[Upd-discuss] unsubscribe
Tasmin Rajotte
qiap@quaker.ca
Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:17:46 -0500
At 12:00 PM 1/27/2005, you wrote:
>Send Upd-discuss mailing list submissions to
> upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> upd-discuss-request@lists.essential.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> upd-discuss-admin@lists.essential.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Upd-discuss digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Access to Knowledge Treaty (Robert Weissman)
> 2. Re: Access to Knowledge Treaty (Dean Anderson)
> 3. Re: Access to Knowledge Treaty (Richard Stallman)
> 4. Re: [Creative-friends] burning the public domain (James Davis)
> 5. [Fwd: Alert: "Eyes on the Prize" to be Released on Internet]
> (Robert Weissman)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:00:51 -0500
>From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>
>To: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
>Cc: rms@gnu.org, upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] Access to Knowledge Treaty
>
>Note that in the wake of the antidepressant and other drug scandals, the
>brand-name companies are already moving in this direction.
>
>Pharma has a voluntary code for clinical test disclosure:
>
>"There will be timely communication of meaningful study results,
>regardless of the outcome of the study. The results must be reported in
>an objective, accurate, balanced, and complete manner, with a discussion
>of the limitations of the study. Study sponsors will not suppress or
>veto publications."
>
>http://www.phrma.org/mediaroom/press/releases/30.06.2004.427.cfm
>
>And Glaxo entered into a binding commitment to make public all trial
>information in a settlement with New York AG Eliot Spitzer, to settle
>Paxil-related litigation.
>
>Because of this, and other factors, the US/EU push that Jamie references
>for data protection is now generally no longer linked to "undisclosed"
>test data, but just to the data.
>
>James Love wrote:
>
> > Countries could agree, as a condition of marketing approval for
> > medicines, to have disclosures of all trials.
> >
> > Interesting, the US and EU have, and are pushing everywhere, for a sui
> > generis protection of data from trials. This protection includes an
> > exclusive right to rely upon information from trials, even when no
> > patents are involved.
> >
> > jamie
> >
> > Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> >> Another idea is to require publication of the detaila of drug studies,
> >> the information that drug companies like to keep secret.
> >>
> >> Another idea is to forbid drug companies to have any control over the
> >> publication over any research results of research that they fund.
> >>
> >> I wish I could think of a way to prevent them from punishing
> >> researchers who publish negative results by not funding them any more,
> >> but the only way I can see is for the government to tax these
> >> companies and fund the research directly. That doesn't really fit
> >> the rubric of "access to knowledge".
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Upd-discuss mailing list
> >> Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:26:05 -0500 (EST)
>From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
>To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
>Cc: james.love@cptech.org, <upd-discuss@lists.essential.org>
>Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] Access to Knowledge Treaty
>
>This is not just a problem with Drug companies. For example, aircraft
>manufacturers and airlines sat on information about fire safety until a
>fire in a SwissAir MD11 killed a bunch of people in Canada in 1999. The
>insulation was flamable, an electrical short started a fire in the
>insulation, and the fire caused the plane to crash. The FAA then gave the
>airlines until May 2005 to correct the problem. China had previously
>warned the US that it had a problem with flamable insulation and
>ventilation parts in its large passenger aircraft. The US did nothing.
>
>Insurance paid out $1.5 billion (yes, billion) to the families of the
>SwissAir MD11 victims. ValueJet (also avoidable fire in Florida) was
>forced to change its name to AirTran. Money penalties don't seem to deter
>bad practices.
>
>The common denominator is that people know of dangerous problems, and
>other people sweep them under a rug.
>
>I don't think putting all research under government control will solve the
>problem. I don't think merely removing publication control is quite
>enough. The researchers are still vulnerable to retribution. Perhaps we
>need to criminalize the "sweeping under the rug" of things that are
>dangerous. Insurance premiums alone aren't enough.
>
>I also think that not everything can be safe. That there are dangers and
>risks that have to be accepted. I accept that the Space Shuttle may be a
>risky proposition. But so are unmanned rockets. The astronauts who fly
>however, know the risks. That knowledge seems to reduce the responsibility
>of the builders of the rocket, for example.
>
>So perhaps the problem could be addressed by requiring a reasonable search
>of consideration for risks, and disclosure of known risks and dangers (not
>just access to knowledge) and criminalizing non-disclosure. Publication
>of all (rather than just some) information would be a sign of good faith
>that nothing has been "swept under the rug".
>
> --Dean
>
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > Another idea is to require publication of the detaila of drug studies,
> > the information that drug companies like to keep secret.
> >
> > Another idea is to forbid drug companies to have any control over the
> > publication over any research results of research that they fund.
> >
> > I wish I could think of a way to prevent them from punishing
> > researchers who publish negative results by not funding them any more,
> > but the only way I can see is for the government to tax these
> > companies and fund the research directly. That doesn't really fit
> > the rubric of "access to knowledge".
> > _______________________________________________
> > Upd-discuss mailing list
> > Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
> >
> >
>
>--
>Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
>www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
>617 344 9000
>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 3
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
>To: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>
>Cc: james.love@cptech.org, upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] Access to Knowledge Treaty
>Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:56:24 -0500
>
> Because of this, and other factors, the US/EU push that Jamie references
> for data protection is now generally no longer linked to "undisclosed"
> test data, but just to the data.
>
>I do not understand the distinction made by that sentence.
