If it takes one:one with Mexico to get a deal on track then so be it. Nothing in the deal indicates Canada was thrown under the bus by Mexico.
I was under the impression the sunset clause was the deal breaker and since that's gone things can quickly proceed. Canada has a robust generic drug business that could be affected by patent protection, we'll see. Cracking down on piracy isn't a big deal and increased limits on duty free would be great! I don't see anything in there about dairy but it seems the TTP had some space for change to dairy that would benefit the US so that will likely be offered up to let the US feel like they got a special win.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4800716
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Weight loss is more than calories in and calories out. Research using a pool of 10,000 participants. People tend to gain weight back. Differ...
-
Serious about safety? Allow one free checked bag and stop carry on that doesn't fit under the seat. Don't want to "give away&qu...
-
We were in Edmonton so I took the opportunity to visit the Microsoft Store, check out the Go and finally purchased it. I knew there was a ...
I think the answer to the US trade deals is to introduce a mirror tax/tariff/rule system.
ReplyDeleteIf the US taxes any imported product from country A, at say 20% .. simply put the same restrictions on the same US products..
The piracy stuff is bigger than it looks. In the USA, the copyright laws give the studios major powers to shake down people for minor content violations. Like if you absent mindedly exposure your (perfectly legal) DVD image of (say) Corgis Sing Christmas Carols on Torrent, and one person downloads it, then the studio is permitted to assume that that one person further shared it hundreds or thousands of times, and the studios are permitted to say "We're going to sue you for half a million dollars for Distributing, but if you reply promptly and pay within the next 48 hours, we are prepared to accept merely $40,000." And legally they are entitled to that half a million even if you were somehow able to prove that that one other person did not share the movie with anyone else at all. You might attempt to point out that the actual sales for the movie was only 17 copies in the last two years and thereby try to establish that the half million dollar claim was absurd, but they are entitled in the USA to say "That's only because sniveling thieves like you are helping people steal the movie! If everyone had to pay for it then we would no doubt have been charting a best seller every year for the last 3 decades!"
ReplyDeleteThe USA laws have been aiming to mostly destroy "fair use". The studios would love to have the right to charge you for every single copy you make, including on multiple music players that you only use one at a time, and including any automatic backup copy you might make incidental of protecting yourself from your phone breaking or getting lost (or because you practice good backup management for your computers.)
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that US laws have been especially going after is denying any fair use rights for people with disabilities. Canada has laws that permit modification or stripping DRM in order to provide disabled people with access in a form they can use. The USA wants to be able to charge premium prices for such adapted copies, and to charge per copy (so for example if you had a copy of a document on a university lab computer and your home computer you would have to pay twice). There would be no right to make those adaptations: the vendors would have full authority to refuse, such as by saying it isn't worth their time to create an accessible version because of low market demand, and yet at the same time you would not be permitted to do it yourself.
ReplyDeleteSome of the science publishers normally make their items available as non-accessible PDF (that is, not searchable, not screen readable), and say if someone wants an accessible version then even though library circulating rights to the non-accessible version have already been paid for, that it is required that the e-book rights be purchased per accessible user. In the case where the e-book version is not available either, some vendors say "tough luck" but other's say "Okay, you can go ahead and convert it to accessible form, but you have to re-purchase the rights for the most expensive form that we do offer."
Librarians in Canada have the right under Fair Dealings to just override vendor policy on these matters, and create an accessible version without paying any more than they would for non-accessible use. They tend not to do so in order to not antagonize the vendors and the copyright trolls ... and to avoid public rhetoric about libraries "stealing" and "why are we paying public money for this!" (there is a segment of right wing belief that public libraries need to be shut down because they are unfairly competing with book stores and electronic offerings from studios.)
I wouldn't call it a done deal. Trump is desperate for a 'win' to distract from his rapidly mounting legal woes.
ReplyDeleteAlso remember that he touted the achievement of a de-nuclearization deal with Kim Jong Un. Not only has Kim continued working on his nuclear ambitions, no actual progress has been made, and Mike Pompeo's pending trip to North Korea has been called off.
Walter Roberson I know our fair use laws are much more generous that the US (do we still have that tax on recording media?) That is where the give and take may balance out with dairy access? There copyright terms as well. Indeed a stumbling block.
ReplyDeleteAny "win" for the US is most assuredly ONLY going to come from a "loss" by the other countries involved. It is the ONLY way Trump is willing to deal. He doesn't grasp the concepts of compromise and mutual benefit. Look at the BS he's pulled on citizens living/working outside the US with tax reforms.
ReplyDelete