Slashdot Mirror

Your forgot one letter: WIPO. They don't actually grant patents, but they do accept filings through a patent cooperation treaty (PCT) that allows you to file your application in multiple countries simultaneously.

I would't be terribly suprised if WIPO turns into what you describe at some point.

first, "I don't have anything to hide" is a bullshit excuse. There is a reason we have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Second, when Canada signs on to WIPO, then music sharing, etc... *will* be illegal.

"louis vuiton" don't have trademark rights over that name, they have it over that name in the context of bags, fashion, perfume.

Under normal circumstances, a trademark can coexist with another identical one if they are in different classes. A mark that is registered for bags and fashion and perfume would not be in conflict with the same mark for completely unrelated products, like cars or building materials or telecommunication services.

But if a mark is sufficiently well known, it gets a wider protection because it's "famous". The protection will then be extended to unrelated products as well.

There is nothing fishy about the fact that the really well known marks get this special treatment. It's called "Kodak protection" after a landmark case that is considered to have established the principle, and is completely above board.

Withoug being much of an expert on ladies' handbags, I assume that Louis Voiton would be considered "famous" by the court. They would then in fact have the trademark rights to the word in the context of any goods.

The same of course applies to Coca-Cola, which another poster mentioned.

IANATML, but I worked with computer programs for doing phonetic similarity searches on trademarks for 25 years, so I'm resonably familiar with the area.

Does the Berne Convention really deal with patents? I understood it to deal with copyright, and a look at the text shows it to be about "authors" and "literary and artistic works".

The U.S. is obligated by international treaty to a minimum copyright period - I'm thinking it is 28 years?

1971 Berne Convention says protection extends 50 years from the 1st Jan after the authors's death (for books anyhoo). WIPO (the 1996 update) does not change the term of duration, except for photographic works. (that's photos, not movies BTW)

The current extended duration is an extension produced by private agreement between several member states, as provided for in section 20 of the convention, but are not international law in as much that they are not accorded international treaty status.

Basially put it's 50 years after the death of the author at a minimum, but the US isn't strictly adhering to the Berne Convention anyway.

The U.S. is obligated by international treaty to a minimum copyright period - I'm thinking it is 28 years?

1971 Berne Convention says protection extends 50 years from the 1st Jan after the authors's death (for books anyhoo). WIPO (the 1996 update) does not change the term of duration, except for photographic works. (that's photos, not movies BTW)

The current extended duration is an extension produced by private agreement between several member states, as provided for in section 20 of the convention, but are not international law in as much that they are not accorded international treaty status.

Basially put it's 50 years after the death of the author at a minimum, but the US isn't strictly adhering to the Berne Convention anyway.

Dont know if it's applicable but Sweeden *did* sign the WPPT.

Allow me to point you in th right direction. Expressing the reasons that US and International Copyrights protect a creator of Intelectual Property from unliscened and unwarranted sales would take many hours without the all parties having extensive knowledge of the many laws and acts involved.

First look at the US Copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

Then take a look at the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Acts of 2001 and 2002:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/aipa/in dex.htm

Both of these site contain alot of technical and legal information. There are many sites devoted to IP both in the US and internationaly:
http://www.wipo.int/ and http://www.aipla.org/ are just a couple.

Once you have a good understanding of Intellectual Property law read over the WoW End User License Agreement and Terms of Use both of which I have quoted else where in this thread: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.ht ml

Pay Close attention to EULA Section 3 and 13 (which states you agree to the laws of the state of California) and TOU section 2 subsection H, Section 7 and Section 10.

That should clarify the situation. If you need more information feel free to ask questions and, time permiting I will look up specific case law. I would also suggest contact a legal profesional in your area who is familiar with US Intellectual Property law.

What about the Berne Convention? Russia and China signed it. The US has been a member for 15 years.

If Canada wants to "solve" the problems of the Internet, it should be looking to find "Internet-native" solutions. Canada's Internet laws should treat copying as a feature, not a bug. It should empirically evaluate which sectors are negatively impacted by file-sharing (mounting evidence suggests that almost none of the entertainment industry's woes can be blamed on the net) and then solve those industries' problems with blanket licenses and other tools that don't seek to regulate copying, something that's impossible to do without breaking the Internet.

Solutions that approach the Internet as a problem are no solutions at all.

i'll just second that.
Tools like thesauri and classification (see http://www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_i pc/ipc7/eindex.htm ) are working and possibly the only way to work on this huge number of documents.
It all comes down to being able to use the existing (expensive) databases...

