WIPO: We Don't Want To Hear It

Rolan writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has announced that they will not allow most Public Interest Groups into two upcoming meetings on Intellectual Property. The EFF has a Press Release."

Well then...

[advocate_one]

It's becoming more and more obvious that they don't represent us, the consumers, at all, but represent purely the rights holders... which is all the more annoying as the rights they have are only supposed to have been granted for a short period and the content is supposed to revert to public ownership. It's about time the balance was tipped back towards a far fairer term in which they have to recoup their "investment"...

The perpetual extension of items now is absolutely ridiculous and should be dragged back to strictly 15 years from date of creation. 15 years is plenty of time to make money from a book, piece of music or a film... and then we get to create derivative works after that 15 year period...

Not surprised

[boingyzain]

Of course the groups aren't allowed. They might accidentally add some common sense to the IP discussion.

Fact - WIPO are biased

[Garry Anderson]

UN WIPO are biased - even the USPTO admit this.

Quote: Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.

"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.

http://www.detnews.com/2003/technology/0308/22/tec hnology-250851.htm [detnews.com]

This is not only in relation to open-source software but also with domain names in their UDRP.

The informed /.er will know this is the rules they made to help corporations overreach with their trademarks.

There is no doubt in my mind - the people at WIPO are corrupt.

Please visit http://wipo.org.uk/ [wipo.org.uk] - nothing to do with the United Nations WIPO.org !

Eases consciences of IP violators

[peter hoffman]

The result I see coming out of this sort of action is that consumers will have less compunction about making illegal copies and committing other violations of intellectual property laws.

When laws are perceived as unfair they are ignored. The only way, at that point, to get compliance is draconian enforcement. That confirms the perception of the unfairness of the law. Eventually, the government behind the laws is also seen to be unfair and even corrupt. Revolution eventually follows.

I'm not saying people will revolt because they can't record "Friends" but that WIPO's decisions are more straws on the camel's back. Eventually, if people can still remember what it means to be "free" (and PC textbooks are not helping that), they will reach a breaking point and every "straw" will have contributed to that break.

Re:Well then...

[Danse]

I still don't see why copyright has to last for the duration of an artist's life. So what if it exprires after 20 years? He's going to create more than one work isn't he? An inventor gets 20 years on a patent, why should copyright be so much different? If anything, it should probably be shorter.

Re:Fact - WIPO are biased

[Danse]

Absolutely ridiculous. What should WIPO care what people do with their rights? If I want to give my work away with only minor conditions attached, why shouldn't I be able to? They obviously have an agenda other than simply protecting IP owners' rights.

Re:Well then...

[Eccles]

So artists are incapable of investing? My boss doesn't keep paying me for work I did last year. Most of an artist's profit for a work is going to come in a relatively short period of time, and if there's a revival, they can use the old stuff to promote the new, go on tour, etc.

Moreover, it's generally not the arists who are campaigning for immensely long copyrights, it's companies. Indeed, often the artists battle the companies who try to tie up their rights, like the company that sued John Fogarty for sounding too much like himself, Prince's battles with his record company, and so on. A lot of musicians also want to allow legal bootlegging, but are pressured by their record companies into restricting or prohibiting it.

Re:Well then...

[rhizome]

many artists often expect to make a living and/or professional careers out of what they do.

Uh huh, and thusly the privilege becomes a right?

Without the support of the artist-type of person, we will never achieve much of what we want.

Not sure what you mean here, but there's always another way to achieve what you want. Skinning a cat, and all that.