Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Wants Your Feedback
Christian Engstrom writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting an online discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005. The conclusions of the Online Forum will form part of WIPO's contribution to the WSIS Tunis Summit. There are 10 different themes for discussion, including 'Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights'. If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them."
My feeling is that the "feedback" many people want to give WIPO, consists not so much of text, as a graphical representation of a middle finger. I hope their survey is prepared to deal with that kind of input.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Right... just like our feedback would have any effect.
They have a very strong agenda, and they are the bad guys. The forum is supposed to give them advice about ways to enforce "intellectual property", and this means removing fair use rights, not protecting them.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Dear WIPO,
Screw you all and the horses you rode in on.
Thank you,
Frogbert
Where is the WIPO Troll when we need him?
WIPO implies IP patents and lawyers. Need I say more?
5 jackbooted toes in their backside is my feedback.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Sounds to me like it will be the biggest flamewar ever seen.
Make it so that the penality for downloading a movie is less than the penality for mugging someone on the street and buying a legal DVD with the money.
How about "get rid of the middleman?" If movies and music were distributed electronically, and available online as soon as they were released in the theaters, you could do away with a lot of the packaging / marketing / middlemen that drive up the cost. Sell albums for $3-$5 apiece online (more if you need a CD shipped), with no DRM, and I think piracy will go down. Make DVD-quality movies available via download for $5-$10 -- or less for older, less-popular movies -- and people won't bother to pirate those, either.
Unfortnately, groups like the one doing the survey will be the big losers. Such a scheme benefits artists, actors, and the public -- none of whom have near as good representation and lobbyists as the big recording and movie companies.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
This is like the RIAA opening up an IRC channel to get some "intelligent discussion" going about IP enforcement. I think we all know where this will lead.
I think what is likely going on is that they want to hear some opinions from common people on these issues so they can analyze how to best promote their views in ways that will resonate. That way they can tweak their FUD for optimal consumption by the masses.
Linux/Apache!!! http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=WIPON ET,193.5.88.0,193.5.95.255
1. Eat WIPO shit
2. BM
3. Feed WIPO #2
4. Goto 1
(Speaking as a Wikipedia contributor) The fact that that discussion page, which exists only to help them destroy fair use rights, comes from my beloved Wikipedia --- well, it makes my skin crawl.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Instead of announcing my position on Intellectual Property, I'm announcing that you're all... ...morons.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Therefore, I do not see how these instructions can be patented.
If in an effort to establish wheher an individual is mature or otherwise, I need to subtract their DoB from the current date, I could also keep subtracting month by month from the current date till the remaning date value is equal to the subject's DoB.
End result: Same age.
So why should one patent such an entity? What M$, IBM and the like have been doing for years, does not make sense IMNSHO.
I don't know what kind of feedback y'all are looking for but here are some articles in my zine, EuroHacker, about IP and related stuff:
Heh, might as well give y'all the sales plug :)
EuroHacker Magazine is a free-as-in-beer webzine dedicated to neat hacks, guns and survival. All from a European, slightly libertarian, perspective
You can find us in #eurohacker on irc.freenode.org or you can send us an e-mail to eurohacker@gmail.com
Oh, and the main site is here.
All the links were nyud'ized. One can never be too careful :)
No, but this does!
Do you play with your Willy?
If I give them my opinion, and they use it, can I get royalties for it?
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm taking bets. I'll guess that every fifth post will be RMS. I'm sure he will try to restrain himself at first, but I'm hoping that he will eventually begin to speak of maternal fornication. But that's just a hunch.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Apple is switching to Intel chips!!!! It's the apocalypse!!!!!!
*head explodes*
While there may need be exemptions for such basic assets as home and tools of the trade, as there is during bankruptcy procedings, there is another asset that should be protected from taxation and respected by all nations:
Inventor-owned IP.
The point of this is quite simple: At present, acquisition of assets is subsidized by taxing things other than assets for the maintanence of the social construct of property rights. The only asset that is taxed is the patent of invention -- a situation that forces frequently-capital-poor inventors to assign their inventions to acquisitors who have been subsidized.
