Slashdot Mirror

If you are contracting your business to an illegitimate firm (in any country), the results received are your just desserts.

It seems absurd to correlate the actions of individuals to state-sponsored jurisprudence. China is a member of WIPO, which corroborates the idea that widespread piracy is not condoned by the legal system. Considering recent raids by government agencies in China to shut down major manufacturers/distributors of illegitimate software, the Chinese government may beg to differ with your opinion that Chinese corporations are pirates as well.

The rather xenophobic nature and sweeping generalizations of your statement will not be addressed other than noting they are logical fallacies.

You are entitled to your view of zero-sum economics (in order for one state to "win", another state must "lose"). However, most of the free world started to abandon this as a fundamental tenet in the late 18th century. This has led to the disavowal of mercantilism, imperialism, and colonial exploitation witnessed in the modern era. The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is the both the initial and seminal explanation of this concept.

Please do not be confused: my point is not encourage or discourage outsourcing development to China--I would merely like to see cogent arguments tendered in the debate rather than mere FUD.

Canada may be ok now, but WTO membership tends to force compliance with the rules set by WIPO. IF WIPO rules change then Canada and the EU must follow. There is no way that Canada can keep sane if the lobbyists beneath them keep active.

That is unless all of the non-US citizens campaign for their own copyright-law to be kept more restricted in scope.

If free archives can exist elsewhere on the web, then the Sonny Bono Copyright Extention act is undermined.

After reading up on it,
I think I want to be a library.
helpful document for understanding it
Being a non-profit library allows you free access to all of this copy protected stuff.

After reading up on it,
I think I want to be a library.
helpful document for understanding it
Being a non-profit library allows you free access to all of this copy protected stuff.

The essential goals of the WIPO and the WTO's TRIPS agreement have essentially the same goals: to standardize Intellectual Property Law across national borders. James Love, of the Consumer Project on Technology, has Pharm-policy mailing list readers a link to this joint press release of the WTO and the WIPO. This press release describes a new joint initiative regarding cooperation between these two corporation-friendly organizations. The initiative calls for a new push to help developing countries establish more monopolistic intellectual property infrastructures. Dr. Kamil Idris, Director General of the WIPO, states in the press release that intellectual property was a tool for technological advancement, economic growth and wealth creation for all nations, especially for least-developed countries. Does this joint initiative really take into account the economic needs of the people in less developed countries? Or does it simply add to the wealth of companies that monopolize information? What about economically comprimised people living in well-developed countries?

Read the essay entitled The WTO and the WIPO Combine Forces to Privatize the World .

From the cover sheet of the DMCA legislation:Basically, the DMCA is simply the mechanism withing the United States, of implementing the WIPO treaty. Any country that is a signatory to this treaty will be implementing DMCA-like legislation. Just give it some time...

For those, who are unfamiliar with the history of Intellectual property law, the EFF has a good primer.

--CTH

As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to retain focus in addressing the Freedom of Speech and Privacy rights infringement of the DMCA, the WIPO treaties (which are an expansion of the Berne Convention Treaty) and now the potential for indevidual national legislation in each of the countries of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This newest development makes a consolidated stand against such over reaching legislation, substancially more difficult, and all but garentees the passage if DMCA-like legislation in countries other than the United States.

It looks like a strategy of divide and conquer will work for content providers in their quest to get this sort of legislation passed in countries throughout the world. The already fragmented opposition to this legislation stands to be further fragmented by the requirement that their efforts be divided accross (in the case of the FTAA) the countries of the Americas in order that there be no discrepency between countries' approaches to Intellectual Property.

I made this same argument with respect to the Open Source Community response to Craig Mundie and Microsoft with respect to the legitimacy of the GPL. There must be a focused response. The EFF has provided good leadership thus far, but in order to be an effective leader you must have followers. This is antithetical to the OSS mentality of independant developers (who seem to be the only ones focusing in this issue in any depth at the moment). This tendency, as evidenced by the response by some members of the community to the EFF request to discontinue protests in the Skylarov case durring negotiations with Adobe - where some members of the community basically told the EFF to stuff it and "You Can't Control Me". As a community, we need to realize that we need to follow leaders - not any leader, but those who have proven themselves - for our mutual benefit.

