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.
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
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
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.
They also cited the Wikipedia definition of "Public Domain" and in the next sentence proceeded to BASTARDIZE it into some sort of flaw in the law:
Wikipedia defines "public domain" as the "body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests. This body of information and creativity is considered to be part of the common cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity, which in general anyone may use or exploit." The public domain includes works and objects of related rights that can be used and exploited by everyone without authorization, and without obligation to pay the copyright owners concerned - generally because the term of protection for the works in question has expired or because there is no provision of copyright law requiring protection of the works in the country where the works are sought to be used.
Excuse me, if something is in the public domain then the "copyright owner" who is not getting paid DOES NOT EXIST.
And the last part in appears to paint public domain as a problem of flawed law from some sort of rouge countries.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Of course, about the only reason anyone would ever *need* a lawyer is to deal with another lawyer, and the self-reinforcing system of complexity they have built around themselves.