This is the opposite of what should be subsidized. Creation, not acquisition, should be subsidized. Inventors should be more capable of independent capitalization of their own ideas so that the world has more positive sum options and fewer forces driving it to resource conflicts.
Seastead this.
Why do I get the funny feeling that these people are much more interested in justifying putting people in prison for listening to music than they are with dealing with the fact that the five entertainment corporations have STOLEN the public domain in the USA by infinitely extending the copyright period.
When you buy something on 'time' you make an agreed number of payments and then the item is yours, you own it. The seller does not have the legal right to decide to extend the number of payments that you have to make whenever you get close to completion.
The copyright period works in the same way. We, the people, agree to let X corporation own the right to demand money for the viewing of an individual work of art or entertainment for a precise and limited amount of time agreed upon when the copyright was granted.
By bribing politicians to extend the copyright period without agreed upon compensation to We, the people, the corporations have stolen the work of art (or entertainment) and all demanded payments for viewing this title after the original copyright period has ended are improper and illegal extortions of revenue from the people wishing to view this work under their public domain rights.
By bribing the politicians to infinitely extend the copyright period, by extending it EVERY time that it is due to expire, the corporations are engaging in a repeated pattern of criminal behavior. Under the RICO act, the people can demand that the entities engaging in continous criminal behavior be deprived of their means, their assets, and the legal framework for their continued existence.
By copying music and movies and sharing these files, We, the people, are simply asserting our rights when faced with a corrupt and racketeering organization. Which in this case are entertainment companies who have stolen the public domain.
Don't let anyone ever tell you again that you are a 'pirate' or thief because you chose to share or download files of entertainment content.
And don't take any nonsense from corporate-controlled non-government trade organizations either.
Thank you.
WTF!!!!!! put a warning on that
All of the posts so far seem to be just generic knee-jerk comments about IP.
Consider this: if they recieve well-written and enlightened criticism (as most of the already existing commentary appears to be) then we will be able to view their future actions in light of the forum results. This will provide a yardstick for anyone to compare their future actions.
If they do something that opposes the majority opinion or most sensible recommendations present in the open forum, we can criticize them.
As is we have no reference for what information is available to them, so we cannot prove that they are being intentionally evil.
Even if they refuse to listen to us, it is a chance for concerned parties to submit their concerns in a single location on the record.
And in case they do listen to us we should explain rationally what and why we hold our opinions, what changes we would recommend and how they would effect those involved (ex. if patents disappeared no one would have to hire a patent attorney (yay!), but would have no protection against people copying their ideas and no incentive to ever document their inventions (boo!)). If they find our explanations acceptable they may change their policies to be more to our liking.
We need patents on the legal system itself, that'll put the fucking lawyers in their place!
Where is the downside in giving WIPO some well thought out feedback? I would like to take the extremists on both side of this issue and POUND THIS SHIT OUT OF THEM. Good feedback may not change their minds, but it might make them look foolish.
Of course I know all of you are so busy doing spectacular things in life that you would NEVER waste your time posting inanities to forums/boards.
maybe somebody[*] with a good knowlege of software patents should have a gander and see what patents the wipo site is infinging on (if possible), such as a javascript for loop (that's patented isn't it?), etc
/., so i cant do it
[*] i dont really know much about software patents other than what i read on
WIPO = Global BSA/SPA
what kind of jail cell do you want today?
there is NO way in hell that we will ever get anything even remotely reasonable in copyright laws. our only hope is that the current system collapses. there are far too many people with interests that run counter to justice and freedom that control the strings.
it's not giving up so much as knowing where to draw the line. it's like exerting infinitely more energy in a marathon each step to make it to the finish line when everyone but you is already there.
it's better to help contribute to its demise. slip copyright a few cyanide tablets when it's not looking.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Congratulations, you've won the prize. You've both decried and embodied problem you observed in a single post. Bravo.
How about leading by example? You might do a decent job.
Stupid mods.
He was saying (most likely) that what he wanted to POST to WIPO was that statement, not to us.
Jesus Christ.
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
Am I the only one who saw the goatse picture on the page about "Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?"? No I'm not trolling, if you're curious you can check out that link (but I suggest that you don't).
Anyone look at theme three? It appears that it was hacked, as it has a picture from gotse on the top of the page.
