WIPO Wants Your Feedback 195
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."
Not for us (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
They're calling it a discussion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dear WIPO (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, I just don't take IP issues lightly.
For one (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd never consider it, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Oh right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:They'd never consider it, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your so naive it's touching.
People have proven time and time over that
1 - When faced with the choice of either buying something legally for cheap, and downloading something illegally for free with almost no risk of getting caught, they'll get the illegal free stuff. Apart for a few highly moral people, free is better than cheap, period.
2 - When choosing between cheap, high quality stuff and the free, lesser quality version, people go for the free version. Again, apart for a few elitists and high-fidelity freaks, "free" is the criteria for most people.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Me and my funny feeling about these people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stupid Slashbots (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I have a feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
An unlimited license is not available at this time, expect to wait 65 years.
summary (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:They'd never consider it, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Me and my funny feeling about these people (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Feedback? easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Feedback? easy. (Score:2, Insightful)
My god, you're right!
imagines a world without lawyers
Re:Not for us (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have a feeling (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be a jerk.
They have asked for an open debate. If you express your side of the debate in a realisticly reasonable manner then there might actually be a chance someone will consider your point.
If you approach them with the ravings of a lunatic then you get zero points in the debate.
It would be more fruitful if we considered this a legitimate forum with real listeners then a bitch-blog. The more mature approach will have more impact.