Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software United States The Internet Government Media Television Politics

WIPO Creating New IP Rights Over Web Content 118

Posted by Zonk
from the get-the-rights-right dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The WIPO is currently engaged in negotiating a new treaty on digital IP rights, but they're having trouble agreeing on the particulars. Though the world of YouTube and podcasts seems like a place that 'requires' laws, the WIPO seems confused about what to do about it. From the article: 'The proliferation of low cost video cameras and editing software, higher bandwidth cable, satellite and Internet connections, are creating a highly diverse and dynamic environment for creating, distributing, redistributing and remixing information. To this exciting world the UN's specialized agency for intellectual property wants to impose a new legal regime. The problem is, no one here has a clue what the legal regime should look like.' The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it. This would be in addition to any rights normally afforded the distributors. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Creating New IP Rights Over Web Content

Comments Filter:
  • by argoff (142580) * on Thursday January 18, 2007 @02:57PM (#17667682)

    The only IP right that is real would be the right to copy. The right to copy and use ideas, information, and invention that comes our way freely without fraud or coercion. This right is just like the right to free religion, the right to free speech, or the right to choose our employers rather than to be slaves.

    There are also dutys, like the duty to call copyrights and patents what they are: a fraud, a lie, and not a property right. Like the duty to call "piracy" what it is: the boarding of a ship and murdering people and not copying. Like the duty to call them controls rather than incentive or protection. Like the duty to bypass and defy people who try to control our liberties via controlling the information we have or via telling us how we must use it.

    Finally, there are other things that are just human nature, like sharing music and information and ideas freely with the world around us.

    Lets just face it, the WIPO are WhImPO's and are against free markets and property rights, not for them.

    • by Yartrebo (690383) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:05PM (#17667848)
      And people wonder why so many people are against globalization.

      The reason is not any hate of foreign countries or trade, but rather that it's a code word for giving more power and money to the ultra rich and powerful by restricting the freedoms and rights (including property rights) of the working class (which includes the middle class).
      • And here I was thinking people hated it because it allowed their jobs to go to India.

        I also thoroughly enjoy the implication that people not in the working class don't work. I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump regularly pulled twelve-hour days, and having known a couple of wealthy people (including my parents, sadly after I moved out), they got where they are by working hard and smart and taking risks.
    • The right to copy and use ideas, information, and invention that comes our way freely without fraud or coercion. This right is just like the right to free religion, the right to free speech,

      It isn't just "like" the right to free speech, it is the right of free speech.
      Little, if any, "speech" is original anyway, its just people copying the ideas of other people. Thus restrictions on certain kinds of copying are de facto restrictions on the freedom of expression.

      Whether you agree that such restrictions are v
      • by hany (3601)

        Exactly!!!

        And "exatly" are just some sounds or graphical symbols I copied from someone (I guess from my firts or second teacher of english, while english is not my mother-tongue).

        If you do not want something to be copied, do not tell it, do not write it. Maybe in the future you should also forget it ASAP so that you wont broadcast it accidentaly with your brain using EM waves or something which others my pick-up.

        :)

    • At the very least, you should have a right to require attribution. Otherwise, there would be very little incentive to create in the first place.
    • Don't forget "fair use." If I was on a picturephone connection to my grandma, and held up a product package to the camera to show her something I just bought-- should I be held accountable for "copying" the package design? What if I send similar footage in a canned video to all my relatives? To my relatives and my friends? What if I have 100,000 relatives and friends? The problem is a "copy" here is applied to any type of facsimile or partial facsimilie. Should Andy Warhol been forced to pay royaltie
  • I have a problem with the concept of a "regime"...

    • by andphi (899406)
      As do I. I'm also rather concerned about a regime established by the UN.

      I wonder why the UN can't do something truly unusual in this circumstance and leave well enough alone.
    • by dangitman (862676)
      "Regime" simply means a system of rules or government. Unfortunately, the word induces only negative connotations these days, because it is almost exclusively used to describe oppressive, fascist and military governments - a "fascist regime" for example. However, it is not an inherently negative word, as it is neutral on what form of rules or government it refers to. It's the "fascist" part that is bad, not the regime. You could have a "democratic regime" or a "happiness regime" for example.