Additionally, I think it's worth spending a moment considering why the issues around the DMCA and similar legislation have recieved so little coverage in the popular media. I know it sounds paranoid, but since the deregulation of the communications industry, (we all know) conglomorates have been allowed to emerge which represent both the news media and content owners. I would not presume to make accusations that the popular news media has interests other than informing the public, but it's disappointing that we havnen't seen these issues addressed in the popular media. Their lack of coverage, leaves us with the responsibility of making others aware of Intellectual Property issues. IP is a complex subject, even explaining limited aspects of it in a comprehensive way is difficult, but we must begin focusing our efforts in this area as well.

--CTH

As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to retain focus in addressing the Freedom of Speech and Privacy rights infringement of the DMCA, the WIPO treaties (which are an expansion of the Berne Convention Treaty) and now the potential for indevidual national legislation in each of the countries of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This newest development makes a consolidated stand against such over reaching legislation, substancially more difficult, and all but garentees the passage if DMCA-like legislation in countries other than the United States.

It looks like a strategy of divide and conquer will work for content providers in their quest to get this sort of legislation passed in countries throughout the world. The already fragmented opposition to this legislation stands to be further fragmented by the requirement that their efforts be divided accross (in the case of the FTAA) the countries of the Americas in order that there be no discrepency between countries' approaches to Intellectual Property.

I made this same argument with respect to the Open Source Community response to Craig Mundie and Microsoft with respect to the legitimacy of the GPL. There must be a focused response. The EFF has provided good leadership thus far, but in order to be an effective leader you must have followers. This is antithetical to the OSS mentality of independant developers (who seem to be the only ones focusing in this issue in any depth at the moment). This tendency, as evidenced by the response by some members of the community to the EFF request to discontinue protests in the Skylarov case durring negotiations with Adobe - where some members of the community basically told the EFF to stuff it and "You Can't Control Me". As a community, we need to realize that we need to follow leaders - not any leader, but those who have proven themselves - for our mutual benefit.

Additionally, I think it's worth spending a moment considering why the issues around the DMCA and similar legislation have recieved so little coverage in the popular media. I know it sounds paranoid, but since the deregulation of the communications industry, (we all know) conglomorates have been allowed to emerge which represent both the news media and content owners. I would not presume to make accusations that the popular news media has interests other than informing the public, but it's disappointing that we havnen't seen these issues addressed in the popular media. Their lack of coverage, leaves us with the responsibility of making others aware of Intellectual Property issues. IP is a complex subject, even explaining limited aspects of it in a comprehensive way is difficult, but we must begin focusing our efforts in this area as well.

--CTH

As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to retain focus in addressing the Freedom of Speech and Privacy rights infringement of the DMCA, the WIPO treaties (which are an expansion of the Berne Convention Treaty) and now the potential for indevidual national legislation in each of the countries of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). This newest development makes a consolidated stand against such over reaching legislation, substancially more difficult, and all but garentees the passage if DMCA-like legislation in countries other than the United States.

It looks like a strategy of divide and conquer will work for content providers in their quest to get this sort of legislation passed in countries throughout the world. The already fragmented opposition to this legislation stands to be further fragmented by the requirement that their efforts be divided accross (in the case of the FTAA) the countries of the Americas in order that there be no discrepency between countries' approaches to Intellectual Property.

I made this same argument with respect to the Open Source Community response to Craig Mundie and Microsoft with respect to the legitimacy of the GPL. There must be a focused response. The EFF has provided good leadership thus far, but in order to be an effective leader you must have followers. This is antithetical to the OSS mentality of independant developers (who seem to be the only ones focusing in this issue in any depth at the moment). This tendency, as evidenced by the response by some members of the community to the EFF request to discontinue protests in the Skylarov case durring negotiations with Adobe - where some members of the community basically told the EFF to stuff it and "You Can't Control Me". As a community, we need to realize that we need to follow leaders - not any leader, but those who have proven themselves - for our mutual benefit.