It's not so dificult becom a WIPO "Observer":
WIPO welcomes visitorsz to its Geneva headquarters throughout the week. The WIPO Information Center is open to the public weekdays from 9:30 am to 13:00 pm and from 2.00 pm to 5:00 pm [...]

If you are interested please use the Visit request form (printable version)

It's not so dificult becom a WIPO "Observer":
WIPO welcomes visitorsz to its Geneva headquarters throughout the week. The WIPO Information Center is open to the public weekdays from 9:30 am to 13:00 pm and from 2.00 pm to 5:00 pm [...]

If you are interested please use the Visit request form (printable version)

Yes, it is good news. The question is how much influence they'll have in reality. WIPO seems to have quite a few members, and no small ones either. Check out this document (pdf).

FSFE will be among the likes of CISAC, IFPI, ISO, UNESCO, WHO, etc. FSFE better shows it's up to the task and comes up with clever arguments why OSS is the way to go (or at least a way to go).

On the WIPO site there is a passage that might sound kind of scary:

Intellectual property surrounds us in nearly everything we do. At home, at school, at work. At rest and at play. No matter what we do, we are surrounded by the fruits of human creativity and invention.

I wonder if it's possible to live in a IP-free environment. Let's assume that you build your house from a public domain blueprint, you read only books written by authors who died before 1954, you use self-assembled PC running only free software, you use only generic drugs and own devices that either never were patented or whose patents have already expired. I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia and living in such environment might even be quite comfortable and stylish (imagine all those 1960's refrigerators, air conditioning systems, eight-track stereo with nothing but folk and classic music etc.). Am I wrong? Any educated comment, please?

Apparently the poster has not been paying attention to either the article or modern history. When countries are in the WTO, they take place in the World Intellectual Property Organization also. Laws cross national boundries now.

America is bricking itself off. Now every idea will have to be bought and paid for. The barriers to entry will be such that what created America will cease to exist.

Don't mistake this for a national-only trend. In fact, it's the haves bricking themselves off from the have nots. Worldwide. These corporations are acting to erect long-term barriers to entry in every profitable market they can. Over 120 countries are already members of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

These bricks are not just a wall against foreign copying -- they're a wall against any new start-up.

The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.

The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.

WIPO
berne convention members...

WIPO
berne convention members...

um. It's the Berne Convention http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo001en.htm/ not the Bourne Treaty.

http://wipo.int/ is typically who you go through to resolve probelms with domains, however someone's name isn't really "intellectual property"

It also costs upwards of $2000 to start a dispute, which really isn't a problem for a Dem. or Rep. party member, however they would have a hard time proving a name is intellectual property.

As long as it's not libel (printed slander, aka lies) the domain owner should be fine, even if he does need a lawyer.

Someone ready the EFF batphone!

1. Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
2. Does Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name?
3. Was the domain name registered and used in bad faith?
4. Has the Complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking?

Complainant presented clear evidence that Respondent's activities fall under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, namely that by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally intended to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website.

The uncontroverted evidence shows that prior to notice of this dispute, Respondent's domain name resolved to a website referring solely to Complainant's competitor Shutterfly, and containing links to Shutterfly's website. That Respondent's website was directed toward Complainant's customers, and not generally to those seeking "free opinions" about high technology products, was clear from Respondent's prominent use of the phrase "Already have an Ofoto account? Give Shutterfly a try...". Respondent's website was devoid of any mention of an "Online Forum Of Free Opinions" until after Complainant contacted Respondent.

The directive, which was approved last year, extends European copyright legislation so that it is even more restrictive than America's controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), critics argue. National governments have until December 22 to incorporate the directive in national legislation. If it goes through unmodified, the EUCD would make it a criminal offense to break or attempt to break the copy protection or Digital Rights Management systems on digital content such as music, software or eBooks. As it stands, the EUCD may lead to a rerun of Dmitri Sklyarov's prosecution, prevent teachers copying materials for their students or other legitimate uses of copyright material, opponents believe.

Now I know the British would like to consider themselves somehow above and beyond the rest of the EU but the fact is that your local version of the EUCD can only be more restrictive. As a matter of fact ANOTHER article (once again by the Register) points out that the british implementation may be worse.

Other than having pointed out that you suspect I may never have set foot outside of the States, you also were kind enough to have explained to me that the EU and open borders is nothing new. How right you are. I never mentioned any thing to the contrary. I DID suggest that the reason for the EUCD may have been a trade agreement. Oddly enough that seems to be something that Eurorights.org would agree with. They say:

The source of the law protection of 'technical protection measures', are the two WIPO treaties from December 1996. Note that the WIPO treaties require law protection for technical measures only when they deny copyright infringement The EU copyright directive is thus overbroad.