No, you're not the only one. Same goes for the public domain page (NOT work safe).
I guess somebody should have checked the HTML comment posting code a bit more thoroughly.
http://www.wipo.int/roller/comments/ipisforum/Webl og/theme_three_the_public_domain no longer safe for work
Obligatory link to the DigitalConsumer.org Bill of Rights
Some freeloader is upset, can't discuss thing in a civil manner, and the only way they can "contribute" is posting goatse. Considering the comments made here on slashdot, can't say I am surprised.
Now that is a great way to tell them and argue what is wrong with copy rights/drm/etc!
seems someone really likes wipo... that they wanted to post their picture over the text at one of the article links,,,
oh well.... I'm sure WIPO knows there are those who do not like them, without this sort of hacking...
RMS does not have the money, the time, nor the lack of morals to do that. What it takes is somebody with lots of money to hire a number of others, and have absolutely no scruples/morals.
Hummmmm. I wonder which group that would be? Those who support IP via copyrights and will observe these, or those that want total IP rights for themselves, but will ignore them when applied to themselves?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OMG, the crazy bastards... now they've patented the future.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
That was quick. Is nothing sacred?? Could the RIAA be next?? Teh INTARNETS IS NOT A JOKE!!1!!!11!11
Why, did they run out of toilet paper?
OMG, I am an 31337 html h4x0r, and I didn't even know it!
Off-topic, and what's nearly as pathetic as the spamming itself is the teeny-tiny pale-green-on-black colour scheme - you stuck in 1996 or what, boy?
Thanks for wasting my time and my eysight.
The parent is referring to a recent Star Wars parody where the emperor uses the line on all the senators, who are utterly naive about Palpatine being bad.
;)
The movie had a pretty similar scene, actually
Now that is a great way to tell them and argue what is wrong with copy rights/drm/etc!
The picture was posted by 193.5.93.35. That IP number points right back to WIPO. It looks more like someone from WIPO is trying to give the open source community a bad name.
Two images have been posted on top of this wipo article: http://www.wipo.int/roller/comments/ipisforum/Webl og/theme_three_the_public_domain
No Software Patents layered over Goatse.
That appears to be the case. Take a look at this page for example. Someone has posted a picture of our good friend GOATSE. However, closer inspection shows it was posted by 193.5.93.35. That IP number points right back to www5.wipo.int.
Nice try "193.5.93.35", but it looks like WIPO fucked up their IP log script such that any post gets their IP address. It is broken, like of like slashdots' crap filter that says "You have to wait 2 minutes before posting" and won't let you post because "It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment."
Of course the tinfoil hats here will say otherwise. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people here who cry about people like SCO faking a DDos, are the same ones who have to "check it out by hitting refresh 20,000 times and wget 55,000 times to see if SCO's page is really being DDosed."
Fuckheads.
reminds me of this skit about joe buttafuco, cept they called him joe buttawipo. cracks me up to this day. i know, childish.
The TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement establishes 50 years as the minimum duration of copyright for WTO countries. 50 years should also be the maximum, and the TRIPS agreement should be amended accordingly. Countries, such as the US, which go beyond 50 years should be brought into compliance with international norms. This is a proper WTO issue, since the TRIPS Agreement is an annex to the agreement establishing the WTO. This change encourages the creation of new works.
It's possible to get very narrow patents without much trouble. This is usually pointless, but if the patent covers a de-facto standard way of doing something, it's a way of creating a monopoly. The "obviousness" criterion should be broadened so that if there is demonstrably a technically equivalent but incompatible way to do something, the patent is invalid for obviousness. This change reduces trade friction by enhancing interoperability.
When a standard is submitted for international standarization via the ISO process, patentholders should be given an opportunity to object to the standard during an opposition period. Once that period has expired, no patent infringement claim can thereafter be made for the subject matter of the standard. This change also reduces trade friction by enhancing interoperability.
I'm sure that's the way most people will view it. That sort of post only helps those who support stronger copyright laws. Which is why it should come as no surprise, it appears the picture was posted by someone at WIPO. According to the site, the picture was posted by 193.5.93.35. Which is in the same subdomain as www.wipo.int (193.5.93.80).