      So there's no ne

  • by Flwyd (607088) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:02PM (#17667770) Homepage
    Owning public domain content because you show it is like owning some air because you once exhaled it.

    Better start paying Cesar royalties.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by bricko (1052210)
      If anyone wants to follow this go to Public Knowledge site. http://www.publicknowledge.org/articles [publicknowledge.org] They have people sitting in on this WIPO stuff and presenting views on it. This is very serious stuff. The broadcasters will be given a 30 year copyright simply by broadcasting it. Even if you give them rights for 5 years. This new copytheft will supercede your contract and they will get an additional 30 years or more simply by broadcasting it. Bookmark Public Citizen and follow it. Then flood you con
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Blue Stone (582566)

      Owning public domain content because you show it is like owning some air because you once exhaled it.
      I think Native Americans had something similar to say about people owning the land. Just because it seems absurd, doesn't mean some greedy bastard won't try to own it.

      Ultimately it's all 'we say it's so, and we're backing it up with physical force' - doesn't matter whether it's crazy or not.

  • Wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:04PM (#17667812)
    Problem here:

    Though the world of YouTube and podcasts seems like a place that 'requires' laws


    Uhm, no, regular copyright laws cover it quite well. Specialized laws are not required. Particularly, the US effort to revive a dead treaty which would allow big corporate entities to rope off bits of the public domain simply becaue they used it is not necessary (and, anyway, something the US could not Constitutionally adhere to since it exceeds, quite clearly, the Constitutional power of the US government as regards IP, since it would extend IP rights to someone who is not the creator of work, and that do not arise because of a relationship with the creator.)
    • Treaties are above and outside of the Constitution. You see, we violate treaties all the time when they are inconvenient, but since the Constitution gives the President with consent of 2/3rds of Congress the right to enter into treaties without limit.

      He [The President ]shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
      • Treaties are above and outside of the Constitution.

        Er, no, they aren't.

        "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957) at 5-6.

        "It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history a

  • Public Domain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:05PM (#17667832) Journal
    The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it.
    How does that work?

    Does this mean the material is no longer public domain?

    I can't imagine that would work... since anyone could go back to the original source material and use that.

    Or is this just an attempt to put public proceedings (Senate/Congress sessions for example) into private hands?
    • by Spand (980339)
      I only think that they would own the copyright of their broadcasted version.. so its suddenly no longer allowed to tape stuff from discovery even tho its a show in public domain. (Has anyone even heard of public domain shows/programs?)
      • by dvdeug (5033)
        Sure. It used to be very common for small, non-network TV stations to show whatever movies they could show cheaply. In many cases, that meant movies that fell into the public domain, like many cult sci-fi movies and what not. Several old movie channels, like TCM, also show public domain material as part of their regular fair. I, for one, have recordings of several silent movies that were so old to fall into the public domain.
        • by 91degrees (207121)
          I, for one, have recordings of several silent movies that were so old to fall into the public domain.

          Quite a few talkies became PD properties as well. Before 1978 (I think) the term was 28 years with optional extension. So many films from 1950 or before were not renewed and became public domain. By the 1930's cinema had become a fairly major media force so there's a decent amount of material.
    • The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it.

      How does that work?

      Does this mean the material is no longer public domain?

      If I was them I'd be more worried that it means loss of "common carrier" status... meaning that if they now own the content they supply (whether public domain or not) then they are now legally liable for any violation it may cause.

    • It means that if a television station aired a public domain film, then the television station would hold all the rights to re-air that content for 50 years.

      Theoretically, a Creative Commons-licensed podcast could be broadcast by a cable station, and then the creator would lose rights to rebroadcast the material on their own!