WIPO Copyright Treaty, Article 11 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Article 18

As far as the rest of your reply, the US is already aware of the threat renegade IP nations may pose, and already have a watchlist with 14 other economies (including the EU). An Asia Pacific Media Network story about it says:

Although Taiwan amended its copyright law in June 2003, several provisions remain deficient," the trade representative's report said, without giving examples. The report noted that a promise by the government in February to seek improvements in the copyright law has not yet been fulfilled. Taiwan has been on and off the piracy list since the early 1990s. In 2001, after a three year gap, the country was placed back on the list, where it has been ever since. The dispute between Washington and Taipei over piracy is the biggest irritant in bilateral economic relations, and has quashed hopes that Washington would sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan. The two countries also have disputes over telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and rice imports, but heavy pressure on the US government from the entertainment industry, which claims it loses several billions of dollars a year due to piracy in Taiwan, has kept the issue in the forefront. The Ministry of Economic Affairs yesterday expressed regret and discontent over the US government's decision. "The US government ignored our efforts in passing the new Copyright Law, a

The directive, which was approved last year, extends European copyright legislation so that it is even more restrictive than America's controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), critics argue. National governments have until December 22 to incorporate the directive in national legislation. If it goes through unmodified, the EUCD would make it a criminal offense to break or attempt to break the copy protection or Digital Rights Management systems on digital content such as music, software or eBooks. As it stands, the EUCD may lead to a rerun of Dmitri Sklyarov's prosecution, prevent teachers copying materials for their students or other legitimate uses of copyright material, opponents believe.

Now I know the British would like to consider themselves somehow above and beyond the rest of the EU but the fact is that your local version of the EUCD can only be more restrictive. As a matter of fact ANOTHER article (once again by the Register) points out that the british implementation may be worse.

Other than having pointed out that you suspect I may never have set foot outside of the States, you also were kind enough to have explained to me that the EU and open borders is nothing new. How right you are. I never mentioned any thing to the contrary. I DID suggest that the reason for the EUCD may have been a trade agreement. Oddly enough that seems to be something that Eurorights.org would agree with. They say:

The source of the law protection of 'technical protection measures', are the two WIPO treaties from December 1996. Note that the WIPO treaties require law protection for technical measures only when they deny copyright infringement The EU copyright directive is thus overbroad.

WIPO Copyright Treaty, Article 11 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Article 18

As far as the rest of your reply, the US is already aware of the threat renegade IP nations may pose, and already have a watchlist with 14 other economies (including the EU). An Asia Pacific Media Network story about it says:

Although Taiwan amended its copyright law in June 2003, several provisions remain deficient," the trade representative's report said, without giving examples. The report noted that a promise by the government in February to seek improvements in the copyright law has not yet been fulfilled. Taiwan has been on and off the piracy list since the early 1990s. In 2001, after a three year gap, the country was placed back on the list, where it has been ever since. The dispute between Washington and Taipei over piracy is the biggest irritant in bilateral economic relations, and has quashed hopes that Washington would sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan. The two countries also have disputes over telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and rice imports, but heavy pressure on the US government from the entertainment industry, which claims it loses several billions of dollars a year due to piracy in Taiwan, has kept the issue in the forefront. The Ministry of Economic Affairs yesterday expressed regret and discontent over the US government's decision. "The US government ignored our efforts in passing the new Copyright Law, a

That means that unless the copies made would have been legal had US law applied at the place where they were made -- and therefore, since only the US copyright holder has power under US law, he would have had to consent

Russian copyright law grants the holder the exclusive right to distribute and reproduce the work. Russia is a signatory of the Berne Convention, so if allofmp3.com is operating legally within Russia, they already have the copyright holders' consents.

It would be in the U.S. news but the findings were immediatly copyrighted and any posting of the results are illegal and any news agencies reporting on this story will be fined $500,000.

No news on whether BBC executives will be extradited due to their crimes against humanity or not. The RIAA has already donated lawyers to the judge involved saying that his rights to hold intellectual property are being violated. WIPO is also on the case.

Of course, signing a convention and actually complying it are two different things...

If you think that copyright law is something unique to the US go look up the Berne Treaty. You can barely find a semi-industrialized country that is not a signatory of this treaty, which grants basic copyright protections. Copying the textbook is illegial in most every country on this planet. Let's just stop with all this "I don't know (country) law so I'll pretend it doesn't matter" BS.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/200 0/d2000-0596.html

Sting got the WIPO to stand in and give him the domain.