Additionally, I think it's worth spending a moment considering why the issues around the DMCA and similar legislation have recieved so little coverage in the popular media. I know it sounds paranoid, but since the deregulation of the communications industry, (we all know) conglomorates have been allowed to emerge which represent both the news media and content owners. I would not presume to make accusations that the popular news media has interests other than informing the public, but it's disappointing that we havnen't seen these issues addressed in the popular media. Their lack of coverage, leaves us with the responsibility of making others aware of Intellectual Property issues. IP is a complex subject, even explaining limited aspects of it in a comprehensive way is difficult, but we must begin focusing our efforts in this area as well.

--CTH

All you need is 2 nodes for a network.

I would comply, but probably be looking at real estate in Canada or some country that actually lets people run thier own lives.

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures...

i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information without authority;
ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.

Many countries are cinsidering DMCA type legislation to bring them into compliance with the WIPO Intelectual Property Treaties. For more on the the legal constructs being cinsidered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, see their whitepaper "Technical Protection Measures: The Intersection of Technology, Law, and Commercial Licenses" (M$ Word or PDF). Take a good look at this stuff. It's important that people fully understand the actions being taken by WIPO and begin to realize that arguing about your rights or my rights isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that if WIPO has their way, there will be no protection for citizens of any country, from potentially usurous and monopolistic IP practices.

--CTH

Many countries are cinsidering DMCA type legislation to bring them into compliance with the WIPO Intelectual Property Treaties. For more on the the legal constructs being cinsidered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, see their whitepaper "Technical Protection Measures: The Intersection of Technology, Law, and Commercial Licenses" (M$ Word or PDF). Take a good look at this stuff. It's important that people fully understand the actions being taken by WIPO and begin to realize that arguing about your rights or my rights isn't the critical issue. The critical issue is that if WIPO has their way, there will be no protection for citizens of any country, from potentially usurous and monopolistic IP practices.

--CTH

While we've been focusing on rights language, and discussions of what should be, WIPO, with the support of many old-economy publishers have begun to implement the legal constructs which will allow prosecution for net based offenses, related to intellectual property. The first evidence of this in the US was the DMCA, but for the rest of the story, read the WIPO whitepaper "Technical Protection Measures: The Intersection of Technology, Law, and Commercial Licenses" (available in M$ word format and PDF format). It's a vary interesting read.

--CTH

The WIPO document "Technical Protection Measures: The Intersection of Technology, Law, and Commercial Licenses." is available in PDF Format and Word Format Here.

The DMCA was written so the United States could be WIPO treaty compliant. Basically, if your home country's name is on this list, you're in deep trouble.

Excellent. Maybe Europe can teach sleepwalking Americans to be more mindful of their vanishing liberties.

As mentioned in my half-silly dialogue, article 11bis of the Berne convention controls broadcast rights. According to this list, the UK is a party of the Berne convention.

As for declaring war... are all you guys that dumb?

Err, yes. We're stupid, violent Americans with our fast food, inefficient cars, and lots and lots of guns. Kill, kill, kill!

Seriously, I doubt it would reach that point. There're too many easier, nonviolent, Internet-connection snipping means of achieving similar goals. But I'm sure someone, somewhere is thinking, "Dammit, if we go to war, we could really kick their asses." Especially when you consider that we did the whole Gulf War thing in order to protect our oil interests.

There is no copyright law in Sealand. Sealand is not a member of the Bern Convention and it does not have a copyright law of it's own.

The only intellectual property law in Sealand is that child pornography is illegal.

--

The real culprit here is the WIPO copyright treaty, specifically article 11. It states that treaty members have to supply legal measures to prevent "circumvention of effective technological measures" used to enforce copyright. The rest of the treaty seems relatively fair, but article 11 forces members to pass DMCA-style laws. Once they have to do that the lobbyists move in and you know the rest of that story. The terms of the treaty DON'T mandate anything as overly restrictive as what we're seeing in the US - note the use of the word "effective" - but I suspect that legislators, in their woeful technological cluelessness, find it difficult to draft bills that don't cross the fine line of audience rights infringement.