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:10:23 +0000 (GMT)
>From: James Davis <jamesd@jml.net>
>To: creative-friends@lists.essential.org,
> <upd-discuss@lists.essential.org>
>Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: [Creative-friends] burning the public domain
>
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 peter.lockley@okfn.org wrote:
>
> > I had a number of conversations yesterday with people at the Patent and
> > Copyright offices. Without doubt the 'official' view is that the expiry
> > of the sound recording copyright alone leaves you the public with
> > basically the same permissions as you had before: if the lyrics are
> > copyrighted, distribution of the 'public' sound recording represents an
> > infringement of authorial copyright.
>
>Apologies for those annoyed by my cross-posting, I thought this was also
>sufficiently interesting for everyone over on upd-discuss. Who did you
>speak to at the Patent office?
>
>I'm certainly not an expert but this sounds like complete FUD. The type of
>copyright that exists over a musical score is exactly the same copyright
>type that exists over song lyrics. There's no distinction between words
>used as prose or lyrics under copyright. If the recording is in the public
>domain, the same logic would imply that you were infringing the copyright
>of the musical score as well as the copyright of the lyrics and recording
>copyrights would be completely redundant.
>
>James
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:09:20 -0500
>From: Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>
>To: upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>Subject: [Upd-discuss] [Fwd: Alert: "Eyes on the Prize" to be Released on
>Internet]
>
>Alert: "Eyes on the Prize" to be Released on Internet
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>January 26, 2005
>
>Eyes on the Screen
>
>"Eyes on the Prize", Civil Rights Documentary, To Be
>Released Over the Internet Despite Copyright Disputes
>
>A day of public screenings of the legendary
>documentary, to be organized for February 8th, 2005
>
>HYPERLINK: http://www.eyesonthescreen.org
>
>According to some, it's illegal for makers of the civil
>rights documentary "Eyes on the Prize" to put it on DVD
>or show it in public. But at 8:00 PM on February during
>Black History Month, Downhill Battle
>(downhillbattle.org) is encouraging Americans to
>celebrate the struggle and triumph of the civil rights
>movement with screenings of "Eyes on the Prize" in
>homes and public places with the goal of having a
>screening in every major city in America. The campaign
>is called Eyes on the Screen.
>
>"Eyes on the Prize" is the most comprehensive and
>revered civil rights documentary ever made. But the
>documentary has not been available for public viewing
>for the past 10 years because of unreasonable copyright
>laws that impose stifling restrictions on artists and
>filmmakers. In one instance, copyright holders believe
>they should receive licensing fees for the song "Happy
>Birthday," which appears in footage of a group of
>people singing to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>
>"To celebrate Black History Month, we believe that
>"Eyes on the Prize" should be seen by as many people as
>possible," says Tiffiniy Cheng of Downhill Battle. "The
>civil rights movement is just too important for this
>invaluable resource to be denied to the public. So,
>we're going to help distribute "Eyes on the Prize" to a
>mass audience and communities can have screenings."
>
>"Eyes on the Prize is one of the most effective
>documentaries ever put together that dealt with civic
>engagement," says civil rights leader Lawrence Guyot.
>"This is analogous to stopping the circulation of all
>the books about Martin Luther King, stopping the
>circulation of all the books about Malcolm X, stopping
>the circulation of books about the founding of
>America... I would call upon everyone who has access to
>'Eyes on the Prize' to openly violate any and all laws
>regarding its showing."
>
>"Eyes on the Prize" is an award-winning 14-volume
>documentary made by the late Henry Hampton, tracking
>the Civil Rights Movement from 1954 to 1965. Clayborne
>Carson, a Stanford University history professor, has
>said, "It is the principal film account of the most
>important American social justice movement of the 20th
>century" (Wired News, 12/22/04).
>
>"Eyes on the Prize" was the first introduction to the
>history of the Civil Rights Movement for millions of
>people," says Nicholas Reville of Downhill Battle, "But
>our corporatized copyright system is keeping it locked
>away."
>
>"The situation of "Eyes on the Prize" is a perfect
>example of why copyright law isn't working for the
>public," says Cheng. "It's ridiculous that this
>documentary is languishing in copyright purgatory,
>instead of being shown in classrooms. "Eyes on the
>Screen" is a perfect example of how people can bring
>attention to bad copyright law and start turning the
>situation around."
>
>For background, see this article:
>
>http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14801-2005Jan16.html
>
>Contact:
>
>Lawrence Guyot,
>Former Leader of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic
>Party
>w: (202)727-4742
>h: (202)332-5157
>
>Tiffiniy Cheng,
>Co-Director of Downhill Battle
>w: (508)963-1096
>e: tyc@downhillbattle.org
>
>Nicholas Reville,
>Co-Director of Downhill Battle
>w: (508)963-7832
>e: npr@downhillbattle.org
>
>###
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>provide varied material of interest to people on the
>left.
>
>For answers to frequently asked questions:
><http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
><http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
>To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
><moderator@portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
>For assistance with your account:
><support@portside.org>
>
>To search the portside archive:
><http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>_______________________________________________
>Upd-discuss mailing list
>Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss
>
>
>End of Upd-discuss Digest
Tasmin Rajotte
Representative
Quaker International Affairs Programme
97 Powell Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1S 2A2
Tel: (613) 231-7311
Fax: (613) 231-7290
E-mail: qiap@quaker.ca
Website: http://www.qiap.ca