      More info via the EFF [eff.org].
      • by zotz (3951)
        The deal is pretty bad, but I don't think it is as bad as you make out. The last time I read about it, it seemed that they would only get rights to copies made from their broadcast. (broadly speaking.)

        If you could get your hands on a copy some other way, cool.

        The interesting thing is if this comes about, will Creative Commons and others modify their licenses to prevent broadcast by entities who claim rights in this way? If so, then will the broadcasters go back to the table to give themselves rights to do s
      • Theoretically, a Creative Commons-licensed podcast could be broadcast by a cable station, and then the creator would lose rights to rebroadcast the material on their own!

        Not quite... it's more along MS's "Embrace & Extend" platform... the station would hold all the rights to re-air THEIR broadcast. That means that you couldn't copy their broadcast, but if you got the public film from somewhere else, that copy would still be in the public domain.

        The change would basically make a broadcast into a per

  • Was Carl Marx right? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by presidenteloco (659168) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:08PM (#17667886)
    Is Intellectual Property a Crime?
    • Was Carl Marx right?

      Is Intellectual Property a Crime?

      Marx may have been wrong about a lot of things, but this wasn't one of them.

      • As much as I hate to agree with anything Marx said, I do think he was right about this.

        Seriously, you can't believe how much this burns...
        • by sunwukong (412560)
          Seriously, you can't believe how much this burns...

          Then you need the cool, smooth Cream of the Marketplace as applied by the Invisible Hand.

          *shudder*
    • La propriété, c'est le vol! (Property is theft).
    • by dangitman (862676)
      Who is Carl Marx? Did he have a friend called Lenny?
      • Carl was the long lost twin brother of Groucho.

        He formed the little-known, blacklisted Groucho Marxist-Leninist splinter group.

        I meant K-A-R-L of course. I even google-spellchecked that and then forgot to correct the spell-o.
  • by TheWoozle (984500) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:12PM (#17667986)
    If YouTube, et al have done anything, it's show that a different business model can work: the value is not in production of the material, it's in delivering it.

    Previously, if I had wanted lame videos of punk skateboarders doing tricks, angsty teenagers venting their mixed-up feelings, middle-age housewives boody-popping, etc. I would have had to spend countless hours trolling the murky depths and dark recesses of the Internet to find them. Thanks to YouTube, I have a single, convenient place to satisfy my disgusting and perverse needs.

    Seriously though, can we please stop trying to create artificial scarcity? We don't really need it; TV shows, movies, and music worth paying for are already scarce enough.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:13PM (#17667996) Journal
    while almost everyone thinks its just fine for me to loan a friend a rented DVD before I return it, there are those that think if I share a video on the Internet it should be regulated, taxed, or scrutinized against IP and copyright laws.

    The Internet has changed the world in many significant ways, but it has not changed basic human morals, and won't. I see nothing wrong with sharing things with others, and any regulatory body that wants to change that will find me looking for, and finding, other ways to do so.

    Copyright and IP law as they currently are implemented .. well, they are fscked. No, I don't have a ready example of how to fix them all. I do know that simply wanting to fix things will not do so. Any regulations placed on Internet based services will not work if they fail to pass the 'basic human morals' test.

    Lets say someone in highschool in Chicago makes some wacky video on their pc, and shares it with friends via CD. There is no way to police this sort of content production.

    Now, lets say that they share it with several million of their friends via news groups? Still, not much hope of policing this. Okay, so our content creator now shares it with several million of their friends via YouTube. Suddenly, because of the visibility of the WWW, people think that it should be regulated, scrutinized, and by god, lets punish those evil copyright infringers.

    Human behavior has not changed. The thing that changed is that now more people can more quickly see what others are doing. This doesn't mean that there is more infringement necessarily, only that more people can see what they think is infringement.

    Regulating the viewing mechanism for that content will not stop its production. Result: This is a broken way to try to fix what was not a problem in the first place.

    Additionally, by putting the burden on YouTube, MySpace and others, they are creating a sort of conscripted volunteer police force, which in the end will also fail.