...is that WIPO mistakenly thinks that the internet is based on Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol. Someone needs to inform them what IP actually stands for.
WIPO: Go to hell. Stay out of other countries and businesses use of "words" and "images" that bearly seem similar to some IP.
Here is some background on WIPO, DMCA and the legislative monkey work that got American legislation that could not make it through Congress into an international treaty. Dirty.
Then here's my question: I want to know, what you're thinking...there are some things you can't can't hide. Pure Energy!
It is an artificial construct invented by lawyers to keep lawyers employed by other lawyers.
Everyone loses, except the lawyers of course.
Looks like the WIPO site was hacked by someone that doesn't like slashdotters...What a wierdo ;)
t ml
http://www.no-nation.org/article-235-nested-0-0.h
Looks like the WIPO site was hacked by someone that doesn't like slashdotters...What a wierdo ;)
http://www.no-nation.org/article-235-nested-0-0.ht ml
All of that is pure speculation. Maybe I need to upgrade my tinfoil hat, but I have a hard time seeing things from your perspective.
I doubt this is part of a data-mining conspiracy to determine the most effective method of brain-washing the masses. (This sort of forum would only attract the most interested parties who hold different views from the masses and are also the least likely to be persuaded.) Worst case, it may help them plan their timeline and budgetting.
As much as it hurts to say it, Intellectual Property does exist for a reason. Copyrights and Trademarks are a necessary part of a free market.
What keeps another company from rising up and selling their own version of "Microsoft Windows" in identical boxes but with very different contents. Without trademarks it is impossible for a consumer to be a discriminating buyer.
Copyright was designed to prevent others from profiting from the works of an individual. It is completely concerned with "credit where it is due". Businesses couldn't care less about who produces "great idea X" because they're so busy trying to produce, market and sell "great idea X". This leaves the creator in poverty.
Patents are designed to protect the creator.
IP is not supposed to be about "theft and control". It actually is supposed to be about incentive -- not the incentive to create theories or products or music, but the incentive to distribute it.
My understanding of current IP systems does lead me to believe they have some flaws.
Additionally modern advances in communication systems lowered the bar on distribution costs. Based on the above analysis this suggests that the incentives may need to be reduced.
Since the WIPO's entire [stated] purpose is advocate changes to existing IP laws in such a way as to benefit its member nations citizens, it might be appropriate to mention these concerns to them. Their midrange plan expires this year so we could have an important impact on their future stated goals.
Make suggestions like "Patents can only belong to people" or "Copyright only lasts X years" and then provide a reasonable argument for your case.
I know you crazy americans have no respect at all for the UN so I guess it's a bit much to expect you to trust them.
I know that people can get pretty worked up about this issue. I agree that if we buy the music/movie/game/software, we should be able to use it in any way we desire. (web/computer/players/car) That is a completely rational expectation. This aspet of the "media conglomerate vs. consumer" battle, this I feel we should be protecting.
But as one slashdot reader tried to compare fair use rights to that of owning something that was bought over time and now owns, the argument just doesn't hold up, at least not to the majority of those that are trying to argue for the complete abolition of IP laws altogether. Let me explain.
Are you arguing that we should have the "right" to copy any work we desire for "personal" use? We should. But are we also fighting for the right to give and receive these works without any compensation to the companies/individuals who make these works? Where did personal go? Be rational.
Does it cost money under the current system to *legally* listen to music/read books/watch movies/ etc...? Of course. That's the whole point. If we want our entertainment just how it is now, but don't want to pay those who make it, who the hell is gonna make it? Can you sing? Then record an album, put it up as an open download, and feel warm and fuzzy. In the meantime, you are going to go to work and CREATE something that is going to be sold to somebody else and that is how you get paid. What is so unfair about that system? Try to make a living at something that nobody pays you for. Good luck.
We shouldn't need the law to protect the artists. Just because what they create doesn't shine, or create heat, or transport us from point A to B doesn't mean that it doesn't have $$$ value. We should be responsible enough to realize that if we like and use their product, we owe them a portion of what they need in support. If we think what they ask is too great, well, they aren't overpricing our water supply. Boycott them. We don't have to buy it. But stealing from them is only going to give them a better reason to gouge us.