There is a significant amount of information at the EFF DMCA page.

Expect more WIPO member countries to generate their own laws to comply with this.

-S

Not to mention that the DMCA is just the implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty that the US signed, along with many other countries. So there's a lot of political motivation to not overturn DMCA.
--

But suffice it to say that even if DMCA is struck down, there will be a lot more fighting to do.
--

I won't address the larger issue of freedom in the U.S. (It's absurd to suggest that any other major country is more free than us as a whole.) But I want to clear up one common misconception:

Whenever there's a story about some abuse of the DMCA, or some other oppressive U.S. law, all the foreign readers make snide comments about how their country is freer than ours. Guess what? Your country also has a DMCA. (Worse yet, they use MS Word 97.) They may call it something different, but for practical purposes it's the same all over the western world.

Almost all major infringements on our freedoms are accomplished through treaties these days. I'm drawing a blank on other examples, but there are many. I suspect that they make bigger news in the U.S. because of our greater freedom as a whole, which makes them stand out more. In most other countries, restrictions on speech and personal freedom are not that unusual to begin with.

I won't address the larger issue of freedom in the U.S. (It's absurd to suggest that any other major country is more free than us as a whole.) But I want to clear up one common misconception:

Whenever there's a story about some abuse of the DMCA, or some other oppressive U.S. law, all the foreign readers make snide comments about how their country is freer than ours. Guess what? Your country also has a DMCA. (Worse yet, they use MS Word 97.) They may call it something different, but for practical purposes it's the same all over the western world.

Almost all major infringements on our freedoms are accomplished through treaties these days. I'm drawing a blank on other examples, but there are many. I suspect that they make bigger news in the U.S. because of our greater freedom as a whole, which makes them stand out more. In most other countries, restrictions on speech and personal freedom are not that unusual to begin with.

Not true. Ever heard of the Berne Convention? Over 120 nations, including Japan, are party to it, which basically means that they all agree to respect each other's copyrights. The Convention requires that "Works originating in one of the contracting States must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals." Among the copyrights protected by the Berne Convention including the right to translate, the right to broadcast, and the right to reproduce.

So, assuming the fansubbers live in a nation that has signed the Berne Convention (and chances are that they do), anything copyrighted in Japan is copyrighted in their nation as well, and they are still committing copyright infringment by translating, broadcastign, and/or reproducing the original anime.

Yu Suzuki

In my considered and informed opinion:

They use zoning to screw as much profit out of each market place - GREED. We in the UK are specially profitable to them.

Intellectual Property is the excuse big business use in the courts for this greed. We as individuals have no rights in this area - see what the United Nations organization WIPO are doing, stealing peoples domains.

Details on my site - WIPO.org.uk - This Organization has no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.ORG).

Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country.

What many people seem to be forgetting is that the DMCA is actually just U.S. version of the *global* WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Copyright treaty, which was drafted and approved in even less public display and public scrutiny than the approval of the DMCA in the U.S. Congress.

The WIPO Copyright treaty was drafted first in December of 1996, and then signed onto by the U.S. delegation and other international representatives. The DMCA passing Congress was really a ratification and implementation of this *global* treaty. Your sentiment is correct in that we need a new, more balanced international copyright law. However, we unfortunately already have a international copyright law in both the Berne convention on copyrights and its extension, the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

Unfortunately, the new international laws as defined by the WIPO Copyright Treaty were very poorly constructed, shifting power overwhelmingly to the "content providers" and corporations, against the general public and against even the original creators of content/intellectual property.

As an example, take compilations of data (databases). Besides extending existing copyrights into their digital equivalents, the WIPO Copyright Treaty also creates a new class of copyrightable material: the right to copyright databases (see Article 5). Companies may now copyright databases, even if that data is derived from content/data which is either public domain or that other people created and copyrighted.

Alas, this trend towards legalizing unlimited corporate greed has already extended past the MPAA and RIAA in the United States and into the global domain, taking away from the public good and the original rights of the artist.

Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country.