There is no such thing as an "international patent".

There is a procedure called an "International Patent Application", governed by a treaty called the Patent Cooperation Treaty, but it's just a way of applying for a bunch of national patents at once. The national patent offices still apply their own rules, both to the application and to what they grant (Article 27 para 5 of the treaty says: "Nothing in this Treaty and the Regulations is intended to be construed as prescribing anything that would limit the freedom of each Contracting State to prescribe such substantive conditions of patentability as it desires.").

But now and then they get it right. Here's one such example, which makes for some fun reading (if you can handle a bit of legalese). The domain in question was armani.com, and the Armani corporation was browbeating Mr. A. R. Mani (get it?) and demanding he turn over the domain to them. WIPO denied the request and ended by saying:

The Panel finds the failure of the Complainant in its Complaint to set out any of the clearly lengthy background to this dispute is surprising. The Complainant or entities associated with it have been pursuing the Respondent since 1995, through various representatives. The Panel is left with a strong sense that the reason these actions have led nowhere is because they come up against the same issue as has been identified in these proceedings, namely, the Respondent's legitimate use of a variant of his own name. The Complaint states (at paragraph 20) in accordance with the Policy, that "the Complainant certifies that the information contained in the Complaint is to the best of the Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate". The Panel does not see how that could properly have been said. In the circumstances, the Panel concludes, pursuant of paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, that this Complaint has been brought in bad faith, and that it constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

Good stuff. :-) www.armani.com now points to the corporate site - one can only hope that Mr. Mani made a bundle of money on the sale to a chastened Armani corporation.

With the ongoing extension of copyright time limits, when does it even expire?

It depends on a lot of things. To put it simple... The Berne convetion for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works protects the photographers right for 50 years after his/her death.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.htm l

Looks like Myron is also a cybersquatter too!

He owned jamore.com at one time which was a Chrisitan Dior perfume.

Looks like Myron is also a cybersquatter too!

He owned jamore.com wich was a Christian Dior perfume.

As for your views.

The proposed ISP liability is sufficiently narrow to avoid many problems. But once informed, ISPs should have some formal system to follow.

"licensing schemes for copyrighted educational materials". Yeah bring it on!

There are a few exceptions to add so that research and fair use are not stifled. But this is what we should be working for. The University/Colleges have the fat pipes and people who facilitate much of the theft.

It is only fair to try to devise a method which compensates the creators of content. If workable methods are found for sampling/tracking what content is transmitted, then a statutory fee can be assigned and a optional/mandatory licensing scheme can be developed so that royalties are collected and distributed in a fair way.

Once the non-DRM tools are developed in educational institutions then they can be spread to ISPs and we'll get A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing. This is what Lawrence Lessig advocates for in "Free Culture", BTW: Good book.

As for "the names of ANY Cdn musicians..." Celine Dion.

The money does get to artists. Smaller artists have a harder time getting the money because the current estimation/sampling methods just miss the smaller artists.

But the fees are a great alternative to the US $150,000 statutory damage per infringement. As Lawrence Lessig points out, a 10 song CD can cost you $1.5 Million US in damages, and as Jesse Jordan found out 100 infringements can cause $15 Million US in damages! This changed his life. Over what?

Having a distributed levy across all CDs does hurt everyone (like taxes) but it is better than ruining peoples' lives.

What we have to find is a balance between ratifying the WCT's requirement for regulating circumvention devices, while avoiding the unintented consequences.

That is what I've asked Sarmite. "What exceptions will be allowed during the regulation of technology?" I want to avoid trusted computing so they better be broad. I'd prefer no regulation of technology and totally disregarding the WCT but realistically, the US would likely use non ratification as a lever for other trade issues.

As for the NDP's stance on circumvention.. I think they are just not aware of the consequences. We'll have to inform them.

from their homepage:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.

With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 23 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection. The Organization counts 180 nations as member states.

see here for more details

There are two separate rulings (although only one was by a judge). Whether both of the rulings stand is still to be determined.

In December 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada issued a decision stating that downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal. This is not a court decision and not surprisingly, the Canadian Recording Industry Association disputes the decision. The board also noted that it believed uploading copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited by law.

