Slashdot Mirror

First off, the lineman will always ground out a medium voltage system prior to doing any work on it. That is the only safe way to work on the system.

Care to back it up? Often they leave the line open becuse the line has a fault somewhere and they impulse the line with a tester to find the short or arcover location. Often they expect the line to be dead while fault testing and can be hurt when someone else unexpectidly energizes the line on them.

Yes I do care to back that up. It is really hard to find a arcing fault on a line with it grounded so you can work on it. It's ungrounded so your test equipment can send a locating signal so you can find where it ends or shorts to earth. Adding your own short to work on the line defeats the test equipment.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO1997042514&WO=1997042514&DISPLAY=DESC
http://www.nettechdi.com/cable_pipe_locators1.htm
http://www.nettechdi.com/locators/8869rf_cable_pipe.htm
http://www.indiansources.com/mksystems.htm

Here's the relevant clause of the Berne Covention:

Works originating in one of the contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works which were first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals

No, but you can copy artwork, sound and source code, all of which was blatantly stolen.

Since they are giving his material the same protection they would give works by their own people ("if the gov't want to use it, they can by fiat or emminent domain"), they can copy all they want for any official Chinese agency. Not only is it not "theft" (remember - even member nations don't regard copyright infringement as theft), its legal.

Also, instead of just reading the article, try both of the games. The chinese version plays smoother.

Too many posters are going down the "copyright fair use" track, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, the music and images, and *some* of the code are protected - but not for public use in China by the government or its' designates.

Also, under chinese law, he has no claim anyway, even if it was a patent or trademark infringement instead of copyright. He has to be in a minority partnership with a chinese agent/business.whatever or he simply can't do business under chinese law. Only businesses which are either majority or completely owned by chinese nationals are legal in China. - so he has no standing for damages.

"No cake for you, round-eyes!"

Well, in a couple of years it will not be a problem that high-tech satellites get in the wrong hands. The bleeding edge technology will be protected by DMCA and inaccessible according to WIPO http://www.wipo.int/ so the only wrong hands belong to pirates. And they will only poke at the debris with their cutlasses without understanding, if the lumps didn't sink their fragile wooden ships outright. Rejoice! Our precious IP will soon be safe!

In the 1970s and 1980s, there were extensive discussions on whether the patent system, the copyright system, or a sui generis system, should provide protection for computer software. These discussions resulted in the generally accepted principle that computer programs should be protected by copyright, whereas apparatus using computer software or software-related inventions should be protected by patent.

Copyright law and patent law provide different types of protection. Copyright protection extends only to expressions, and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such, whereas a patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.

Dell has been after its domains since 2001:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0361.html

If he is in charge of foreign policy won't he just try and push DMCA on other countries now?

It's already way too late for that... The DMCA is US's implementation of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Copyright Treaty. Europe already has its own implementation of the treaty in the form of a set of directives which most European countries have implemented by now, some even more draconian than the DMCA. Many other countries are following. You can see them fall one by one here.

Sure, the design for the actual piece might be copyrighted by the artist, but any pictures of the work are copyrighted by the photographer.

While it is true that the copyright on the photograph belongs to the photographer, it is a derivative work in as far as it contains the sculpture. There are pitfalls to taking photographs of copyrighted works. I know it seems odd, but it's not black and white. For instance I think we can agree that taking a photograph of a print of another's photograph and selling it would be copyright infringement, certainly if it was taken close enough so that the original photograph is all that is visible. I think buildings and statues displayed permanently in public are legally OK to photograph almost everywhere, but traveling sculptural exhibits may not be. It all seems like a rather arbitrary way to restrict the public's rights, but that's our copyright system for you.

Oh, the folks at Tata don't find this sort of allusion to their name funny at all. Although their distate for it does result in unintentionally amusing legal documentation.

More cars in India's megacities? There's some good news....

Either:

• Other countries will ignore it, or
• Other countries will enforce it -- which I doubt, or
• It will force a re-evaluation of the Berne convention.

Either:

• Other countries will ignore it, or
• Other countries will enforce it -- which I doubt, or
• It will force a re-evaluation of the Berne convention.

"@gmail.com" email addresses... "@yahoo.com", "@hotmail.com" etc.

As some of you may recall, the OLPC project is currently being sued under a patent from the national ministry IndustrialPropertyOfficesNigeria.