    The only way to fix these infringements is to make them legally not infringements. For many of the same reasons that we should not be fighting a war on drugs http://www.leap.org/ [leap.org], we shouldn't be fighting a war on copyright infringement. Those who fight copyright infringements (**AAs) are simply building sandcastles on the beach at low tide.

    The UN, or any other body does not have enforcement authority, nor will they, UNLESS they decide to change / repeal the overreaching copyright laws that have to date been enacted.
    • by rumith (983060)

      Lets say someone in highschool in Chicago makes some wacky video on their pc, and shares it with friends via CD. There is no way to police this sort of content production.

      Nobody would even want to police such stuff - there's little chance for large content producers to make money on it, since they neither own, nor distribute it. The problem arises only when we turn to the for-profit content production, when the producer wants to receive income from his work, usually on per-copy basis.

      Regulating the viewin

      • by zappepcs (820751)
        "Overly optimistic. With the lion's share of computer users technically uneducated and using Windows, such regulation becomes possible, especially if what has been written about Vista DRM is true. Only a handful of users would be savvy enough to overcome all the inconveniences associated with video/music reproduction unauthorized by software and content producers."

        What you have said is more or less true, but you unbelievably underestimate the industriousness of humans when they really want something. Trust
      • by zotz (3951)
        "The problem arises only when we turn to the for-profit content production, when the producer wants to receive income from his work, usually on per-copy basis."

        The broadcast treaty part at least has nothing to do with the producers. They can get copyrights now for that. These guys want rights to your work and mine should they broadcast it. (Send it to someone over the net? Say I send you a video of mine with a CC BY-SA license and our ISPs claim you don't have the right to use the video according to the lic
  • mothballs (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:17PM (#17668084) Homepage Journal
    The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it.
    Are new bad ideas so difficult to come up with that they have to re-use 46-year-old bad ideas?

    Ill-advised remakes of things that weren't much good in the first place.. you can just smell Hollywood's influence.
    • by smoker2 (750216)
      Ill-advised remakes of things that weren't much good in the first place.. you can just smell Hollywood's influence.
      khaaan ! [khaaan.com]
  • by ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:20PM (#17668132)

    Why is the United States wasting what little good will it has around the world with intellectual property rights issues? Why is the destruction of public domain a top priority? I would think that a potentially nuclear Iran, the Iraq war and global terrorism would take up the time of the diplomats. Are government officials being bought off with cash or sexual favors from aspiring actresses? If the air conditioning/ home heating industry lobbied for international regulations that every building in the world would have to be maintained at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, it would be crazy. I guess public domain now means "Ready to be taken into the possession of a large corporation".

    My guess is that government regulators don't understand what's going on. They receive their money/blowjobs from the content industry and do as they are told.

    • Nobody wants to buy our cars, we don't produce many other manufactured goods. Our software and our media is what the world is willing to pay for. The government understands perfectly, beause the government let jobs flow out of the nation.
    • by walt-sjc (145127)
      Why is the destruction of public domain a top priority?

      Because the government has been secretly been taken over by Ferengi disguised as humans. Of course anything that doesn't make a profit is immoral to a Ferengi. But seriously: Paid lobbyists greasing palms. Nothing else needs to be said.
    • by zotz (3951)
      "Why is the destruction of public domain a top priority?"

      Because it can compete with the new copyrighted stuff. (One reason at least.)

      To me it is one of the reasons they also don't want copyrights to run out, even if they never intend to offer the old works for sale again. They may compete in the market with the new stuff.

      all the best,

      drew
  • Why?

    Are people threatening bodily harm? If not, then I can not see a "requirement" for laws at all.