It is irrational for one to think that because volkswagon beetles are overpriced, it's ok to steal one from the manufacturer just because they want it.
Don't you hate people who always repeat themselves and are long-winded and overly redundant and talk too much?
The verry spirit of a hack means to take something declared broken or ill-built, divide it, and re-assemble it (hack) together again in a form many people may find agreeably more useful. I believe this is the obverse of cracking; wherein the meaning is to divide as to not restore a better operating.
Yeshuah hacked the Jews cracked Romans: the extant being he can cite glory to Almighty God by saying "In the Year of zero" ahhem. Yeshuah was such a great hacker he could modify the World BIOS to offset the counter as measurements of whence Yeshuah was transmitted in Word while His flesh passed away: you can't quite say the Year zero AD and the Year zero BC are based on any thing but glory of truth. Har! WIPO is a pirate, performing a paradigm shift to base all truth relative to WIPO; to say We are pirates.
Nothing I can do for the repetitive trolls posting on the WIPO website, so I improved it the best I can by citing the verry foundation of patents, an example dispute between a corporate-built HOLY BIBLE to the King James 1611 Authorized Versio Holy Bible, and their theft into the corporate realm by charters and law patents: postal savings.
without prejudice
They want to give the appearance of being open and accountable by asking for debate and public input. However, since none of it is binding they can go ahead and do whatever they were planning on doing originally. Also, having public input has the extra advantage of allowing them to cherry pick the opinions that sync up with their plans allowing them to say 'look, the public agrees with us'.
By charter, WIPO first has a law patent on the English language used to define its verry existance; that one is for free. WIPO is an international corporation; for every addition to its garments, put every tax your Holy wit can muster. WIPO is known to violate the harmony between Principal and Agent; making claims, not representing the claims of others. By the verry foundation, by proving an idea or process was common use before the postmark then no patent can be shown. I've heard some horror stories of countries excavating ancestral effects and fossills, and modifying the overall discovery as to not conflict with intellectual property.
without prejudice
They ask questions then frame the options to restrict the reply.
"Theme Three: The public domain and open access models of information creation: at odds with the intellectual property system or enabled by it? "
Gee a multiple choice question:
1. Is the public domain against Copyright?
2. Or does it depend on copyright?
How about the 3rd option:
3. Or does copyrighted material DEPEND on the public domain?
Imagine if you had to re-invent a sorting algo, an indexing algo, a wheel, a cog, a lever, every time you wanted to make anything. Obviously it wouldn't work, to build new things you have to use public domain things.
WIPO are writing everything in terms of Copyright as the important thing, its not its *CREATION* most of which is public domain.
That also means:
4. Is copyright material bad for creation?
If I have to license something at great cost to make something new then that is a barrier to creating something new.
If the content distribution business can simply churn the same product for each generation there is no incentive to create new content.
I have always been of the mindset that ideas are the property of the soceity that inspired them, not of the person to whom they were gifted. If someone gives you a box of chocolates, do you horde them to yourself, or share with your friends?
they want to find out how far they can go without breaking the *public* support that is necessary when power is taken from the public.
They will probably go a little further, trusting to "but unspecified others in the majority wanted this...".
A work not available for commercial purchase from a rights holder for a period of 10 years or more (less for software) shall lapse and go into public domain. This does not include where said works have been upgraded (such as Quickbooks version 1.0 lapsing into public domain when Quickbooks version 12.0 is out) or replaced (such as Star Wars : Theatrical Version lapsing into public domain where Star Wars - Special Edition is released). It must be made commercially available by a resident entity for sale within the country you live in, either in a physical format or a digital format to the general public.
This forces work owners such as the music industry to make all owned works available for purchase. It also allows the public to have the usage of items that would otherwise lapse into obscurity or prevented from being used due to copyright but not used due to a lack of commercial interest for a very long period of time. It can force artists to ensure that the owner and distributor of their songs to make use of their work or to release their works back to them at risk of the distributor / owner to be sued by letting their work lapse into the public domain. This does not prevent them from selling the works but does not prevent others from doing so as well.
In short, it forces work owners to sell their works or give them to the public.