It would be very sad joke if anyone ever suggested the official government offices were at located iponigeria@gmail.com... and of course suggesting iponigeria@hotmail.com would just be a very silly joke.... . . .

Yeah... you know what's coming...
They aren't.

-

Before you go out and buy a crate of CD-Rs, it's also illegal to import unlicensed copyrighted material and can be seized on import. See, for example, the Berne convention.

If you actually read WIPO's WCT and WPPT treaties you will see that:

1- The treaties have a section allowing for "limitations and exceptions". It is hard to imagine how it could possibly be considered unreasonable to require actual copyright infringement before awarding damages for the circumvention of "technological measures" and to exclude devices with substantial non-infringing uses (think photocopier, think xine, etc).

2- The treaties both warn against the sort of implementation we have been seeing, concluding with "Contracting Parties will not rely on this Article to devise or implement rights management systems that would have the effect of ... prohibiting the free movement of goods or impeding the enjoyment of rights".

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html

If you actually read WIPO's WCT and WPPT treaties you will see that:

1- The treaties have a section allowing for "limitations and exceptions". It is hard to imagine how it could possibly be considered unreasonable to require actual copyright infringement before awarding damages for the circumvention of "technological measures" and to exclude devices with substantial non-infringing uses (think photocopier, think xine, etc).

2- The treaties both warn against the sort of implementation we have been seeing, concluding with "Contracting Parties will not rely on this Article to devise or implement rights management systems that would have the effect of ... prohibiting the free movement of goods or impeding the enjoyment of rights".

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html

This is not about bending to the will of America, it is about complying with international treaties.

Let's look at the text of the treaty, shall we?

Article 11
Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Does that sound like the DMCA to you? Because it doesn't to me. There is tremendous flexibility in how a government might enact such protections. An "adequate" law might simply forbid circumvention of "effective" DRM (is any DRM effective?) for the purpose of copyright infringement. Circumvention for fair use, fair dealing, watching DVDs on Linux, etc. could still be permitted.

But the DMCA went far, far beyond this. We are hearing reports the Canadian law will do likewise. Why? Because the US Amabassador, the US trade representative, the RIAA and Hollywood - all American organizations - have been placing tremendous pressure on Canadian politicians.

If the US ignored an international treaty like this you'd be on here jumping up & down about how evil America & Bush are because they ignore "international law" (a pure BS term by the way). At the same time when Canada just complies with an international treaty you don't like... all of the sudden it's "American Imperialism".

Get a grip. The Berne Convention, mentioned above, was signed in 1886. The United States waited until 1989 to implement it. That's an interval of 103 years, in case you think I made a typo.

Furthermore, it's utterly dishonest to put words in someone's mouth. The person you are responding to criticized Canada for "mirroring American political issues". Not a word about imperialism, international law, or the evil of Bush - not one criticism of the United States. Yet you fabricate a scenario - "If the US ignored an international treaty", and then accuse someone else of whatever response you have concocted for them: "you'd be on here jumping up and down about how evil American & Bush are"). Utterly dishonest.

If there is no copyright claim by the original author then I don't see what the problem is. /

Then you have no clue of what you're talking about. Many of the other posts in the thread have bad information as well though, so don't feel too badly about it.

For those in the United States, the definitive source would be the Library of Congress copyright web site. Since you're talking about code, you probably also want to read Circular 61, devoted to "Copyright Registration for Computer Programs".

For those outside the United States, the details change, but in most countries the basics remain the same. Specifically, the copyright laws in most countries follow the rules of the Berne convention. Of course, that's only the law itself -- enforcement varies much more widely. In some countries, it's hardly enforced at all, while in others (e.g. the US) there's almost no question the other laws are routinely broken to help enforcement even when there's little or no real evidence of copyright infringement having taken place at all (e.g. tens of thousands of RIAA cases).

he'll drive em one step from bankruptcy

You mean the company? Or the Nigerian patent office?

The latter would probably be easier, I doubt the former are run from Yahoo email.

-

In case anybody is interested, here is an english translation of the Nigerian Patents and Designs Act.

OK, let's do some lookups.

First, the USPTO trademark database. "Simpledog" - no hits. "Simple AND dog" - three dead applications for long phrases containing those two words. Definitely not a registered trademark. File your own trademark application if you like. It's easy, the entire process is online, and the fee is a few hundred dollars.

Next, let's try DomainTools.. "GNO, Inc. owns about 22,379 other domains." "1,219,449 other sites hosted on this server." That's a web spammer.

Now let's check domain dispute decisions. Here's Panthers BRHC L.L.C. v. Gregg Ostrick/GNO, Inc. (re "bocaresorts.com" dispute). The owners of a resort hotel in Boca Raton challenged GNO for using "bocaresorts.com" against their trademark "Boca Raton Resort & Club" and domain "bocaresort.com". GNO lost.

Finally, couldn't resist running "simpledog.com" through our SiteTruth system. No street address on the site. No SSL cert. Not in any of the business databases. "Site ownership unknown or questionable."

Yes, that's a web spammer all right. No sign of anything that looks like a trademark or a legitimate business.

Can you point out any evidence of this or did you just put up an anti-patent rant in order to get free mod points?

The last time I checked, every country in Europe, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan all had patents and patent laws too. In fact, all are signatories of the Patent Cooperation Treaty as well (which makes it easier to get patent protection in multiple countries for the same invention).

    There are certainly issues with imports into the US with a few due to safety approval and environmental regulations, and others due to market factors. Americans don't always go in for the smallest and most expensive device possible, many go for the cheapest/most bling-ridden one... but that is a customer choice and not due to patents.

    Finally, many new products made in Asia that are really new are not yet made in quantities that justify mass marketing and exports to the US. The local test market is the easiest way to see if there is demand for a gadget and then once there is critical mass it will be manufactured in quantities that support export. You can talk about how there should be more manufacturing of cool stuff in the US (I definitely think there should be), but patents have nothing to do with that either.

Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs.

Using unique Random number can solve many of these encryption problems and are inherently uncrackable.
It is also know as one time pads, but some some reason everyone wants to go with prime numbers, not only can quantum computers attack them, but large scale cell processor are very good at cracking them.

I guess one time pads and unique Random number lack the "really cool" factor of an I-Phone but they work and no amount of computing power will ever be able to weaken them.

I filed a patent for Electronic cash based on them.
(WO/2005/048082) http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2005048082

The most state lotteries use it, the Vegas Casino use it, the Auto-tote system use at Race tracks use it. All three have a lot of money as stake and trust unique random numbers. I don't count credit cards, since once the numbers exposed it's worthless, making credit cards very unbelievably exposed.

It's also good for Electronic Voting, and many other applications.

No, its because many countries DO have a copyright office and have signed the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works dated 1886, revised 1908, 1914, 1928, 1948, 1967, 1971, 1979,

If such copying really was stealing you would be able to use the usual laws for theft against it.

In my country (Malaysia)

Maybe in the US most people think copying is the same as theft because *AA and the media keep brainwashing you folks.

And maybe the powers in the USA will eventually have their way and copyright infringement becomes the same as theft, and not just in the USA but worldwide.

A die in the context of integrated circuits is a small block of semiconducting material, on which a given functional circuit is fabricated. Typically, integrated circuits are produced in large batches on a single wafer of electronic-grade silicon (EGS) through processes such as lithography. The wafer is cut into many pieces, each containing one copy of the ciruit. Each of these pieces is called a die.

There are three commonly used plural forms: dice, dies, and die.

Without disagreeing with the point that there is no requirement to release an unpublished work into the public domain, I'd like to point out that under Article 3 of the Berne Convention, protection applies to all literary/artistic works produced by citizens of countries of the Union (i.e. countries that are parties to the convention), irrespective of whether or not such works have been published.

[Absolute free speech is] safer than allowing the power of the government to be used against people merely because of their speech. Remember, I did say that while I find the idea of an absolutist right of free speech attractive, I do struggle with it for basically the sorts of reasons you mention.

It still doesn't make sense to me. There's no need to group defamation and incitement with the free expression of ideas. They're different things, just like kicking a football and kicking another person are different things. People should naturally be free to kick footballs, but not other people.

Why should the precise content of speech have to be justified to anyone? If people are going to have freedom of speech, then that means that they have the freedom to choose what speech they want to engage in. If it's identical, then it's identical. Who cares?

Why does walking across a plot of land have to be justified to anyone? The answer is because walking across someone else's land without their permission can be said to infringe their right to their land, with various exceptions. Using someone else's creative works without permission can be said to infringe their right to those works, also with various exceptions. The issue is simply whether or not the respective rights are considered by society to exist, and to be protected by law.

[It is] clearly not the case [that intellectual property refers to works].

According to the WIPO, Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.

First, if works were property, if they could be property, we wouldn't need copyright law to simulate to some extent what it would be like if they were property. Ordinary personal property laws would suffice.

To the extent that different forms of property differ in their nature, the rights associated with them differ, and hence so must the laws regulating those rights. Laws regulating the rights associated with land ownership, for example, tend to be different from those relating to ownership of personal belongings.

Secondly, a copyright and a work to which a copyright pertains are distinct entities. And when a copyright expires, the work does not. But the work is no longer anyone's property at that point, it is free to the public. Copies, the third kind of distinct entity, are clearly ordinary personal property; a book is no different than a comb or a table, so it can't be that.

If the term 'intellectual property' has any real meaning, then it must refer to the exclusive rights, and not to the subject of those rights, or copies in which those subjects are fixed.

You seem to be suggesting that 'intellectual property' and 'intellectual property rights' are synonymous. They are in fact different things, just as land and the rights associated with land are different things.

You're using the term in a meaningless and confusing way. This is why I object to it altogether; it doesn't help understanding of these issues in the least, and it strives to confuse laypeople into thinking of whatever vague thing happens to be called 'intellectual property' today as being basically the same as real or personal property, so that they'll use those norms in relation to it, and not others.

Everything that falls under that umbrella is basically sui generis, not just as a group, but even within that group. It is maliciously deceptive to try to wrestle in norms regarding property, and I don't tolerate it.

It certainly isn't meaningless, nor arguably is it confusing. As for the notion that it's deceptive, the view that rights to intellectual property are property rights can be found in law dating from the 18th century, at least in continental

take a look here

The economic rights of a copyright holder have long been recognised throughout the West, but moral rights are less clear. They have been recognised in continental Europe since the late 19th century, with the BC dating from 1886, but have not generally been recognised in Common Law countries (mostly the UK and former colonies). However, insofar as they are protected by the BC, they must still be protected in Common Law countries that are parties to it (including the UK since 1886 and the USA since 1989 -- the USA took more than a century to ratify because of disagreements over moral rights).

If you violate copyright law, you are not only violating the economic right of the owners of the relevant works to compensation for your use of those works, but also their moral right to control public access to their works, and potentially other rights as well. The owners are the victims of infringement, and most certainly do complain to the police when their rights are violated. Needless to say, there is an enormous difference between individual piracy and piracy on an industrial scale, especially for commercial gain, but neither is in any sense victimless.

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of the original and copies of their works through sale or other transfer of ownership.

Federal law protects copyright owners from the unauthorized reproduction, adaptation, performance, display or distribution of copyright protected works.

What the industry wanted was a DCMA type act in Canada. They didn't get that and they won't get that. Instead they settled for an anti-camcording law.

I hope you know something I don't. With regards to the anti-camcording bill, the head of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association[2] said it "is really the first step - not only for the movie industry - where the government has shown it will seriously address the whole area of intellectual property theft." Reports are that the government intends to go ahead with a DMCA-style "reform". Bev Oda, one of the two ministers responsible for copyright, has previously said Canada will ratify international treaties, implying that includes the WIPO treaty on which the DMCA is based[1]. The 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities lists "copyright reform" as a priority to which the government has "previously committed". Given the

On the up side, now is not the time to give up: the significant opposition to stronger copyright provisions seems be having an effect. While the RPP's statement on the issue points towards anti-circumvention legislation and a flawed conception of copyright as a simple conflict between creators and consumers (when in fact there are creators on both sides, and citizens and the public interest are directly affected), it avoids committing to any paricular course of action:

even though technological advances open the way for innovation and renewed creativity, they do bring with them challenges for the arts and cultural community and for government, especially in terms of balancing the rights of creators and consumers. . . . Actions: reforming copyright; . . .

I wrote to her in January and received a similarly ambiguous reply: "the Government is continuing to consider the concerns of all Canadians . . . The Government wants to ensure that the rights of Canadian creators are adequately protected by law, and that these rights are balanced with the ability of the public to access works."

[1] I should point out that Canada is under no obligation to ratify the WIPO treaty. Even if we do, the treaty's anti-circumvention provisions don't require all of the excesses of the DMCA:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

[2] For the most part we don't make Canadian films, we distribute American ones. For the distributors, maximalist intellectual monopoly laws are in their interests even if they inhibit the production of Canadian films.

As of yet, there is not a unified government of Earth that writes and enforces laws.

Makes you wonder where the car maker's brains are, doesn't it?

Foamed metal composites are available, http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1991/03578 and metal reinforced ceramics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cermet , both of which are being used to good effect in the racing world. You'd think a foamed aluminum engine block with ceramet cylinder liners on a rotary platform would kick some serious ass.

Easy for us though, eh? If it was all that easy it'd be done by now. Probably like flying cars, its harder than one would think.

China is not bound by US copyright laws, however it is probably bound by international treaties - so let's be specific: in this case it is Berne Convention that says: "50 years after author's death". Or 50 years after going public in case of anonymous or pseudoanonymous works. It is not clear to me what happens if the IP owner is a corporation. How does it die? (or is there some other article describing such case?) Anyway the important point is that the time period given in the treaty might not be the same as the one in US laws.

No he didn't. He was involved in the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty that forms the basis of the DMCA as well as the EU Copyright Directive. And that's where the UK copyright act gets its anti-circumvention provisions from. Despite the "1988" in the name, that act got updated quite a few times since then.

Addendum;
Shouldn't this be handled via the WPIO?
http://www.wipo.int/members/en/decision_bodies.htm l

I'll tell you what is "fundamentally wrong"; The US patent system is fundamentally wrong.

I am in total agreement that the patent system needs to be reformed, and issues such as obviousness, and the term length for subject matter like software and business method patents needs to be addressed. However, advocating for the abolishment of the patent system (as I suspect you are) would lead to a fundamentally worse situation then the current one.

First, the patent system, regardless of its flaws, does encourage disclosure of inventions and eventually makes them public domain. In 20 years, regardless of how the owner has used, not used, or abused the patent, the invention claimed in that patent will be public domain, and usable by all with no royalties or restrictions. And even during those 20 years, society can still use that knowledge for further experimentation, or improve on the original invention.

Second, and on a related note, abolishing the patent system will encourage the hoarding of knowledge. Currently the patent system gives the inventor two economic choices, (1) disclose the invention and get a 20 year monopoly on it, OR (2) keep the invention secret and try to make money off of it until its rediscovered or secrecy is lost (this is enforced by 35 USC 102(b) statutory bar, which prevents anyone who commercially uses an invention for more then a year from obtaining a patent on that invention). Abolishing the patent system leaves the inventor with these two economic choices, (1) disclose invention and have everybody copy it, OR (2) keep the invention secret and try to make money off of it until its rediscovered or secrecy is lost. Clearly in the no-patent world, choice (2) is the better choice for the inventor. For society though, I think it is probably the worst choice, since everyone is effectively deprived of the knowledge behind the invention for as long as the inventor can keep it hidden. That definitely does not encourage innovation.

As for your specific concerns:

Why? Because it is a system that guarantees that anyone but the 1st to the gate is hammered;

You are wrong here, the US Patent system is the only major system in the world that gives priority for a patent to the first to invent. The EU and Japan both give priority to the first to file. There has been debate over moving to a first to file system in the US, and IMO it has merit, because one of the most expensive parts of patent litigation is determining the date of invention. Also setting the invention date at the date of the filing would encourage faster disclosure of inventions since there would be an incentive to filing earlier, and not try to keep an invention secret.

because it is a system that guarantees that anyone without deep pockets cannot actually be protected (read, encouraged) by the system;

I agree here, patent litigation is inherently expensive and does favor those with deep pockets, but unless you want to do away with the patent system entirely, I see no way around this.

because it discourages innovation.

I would like to see some proof here. Patent applications over time have been continuously increasing. Source. The USPTO had a record number of applications last year. Source. One would figure that if innovation was negatively affected, we would not have seen over a two fold increase in applications over the last 20 years. I would also refer back to my earlier concerns over a no-patent world.

The number of devices/programs you can actually create without running smack into someone's fool patent is very near zero. So much for encouraging innovation.

I would argue that if someone is creating something and keeps running into blocking patents, the

A simple PCT patent search reveals more details..... PCT Publication Number WO2007009184 see: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?DISP=25&IDB =0&SORT=1175823-KEY&LANG=ENG&LANGUAGE=ENG&SERVER_T YPE=19&FORM=SEP-0%2FHITNUM%2CB-ENG%2CDP%2CMC%2CPA% 2CABSUM-ENG&IA=AU2006001023&TOTAL=1&C=0&SEARCH_IA= AU2006001023&START=1&QUERY=WO%2F2007%2F009184&DBSE LECT=PCT&TYPE_FIELD=256&RESULT=1&IDOC=1238263&DISP LAY=DOCS Peter Treloar

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=CA2006/0005 48&LANGUAGE=EN

The interesting thing here is that Antigua is so small it can't recover its damages from the US in the usual fashion, so it is asking for the novel relief of being granted the right to copy US-produced IP without paying the usual royalties. Since global enforcement of copyright relies on similar mutual agreement to WTO (might even come under WTO?), this might even work.