  • by Mrs. Grundy (680212) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:21PM (#17668180) Homepage
    It is difficult to get behind writing like this:

    UN's specialized agency for intellectual property wants to impose a new legal regime

    I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men. If by 'legal regime' the author means a legal structure in which to resolve disputes, I am all for it. After all, disputes will happen and the law should provide a means to deal with them in a civilized and fair manner. By referring to an attempt to codify our values as a regime we indicate that we are no longer willing to participate in this discourse and abdicate any power we might have to influence the outcome in a way beneficial to us. We shouldn't focus on the fact that there will be laws that may limit what we can do when interacting with other people, but should remember that laws have their uses and abuses and we should try to participate in the process. If we don't I guarantee to you that someone will and that their interests will be considered with a weight proportional to the energy and money they invested in the process. As individuals and groups without great political and economic resources we shouldn't turn out backs on the very idea of law, it's all we have.

    • by Gonarat (177568) *

      I like living in a society ruled by laws as long as the laws are reasonable. Right now the current copyright and IP laws are broken -- they are just not working and the "content industry" keeps trying to "fix" it by passing ever more stringent laws and stronger DRM. Not only is this not working thus far, but is only contributing to the problem. Bad laws undermine the whole system of law and order; just look at Prohibition, the drug war, the 55 mph speed limit in the U.S., and the current copyright wars a

    • by Intrinsic (74189)

      I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men. If by 'legal regime' the author means a legal structure in which to resolve disputes, I am all for it. After all, disputes will happen and the law should provide a means to deal with them in a civilized and fair manner. By referring to an attempt to codify our values as a regime we indicate that we are no longer willing to participate in this discourse and abdicate any power we might have to influence the outcome in a way benef

    • Both Slashdot and you get it wrong. The Broadcast Treaty which is a WIPO remake of the Rome Convention is beeing discussed for years and it is in its final stage. That is no agreement was reached so far to convene a diplomatic conference. It is dead, yet not killed. Yesterday the chair Jukka Lieders proposed a "non-paper", a quite unusual move. A last move death certificate, the next step will be the chair to start crying and beat the national delegations. NGOs are pretty strong on the WIPO level and Youtu
    • by arose (644256)
      I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men.
      As am I, but when the laws become so broad that millions are breakering the law as part of their daily routine, often wihout realizing, you are in fact ruled by them whims of men who can shoose when to enforce these laws.
    • by Weedlekin (836313)
      "I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men"

      Laws are by definition whims of men, hence the fact that there are so many stupid ones.
  • The Internet without content management laws is like a fish without a bicycle.
  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:38PM (#17668504) Homepage
    ...when there are already plenty laws, and no chance in hell to enforce them. There's something like 60 million people in the US (200 million worldwide) that's been using file sharing. At that point it gets sort of like prohibition - it's easy to show alcohol is linked to violence, crime, drunk driving, alcoholism and poor health effects. Yet so many want to do it, it's so easy to produce that what you'd have to go through to stop it, would be much worse if at all possible.

    People today are able to send incredible amounts of information to each other through ad hoc networks of various kinds, the only way to make any serious impact on that would be to create some sort of totalitarian central sharing system staffed with vast amounts of mpaa/riaa goons and real penalties for end users. Anything else... well, it looks good on paper but what would you do? Throw 60mio people in jail? Even with the rabid sentences in the US, I think it's only about 3%.. 20% would be beyond insane.
    • what would you do? Throw 60mio people in jail?

      Of course you don't through 60 million people in jail. Increasing the legal penalties (and broadening defitions) for common activity just allows them to more easily nab the people that they do want to nail. If you've got 60 million people who are now regularly committing a "crime," it's much easier to nail the ones you want for some reason or other.
  • Let me encapsulate the thoughts of millions:

    FUCK OFF
  • by maharvey (785540) on Thursday January 18, 2007 @03:43PM (#17668628)

    Did the author even read the article, or is his knee twitching after a cursory skim-over?

    Anonymous Reader said: The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it.

    The actual article said: One faction in the negotiations wants to revamp provisions in a 1961 treaty (one that the United States and 80 other countries never signed), with new or expanded intellectual property rights for anyone who "broadcasts" third party content.

    Yes giving ownership of public domain content would be insane, but from the article I don't see the U.S.A. proposing that (and apparently they didn't like it in 1961 either).