What many people seem to be forgetting is that the DMCA is actually just U.S. version of the *global* WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Copyright treaty, which was drafted and approved in even less public display and public scrutiny than the approval of the DMCA in the U.S. Congress.

The WIPO Copyright treaty was drafted first in December of 1996, and then signed onto by the U.S. delegation and other international representatives. The DMCA passing Congress was really a ratification and implementation of this *global* treaty. Your sentiment is correct in that we need a new, more balanced international copyright law. However, we unfortunately already have a international copyright law in both the Berne convention on copyrights and its extension, the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

Unfortunately, the new international laws as defined by the WIPO Copyright Treaty were very poorly constructed, shifting power overwhelmingly to the "content providers" and corporations, against the general public and against even the original creators of content/intellectual property.

As an example, take compilations of data (databases). Besides extending existing copyrights into their digital equivalents, the WIPO Copyright Treaty also creates a new class of copyrightable material: the right to copyright databases (see Article 5). Companies may now copyright databases, even if that data is derived from content/data which is either public domain or that other people created and copyrighted.

Alas, this trend towards legalizing unlimited corporate greed has already extended past the MPAA and RIAA in the United States and into the global domain, taking away from the public good and the original rights of the artist.

Not that anyone would want to actually answer the original question posted in the article or anything, but WIPO has a number of resources that might help.

There's the WIPO Collection of Laws for International Access (CLEA) [Note the the .INT TLD! Also, be aware that the default search page is Java-enabled, so pick HTML-only, if you aren't]

You might enjoy browsing the "International Patent Data Collections (When it's complete, it hopes to cover the world - not yet complete, however)

In fact, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) or OMPI (Organization Mondiale Proprietaire Intellectuelle - pardon my French) has recently put a lot of new materials on its website, so it's worth a second visit, even if you thought you were familiar with WIPO offerings

And finally, there's WipoNET which is gradually providing access to all the IP offices in the WIPO member nations.

(a) 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 (principle of "national treatment") [3].

(b) Such protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of "automatic" protection)[3].

(c) Such protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work (principle of the "independence" of protection). If, however, a contracting State provides for a longer term than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of origin ceases[3].

Some people might be interested in reading WIPO's WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center page. I won't go too in depth, because then I'd be reciting their page, but it's worth looking at because it does pertain to Internet Domain Names.

For those tuning in late, like myself, would some mind making a brief post explaining what WIPO stands and what they do, or at least claim to do? Thanks. I feel like I'm tuning into an interesting TV show half way through.

WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization

www.wipo.org

--

from the wipo website:

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 21 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection. The Organization counts 175 nations as member states. Please visit the links below for more information - both general and specific - on WIPO.

WIPO is the World Intellectual Property Organization. It administers international intellectual property treaties (such as the WIPO copyright treaty and the Trademark Law Treaty of 1994).

ICANN has given WIPO the authority to arbitrate domain name disputes. ICANN-accredited registrars have to agree to WIPO arbitration; if you register a domain (under ICANN policy), you generally agree to WIPO jurisdiction.

More info is at http://www.wipo.org/about-wipo/en/index.html?wipo_ content_frame=/about-wipo/en/gib. htm and at http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains /gu ide/index.html

The two treaties in question are The WIPO Copyright Treaty and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

This isn't just the United States Government acting stupidly because lawmakers have sold out to the highest donors, it's being driven from abroad.

Don't think the "anti-hacking" treaty could find its way into US law? Just wait!

We, the users who's rights are being stripped away, are far to small of a voice, even if we all yelled together. Fair Use Rights are unknown to the vast majority of the population. They won't even notice when they've lost them because they never knew they had them.

The best that we can do right now is to keep up the fight. Continue to violate the DMCA because we know it's a bogus law and unconstitutional. Copy DeCSS. Copy the Cue-Cat code. Support EFF. Buy a t-shirt from 2600. And most of all, don't let something as stupid as the DMCA stand in the way of exercising your fair use rights.

-S

The two treaties in question are The WIPO Copyright Treaty and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

This isn't just the United States Government acting stupidly because lawmakers have sold out to the highest donors, it's being driven from abroad.

