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

[Jeff Williams]

Manon and all,

  I read the response you kindly sent back below as rather odd given
that it was not substantiated by the author and therefore seems a bit
of a brush off response in politically correct language.  That hardly
addresses Richards remarks in any substantial manner of real
consideration, which were so richly deserved...

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 excelle=
nt.  I found the analysis of the WIPO process and the remarks/recommendatio=
ns were useful for anyone intersted in IP policies or "wipologists."
>
> The description of the WCCT and WPPT in the summary reminded me of what w=
e (now) say about TRIPs (flexibilities included).  If you read the paper, y=
ou'll see that it is more about how WIPO operates and how we, NGOs and acad=
emics, can play a constructive role than about analyzing a specific treaty.=
  I forwarded your comments to the paper's authors, and they were kind enou=
gh 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 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) =
and
> >    the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) are fairly balanc=
ed,
> >
> >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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827