[A2k] IP-Watch Inside Views: Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig

Kaitlin Mara kmara at ip-watch.ch
Mon Nov 15 10:42:19 PST 2010


  Dear Luis,

IP-Watch asked Larry Lessig about the SCCR and exceptions and 
limitations for the visually impaired in an interview, which you can 
watch here: 
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system/#video

The part you are looking for starts at 5:13. Also, here's a quick 
transcript in case that is easier:

"Well, I think that the particular flexibility that is being discussed 
right now is good."

"But it all presupposes the same architecture for copyright regulation. 
These are exceptions and flexibilities that's built on top of a system 
that presupposes that copyright ought to be invoked or triggered every 
time there's some reproduction made, or every time there's some sharing 
of content made."

"And the first point of recognition that I think the system has got to 
come to terms with is that copyright law never historically had that 
presumption built in. It wasn't the history, even in the context of the 
Berlin Accords (1908), people never imagined that every time humans 
would come across culture we would flip on the regulation of copyright. 
Instead, copyright had a very tiny slice of human culture it was trying 
to regulate, leaving a whole bunch of the rest of it free."

"And to see that, now that we have moved into a digital infrastructure, 
that architecture entails that every single interaction with culture 
triggers copyright law. That's the point that ought to, you know, make 
us skeptical of the current architecture of regulation and to think 
about what a different kind of architecture would be."

"So the current exceptions are fine kludges, in the technical sense, on 
top of this infrastructure. But what I'm saying is we need to think 
about that basic infrastructure and identify a more efficient and lower 
cost, simpler infrastructure to achieve the same objectives."

