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

[James Love]

As someone who participated in the 1996 diplomatic conference (focusing
mostly on the defeated proposal for sui generis database protection), I
agree that it was an important victory for consumer interests to change
the 1996 WCT and WPPT treaties from the proposals first tabled, and to
defeat the database treaty.  This was an important collaboration between
northern consumer and library interests, certain businesses (consumer
electronics, computer and software industries), and developing country
delegates.  The DFC effort was important, as was the UPD effort on the
database treaty.   Jamie


Manon Ress wrote:

> Dear Richard,
>
> What I said earlier was: "the paper "Multilateral agreements and a
> TRIPS-plus 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 academics, 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.  Man=
on
>
>
> -------------------------
> 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 th=
at
> 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) a=
nd
>>    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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>
>


--
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:james.love@cptech.org
tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040