Slashdot Mirror

We need a Bill of Digital Rights, one that underlies all of our national and international laws and keeps rights for citizens.

We already have that, and it's called the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. It says in a nutshell that Big Content has the right to extort huge amounts of money by artificially restricting distribution, and that Citizens have the right to get fleeced and the right to pay through the nose each time they want to read or hear and watch something, LONG after the content creator died. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, and that's essentially what it is. Your Bill of Digital Rights won't help here, because ratified international treaties have precedence of national laws. And the probability that the US would get out of the Berne Convention is literally zero.

If that dance or play has not been fixed in some medium, then copyright does not apply.

That is incorrect, see Article 2 of the Berne Convention. A simple example: if I come up with a poem and recite it, and you hear it and start using it in performances, you infringe on my copyright. Copyright protects the creative work itself, not a medium it has been fixed in.

But if I see you do a trick, work out how it happened and then do the trick myself, then this is no more copyright infringement [..]

That's probably true. The point in this case was however not just that the guy figured out how the trick worked, but he basically copied the entire act.

Canada has been a party to the Berne Convention since 1928. (the US didn't sign until 1989)

From the treaty:

  "(1) The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.

(2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form."

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P82_10336

Yes. You are a copyright owner.

"Please grant Palestine full membership in WIPO, preferably yesterday."

Why is the parent modded 5, Insightful? The statement is not an insight or observation at all, just a request. Are people just modding this up because they happen to agree with the politics behind the statement?

No, they don't really care about Palestine's membership in WIPO. They care about the US (or should I say: RIAA/MPAA/*AA) to get out of WIPO, so we can reform patents, copyright and related rights to match the realities of the 21st century. Right now the US has WIPO in a chokehold.

While the *AAs can just use the WTO and ACTA to continue their chokehold, with a Respected International Organization no longer blindly echoing the *AA's carefully crafted spin but perhaps offering something 180 degrees opposed, maintaining this hold will be a lot harder.

Take some time to read this speech by Francis Gurry, WIPO Director General, at the Blue Sky Conference in February of 2011. There is some movement there, and there are a couple of sensible ideas (like simple global licensing) in there, too.

I actually have it patented. :)
(WO2006134552) FLEXIBLE DISPLAYS AND USER INPUT MEANS THEREFOR.
(Although I think Philips let the patent lapse, and I think they stopped doing anything about it years ago.)

In this case, the groupthink is right on and Francis Gurry's counter-history, such as it is, is patently(!) absurd. People are responding to his specific point about the web, which Cory accurately summarised. Thanks for the reasoned deviation from the party line, though. (I see it's been modded flame bait, now, but I disagree) You deserve an equally good counter-argument and I'll try to give it.

The context is a question posed to the panel: "How can countries, how can organisations improve in the area of innovation." In response to that question, and to the idea of measuring innovation that the Global Innovation Index aims to realise, everyone else on the panel talked about the important of things other than (you could say: in addition to) patents and traditional intellectual property tools. Daniele Archibugi included in his discussion of business innovations, an emphasis on the importance of institutions like schools (17:49) and of the infrastructure for innovation -- including the commons of the internet. Naushad Forbes called patents a "limited indicator of new product innovations and an almost non-existent indicator of new service and new business model innovations" (25:53), meaning that they do not account for the range of different kinds of innovation. Leonid Gokhberg talked about "differentiated policy mixes for different industries" as well as for different types of companies (33:57) because "innovation should be taken in its broad sense, including its non-technological, social, and environmental [effects]" (12:14).

Rolf-Dieter Heuer talked about how the Index fails to measure true innovation because it measures patents and not basic science, which he argues is the essential driver of innovation, essentially an inaccurate indicator instead of the thing itself (13:32). He values "substantial change" over "incremental change" (13:40). As an example of this problem, he cites the invention of the world wide web, which because it was not patented would not have shown up in this index, and yet reflects an important innovation of current age (to understate the case).

