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.

Advertisement


Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

To What Extent Can Global IP Rules Be Responsive To Public Interest Demands? The Case Of The Treaty For The Visually Impaired

To what extent can global intellectual property rules address in an effective manner the needs of the most vulnerable members of society? This is the key question facing member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as they prepare to meet next week for a diplomatic conference, in Marrakesh, that might result in the adoption of a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities.


Interview With Tanja Rajić: The Impact Of EU Enlargement On Trademark Practice In Croatia

Ten years after applying for membership, Croatia is finally joining the European Union on 1 July 2013. Tanja Rajić, senior associate at PETOSEVIC, explains how six years of accession negotiations and the adoption of the acquis communautaire have affected intellectual property protection in Croatia and prepared it for becoming a member state.





Latest Comments
  • We've taken a detailed look at the Myriad decision... »
  • “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BLUEPRINT 2014-2020”by Jeon... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >


    Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System

    Published on 5 November 2010 @ 3:47 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Influential copyright scholar Larry Lessig yesterday issued a call for the World Intellectual Property Organization to lead an overhaul of the copyright system which he says does not and never will make sense in the digital environment.

    A functioning copyright system must provide the incentives needed for creative professionals, but must also protect the freedoms necessary for scientific research and amateur creativity to flourish.

    In the digital environment, copyright has failed at both, said Lessig.

    Reading, lending, or reselling a book is not “fair use” – it is free use. They are unregulated acts.
    -Larry Lessig

    “And its failure is not an accident,” he said. “It’s implicit in the architecture of copyright as we inherited it. It does not make sense in a digital environment.”

    The copyright system will “never work on the internet. It’ll either cause people to stop creating or it’ll cause a revolution,” said Lessig, citing a growing system of copyright “abolitionism” online in response to a worrying tendency to criminalise the younger generation.

    “If and only if WIPO [the World Intellectual Property Organization] leads in this debate will we have a chance” at fixing the copyright system, he said.

    Lessig spoke at the 4-5 November WIPO Global Meeting on Emerging Copyright Licensing Modalities – Facilitating Access to Culture in the Digital Age. This event is a part of the ongoing implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda. Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School.

    He also spoke on video with Intellectual Property Watch after his speech, which can be seen below.

    Larry Lessig speaking to Intellectual Property Watch
    at the World Intellectual Property Organization, 4 November 2010.

    Copyright Online: What has Changed?

    Reading a book in physical space is unregulated, said Lessig: reading, lending, or reselling a book is not “fair use” – it is free use. They are unregulated acts.

    But online, every use is a copy. This is “not about a generation that can’t respect the rules, it’s a problem in the design of the system.”

    “Most of us can no longer spend even an hour without colliding with the copyright law,” Lessig said, quoting University of Michigan Law School Professor Jessica Litman.

    “At the turn of the century, US copyright law was technical, inconsistent and difficult to understand, but it didn’t apply to very many people or very many things.… Ninety years later, the US copyright law is even more technical, inconsistent and difficult to understand; more importantly, it touches everyone and everything,” Litman wrote.

    Francis Gurry, WIPO director general, said in his opening speech that the technical infrastructure of the digital environment is both key to the description of what is lacking about copyright and key to the solution.

    “An idea whose time has come” is a global database of repertoire, which called “an essential piece of global infrastructure or as an essential global public good.” This was mentioned frequently in subsequent panels at the event.

    WIPO Blue Sky Commission

    Creative Commons licences, a suite of licences that build on copyright law by allowing a user to select allowed freedoms, have helped but are not enough, said Lessig.

    WIPO needs to form a “blue sky commission,” a “group that has the freedom to think about what architecture for copyright makes sense.”

    This architecture must be: simple – “if it’s going to regulate 15-year-olds it should be something that 15-year-olds can understand”; and targeted – regulation makes sense in some areas, such as protecting professionals, but not in others, such as in amateur remixing. It also must be effective, and realistic in consideration of “actual human behaviour.”

    This realism involves acknowledging what has changed since the advent of the internet, and also what has not.

    For all of human history, Lessig said, human culture was “read-write.” That is, people participated in the creation and recreation of culture. The 20th century has been unique in human culture, because the development of technologies of broadcasting and vinyl records produced an environment which enabled “efficient consumption, but inefficient amateur production.” This created a world that was “read only,” a “passive, consuming culture.” The internet has brought back that read-write environment.

    The war on piracy has been going on for 10 years. “For some, the response to a totally failed war is to up the stakes, to punish more vigorously.” But this will only fuel the copyright “abolitionist” movement, said Lessig, adding he was “against extremisms, because both lead to destruction of core value of copyright.”

    “We are not going to kill these technologies,” Lessig said. “We can’t stop the kids’ creativity, only drive it underground. [We] can’t make our kids passive, we can only make them pirates.”


    Larry Lessig and Francis Gurry speaking at WIPO.

     

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. john e miller says:

      In the above video Ms. Mara(?) starts at 4:47 to ask Professor Lessig about the WIPO SCCR21 deliberations for next week. He comments (my transcription):

      Prof. LL: Well I think the particular flexibility that’s being discussed right now is GOOD — but it all presupposes the same architecture for copyright regulations …

      … and then he again makes his comments re: the flaws and suppositions in the last hundred years or so of copyright law history as they relate to copyright law as may be required in the digital age …

      All very helpful and pragmatic to those trying (at least in my case) as to how to in reasonably short order get a Braille rendition of Copyrighted material into the hands of someone in a developing country that has no existing copyright law structure for such exemptions and transfers in place.

    2. Lessig sugere que a OMPI lidere a revisão dos Direitos Autorais says:

      [...] o artigo original aqui (em [...]

    3. Twitter Updates for 2010-11-06 : frankjordans.com says:

      [...] Lessig calls for overhaul of copyright system http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=13210 [...]

    4. Crosbie Fitch says:

      Copyright didn’t even make sense in a tangible/non-digital environment – it was simply an unethical privilege that was feasible to enforce.

      Annulling the right to copy in the majority of the inhabitants in order to leave this right by exclusion in the hands of a few would by definition produce an instrument of injustice.

      People are born with their right to liberty, and copyright’s derogation of an individual’s cultural liberty is a corruption of law to favour the state via its beholden press. Suspending the public’s cultural liberty, their right to learn and develop through copying, cannot benefit the public except in the corrupt argument of those few who stand to lucratively benefit.

      In the early 20th century the countryside was being scoured for folk songs and folk music that could be registered for copyright’s ‘protection’ from further cultural engagement. This is the true theft – not file-sharing. Jammie Thomas-Rasset is a victim of injustice, not the incorrigible delinquent the copyright industry would portray as deserving of $1,500,000 in damages. Ask RIAA:

      We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant’s misconduct. Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions

      The digital domain and the rapid advance in communications technology simply betrays the iniquity of copyright. The privilege was never a just law. It is now ineffective as well as unethical. All that remains is to abolish it.

    5. Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System says:

      [...] Read the report on Intellectual Property Watch. [...]

    6. IPR in the News: November 2010 « VRA Intellectual Property Rights News says:

      [...] Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System [...]

    7. Lessig At CERN: Scientific Knowledge Should Not Be Reserved For Academic Elite | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] he said. In November, Lessig was invited to talk at the World Intellectual Property Organization (IPW, WIPO, 5 November 2010), where he proposed the creation of a “blue sky commission” that would work on copyright in the [...]

    8. Lessig At CERN: Scientific Knowledge Should Not Be Reserved For Academic Elite | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] he said. In November, Lessig was invited to talk at the World Intellectual Property Organization (IPW, WIPO, 5 November 2010 [2]), where he proposed the creation of a “blue sky commission” that would work on copyright in [...]

    9. Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] is hopelessly unsuited to the twenty-first century and needs major reform, says Lawrence Lessig. Speaking in Geneva in early November [2], the American scholar called for the creation of a ‘blue sky’ commission, led by the World [...]

    10. Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] Policies,Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting,Themes,Venues,WIPO 7 Comments (Open | [...]

    11. Does Copyright Still Apply in the Digital Age? « The Deadline Is Now says:

      [...] For more on Lessig’s views on copyright – http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system… [...]


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 67.202.5.213