A transitional period allowing a future date for which all works are considered under the legislation to be commercially available should be established and in the ten year period following all works must be made available for sale, even for example though an online store, or the rights holders will lose their rights into the public domain. They will have two choices, they can either make works available for sale (which means that they make a profit from them) or they do not make works available for sale (which means they would make a loss from selling them, so by not selling them they avoid the loss) which releases it into the public domain. In this manner, there would be no losses for work holders, but profits from the sale of more works and benefits for the public by the increased variety of choices and more works to enjoy in the public domain.
Hmm, they are going to mandate "Trusted Computing" to enforce IP.
I love TinfoilDot, posts such as this are modded insightful. It isn't like they couldn't have a programming error, because we all know only Microsoft can make such programming errors. For some reason all posts have the attribute title="193.5.93.35", and now that it is known they are accepting any html, means that any of you can make a post appear from 193.5.93.35.
If they were really that EVIL(TM) as you slashbots make them out to be, they wouldn't even allow you to post at all. All the comments would favor their cooperate masters, and they wouldn't even speak in a favorable manor of things such as open source or say that copy rights should expire. Besides, why would they even bother putting the effort in making opposing points of view, and having a discussion that doesn't fit their agenda?
And some others from my wish list:
* Duration of patents changed per field of invention.
The whole point of patents is to reward an inventor when the barrier to copying his invention is low, but the cost of the making the first invention high. It's designed to give him a window in which to make money that otherwise wouldn't exist.
So the duration should be set like that, for a back of the napkin business process idea, the invention cost is negligable, so the duration of patents in that field zero.
For something that requires billions in development, it should be set longer,
For example for the pharmaceuticals industry. Estimate the returns from past major drugs, estimate their development cost and from that calculation a period of protection.
* Inventions that are proven only.
How many times have you seen a patent for something that could never work?!
The patent should be restricted to inventions that can be shown to work.
It also means IP only companies shouldn't be able to get patents, because their cost is nothing. They haven't taken the risk in developing their idea through to a working form, and without risk there is no reward.
Dear Customer, we understand your concern. Rest assured that there is nothing that would stop people from offering works for sale in the measures that we are advocating to meet the challenges of the new digital markets. In fact, by ensuring full protections for the rights of creators, there will be more incentives for a wider selection of entertainment, from which we're sure that you will find a lot to enjoy.
However, we hope that you can understand that many of the new creative talents will wish to protect their rights to the extent they see as reasonable, and that ultimately the options of the consumer, as regards to the rights they are given by the creators, will be set by the markets.
To put it in simpler terms, you will pay for what we give you, or you will cry and pay for what we give you. We hope this answer was helpful in clearing any misconceptions you may have had.
Imagine there's no (C)-mark,
It's easy if you try,
No unsigned EULA's,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
creating for today...
Imagine art for art's sake,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to sue or fear for,
No scum lawyers too,
Imagine all the people
giving things in peace...
Imagine no IP law,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or secrets,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all they make...
You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will share as one.
"The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is having to retract its online hosting on the discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005.
It turns out that the hosting of such a discussion is in direct conflict with 'Open Information' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights' as the passing of text could be classified as 'file sharing' under a new IP. Now some companies are already claiming copyright and/or patents on the enforcement of IP, which leaves WIPO being done over with its own stick."
Shouldn't all of us responsible /.ers write in with clear and reasonable suggestions to the questions they pose? I'm sure they'd welcome our feedback... ;>
You mean the possibility of an angry and very armed mob is all that stands between politicians and absolute power?
This is Marketing research.
It sounds like their Psychologists/PR people are wanting to focus in on the core issues that they will be debating. Why not invite everyone to give their best arguments (presumably without responses from the WIPO) so that they can decide how to spin against them? I am sure that their marketeers will spend weeks figuring out how to spin, divert, and dispell the core issues of arguments presented. PR campaigns have to be structured around belief systems and it is amazing what you can find out by simply listening to people.
I thought WIPO is some new brand of toilet paper? They want our feedback on the name of their new brand of tissue? Now I'm confused.
Use WIPO brand! Better than competing brands when it comes to quickly absorbing all of your rights.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.