More from EFF.
You can also add your name to a petition.
Professor, you wouldn’t happen to have that available in some vector format, would you?
I second the above comment. Any chance of getting a vector version of that?
These are data, but not an argument, professor. Isn’t it true, after all, that in these developing countries there are pretty profoundly underdeveloped IP regimes in the first place — in other words, they are lacking in expertise on the topic, from the commercial end, the consumer end and the government end?
Expertise is not the only criterion for selecting participants in the conference, but the one that you suggest is indicative of something (not quite sure what) is not — at least not obviously — a better one.
“Isn’t it true, after all, that in these developing countries there are pretty profoundly underdeveloped IP regimes in the first place — in other words, they are lacking in expertise on the topic, from the commercial end, the consumer end and the government end?”
This is a question, not an argument. Not that I don’t know what you are trying to say.
“Professor, you wouldn’t happen to have that available in some vector format, would you?“
I started making one based on Larry’s version, but got bored. At http://www.xs4all.nl/~collin/test/ wipodevagend.zip you will find a ZIPped Sodipodi SVG. I made the dots and the text, but you will still need to add/convert the WIPO logo and the public domain dedication thingy.
(The text is slightly out of whack, because I used a single space after sentences instead of a double.)
I am asking the professor what he’s trying to say. He’s the one who made the blog entry.
I kind of suspect that you knew that.
>> “I am asking the professor what he’s trying to say. He’s the one who made the blog entry.”
I don’t understand. He did not say anything. If I’m not mistaken, the posting is a graphical image that, as you said, represents data. And the data says it all.
>> “Isn’t it true, after all, that in these developing countries there are pretty profoundly underdeveloped IP regimes in the first place — in other words, they are lacking in expertise on the topic, from the commercial end, the consumer end and the government end?”
Yes, and so many of the so-called “experts” are simply in this illusory game of “IP” to make money. Not enough experts are devoting their time to support laws that encourage the original purpose of Section 1, Article 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. constitution. Many are concerned with setting up practices that seek to exploit the (never perfect) law to the fullest in order to bring maximum profit to the litigators they represent. That is, they exist with the stakeholder’s (litigator’s) interest at heart instead of the public interest. They are strictly “client-focused” – which would be great if they did not measure their success in $$$ figures. They will use the law in any way possible to benefit their client financially without regard to the fact that they may be perpetuating the biased view that ideas are to be equated with the notion of physical objects when it comes to “property”.
Thus the “IP litigation industry” is perpetuated.
I believe it was Michael Moore who implied (and I paraphrase) in Fahrenheit 9/11 – there are a lot of people making a career from the Iraq war. The same goes with the “IP” war. There are many lawyers more interested in promoting their credentials and “scoping” for cases that will bring them a good “service fee” rather than seeking reform and awareness. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for lawyers who are willing to “duke it out” in a court of law, get paid, while both prosecuting and defending – but only if they are doing it because, in their heart, they know it is right – not because it is right according to the law (the law could be wrong and need to be challenged) and/or because one client is potentially more profitable than another. Lawyers who study law in depth, race to get credentials that make them “experts”, and then use their talent and skill to maximize profit for both themselves and their clients are not helping the public. After all, it is for the public that IP laws exist – not for private gain.
You can usually spot such outfits. They often have a website (at least in this day and age) with pictures of lawyers wearing sleek and conservative clothing. Such firms will often use tacky and patronizing slogans – like “intelligent lawyers for intelligent people”. Something that, if one HAS intelligence, is completely turned off by.
I’m glad that you are a visitor and contributor to Lessig’s blog – someone who is concerned about the issues at stake and is critically analyzing and questioning this whole legal structure of “Intellectual Property”. And not just another dime-a-dozen “smart” and “credentialed” lawyer interested in perpetuating IP myths in order to maintain the profitable status quo for litigators and the firms that represent them. We (the uneducated) need more experts such as yourself and Lawrence Lessig to speak for the public when it comes to the game of “IP” played with copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret law. The current laws coming to birth (the DMCA for example) and mindset of the “IP Believers” is one that is completely against the constitution – it is selfish. Motivated to bring benefit to the private interests of companies and corporations even if that means forcing the public to sacrifice its natural rights.