Best,
Kaitlin

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *corporacion innovarte* <innovartecorporacion at gmail.com 
> <mailto:innovartecorporacion at gmail.com>>
> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [A2k] IP-Watch Inside Views: Global Copyright Reform: A 
> View From The South In Response To Lessig
> To: Ahmed Abdel Latif <aabdellatif at ictsd.ch <mailto:aabdellatif at ictsd.ch>>
> Cc: a2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto:a2k at lists.keionline.org>, 
> a2k-admin at lists.essential.org <mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org>, 
> a2k at lists.essential.org <mailto:a2k at lists.essential.org>
>
>
>  Dear Ahmed,
>
>  To have had Professor Lessig as a main sepeaker at a WIPO  evento on
> licensing is clearly a excelent sign of progress in our colective 
> effort to
> make  WIPO a more balanced institution. He was very persuasive, as he uses
> to be, on the need of change the current copyright system to match the
> digital environment and to protect creativity by allowing a minimun 
> level of
> freedom to deal with content.  But I also think that he missed a 
> opportunity
> to recognice the current effort of changing such system by the way of the
> adopting treaties of mandatory exceptions and limitations. and wonder 
> why he
> did omit such extremely important discussion at WIPO.
>
> In this context I wonder if he did not mention the current proposal on
> treaties for mandatory exceptions for the blind because he was, 
> surprisingly
> not aware of it or is not convinced about it, or other reason that 
> would be
> interesting to know..
>
> Regards
>
> Luis Villarroel
> Director
> INNOVARTE
>
> 2010/11/12 Ahmed Abdel Latif <aabdellatif at ictsd.ch 
> <mailto:aabdellatif at ictsd.ch>>
>
> > http://www.ip
> >
> > 
> watch.org/weblog/p=13398&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts 
> <http://watch.org/weblog/p=13398&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts>
> > <http://www.ip%
> > 
> 20watch.org/weblog/p=13398&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts 
> <http://20watch.org/weblog/p=13398&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts>
> > >
> >  Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig
> >
> > By Ahmed Abdel Latif<
> > 
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/12/global-copyright-reform-a-view-from-the-south-in-response-to-lessig/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts#bio 
> <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/12/global-copyright-reform-a-view-from-the-south-in-response-to-lessig/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts#bio>
> > >
> >
> > The copyright system is hopelessly unsuited to the twenty-first 
> century and
> > needs major reform, says Lawrence Lessig. Speaking in Geneva in early
> > November<
> > 
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system/
> > >,
> > the American scholar called for the creation of a ‘blue sky’ commission,
> > led
> > by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to consider 
> a new
> > international copyright architecture for the digital age. “If and 
> only if
> > WIPO leads in this debate will we have a chance” at fixing the copyright
> > system, he told a WIPO conference on access to culture.
> >
> > Professor Lessig is right. His call for global copyright reform is 
> welcome
> > and timely. However, past WIPO led efforts in this area have rather been
> > unsuccessful. New reform initiatives should draw lessons from previous
> > attempts in order to increase their prospects for success.
> >
> > Past changes to the international copyright system, as embodied in the
> > Berne
> > Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), 
> have
> > mostly resulted in the strengthening of copyright rules to the 
> benefit of
> > rights holders. All attempts to reform it to the benefit of users of
> > copyrighted materials, such as consumers and developing countries, have
> > either failed or been of limited effectiveness such as in the case 
> of the
> > Berne Appendix (1971) which contains special provisions for developing
> > countries.
> >
> > Why this dismal record? The answer is quite simple: for more than a 
> hundred
> > years, WIPO and its predecessors overseeing the Berne Convention were
> > strongholds of intellectual property rights holders, such as authors and
> > publishers, and their trade organisations. Even after becoming a United
> > Nations agency in 1974, WIPO continued to promote a paradigm of
> > intellectual
> > property (IP) that tended to espouse the views of rights holders-based
> > organisations in the developed world; a perspective even generally
> > questioned by liberal economists all over and touted as perverse for
> > innovation by the business academic world.
> >
> > In 2004, developing countries launched the WIPO Development Agenda, an
> > initiative aimed at promoting a public policy oriented and balanced 
> view of
> > IP in accordance with WIPO’s UN status.
> >
> > At the time, many prominent civil society figures and academics, 
> including
> > Prof. Lessig, signed a ‘Declaration on the Future of WIPO’ 
> supporting the
> > initiative. The Declaration invited WIPO to take “a more balanced and
> > realistic view of the social benefits and costs of intellectual property
> > rights as a tool, but not the only tool, for supporting creative
> > intellectual activity.” It emphasized that WIPO “must change.”
> >
> > Did this ‘Change’ Occur?
> >
> > In 2007, after three years of discussions, 45 recommendations were 
> adopted
> > by WIPO’s membership, reflecting, to a certain extent, many of the 
> demands
> > made by countries and civil society groups. Under a new director 
> general,
> > elected in 2008, WIPO has shown an openness to address many issues which
> > were previously considered taboo. Indeed, Prof. Lessig’s presence at 
> WIPO
> > bears testimony to this.
> >
> > Naturally, this openness should be welcomed and encouraged.
> >
> > However, it might be still too premature to consider if the ‘change’ 
> that
> > was called for has effectively taken place. The implementation of 
> the WIPO
> > Development Agenda is still very much an ongoing process. In many 
> cases, it
> > remains to be translated into tangible and concrete changes in WIPO’s
> > activities and more importantly in the prevailing institutional 
> culture of
> > the organisation. It should also be recalled that almost 90 percent of
> > WIPO’s income comes from fees paid by rights holders to use WIPO’s 
> global
> > registration systems, particularly the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
> >
> > Last April, leading developing countries at WIPO formed the WIPO
> > Development
> > Agenda Group (DAG), which called for implementing the Development Agenda
> > recommendations in a way that “truly reflects their underlying 
> vision and
> > spirit.” The group also appealed for “an enduring pro-development 
> cultural
> > transformation within the WIPO Secretariat.”
> >
> > An instructive example to consider, in this regard, relates to the
> > information on the institution’s website about the WIPO Internet 
> Treaties
> > (1996), which were implemented in the United States through the Digital
> > Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). A brochure on the ‘advantages’ of 
> treaty
> > adherence<
> > 
> http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/activities/wct_wppt/pdf/advantages_wct_wppt.pdf
> > >[pdf]
> > states that “adherence and implementation of the treaties offer a
> > number of benefits for countries *regardless of their stage of
> > development*(emphasis added).” This assertion seems at odds with both
> > the letter and
> > spirit of the WIPO Development Agenda, which fundamentally questions the
> > validity of a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to global IP norm setting
> > activities.
> >
> > Another example comes from the “war on piracy,” which Prof. Lessig
> > denounced
> > as a failure that is criminalizing an entire generation.
> >
> > However, Prof. Lessig forgot to mention that WIPO is fully engaged 
> in the
> > war against piracy. WIPO’s website advertises, on its home page, the 
> Sixth
> > Congress against Piracy and Counterfeiting (2nd -3rd February 2011), 
> which
> > WIPO is organizing along with Interpol, the World Customs Organization
> > (WCO), the Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy 
> (BASCAP) and
> > the International Trademarks Association (INTA). The first
> > session<http://www.ccapcongress.net/>has the chilling title of
> > ‘Knowing the Enemy’. The question that is begged
> > to be asked is whether WIPO’s ‘leading’ role in the war against 
> piracy can
> > be made fully compatible with its ‘lead’ role on in global copyright
> > reform,
> > particularly through *ad hoc* arrangements like the suggested ‘blue sky’
> > commission.
> >
> > Finally, global copyright reform should not be confined to the digital
> > environment. Developing countries’ grievances about global copyright 
> rules
> > extend well beyond the digital environment. In the past two years,
> > developing countries have submitted to WIPO proposals for new 
> treaties on
> > limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired and for the 
> disabled,
> > educational and research institutions and libraries. Such proposals have
> > been met with opposition by some developed countries and rights holders
> > representatives who favour soft norms or technical solutions. More
> > generally, developing countries view copyright reform through the 
> lens of
> > the broader ‘access to knowledge’ framework which is also an important
> > component of the Development Agenda.
> >
> > Global copyright reform is badly needed. It is ultimately up to WIPO 
> member
> > states to decide how to go about it. For the moment, hopes for 
> ‘reform’ are
> > embodied by the above mentioned proposals made by developing 
> countries and
> > they should be actively supported. Any future reform process of the 
> global
> > copyright system needs careful thinking and broad discussion about its
> > objectives. Given that global copyright rules have acquired such a
> > pervasive
> > impact in many facets of our lives, their reform needs to take place
> > through
> > an open, inclusive and participatory consultation process where ‘all 
> of us’
> > have a say.
> >
> > *Ahmed Abdel Latif is Programme Manager for Intellectual Property and
> > Technology at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
> > Development
> > (ICTSD). Previously, as an Egyptian diplomat, he took an active part in
> > global debates about IP and development particularly in the context 
> of the
> > WIPO Development Agenda. The views expressed in this article do not
> > necessarily reflect the views of any institution with which he is
> > affiliated.*
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2k mailing list
> > A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>
> > http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luis Villarroel
> Director de Investigacion
> Corporación Innovarte
>
> Agustinas 1185 of. 88, Santiago, Chile.
> Fono: 56 2 6886926
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>




More information about the A2k mailing list