Don't think the "anti-hacking" treaty could find its way into US law? Just wait!

We, the users who's rights are being stripped away, are far to small of a voice, even if we all yelled together. Fair Use Rights are unknown to the vast majority of the population. They won't even notice when they've lost them because they never knew they had them.

The best that we can do right now is to keep up the fight. Continue to violate the DMCA because we know it's a bogus law and unconstitutional. Copy DeCSS. Copy the Cue-Cat code. Support EFF. Buy a t-shirt from 2600. And most of all, don't let something as stupid as the DMCA stand in the way of exercising your fair use rights.

-S

Fortunately, DMCA is not international (yet).

I'm afraid it is going to be international law soon.

The whole DMCA debacle started with the World Intellectual Property Organization signing the WIPO Copyright Treaty in December 1996. Article 11 in that treaty states:

"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. "

The result in the US was the DMCA, and we'll see similar laws soon in the EU.

Anyway, the point is - we'll soon have a lot of hardware with content protection measures built-in and laws protecting those measures.

FireWire and other transport buses support, or in the near future will support "content protection mechanisms". The goal is end-to-end content protection all the way to your monitor or speakers.

Just do a patent lookup on content protection measures, and you'll see Intel and the other large hardware manufacturers up there.

For those who think I'm alarmist, please read the 1999 WIPO workshop report on the status and implementation of protection measures. It basically covers DVDs, SDMI, protecting content when transported, etc. Reading the report is a nice exercise in understanding the mindset of our opponents in this fight for Fair Use.

A couple of choice quotes:

On the implementation of DVD:
"Even at this ideal stage of introduction of a new format, limitations still exist. For example, to succeed in the marketplace DVD players needed to be compatible with the existing installed base of television sets. Therefore, the copy protection technology adopted had to provide that DVD discs played on legitimate players would be viewable on existing television sets."

So, the only reason why DVD players provide an unprotected analog output (well, "only" Macrovision protected) is because the current installed base of TV sets don't provide content protection mechanisms. Reading between the lines, it is easy to see that they want to ditch analog output once there is a large enough base of HDTVs with CPM.

On recording devices:
"Recording devices will be licensed to record using an authorized encryption system to protect the content on an authorized copy. As a condition of such license, the recording product must read and respond to copy protection information in the form of the watermark in any legacy interface and the digital information contained in any copy protected digital interface. In order to properly respond, the recorder must determine whether the input signal itself originated from the original of the recording or from a copy of the content that was already made using the copy protection system (in which case the copy protection
information would so indicate);"

Devices with analog output must support digital watermarks. Recording devices with analog inputs must recognize these. Notice that they dance around the question of authorized vs lawful - it is the local copyright law that should determine weither taking a copy is legal or not, while the content protection measure might impose further limitations. So, while some action might be legal in my country the CPM might decide that I'm not authorized to do so. They are claiming that authorization is provided by the CPM, thus circumventing local IP law!

Reading more about local law:
"Each country has its own particular concerns regarding exceptions and limitations. We believe that such concerns need to be considered carefully. Technical measures and circumvention devices are blind as to whether the circumventing purpose is lawful or unlawful. Any possible exceptions and limitations to the anti-circumvention rule should apply to certain types of defined, individual conduct. Prohibitions against circumvention devices and services need to remain firm and cannot be undercut. To date technical protection measures have not prevented fair use or fair practice with respect to works and there has been no demonstration that such measures will have this effect in the future. Our work in the area of technical protections has led us to conclude that anti-circumvention laws must provide effective deterrence against and sufficient remedies to redress circumvention. Strong and effective laws in this area are essential because technical measures can do no more than serve as obstacles to unauthorized use and such measures will always be subject to defeat."

They want few - or no - exceptions to the anti-circumvention rule, which will further ensure that our rights will be dictated by the CPM instead of the law. That Fair Use has not been damaged is an incredible bold claim. One needs to look no further than Jack Valenti's testimony in the MPAA vs 2600 case to see that (he claimed that taking an excerpt from a DVD for fair use purposes is illegal because it requires circumvention of CSS). Also, the US libraries have shown concern about the DMCA, claiming that the protection measures are making it difficult for them to provide their services to the public.