Fast forward to April 2004. The CRIA is in court trying to force major Canadian Internet service providers to divulge the names of suspected copyright violators. Not only did federal judge Konrad von Finckenstein deny the request but went on to rule that placing copyrighted works in a shared directory is legal, akin to the photocopiers mentioned above. The CRIA does not agree with Finckenstein and has appealed his ruling.

To buy his argument you have to believe that placing a copyrighted work in shared directory doesn't amount to distribution. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying," Finckenstein wrote.

In response to the ruling, Helene Scherrer, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has promised to fix copyright law as quickly as possible. This may also push the government to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. According to the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access, ratifying the treaties may double the levies already imposed on blank digital media.

suppose if Germany decides not to support the European Commission on changes in the law to software patents, then nobody can sway them otherwise because they are a sovereign state and don't have to comply with what the WIPO or the EC says.

First of all, as member of the EU, Germany has to comply with EU directives that are passed. Next, WIPO does not only not require software patents, it even forbids them (just like TRIPS).

The excuse used by software patent proponents regarding TRIPs, is article 27:

Patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step andare capable of industrial application.

This text however explicitly uses terms which are defined nowhere else in the treaty (like "invention", "field of technology" and "inventive step"), so that signing members can define these terms themselves in such a way that they fit best in their existing laws.

According to article 52 of the the European Patent Convention, a computer program can never constitute an invention. And in the Parliament proposal of the directive, "field of technology" is defined in such a way that computer programs, maths, business methods etc do cannot belong to one (even if they're executed on a computer).

And on top of that, there's articles 7 TRIPs which is interpreted by the WTO as that the measures as implemented must ...

.. contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare

Most evidence points to the contrary as far as software patents are concerned.

So TRIPs does not require software patents, how does it forbid them?

Article 10 of the TRIPs treaty states:

Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).

As opposed to what a first reading would suggest, namely that this simply means that copyright protection must be available for computer programs, this article goes further. The WTO states on its website regarding article 10.1:

The obligation to protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that only those limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to computer programs.

Since patent protection is unavailable for literary works, it can't be available for computer programs either according to TRIPs. Proponents of software patents often counter this using their interpretation of "computer program as such", which turns "computer programs with a further technical effect" into "computer-implemented inventions", which in turn would supposedly not be affected by this exclusion.

This interpretation is however invalid due to article 4 of the EU Software Copyright directive from 1991. This article states that a computer program as literary work includes the following (emphasis mine):

... the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole. Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage ...

The WIPO Copyright Treaty also contains applicable clauses (article 10):

(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal expl

"mostly due to the half-assed case presented by the CRIA"

In fact the judge ultimately held that the Copyright Act permitted the behaviour. Apparently unlike the CRIA, the judge read the Copyright Act.

The real question is whether you and other Canadians will write to your MP's to ensure that the ratification of WIPO Copyright Treaty includes a section exhausting the right to "make available" under Article 6, for any "non commercial distribution" made "after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author" .

IF not, the latest Court ruling will be nullified by new copyright legistlation, thanks to our Liberal task master, and this committee.

If you want to learn more, I highly recommend this page by Laura J. Murray.

• patents
• trademarks
• industrial designs
• geographical indications
• copyright

I think you're wrong about the order of things. It seems to me that treaties get proposed by WIPO members, then WIPO member governements act like they have NO CHOICE but to implement this law. It's a clever way to pass laws that the corporate elite want passed, while passing all the blame to a faceless organization that no one ever voted for.

Hahaha, you are kidding, right? Go read at the WIPO site as well as the New Zealand Min. of Econ. Development and educate yourself on difference between the right to exclude others from making/using/selling the invention nationally and internationally.

I am so disgusted with you that I even went to this link to pull a quote for you:

"A patent will only protect your invention within New Zealand. To obtain overseas patent protection, two options are available:

* Filing applications with intellectual property offices in overseas countries of interest; or
* Filing an International Application under the Patent Co-Operation Treaty (PCT). "

Now stop talking about how cheap is it to obtain internationally applicable patent protection through the New Zealand system and instead fuck off, pardon my French.

A lot of Canadians fail to realise that the implementation of the "makee available" provisions of Article 6 the WIPO treaty could limit their ability to share files (ie. leaving them in a shared folder).

Below is the letter sent to Ms. Scherrer and copied to my Member of Parliament as well:

Dear Ms Scherrer:

An article in the Edmonton Sun quotes you as stating that "As minister of Canadian Heritage, I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law", in response to the recent Federal Court ruling that sharing of music was in fact legal. You are also pictured holding up an industry t-shirt for "SaveCanadianMusic.com".