Francis Gurry addresses his concluding "white card" comments in response to Rolf-Dieter Heuer, but they apply as much to Lynn Saint-Amour's remarks, indeed you can see him begin to compose his words at 44:10 after she says "if it [the web] was patented, the internet community would have found a way to route around it." She talked generally, not terribly on-topic, about how innovators can use openness to their advantage and the value of non-traditional channels of innovation (the last point at 17:48).

In the context of everything that came before, Mr Gurry's specific comments about the world web web reflect a dogmatic misunderstanding of how the web came to be and how it worked, especially in the 1990s. It's a bizarre and irrelevant counter-history, as I assume is being argued elsewhere in this thread as I compose this long and detailed reply. In brief, if the web had been patented and commercialised it would indeed have been routed around, as Lynn Saint-Amour said. Also, it would not have returned the patent profits to basic research, as Francis Gurry suggests, because then it would have become applied research and the funds would have funded incremental change in the commercial environment, to use Professor Heuer's words. Gurry does not seem to have been listening to the academics and policy advisers around him. They're all saying "tradition IP instruments can't do it all." His response is that "intellectual property is a very flexible instrument" (50:13), essentially "oh yes it can too do it all."

I fancy you can get a measure of the in

The job of Director of WIPO is still open for applications (closes 18 Oct): https://erecruit.wipo.int/public/hrd-cl-vac-view.asp?jobinfo_uid_c=25114&vaclng=en

And never forget that your government that you elect[ed] is in favour of all this crap. If you don't like it, the proper remedy is to take the matter up with your friendly local pubic representative.

What if the Koha community decided to patent Koha. The licencefee of WIPO could have been used to make library systems across the globe better...
http://www.wipo.int/cgi-bin/koha/opac-main.pl

There is a pattent filed: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=IT2008000532&DISPLAY=DESC

The function of copyright law is to maximise profit

No it's not.

The function of copyright is "to encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."

Please provide a direct quote from an actual treaty that requires the United States to recognize an additional 20 years beyond what is specified in the Berne Convention.

It states: "The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraphs. [..] In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work."

no idea about the US but here(tm) in the EU trademarks are not registered exclusively for every usage but for one (or many...) classes according to the Nice Classification (stupid javascripty page, no idea how to deeplink to "Class Headings").

So it would probably impossible to register the generic term "Internet" as trademark for class 38 (telecommunication) or 9 (data processing equipment and computers), but until 2009 (the holder deleted the trademark) "Internet" was in Germany registered for class 39 (travel arrangement).

Well, since both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org] ... technically, by treaty the US is legally entitled to ask for the extradition.

Could you point out to me where in the Berne Convention extradition to the country of origin is mentioned as a remedy. In fact, it's quite clear in the opposite direction: violations are to be prosecuted in the territory where the infringement took place, in this case (if any infringement did take place) that is the UK.

This is just an implementation of article 6bis (1) of the Berne Convention, using the Berne language almost verbatim. The United States are technically a signatory to the Berne Convention, but have enforced that clause only haphazardly (such as in the Visual Artists Rights Act), mostly because Hollywood hates that clause (see the "Asphalt Jungle" colorization lawsuit).

Your example, the "Coke recipe", is the textbook definition of trade secret. Stealing a trade secret in some places is a felony (California, for example, which is why the Gizmodo editors shit their pants when APple involved the police over the iPhone 4 prototype), due to the magnitude of economic harm. However, it's not a copyright issue. It's a separate body of intellectual property law.

In the case of a trade secret, once it's revealed, it's no longer a trade secret. The original holder of the trade secret can go after the person who revealed it, very strongly, but unless there is something else involved (copyright, contract, trademark, patent), others could exploit that info. A recipe, unless covered in some way by a patent, would be usable by anyone. So if Coke's recipe were made public, the persons responsible would be pauperized and sent to jail, but others could make that recipe. They just couldn't call it "Coke" or use Coke's trademarks, visual designs for packaging, etc.

The DMCA is nothing more then the protections implemented from the WIPO Treaties, WCT And the WPPT and codified into law. The punshments for those new crimes is left to the country making the laws, but it has to be strict enough to show compliance with the treaties.

The European Union as a legislative body, signed onto the WPPT on Dec 20 1996, ratified it Dec 14 2009 and are obligated to enforce it by March 14 2010. The US signed onto the WPPT April 12, 1997, ratified it, September 14 1999 and were obligated to enforce it by may 20 2002.

The EU again was before the US with the WTC. The EU signed the treaty Dec 20 1996, ratified it December 14 2009, and were to enforce it's provisions by March 14 2010. The US didn't sign on until April 12 1997, ratified it September 14 1999, and were obligated to enforce it March 6 2002.

Note, the ratification and entry into force dates for the EU was later, but they clearly signed the agreement stating their intentions to take care of it before the US did. The US ratified and entered into force faster so it gives the appearance of being pushed by the US when in reality that is only an illusions. We followed Europe once again on this. The main difference is we were quicker to the punch then they were so people noticed and incorrectly assumed we were pushing our laws. The real story is we signed onto it following Europe and complained that they haven't did what they said they would do. I suspect strong opposition after seeing the US laws purposed and taking effect to why it's taken so long and why some countries still haven't implements it yet even though they are obligated to follow the treaties.

Now it should also be noted that this isn't making any statements to anything about media companies or RIAA or whatever being behind it. If they are/were, then they convinced the governments of Europe before the US.

The DMCA is nothing more then the protections implemented from the WIPO Treaties, WCT And the WPPT and codified into law. The punshments for those new crimes is left to the country making the laws, but it has to be strict enough to show compliance with the treaties.

The European Union as a legislative body, signed onto the WPPT on Dec 20 1996, ratified it Dec 14 2009 and are obligated to enforce it by March 14 2010. The US signed onto the WPPT April 12, 1997, ratified it, September 14 1999 and were obligated to enforce it by may 20 2002.

The EU again was before the US with the WTC. The EU signed the treaty Dec 20 1996, ratified it December 14 2009, and were to enforce it's provisions by March 14 2010. The US didn't sign on until April 12 1997, ratified it September 14 1999, and were obligated to enforce it March 6 2002.

Note, the ratification and entry into force dates for the EU was later, but they clearly signed the agreement stating their intentions to take care of it before the US did. The US ratified and entered into force faster so it gives the appearance of being pushed by the US when in reality that is only an illusions. We followed Europe once again on this. The main difference is we were quicker to the punch then they were so people noticed and incorrectly assumed we were pushing our laws. The real story is we signed onto it following Europe and complained that they haven't did what they said they would do. I suspect strong opposition after seeing the US laws purposed and taking effect to why it's taken so long and why some countries still haven't implements it yet even though they are obligated to follow the treaties.

Now it should also be noted that this isn't making any statements to anything about media companies or RIAA or whatever being behind it. If they are/were, then they convinced the governments of Europe before the US.

Yup they call it "harmonization", which is newspeak for make-our-laws-like-other-laws, which industry only does when said law is in their favor.

Actually, the Berne convention provides for life plus 50 years in article 7. It's 50 years for anonymous or pseudonymous works unless the author is somehow known then life plus 50.

It allows longer terms for any country, and lower terms only for countries bound by the Rome convention at the time of signing the treaty. That is where your link comes into play. regardless of terms outlined in the Berne Convention, foreign works will only be protected as long as it's protected within it's originating country.

This means if some country has a copyright of 20 years, we can follow that copyright term on that's country's original works only- else we have to follow our own.

The copyright on binary code is not different from source code. Not in US law anyway...

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected.""

Interestly computer software is NOT specifically named in the berne convention For that the berne convention is extended witht the wipo theaty of 1996">

"Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.4"

(I read this a source and binary are both covered in the mode or form)

The copyright on binary code is not different from source code. Not in US law anyway...

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected.""

Interestly computer software is NOT specifically named in the berne convention For that the berne convention is extended witht the wipo theaty of 1996">

"Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression.4"

(I read this a source and binary are both covered in the mode or form)

Wait... explain to me again how it is possible to get a patent on a chemical compound (as opposed to the method and process for producing that compound), especially a naturally occurring substance?

Genes are currently patentable. Look up Monsanto (especially Monsanto Canada v Schmeiser) or the fact that there are PEOPLE whose genes are patented by corporations.

Even ignoring the ethics of either gene patents or file sharing, I'm pretty annoyed by their lumping patent violations with copyright infringement...

what should I do about this?

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice. But you've got a few options. All or none of which you can pursue.

The first option is to simply contact IBM and ask them how their patent is novel or different or disjoint from your work. This could result in one of two things: no response or a response. If you are satisfied with the response, you might change your mind about your situation and congratulate them on putting some novel innovations on HeapCheck, patenting it and listing you in the claim references (do you own any patents related to it?). Now, assuming that it does not satisfy you as an explanation, you could indicate that you are going to pursue legal action (the I in IBM stands for International) but you are willing to settle and sign away your rights for some relatively nominal fee. You could choose to reveal you're not interested in a lengthy expensive court battle with them or you could make it sound like you are angry and this is all you have to do with 100% of your time. Either mentality will send them a message, that's up to you.

The second option is to get litigious. Judging by your ccTLD (and awesome name), I'm guessing you are from Greece. Which means that you would probably have to hire a patent lawyer in your home country who can work with the Greek or European Patent Office in order to discuss your options. There should be channels through the WIPO that allow things like these to be resolved almost exactly like they're on a local level. I'm guessing your options are going to amount to two things. Either pursuing your own patent on the technology in order to invalidate IBM's patent or presenting your evidence of prior art to invalidate IBM's patent. The former probably more expensive than the latter.

Normally patents are only valid in the country they are granted but lately there have been intellectual property laws that have tried to extend patents on a global scale. Normally on this site people seem to be against this, often applying the logic of following their local laws when it suits them. Example: Pirate Party. But now we're so concerned if suddenly this is American company gets an American patent on a foreigner's work.

cursing patent trolls

Um, that phrase has a particular meaning, one that I cannot find in your story. Who did IBM sue with your patent? Did they sue you? Did they wait for everyone to adopt HeapCheck and then sue them? If anyone in this story is considered the patent troll, it's going to be you if you waited a decade before ligating against IBM.

I would take Bruce Perens' approach and try working with IBM first. It's the cheapest, most sensible way to resolve this. You're angry but you just said you had forgotten about that work for seven years. Was your intention to leave that concept in the graveyard until you died, getting angry should anyone try to profit from it or license it?

Don't take this the wrong way, but you have a pretty weird view of the US vs. the rest of the world.

You are basing the entire argument on the premise that the US and/or its citizens are somehow different from the rest of the world. You may not be aware of it, but most intellectual property is produced outside of the US. Android itself is based on Linux which originated in Finland. Korea, where HTC is from, files 114 patents per $billion GDP compared to 18,6 for the US. (Yes, that's more than six times as much!)

Notwithstanding the fact that Google isn't at all doing badly "giving away" stuff.

If anything is holding America back, it is that obsolete we-and-them kind of attitude that stipulates that manufacturing cannot be done in the US, and no one else can produce as much or as high quality intellectual property.

Meanwhile, there's a fair amount of evidence in favor of patents as well. Perhaps you could point our a specific study that supports what you're saying? Saying "go read this propaganda book" doesn't contribute to the discussion much.

There was pretty conclusive evidence of...

There's pretty conclusive evidence that the world is a tetrahedron sitting on the back of a giant marmoset. Of course, I'm not going to give references, either.

That's where NDAs, appropriate wages, and a need to know basis can come in.

So after spending their money on researching a product, an independent inventor must spend even more to investigate the leak, and maybe prosecute the guy who leaked the information for... breach of contract? With no real chance of getting an income from his work, all he can do is go after a small fine? The big company can just consider that fine a "finder's fee" for the new product, and pay more for the information. The inventor has no way to go after the company that's profiting from his idea, so he's still screwed.

Of course, the inventor could just implement draconian security policies, and not allow anyone to leave diagrams on whiteboards, or notebooks on desks, or talk with anyone from other departments, but that takes even more money.

After all of that, it seems simpler and more reliable just to have restrictions on copying ideas.

Link is here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=16

Bullshit, China has signed the Berne Convention in '92, so the copyrights *are* valid.

Posting as anon because /. won't let me login.

Perhaps if you would concentrate on what I said instead of what you think you know, you would have payed attention to the "WCT" and the "WPPT" which is where the DMCA and anti-circumvention laws come from. It's neither part of the Berne Convention or WTO (TRIPS).

TRIPS is a WTO agreement not WIPO and the Berne convention is way before WIPO has come around. BTW, the WTO is where some of the trade advantages come from but the majority of them go through WIPO agreements which can be both executive agreements as well as treaty obligations.

Maybe this and this will help you a little.

Perhaps if you would concentrate on what I said instead of what you think you know, you would have payed attention to the "WCT" and the "WPPT" which is where the DMCA and anti-circumvention laws come from. It's neither part of the Berne Convention or WTO (TRIPS).

TRIPS is a WTO agreement not WIPO and the Berne convention is way before WIPO has come around. BTW, the WTO is where some of the trade advantages come from but the majority of them go through WIPO agreements which can be both executive agreements as well as treaty obligations.

Maybe this and this will help you a little.

Again, I'm not suggesting that this is right -- or even sane. But, the way that things are, it seems that the IOC is within its specially crafted legal rights to ask UVEX to not refer to the Athlete formerly known as Lindsay Kildow.

"Inducing infringement" sounds more like the WIPO copyright treaty, in fact it is mentioned there in Article 12, Paragraph 1.

The Berne Convention may make it clear that artists get a some rights automatically, but not that an action other than copying and translating (and other things which are directly listed in that convention) by 3rd parties are an infringement on these rights.

http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/contact.jsp?country_id=182&type=ADMIN_IP

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0479.html

Just goes to show that (unlike the above case) actually defending your domain name can work, even against people with armies of lawyers.

Agreed, Windows 7 is fine and only has some minor issues I have heard tell of here regarding a hosts file issue and some things said about its firewall versus the older versions of Windows firewall and filtering design. In regards to rescuecom being noted, here however? After my research of them online, it appears that you really have to realize that RESCUECOM is a company in trouble and is desperate for publicity of any kind. Even the bad kind:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=9&threadID=173106&start=0

and

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=561974

and

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0683.html

and

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=188328&messageID=2200654

and

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=188328&messageID=2189403

and

http://www.wtvh.com/news/local/13511157.html

and

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FOl9N09jyNQJ:0-www.msnbc.msn.com.millennium.unicatt.it/id/22546106/+%22David+Milman%22+and+%22RESCUECOM%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=86&gl=us

Their owner David Milman rips off his own employees and has run afoul of the law in the wtvh.com link by ripping off customers as well. He tried to sue google and that was just for publicity to get his name in the papers to try to drum up more business.

Stay away from rescuecom.

Not necessarily. Many African countries were not members of or don't subscribe to the Berne Convention , so many copyrights would be Public Domain there. The few countries that do have some copyright laws lack the manpower, or political willpower to actually enforce them. A complete list of Countries Copyright laws and standards is here.

You can attempt to trademark your own name, but it rarely holds up in court, especially against the many fair use defenses. I should know. I run a website that had to deal with a WIPO dispute from a woman claiming her name was trademarked (decision here, full details and all case files here). Her argument was similar that a person could misunderstand my site to be hers, but even if that were true, there are cases dealing with that specifically, finding it to be acceptable for public comment purposes (form of protest). One of the funny things is she registered the mark only after I put up the website about her.

Next WIPO meeting in Geneva will treat this topic next november (after going to the activation ceremony of this).

I agree; China is not going to change until IP law becomes important to them internally. When the Chinese decide that they want strong protection from themselves in the realm of IP law they will begin taking the international issues seriously. Same issue with developing nations blocking expansions to intellectual property treaties through the WIPO; As long as the country is not suffering from internal IP conflict/pressure it will not benefit from strong international IP law and compliance.

If I understand the history correctly, the USA didn't recognize international IP until it joined

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1887 (for patents and to some extent trademarks and industrial design rights) http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=2

and

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1989 (for copyrights) http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15

Note that these dates are 100 years apart. Also note the 100/200 years between 1790 when USA IP law was established and the joining of relevant conventions. China's non-compliance is not very different practically from the USA's many generations of non-recognition. However, China is part of the mentioned treaties which could indicate that eventual compliance is not likely. And I realize that international enforcement was probably almost impossible until recently anyway.

I agree; China is not going to change until IP law becomes important to them internally. When the Chinese decide that they want strong protection from themselves in the realm of IP law they will begin taking the international issues seriously. Same issue with developing nations blocking expansions to intellectual property treaties through the WIPO; As long as the country is not suffering from internal IP conflict/pressure it will not benefit from strong international IP law and compliance.

If I understand the history correctly, the USA didn't recognize international IP until it joined

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1887 (for patents and to some extent trademarks and industrial design rights) http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=2

and

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1989 (for copyrights) http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15

Note that these dates are 100 years apart. Also note the 100/200 years between 1790 when USA IP law was established and the joining of relevant conventions. China's non-compliance is not very different practically from the USA's many generations of non-recognition. However, China is part of the mentioned treaties which could indicate that eventual compliance is not likely. And I realize that international enforcement was probably almost impossible until recently anyway.

Political speech and criticism is a completely codified exemption to copyright as fair use and is backed by numerous cases and case law (tort) and is embodied in several international treaties that the US has signed and ratified.

Copyright in which there is a clear case of political speech and fair use is not an excuse. Neither is an approval rating or the amount of time in office. It's obvious that if negative speech is blocked from being seen, the approval ratings will remain higher then they would have had the negative speech remained in the public view. What makes this more dangerous then anything is that Flickr has government contracts and is used by the government. It can legitimately be seen as the government controlling the access to negative speech. I don't care how much you want to suck Obama's dick, that should scare you.

Actually, the patents will apply most everywhere in Europe. There are several agreements concerning this. You can find out more at the WIPO site which lists almost all the "IP" related treaties. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the case, the law of the land of the violation (Whatever European country) will most likely prevail which could be worse or better depending on the country.

Why don't you read them and find out. It appears that getting our copyrights and patents honored in other countries is what we got in return.

Here is a list of some of the more recent ones and who has signed onto them.

The DMCA was a direct result of the WCT and WPPT. The Sonny Bono copyright extensions was from the Uruguay round table agreements and was in response to an EU directive (Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights).

Now we most likely did negotiate so I'm not saying it was all their fault. But I am saying it is much worse then just in the US.

This seems ludicrous. I can't imagine a fleet of ships being able to harness enough energy with current power sources to affect a temperature change to billions of tons of ocean water whether by circulation or thermal exchange of some sort.

Disrupting the atmospheric currents of a tropical depression BEFORE it forms a cyclone seems much more manageable.

I believe there have been a few proposals for doing just this with supersonic aircraft orbiting the eye of potential or existing hurricanes. The coordinated positions of the shock waves on the eye wall would theoretically disrupt the rotation of the storm. Far less energy would be required to form an interference pattern in the rotation that to super heat or pump water from ocean depths.

