fake 
pharmaceuticals--do not currently leave much attention or 
funding for copyright protection.  Anecdotal evidence of 
progress, including RCMP training and minor counterfeit 
seizures, was countered by general frustration over CBSA's 
lack of power and all three agencies' inaction.  Since RCMP 
and Customs often do not respond to industry information on 
infringement, Embassy has requested greater industry feedback 
on industry's own enforcement actions.  CMPDA gave an example 
of a private seizure of 11,000 counterfeit DVDs from one 
store in Toronto's Pacific Mall.  (After giving the owner a 
list of counterfeit DVDs that the owner agreed to hand over, 
CMPDA officials were not surprised to return the next day to 
find the store completely restocked...with counterfeit DVDs.) 
 ESA representatives also indicated that they intend to lobby 
for more RCMP resources to combat copyright infringement; 
they also hope to find a way for CBSA to have more power to 
seize shipments (although ESA and CMPDA mentioned that the 
border may become less important as Canadian-made 
counterfeiting increases).  Obviously enforcement is an 
ongoing issue for IPR stakeholders, and we will provide 
further information as we receive it.  (Comment:  one contact 
told econoff of a recent discussion with a prominent IPR 
lawyer who suggested that industry associations not even try 
for criminal sanctions for TPM circumvention in C-60, since 
it would not be enforced and therefore would be just one more 
toothless law on the books.  End comment.) 
 
CAMCORDING IN THEATERS 
----------------------- 
9.  CMPDA raised a new issue in meetings last week: 
camcording new-release movies in theaters to create 
counterfeit DVDs that often hit the streets within hours of 
the official movie premiers.  Because movies open in Canada 
at the same time as in the United States, and because movies 
in Canada are shown in both French and English, Canada has 
become a primary source for camcorded counterfeits.  In fact, 
according to CMPDA, of all theaters which are used for 
camcording new-release movies, 40 percent are in Canada, with 
the majority of that 40 percent coming from just two theaters 
in Montreal.  CMPDA has worked with the theater owners in 
question and is engaged in training their staff to combat 
this activity, but without any law against camcording in 
theaters, options are limited.  RCMP and the local police 
can't do anything without proof of commercial intent, and 
generally the best CMPDA can hope for is that the offenders 
will be ejected from the theater for that particular showing. 
 CMPDA is developing an estimate of the economic loss from 
this sort of piracy, which they hope to use to prompt an 
amendment to the criminal code outlawing camcording in 
theaters. We have requested a copy of their loss estimates 
when compiled, and we will continue to follow this issue 
closely. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
WILKINS