Boyle on Webcasters and WIPO

pjones writes "It's always amazing to see an article in Financial Times that supports webcasters and open source, but James Boyle sticks it to the World Intellectual Property Organization in his latest article, "More rights are wrong for webcasters." Boyle lays it out so that "economists, political scientists and people who simply want to make money" can get what's wrong."

Comments

Beating the Right's drum: Rights vs Entitlements

[ReformedExCon]

WIPO has confused the issue, and Boyle does little to clear it up. The term "right" has been used in place of "entitlement" or "monopoly" to describe the expanded ability of a broadcaster to claim public domain works as their own for 20 years. This is not a right, this is a reduction in rights of everyone else. It is an entitlement, an entitlement to something that no one else will be allowed to have. It gives broadcasters a monopoly on works that they did not create. Boyle is correct in saying that this is bad policy. Anyone with eyes can see it as so.

But he also tackles the issue from a strange direction. He sees law and policy as a means to an end rather than the description and implementation of a general principle. Laws should reflect the general will of the people, in my opinion, rather than be used to reach a specific outcome. By requiring that laws need a specific goal (in this case to expand broadcast network infrastructure), we leave ourselves open to exactly the problem of industrial horse-trading that Boyle seeks to avoid. If Boyle really believes that these laws are wrong, why does he attack it on the effects it will have rather than on the general principle?

The problem is that by granting special "copyright" to public domain works to broadcasters, it effectively removes those works from the public domain. As a result, the freedom to access or otherwise use those works becomes infringed. This is not a matter of the new rules having no positive effect. It is a matter of reducing the amount of freedoms of everyone except a handful of quick-moving broadcasters. That is the principle at stake here, not some untestable hypothesis regarding the reduced likelihood of new networks being set up.

This is, as Boyle points out, a bad direction on the part of WIPO. It is unnecessary and harms the freedoms of almost all involved. However, fighting this encroachment of rights should not be waged on an effects basis because then we become the horse-traders that Boyle seems to despise. Instead it is necessary to confront this on the basis of first principles from which can be developed a sane and equitable intellectual property policy.

Is it that amazing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems logical that the FT would be on the side of business - and of course, they are. Virtually their entire readership would agree that making money is a good thing.

However, taken as a whole, entrenched monopolies and cartels are not good for business. Small businesses and startups are essential for the economy, especially in fast growing sectors. Economists know this. As such, it's not all that surprising that the FT will take a stance that is against that of the multinationals.

Make more rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, I don't think there are enough monopolies, lets have more!

UPS should be able to own the packages it ships for an exclusive 50 year period.
Web-Email providers should be able to own my emails for 50 year period just because I read them over the Internet.
ISPs should be able to own everything sent over their networks for 50 years.
I should be able to setup an open WIFI hotspot and own rights over anything anyone sends through it, for 50 years.
What about supermarkets? They should be able to say how you use their produce, for example: "you shall only use this Walmart pasta sauce with official Walmart pasta".

We need more exclusive IP rights holders, because IP rights are the cause of Americas huge trade surplus.

Re:WHAT about Medical WIPO

[gowen]

And how will those funds be distributed?

Via the NSF, to fund research.

Without wasting 90% of the funds?

One can't help but waste a certain amount of money spent on research. As a friend of mine wrote at the beginning of his PhD thesis:"If I knew how long it would take, how expensive it was, and what the results would be, it wouldn't be research"