    According to http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2007-Janu ary/001971.html [essential.org] (linked from the article), the U.S.A. is apaprently in favor of the narrower signal-based treaty that does NOT give exclusive rights to broadcasters.

    • And just like the DMCA doesn't prevent the Fair Use defense:

      Protection for technological protection measures and exceptions and limitations consistent with international treaties remain critical components for any convention.

      So, no, the narrower signal-based treaty doesn't grant exclusive rights to broadcasters, just the right to implement DRM and have it be illegal via this treaty to circumvent said measures. In fact, a copy of the broadcast signal would probably be considered "evidence" that you had deliberately circumvented the DRM. All it takes is one sentence to entirely change the meaning of this document, and clearly it works since you think the Americans have

  • IANAL, but as I understand it, the creator / author / composer / artist automatically has ownership of the created work - except in the case of "works for hire", which are owned by the person / entity who commissioned the work.

    As for the old, non-ratified treaty, it just sounds wrong. It seems to require that content creators surrender ownership to the distributors, rather than licensing distribution rights, as is currently done. This just seems to be a way for big media to reassert their strangle hold on

  • Now, it is generally agreed that distribution of information is generally desirable. Copyright is based on a view that giving creators control of their creation is generally desirable. You may disagree with these, but that's somethign of a radical viewpoint. I'm going from what is pretty much prevailing wisdom. Not much has changed in copyright media for the past 50 years. There are more media types available, but the entire production and distribution of a DVD or a piece of software is not fundamentall
    • So the only substantial change has been that it's now a lot easier to distribute information, and a lot easier to store it[.]

      I can send a movie file to hundreds of people with easily purchased consumer equipment. By my earlier arguments this is a good thing - "distribution of information is generally desirable". It's also a bad thing [because] "giving creators control of their creation is generally desirable".

      I think the most fundamental change is actually that your second axiom ("giving creators cont

  • I thought that GW Bush had declared the UN irrelevant :P
    The disconnect between the UN and reality seems wider every day.
    • by mspohr (589790)
      Bush declared the UN irrelevant when he couldn't bully it into doing what he wanted on Iraq. He's perfectly happy to keep bullying the UN on other fronts and support it when it does what he wants.

  • Really, laws regulations and initiatives like this (and this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org]) make it increasingly necessary for the Powers that Be(tm) to think about criminalizing online anonymity altogether, lest the bureaucracy be powerless to enforce their will.

    And with so few people who even know they should care about this, who's to stop it? Unless Tor [eff.org] and I2P [i2p.net] get encapsulated within programs that millions of people use (à la Torpark [torrify.com]), well... if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...

  • What a great way to keep The People out of the process. Also a great way for politicians to deny responsibility. When I become Overlord, expect many more treaties.

  • Whenever I see "WIPO", I immediately think of Taco Snotting. Thanks [50megs.com], WIPO Troll!
  • some video I post on Youtube and carries it on thier site I lose my rights to it?
  • Yep, cant have that pesky free content floating around legally, as it might eat into our obscene profits.

    What a farce.
  • If only the railroads had invented this same concept back in the 1800s. Imagine how much better off everyone would be today!
    • ...has already blessed us in countless ways. After all, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [wikipedia.org] was when corporations were unassailably entrenched as legal persons within the legal framework of the United States (and other countries which it would later dominate). Without corporate legal personhood, the RIAA and all the other mafIAA, not to mention your friendly local transnational megacorp, wouldn't be in the position of absolute power and unwarranted power over mere natural persons which they en
  • From what I can tell of almost everything the WIPO has done to date, it's a classic case of an organisation simply doing stuff because it has a remit to do it, rather than out of any need to do it or even an understating of why it should. This latest move is typical. Internet + content + intellectual property = something WIPO should gwt involved with. But why? Might it be better simply to stand aside and do nothing? We'll never know, because the boys and girls at WIPO are paid to do a job - and by gum they'

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...