IP comes under the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization amoung other treaties and organizations such as the Berne Convention.

The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, signed on December 20, 1996 (more than 4 years before Bush was in office) requires all the signatory states to pass laws implementing this. In the USA, the relevant law was the DMCA, and the treaty went into force in the USA on March 6, 2002.

The text of the treaty is http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/ 94dc.htm

A total of 60 countries signed the treaty.

It may have been a trade agreement with the USA that dragged Australia into the WIPO mess; but it could have been a trade agreement with Canada or the EU. The WIPO treaty is viral, and attaches itself to any trade agreement in which any current WIPO signer is a part.

"Although I don't think the E.U. has the cojones to actually do it, it wouldn't be totally outside their power (well, it might be -- I don't know whether the E.U. handles copyrights --"

Canada signed it, but hasn't ratified it. It is not law yet. Just like the USA and the Kyoto Protocol, one would hope: signed but never to be ratified.

Except that the current government is now revealed to be in the pockets of the multinational copyright mafia...

Second, priority is an issue. You need to have some rights in the name predating the acquisition of the domain by the current owner. Registering a trademark helps, but the history of its use may matter.

Sorry about that.

Well if by "American" you mean "the AmericaS," well, maybe, but last I checked, Nantes was not in the Americas.

From the agenda for this week's meetings:

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _1_rev.doc

Protection of broadcasting organizations

- Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc, Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute (IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor André Lucas, Nantes University, Nantes, France.

And let's see

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5762

"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)"

Nope, not America.

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5022

"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003"

America? Where are you?

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=4823

"Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)"

Oh hey! FINALLY!!! Canada! That's American!!!

Honestly, folks, dig a little deeper, okay?

Well if by "American" you mean "the AmericaS," well, maybe, but last I checked, Nantes was not in the Americas.

From the agenda for this week's meetings:

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _1_rev.doc

Protection of broadcasting organizations

- Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc, Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute (IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor André Lucas, Nantes University, Nantes, France.

And let's see

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5762

"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)"

Nope, not America.

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5022

"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003"

America? Where are you?

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=4823

"Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)"

Oh hey! FINALLY!!! Canada! That's American!!!

Honestly, folks, dig a little deeper, okay?

Well if by "American" you mean "the AmericaS," well, maybe, but last I checked, Nantes was not in the Americas.

From the agenda for this week's meetings:

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _1_rev.doc

Protection of broadcasting organizations

- Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc, Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute (IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor André Lucas, Nantes University, Nantes, France.

And let's see

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5762

"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)"

Nope, not America.

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5022

"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003"

America? Where are you?

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=4823

"Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)"

Oh hey! FINALLY!!! Canada! That's American!!!

Honestly, folks, dig a little deeper, okay?

Well if by "American" you mean "the AmericaS," well, maybe, but last I checked, Nantes was not in the Americas.

From the agenda for this week's meetings:

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _1_rev.doc

Protection of broadcasting organizations

- Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc, Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute (IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor André Lucas, Nantes University, Nantes, France.

And let's see

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5762

"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)"

Nope, not America.

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=5022

"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003"

America? Where are you?

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meetin g_id=4823

"Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)"

Oh hey! FINALLY!!! Canada! That's American!!!

Honestly, folks, dig a little deeper, okay?

It's an attempt by a group of national governments to synchronize their understanding and treatment of [fill-in-the-blank]. It is _not_ "creating" ANYTHING. It is simply a document that says "we're all going to agree to do things the same way so we don't have confusion."

If people would actually READ the !#%$ing document, they'd see that it is not all that spectacularly upsetting:

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _2.doc

As NATIONAL laws change, all this treaty is basically saying is that each contracting member of the treaty will apply those laws uniformly, not playing favorites to anyone.

Big flipping whoop-dee-do. I wish people understood better how these things work instead of trotting out the "OMG!!1!11!! THE UN IS A SUPERSTATE!!!!" bull that is so far from the truth it isn't even laughable--it's just sad.