On hardware manufacturers:
"Therefore, to work properly copy protection technologies must be bilateral - the technologies applied by content owners need to function with consumer electronics and computer devices used by consumers and these devices need to respect and respond to the technologies applied. This bilateral requirement means that solutions are not simply a matter of technological innovation. Rather, effective copy protection technology requires a high level of agreement and implementation by both content providers and manufacturers of consumer electronics and computer products. This can be achieved by legislation, whereby certain types of devices are required to respond to a particular copy protection technology, or by negotiated cross-industry agreements."

They want to control what you are allowed to do with the player in your own house. They want to control player manufacturers to comply with their protection mechanisms - either by law, or by restrictive licensing regimes. Read: No open source video and music players for their formats! No open source reader for their eBooks!

There is a lot more in that report, but I guess this is enough to make my point. :-/

A trademark is granted by a *specific* COUNTRY for JUST one type of *specific* goods or one type of *specific* service.

Thousands may share the same trademark. I give the example of Domino on my protest site WIPO.org.uk

The obvious answer is to supply a restricted TLD, say .REG for all holders to get their trademark name.

Trademarks need the classification and country to stop consumers being confused.

So, with the tag of .reg - NAME.class.country.REG would solve all the problems. Fraud - sex site - cybersquatting etc.

I knew I hated phonics "

[SARCASM]Great... we really needed a precedent set for taking a way a properly used domain name because it is phonetically similar to the name of foreign entity...[/SARCASM]

Are the judges and lawmakers of this world *THAT* fucked up in the head?!?!?! Seriously? Some of the things they come up with continue to defy explaination. There *MUST* be some alien conspiracy causing people to make decisions like this, probably to make it easier to take us over when the main fleet gets here in a few decades.

In all seriousness though, I hope that this is overturned somehow...And while I realize that a: not everyone is religous ,and b: In some countries [ie Brazil] soccer *IS* a religion, does it make sense to anyone that the World Intellectual Property Organization is basically saying that the word "Corinthians" is better well known as a soccer team than as a religious text. Ha!

In doing some reasearch, I found a site with various domain name disputes. One dispute [that has been decided] jumped out at me. It seems that a fellow in Germany registered 'scientologie.org' and of course you-know-which-quasi-religious-entity had a hissy fit. In this case, even though that 'religious' entity had a trade mark on SCIENTOLOGIE, the judge dismissed the case...

It'd be nice if they were at least consistent, no?

Ender

PS. having looked further into it, there were [to me] good reasons for letting the guy keep the domain.

http://www.wipo.org/eng/dgtext.htm

What is WIPO

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. WIPO is responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among States, and for the administration of various multilateral treaties dealing with the legal and administrative aspects of intellectual property.

What is WIPO

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. WIPO is responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among States, and for the administration of various multilateral treaties dealing with the legal and administrative aspects of intellectual property.

Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, European Communities (51).

All of these countries either have or will have DMCA like laws with the same problems as ours. This is an even bigger mess than most people realize. Go to the WIPO site to read the treaty and lots of other info about it. Be warned a lot of the stuff is only availible in MS Word format though...

DMCA is not the issue here, the WIPO is. The DMCA was passed to implement the WIPO Copyright treaty which was signed by the united states way back in 1996. The DMCA just implements the treaty's provisions in the United States. 51 countries have signed the treaty as of the end of May. Here they are (since on the WIPO site the list is only availible as a word document, and I wouldn't want to put you folks through that):

Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, European Communities (51).

Yes, you will notice norway is not yet on this list, meaning DeCSS was probably created legally. However, all of those other countries mentioned either already have or will soon have DMCA like laws. Don't think just because you don't live in the U.S. you are safe from this sort of thing. It's coming to a country near you...

Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, European Communities (51).

