Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

WIPO: We Don't Want To Hear It 39

Posted by timothy from the and-why-would-they dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO: We Don't Want To Hear It More

WIPO: We Don't Want To Hear It

Comments Filter:

  • I hope Bill is there (Score:3, Funny)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:01PM (#11912951)
    He's definitely out to represent the publics interest.

  • Kudos to EFF (Score:5, Informative)

    by Winterblink ( 575267 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:06PM (#11913008) Homepage
    ... for not only reporting this to the public, but for offering to represent the viewpoints of those being shut out:
    EFF is accredited as a WIPO permanent observer and will be attending the meetings. The group will be reporting on the proceedings and will attempt to represent the viewpoints of some of the other public interest groups that are being excluded from the process.

  • Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:07PM (#11913020)
    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...

    • Re:Well then... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No! 15 years is not enough! Think what would have happened if George Lucas' Star Wars prequels had to compete against derivative works!

      • Um . . . (Score:4, Funny)

        by wakejagr ( 781977 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:34PM (#11913303) Journal

        . . . we would have been able to watch good Star Wars movies?

      • No! 15 years is not enough! Think what would have happened if George Lucas' Star Wars prequels had to compete against derivative works!

        They do have to. Dark Horse has released a shitload of SW comics, as has Marvel. And then there's the Thrawn trilogy.

        If you're talking about movies, watch "Duality" sometimes - it used to be the sample movie for DivX, dunno where you could get it nowadays. It's actually pretty darn good short action flick - somehow manages to capture the spirit of Star Wars perfectly,

    • Allow me to pimp my own post [slashdot.org] .

      I'd also like to follow-up on a point about the duration of copyright. I understand now why having copyright last for at least the duration of the author's life is important: people who produce art (or content, or however you want to look at it) may have dependants to support. One thing we who seek the freedom of culture often overlook is that many artists often expect to make a living and/or professional careers out of what they do.

      Without the support of the artist-type of p

      • It's not about COPYRIGHT, it's about INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and PATENT LAW PROTECTION.

        There is a huge difference between these and you had better learn it before you start pimping your artistic wares.

      • Re:Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Danse ( 1026 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:11PM (#11914281)

        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:Well then... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Eccles ( 932 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:38PM (#11914601) Journal
        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.
        • Most of an artist's profit for a work is going to come in a relatively short period of time

          On the other hand, it is common for an artist's work to only become popular, and increase in value, after the artist's death.

          • On the other hand, it is common for an artist's work to only become popular, and increase in value, after the artist's death.

            In which case long copyrights don't help him any.

      • Re:Well then... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rhizome ( 115711 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:39PM (#11914608) Homepage Journal
        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.

      • Re:Well then... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Trepalium ( 109107 )

        people who produce art (or content, or however you want to look at it) may have dependants to support.

        Yes, and their dependants may have dependants to support. No, the original rational for long copyrights was to prevent companies from merely waiting for the copyright to expire before publishing their 'enhanced' version they could copyright themselves. Supporting your dependants is a red herring, and it detracts from the real reasoning behind things. After all, people working as mechanics, accountants

      • I understand now why having copyright last for at least the duration of the author's life is important: people who produce art (or content, or however you want to look at it) may have dependants to support.

        Non-authors have to keep producing to support their dependents. Why should authors be any different?

    • Not IP! (Score:2)

      by alexo ( 9335 )

      > 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"...

      It's about time the whole "IP" idea is taken out and shot.

      T

    • Re:Well then... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kris_J ( 10111 ) *
      Please don't refer to "us" as "consumers". We're people, plain and simple. Some of "us" even [flickr.com] create [flickr.com] stuff [flickr.com] without [flickr.com] the luxury of being part of a huge corporation. Please go buy Make [flickr.com] magazine, or visit a library or something.

  • Not surprised (Score:1, Insightful)

    by boingyzain ( 739759 )
    Of course the groups aren't allowed. They might accidentally add some common sense to the IP discussion.

  • Wow, (Score:1, Troll)

    by Goo.cc ( 687626 )
    What a fucking surprize.
  • "This is an embarrassment for WIPO," explained EFF European Affairs Coordinator Cory Doctorow. "Settling the debate by locking one side out of the building isn't the way the UN is supposed to work. We love the Development Agenda -- it's supposed to be a new direction for WIPO. A one-sided discussion isn't a new direction, though. It's just more of the same." How are public interest groups part of the debate to begin with? Aren't these private organizations working together to run their private operations

  • WIPO (Score:5, Funny)

    by wishus ( 174405 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:38PM (#11913348) Journal
    We Ignore Public Opinion

  • Fact - WIPO are biased (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:49PM (#11913471) Homepage
    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 !
    • Mod the parent informative please, the page he refers to is wordy and angry, but it does make a lot of sense.

    • Re:Fact - WIPO are biased (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Danse ( 1026 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:13PM (#11914311)

      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.

    • Mr. Borland seems to entirely miss the point that Open-Source software is not free and is not counter to intellectual property rights.

      The OSS licence agreement requires intellectual property right laws to be in full effect to work.

      Its just the the compensation of OSS licences is not in money to the licence holders, but in restricted behavior in the public interest (freedom to re-distribute, requiring derivative works to be made available to all).
      • The OSS licence agreement requires intellectual property right laws to be in full effect to work.

        (just imagine the next sentence in a Luke Skywalker whine.)

        Well yeah, but they're being used by the wrong people!

      • The OSS licence agreement requires intellectual property right laws to be in full effect to work.

        Why not say that FS/OSS licenses need copyright to function. No need to introduce that stupid IP concept.

        • Thank you, you are correct, Copyright law is probably the more improtant concept here. However Both need to be in full effect.

          As described in The Open Software License version 2.1 [opensource.org]

          1) Grant of Copyright License. Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, sublicenseable license to do the following:

          to reproduce the Original Work in copies; to prepare derivative works ("Derivative Works") based upon the Original Work;
          to distribute copies of the Original Work and De

  • Eases consciences of IP violators (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peter hoffman ( 2017 ) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:19PM (#11913783) Homepage

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close