“Section 1, Article 8, Clause 8” should – of course – read,
“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8”
Although I’m guessing most people reading a blog like Lessig’s are already fully aware of what the constitution says and didn’t get confused by my “dyslexic” reference. 🙂
Why do you think that the founders believed giving “exclusive rights” in intellectual property would “promote the progress of science and the useful arts”? I think there are two reasons. 1. Money. 2. People generally believe that they deserve the right to control the fruits of their labor.
So I don’t understand the view that the profit motive would run against the intent of the founders in writing that clause of the constitution. They understood very well the practicalities of the market, even 200 years ago. They understood enough to know that altruistic creation, while possible and helpful to humanity, would always be very limited.
Regarding WIPO, I don’t think this figure actually says anything meaningful about the situation. Just because an NGO doesn’t work in a developing country doesn’t mean it’s not working for a good purpose. For all I know from the figure, those NGOs could be simply focused on other issues, not necessarily antithetical to the interests of developing countries…
“Why do you think that the founders believed giving “exclusive rights” in intellectual property would “promote the progress of science and the useful arts”?”
I’m wondering about an actual change in the constitution itself. I totally agree with you…
“So I don’t understand the view that the profit motive would run against the intent of the founders in writing that clause of the constitution.”
…that a view that is anti-profit is…counter-intuitive. Law should not be written in a way that actually “oppresses” the natural right to livelihood. I think the current constitution does this and perhaps “a tweak” to the constitution itself could offer adequate “protection” to make a livelihood for the copyright/patent owner. Before I make any suggestion though, I’d like to know what Ronald meant when he asked …
“the one that you suggest”
Who or what is “the one”? Did I miss something?
As for WIPO, does it (that data) not represent a “disproportionate” allocation of those inclined to the art “of persuasion” in their given field of interest or“expertise”? Democracy, as founded in Greece itself, has a rich tradition of hearing a diverse range of voices. If WIPO truly is a part of the UN, then WIPO needs to get with the program and look after the public (in this case, global) interest. What do you think the data represents?
“1. Money” – I don’t think this qualifies as a “reason” but I understand what you meant.
“2. People generally believe that they deserve the right to control the fruits of their labor.”
Yes!…So we need to discuss, then, what we mean by “control”…no? Should the artificial right supercede the natural right? Can we “tweak” the constitution not so that we get rid of anybody’s natural or artificial rights, but “tweak” it so that balance is restored?
What do you think, Ronald? Lawrence? Anyone else?
Should the artificial right supercede the natural right?
I’m wondering about an actual change in the constitution itself.
no you’re not. you’re wondering about an actual change in human nature where the economic incentives of self-interest no longer apply.
the EFF’s involvement in this removes any pretense that they are a libertarian organisation, and exposes them as just another group with a left leaning economic/social agenda.
The amazon ecosystem’s genetic pool is being pillaged by corporate pirates, legitimized by irresponsible and broken 1’st world IP regimes. It is true that some developing countries, including Brazil, are determined to resist the insane push for radicalization and universalization of such regimes, going by the Orwellian name of “harminization”.
This 7-to-one business is one tactic to undermine that resistence, and if someone here wants to call it “underdevelopment”, so be it. Wellcome to 1984. This being enough, the pushing has dropped whatever lip service was left to democratic principles, not only in the EU but also at WIPO. For details, and in reaction, a Manifesto by EFF European Affairs Director and two brazilian academia has been posted as an on-line petition. Please take a moment to visit and read, and if agree, to sign it.
The manifesto calls for an immediate PARTICIPATION of civil society and consumer-interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within WIPO’s activities. Specifically, but not limited to, getting WIPO to accept applications from NGOs to serve as ad hoc observers at the upcoming Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Metting next 11-13 April 2005, and for the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property, next 14-15 April 2005, in order to provide a BALANCED discussion on the Development Agenda and on the IP system in general, observing an equilibrium between IP right holders and consumers.
Surely 7-1 is much smaller than the ration of the monetary resources of these organizations. I’m not sure it’s really going to ever be possible (or desirable?) for the less-wealthy organizations to have influence on par with the more-wealthy…
I’m not saying there’s no issue. I’m just looking at it from an optimistic perspective.
That was to be ‘ratio’, not ‘ration’…
Aren’t countries part of the WIPO only if they sign a treaty? Granted, they could be bullied into signing it, but would that bullying go away if there were no WIPO?
So, regardless of the NGOs involved, isn’t it up to the individual countires to use common sense in deciding whether to be involved in the treaty? It’s kind of like Kyoto, isn’t it?
Makes the U.N. seem downright reasonable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.