You may have done this to applause from the music industry, but as one of the millions of Canadians who downloads and shares music, you and the Liberal Party are unlikely to win applause from me. We want and will demand fairness.

This is about ownership of culture, and it has been part of the Canadian culture to share our common heritage, beliefs, values, dance, and music. There needs to be fair access, and that doesn't mean that we should be legislating in favour of the current outmoded distribution model.

With respect to that model, I would point out that the limited studies to date suggest that sharing increases music purchases, just as the VCR increased movie sales. The issue is in fact one of control. Will the large monopolistic American music companies and their subsidiaries continue to control distribution, or will other distribution models be allowed to flourish?

The recent Federal Court ruling was in fact "exactly" where I believed that Canadian copyright law should fall. Casual sharing being allowed, with "active" distribution being an infringement of copyright.

I'm "very" concerned that ratification of the WIPO treaties will be used to limit fair access that Canadians presently enjoy and pay for, along with criminalization of deencryption of technological protection measures which have wreaked havoc in the US with their DMCA legislation. In particular this concerns the "making available" provisions of the WIPO treaties.

In implementation of the "making available" right in particular, I would suggest that the "right to make available" be immediately exhausted after a commercial work has been made available commercially, with respect to non-commercial sharing.

This is a serious matter, followed by millions of Canadians. We are watching. We will vote accordingly.

Regards,

Uhm, have you ever heard of Zytromax, the Pfizer antibiotic? FYI, it was developed and tested in Croatia, which probably most North Americans hardly consider a "high tech" country. Pfizer licensed it and Pliva now earns royalties on Pfizer's sales worldwide.

1 - virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.

Every domain you pick will likely be similar to a registered trademark - you would think that authorities want people to know which domains belong to a registered trademark.

Even UN WIPO will not guarantee that your domain is safe - even if you check all their sources: "any searches using the links provided on this site will not be sufficient to determine definitively whether or not the domain name is infringing."

2 - the only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected .reg TLD.

e.g. apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else could it be? (format: name.classification.country.reg)

This adds unequivocal trademark identification and directory functionality - with absolutely no restrictions or requirement to lose current domains.

I believe the evidence provides conclusive and demonstrable proof that the authorites are corrupt - they aid and abet trademark overreach. This can be shown in UDRP cases when the term could LEGALLY be used by any number of businesses (with or without trademark) - or for personal none comercial use.

UDRP rules (on which decisions are based) wrote by WIPO - is a biased system that favours trademarks to promote intellectual-property rights.

Even U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recognizes and admit this bias. They identified it when talking about open-source software:

Lois Boland, director of international relations for the USPTO, 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."

With all words registered for trademarks, you could imagine them saying, "to allow others to use words runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." "To give people domain names is to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."

Do you know Trademarks 'raison d'etre'?

"They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words."

WIPO.org.uk - Comments on WIPO Interim Report (12 April 2001) to UN WIPO.

Garry Anderson - Haverhill UK - Home Page - WIPO criticism.

1 - virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in the same or a different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.

Every domain you pick will likely be similar to a registered trademark - you would think that authorities want people to know which domains belong to a registered trademark.

Even UN WIPO will not guarantee that your domain is safe - even if you check all their sources: "any searches using the links provided on this site will not be sufficient to determine definitively whether or not the domain name is infringing."

2 - the only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected .reg TLD.

e.g. apple.com could be directed to apple.computer.us.reg - who else could it be? (format: name.classification.country.reg)

This adds unequivocal trademark identification and directory functionality - with absolutely no restrictions or requirement to lose current domains.

I believe the evidence provides conclusive and demonstrable proof that the authorites are corrupt - they aid and abet trademark overreach. This can be shown in UDRP cases when the term could LEGALLY be used by any number of businesses (with or without trademark) - or for personal none comercial use.

UDRP rules (on which decisions are based) wrote by WIPO - is a biased system that favours trademarks to promote intellectual-property rights.

Even U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recognizes and admit this bias. They identified it when talking about open-source software:

Lois Boland, director of international relations for the USPTO, 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."

With all words registered for trademarks, you could imagine them saying, "to allow others to use words runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." "To give people domain names is to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO."

Do you know Trademarks 'raison d'etre'?

"They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words."

WIPO.org.uk - Comments on WIPO Interim Report (12 April 2001) to UN WIPO.

Garry Anderson - Haverhill UK - Home Page - WIPO criticism.

Domain names are a nonissue at this point. The number of registered domains peaked two years ago. The number of domain name disputes is down. The "domain broker" business is essentially dead.