[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] WIPO Pressured to Kill Meeting on Open Source



On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 10:29:28 +0200 (CEST), Hans Schou <sslug@sslug>
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Erik Lange wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Lessig kommenterer i sin blog:
>> http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml
>
>Et lille citat fra bloggen:
>"First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in
>intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't
>have its effect) without it."
>
>> Damn... de er dygtige, de lobbyister... og problemet er jo, at får
>> de lov at gentage det nok gange uden at blive modsagt, så ender
>> politikerne med at tro på det.
>
>Så er der vel ikke andet for at vi må citere Lessig for førnævnte 
>citat så mange gange, at det til sidst bliver sandhed. Eller tvinge 
>modsigerne til at forklare hvorfor det er usandt.
>
>Nu er der ikke noget nyt i det, men mange forstår det ikke, eller vil 
>ikke forstå det.

Nej, der er ikke noget nyt problemet - men for mig ser det ud som et
stort og stigende problem... en kommentar fra Bloggen:

"1) The proposed conference was specifically intended to be about
promoting ‘open’ models of innovation that don’t rely on patents.’ The
Nature article specifically states the signers’ goal of promoting
alternatives to current protections with respect to software and
pharmaceuticals. Whether one endorses this agenda or not does not
change the fact that the conference was expressly intended to advocate
/endorse /promote models closer to a “patent-free” paradigm. The
express intent was to act to reduce the scope of current intellectual
property rights for both pharmaceuticals and software.

2) The express goal of WIPO is, in the words of the current director
general, the “maintenance and further development of the respect of
intellectual property throughout the world. It means that any erosion
of the existing protection should be prevented…” 

3) Ms. Boland said that the US (as a member of WIPO) should not be in
the business of acting to reduce the scope of intellectual property
rights, a statement completely consistent with the express goals of
WIPO and accurately responding to the true intention of the conference
promoters.

4) So how the hell is that wrong and worthy of a demand for
resignation? She appears to have a better grasp of her role and that
of WIPO than does Prof. Lessig. 

That is my point. "

-oOo-

Problemet med ovenstående er jo, at han sådan set har ret, hvis man
ikke tager højde for formålet med ophavsret og IP generelt, nemlig at
skabe en BALANCE imellem enerettens parter... denne balance og
formålet med den, er tydeligvis gået helt tabt overthere, så nogle nu
tror, at IP er noget samfundet tildeler som erhvervsstøtte til
producenter.

I DFD hører vi igen og igen den samme fortolkning af ophavsretten fra
musik-branchen; "forbrugerne er ikke en part i ophavsretten og har
derfor ingen rettigheder - ophavsretten er kun skabt for
rettighedshavernes skyld".

NARJ! -  IP er samfundets måde at tilskynde til ny produktion og
spredning af værker i samfundet, til gavn for borgerne...

Det er for borgernes skyld man tildeler IP, da det betyder at nye
værker bliver tilgængeliggjort for borgerne - or so it was intended to
be... samfundet har ingen interesse i, ensidigt at tildele monopoler
til erhvervsdrivende, på markeder hvor den frie konkurrence ellers
ville fungere.

Hilsen,
Erik L.


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:21 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *