SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Global IP Enforcement Push Impacting Consumer Access, 2010 IP Watchlist Finds

    Published on 29 April 2010 @ 5:55 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The second edition of the Consumers International IP Watchlist has been published, with the conclusion that consumers are bearing collateral damage to the enforcement push by entertainment and media lobby groups encouraging stringent national legislations. Copyright laws and enforcement are changing, but mostly for the benefit of right holders, said the advocate group which encourages copyright exceptions.

    Reports on the state of access to knowledge and their national intellectual property legislation were obtained in 34 countries, Consumers International (CI) said. India, Lebanon, Israel and the United States were the four best-rated countries, and Chile, Jordan, the United Kingdom and Kenya being the four worst-rated countries. The results suggest that a country’s level of development and its level of copyright protection are not closely linked, they said.

    According to CI, a “world federation of consumer groups,” with over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, consumers are being penalised by copyright laws in many countries. As examples, the report said that millions of visually impaired consumers are unable to legally access books in formats such as Braille that were legally produced in another country, or that entire collections of older books, films or music are in danger of not being reproduced or broadcasted because their copyright owners cannot be located.

    CI has been inventorying best practices encountered during the survey. Among these is the United States copyright law allowing many uses of copyright materials as “fair use”. These include new and innovative uses of copyrighted works, such as recording “your favourite television show to watch later,” the report said. It called for other countries to use copyright exceptions such as fair use in their legislation.

    Works that are still protected by copyright but for which the rights holders remain unaccounted for, described as orphan works, are locking away material that could be very valuable to cultural and educational use, according to CI. In some countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, orphan works pass into the public domain, for everyone to use. Bangladesh, Canada, India, and South Korea have allowed orphan works to be licensed from a central authority, upon proof that efforts to locate the authors remained empty.

    Private copying is a concern, according to the report. The ability to copy copyrighted material by consumers for their personal use is sometimes taxed in forms of levies on blank CDs and DVDs, or equipment used to write on those media. CI said that “if consumers are to pay for the privilege of private copying, ‘which can be a good idea when administered fairly, it is important that they receive value for money.”

    CI also warned against the use of the graduated response, or three-strikes-and-you’re-out, policy against internet file sharers in which the internet service providers are requested to warn their customers “when they are accused by a copyright owner of having downloaded a copyright-infringing file.”

    Digital rights management (DRM), controlling the uses that consumers can make of copyright digital material with technological protection mechanisms (TPMs), also is worrisome, according to CI. The source of the DRM is the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Copyright Treaty, said CI, which “requires parties to enact laws against the circumvention of TPMs.”

    “The global consumer movement doesn’t have a long history of activism on IP issues, but the stakes are getting higher,” Jeremy Malcolm, project coordinator for CI told Intellectual Property Watch. “Our member organisations are receiving complaints about spiralling textbook prices, digital media that are locked to a particular device or format, being double-charged for content through copying levies, and industry campaigns that treat consumers like criminals.”

    The Consumer Alternative to the Special 301 Report

    The next IP Watchlist report might show quite different results as legislations are changing in a number of countries such as Brazil, Chile, India, and the United Kingdom, said Malcolm.

    According to CI, the IP Watchlist “was developed in part with the intention of redressing” the deficiencies in the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s ‘Special 301’ report, expected to be released this week.

    The Special 301 report is a unilateral annual review issued by the United States asserting how well US trade partners are protecting US intellectual property rights. USTR’s standard of adequate and effective IP protection “has reached absurdly high levels, that bear no relation to standards set in international law, and would be impractical and even dangerous for developing countries to meet,” the IP Watchlist report said.

    The IP Watchlist is meant to present an “alternative perspective of the state of global copyright laws and enforcement practices, based on the effect that those laws and practices have on consumers, including those form developing countries.” The fact that this is the first Special 301 report under an Obama appointee, may present signs of a more balanced approach, said the report.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.