[Ecommerce] Re: [Csc-announce] FYI: Paper on WIPO

[Manon Ress]

Dear Richard,

What I said earlier was: "the paper "Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-pl=
us world: The World Intellectual Property organization (WIPO)" is excellent=
.  I found the analysis of the WIPO process and the remarks/recommendations=
 were useful for anyone intersted in IP policies or "wipologists."

The description of the WCCT and WPPT in the summary reminded me of what we =
(now) say about TRIPs (flexibilities included).  If you read the paper, you=
'll see that it is more about how WIPO operates and how we, NGOs and academ=
ics, can play a constructive role than about analyzing a specific treaty.  =
I forwarded your comments to the paper's authors, and they were kind enough=
 to send back responses, which I provide below.  Manon


-------------------------
Sisule F. Musungo response

If one cared to read the paper, however, it would be clear what
is meant. Balance can mean many things depending on the context. Here,
balance is construed in terms of what was originally intended by the US
government and what was the result in the end or rather balance among the
interests that were represented at the diplomatic conference. The context
of this discussion in the paper is about the role of industry and other
powerful players and lessons about what NGOs and other right thinking
people can do. It is one thing to argue that the treaty could have been
better and another to simply dimiss the efforts of the NGOs and academics
that worked very hard to ensure the process did not go as far as some
people wanted. We clearly do not suggest in the paper that the treaties
came out the best. What we are recognising therefore is that the NGOs and
academics that came to the Diplomatic Conference achieved something in that
they ensured that Bruce Lehman's agenda was substantially cut down.

---------------------
Grahm Dutfield response

The summary may suggest otherwise, which I accept is unfortunate, but
those taking the trouble to read the whole text will find the following:

"the agreed text of the WCT, and also the WPPT, problematic as they are,
are generally considered to reflect a more reasonable balance between the
different interests involved than might otherwise have been the case."

I wrote this bit and I'm comfortable with it. Personally, I don't think
these are good agreements at all; the world certainly does not need the
WPPT or the WCT. But they could have been a lot worse. And that is the
point. The paper does not endorse any of the agreements referred to and
should not be taken as doing so.

We are providers of information and analysis for others to use,
including diplomats who in my experience do not appreciate it when they
feel that others are making up their minds for them and telling them
what to think. The aim of the paper was to critique WIPO and not the
agreements themselves.





Richard Stallman wrote:

>    =95 In the Digital Agenda, although the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) an=
d
>    the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) are fairly balanced=
,
>
>How can the paper be excellent when it endorses these treaties--which
>prohibit free software, and restrict technology for the general public?
>
>Do you know the authors?  It sounds like you might.  Perhaps you could
>write to them about this point.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecommerce mailing list
>Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>
>
>
>


--
Manon Anne Ress
Consumer Project on Technology
www.cptech.org
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
manon.ress@cptech.org, voice: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176