You can go look yourself if you want and read the text of the treaty too. A lot of the stuff on their site is either pdf or MS Word format only though. They are bastards even in that respect. Anyway, go read the WIPO treaty and you will understand a lot better why it will be hard to fight the DMCA on a national level...

Also the DMCA is based on a treaty signed by the U.S. in 1996 and administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. If Britain and Germany don't have laws similar to the DMCA already they will soon, unless they want to drop out of the WIPO and possibly face trade sanctions from the member coutries (i.e. the U.S.) Get used to it, sucky laws abound everywhere!

If the entire industry agrees to a reduced duration for sotfware patents, then shouldn't the patent office allow this?

They can't.

We're bound by a treaty, and according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution, treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The treaty itself says that for any change in the time limits, the signees must agree UNANIMOUSLY.

The only thing we could do unilaterally is denounce the entire treaty, which (fortunatly) is allowed by the treaty itself. If that clause wasn't in there, we couldn't abrogate the treaty legally without agreeing to a new one with all the signees!

If we did denounce it, no signee nation would be required to observe our patents at all anymore!

It's a much bigger fight than just convincing your Congressman. He doesn't even have a say in it.

If the entire industry agrees to a reduced duration for sotfware patents, then shouldn't the patent office allow this?

They can't.

We're bound by a treaty, and according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution, treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The treaty itself says that for any change in the time limits, the signees must agree UNANIMOUSLY.

The only thing we could do unilaterally is denounce the entire treaty, which (fortunatly) is allowed by the treaty itself. If that clause wasn't in there, we couldn't abrogate the treaty legally without agreeing to a new one with all the signees!

If we did denounce it, no signee nation would be required to observe our patents at all anymore!

It's a much bigger fight than just convincing your Congressman. He doesn't even have a say in it.

Points (i), (ii), and(iii), really depend on what the laws in Uruguay say.

If the GPL is not enforceable under their laws (does anyone know for sure?) then point (i) is irrelevant.

Also, (point (ii)) it doesn't matter if the name LinuxTECH was coined to deliberately confuse people. What matters is if it is close enough to some other trademarked name (i.e. Linux) to legally be considered confusing (note: this is how it works in the US and Canada. I don't know about Uruguay). I don't know exactly what the criteria are for determining this, but I doubt that LinuxTECH would qualify (but maybe Lenux, Linex, or Linuks would...). Yes, it may be sneaky, but it is also legal and makes good business sense.

Point (iii) is like making a gamble. Basically, it must be shown that the term Linux is considered to refer to the product that we all know as Linux, and this must be shown in Uruguay. Otherwise, there is no existing Trademark. I don't know how popular Linux is in Uruguay, but the decision might just hinge around this concept.

Something worth noting: Uruguay is a party to the Paris Treaty, which means (as I understand it) that the date of filing is considered to be the date of filing in all other states that are party to the Paris Treaty, provided an application is filed within six months of this date. Obviously, Linux is Trademark in some of these states (i.e. The United States). But there are probably some states in which Linux is not a registered Trademark. Now what??? Essentially, it means that they could file for Trademark in these locations within six months, and if it is registered, then they would hold the registered Trademark in these locations, regardless of what happens now -- in other words, even if someone else files for Trademark in one of these countries, the date of the application in Uruguay would be the date of the application in other countries, provided the application by Mr. Francisco Pereira and Mr. Enrique Place de Cuadrois is made within six months.

At this point, the only thing that can be done is to fight the application in Uruguay. If it is accepted, then who knows what will happen next...

For more info on the Paris Treaty, go to http://www.wipo.org.

This sort of thing should be brought up with WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) as well. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. This is exactly what WIPO is all about, and you can read this copy of the WIPO treaty which actually resides on the US Copyright Office's website.

This will allow not only the US, but other countries to be persuaded that things need to change. It sets the benchmark to follow.

Check out the treaty itself, and then check out the agreements the US made with it, and you'll see that there is still lacking by the US in what it agrees to. Note also that the treaty was created in 1996, and that things have changed dramatically in the last few years with respect to different types of media available, which now may or may not be covered by this treaty. (I haven't had the time to scour it myself).