A patent application filed by Prof. Arkadii Leonov and his colleagues: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008094226 Another: http://mb-soft.com/public/hurrican.html

Of course, we've all seen this work with alien probes visiting trying to talk to whales.

The term is largely meaningless if you accept all works are derivative.

Seems its only use is as writer's equivalent of gorilla feces-pitching.

[... ]Plagiarism is, in fact, when you *don't* accept that all works are derivative, and take credit for the whole body of work, not just the ideas that you added.

It's not a copyright issue.

[...]

Is too a copyright issue. The creator of a work has a right to be recognised as the creator . Similar things apply with patents, that's why "inventor" is listed on patent application/publications.

Berne Convention, Article 6bis S(1)
"(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation." ( http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P119_19081 )

One part of copyright law that is actually right.

Unless I'm not understanding the process completely, it looks like ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy calls for a one or three-person panel to hear the dispute. There are several approved organizations to provide the panelists but all charge a fee for the panel. For instance, WIPO's fee is minimum $1500 depending on number of domains and panelists involved. National Arbitration Form sets the minimum fee at $1300.

A while back Madonna sezied madonna.com, which was used as a legitimate adult site,

Actually, while it had been used as an adult site in the past, when Madonna sued for it the site was simply squatting the domain. From the WIPO Complaint:

By March 4, 1999, it appears that Respondent removed the explicit sexual content from the web site. By May 31, 1999, it appears that the site merely contained the above notice, the disputed domain name and the statement "Coming soon Madonna Gaming and Sportsbook."

But the most damning bit:

By his own admission, Respondent has registered a large number of other domain names, including names that matched the trademarks of others. Other domain names registered by Respondent include <wallstreetjournal.com> and <edgaronline.com>.

So IMHO, this guy was a squatter and deserved to have madonna.com taken away. It takes some brass balls to register wallstreetjournal.com :)

Theres plenty of help out there, especially at the WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/

For an example of people who have lost domains check out: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases/index.html
I actually found this an interesting read from all the responses cybersquatters have.

There is an article at WIPO about cybersquatting, can be found at: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article_0005.html

in my opinion, if you really want the domain and it isn't being used, and you made a proper offer for the domain (not something like $1 million dollars) and they refused, i suggest you either threaten to take it up with WIPO and get it transferred to you to lower the cost, or actually take it up with WIPO .. keeping in mind a case with WIPO can set you back $1500-$4000 USD (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/index.html)

Theres plenty of help out there, especially at the WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/

For an example of people who have lost domains check out: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases/index.html
I actually found this an interesting read from all the responses cybersquatters have.

There is an article at WIPO about cybersquatting, can be found at: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article_0005.html

in my opinion, if you really want the domain and it isn't being used, and you made a proper offer for the domain (not something like $1 million dollars) and they refused, i suggest you either threaten to take it up with WIPO and get it transferred to you to lower the cost, or actually take it up with WIPO .. keeping in mind a case with WIPO can set you back $1500-$4000 USD (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/index.html)

Theres plenty of help out there, especially at the WIPO: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/

For an example of people who have lost domains check out: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases/index.html
I actually found this an interesting read from all the responses cybersquatters have.

There is an article at WIPO about cybersquatting, can be found at: http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article_0005.html

in my opinion, if you really want the domain and it isn't being used, and you made a proper offer for the domain (not something like $1 million dollars) and they refused, i suggest you either threaten to take it up with WIPO and get it transferred to you to lower the cost, or actually take it up with WIPO .. keeping in mind a case with WIPO can set you back $1500-$4000 USD (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/index.html)

Sure... We got to this point by only reading the misleading Slashdot summaries rather than the actual patent, and thus believe that it's a patent on something nature created.

Err... this WIPO article on the patents in question claim that the holders have patented an "isolated DNA coding for a BRCA-1 polypeptide", which certainly sounds like something nature created to me.