Login
You are not logged in.
Login | Subscribe

RSS feed 

What is RSS?

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is an XML format of a web site or a weblog designed to allow the distribution and the sharing of information. An RSS feed or web feed provides headlines, brief descriptions and links to the full original content in a standard format.

More information is available on Wikipedia.

What is the benefit of using RSS feeds?

RSS is an easy way for you to be alerted when new content is posted on your chosen web sites, such as the Intellectual Property Watch website. Instead of visiting the IP-Watch website again and again to browse for new stories, the RSS feed automatically tells you when something new is posted.

What do I need to use RSS?

To start using RSS, you need a news reader or aggregator that displays RSS feeds from web sites or weblogs you selected. There are many different news readers, available as applications to be installed on your computer or as web services. Some web browsers such as Firefox and Safari can display RSS feeds too.

You can find a list on RSS Compendium.

Once you have set up your news reader, you simply subscribe to the RSS feeds you want.

How do I subscribe to the IP-Watch RSS feed?

Copy the URL of the IP-Watch RSS feed as provided in the left margin to your clipboard. Then follow the instructions on your particular news reader for adding / subscribing to RSS feeds.

Email alerts 

You can subscribe for free to receive automatic email notifications whenever new content is available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. Moreover, you can configure the alerts to fit your needs and interests by defining the frequency, the type of content and even the language.

Subscribe/free trial 

Intellectual Property Watch subscribers receive exclusive access to stories published on the website under password protection, plus the Intellectual Property Watch monthly edition, a 16-page selection of the most important stories and features, including the People column and News Briefs section not available anywhere else. These columns contain the latest on personnel changes in the international IP community, and items on IP policy news and reports from around the world. The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available online and in print, mailed to your door.


Global IP Policy in 2010:
What You Need To Know
IP-Watch Year Ahead Series

Advertise Here

Latest Comments
  • @Sam: These laws apply here in Canada...that is fo... »
  • Great move on open innovation and effort to help t... »
  • Inside Views

    Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea on any relevant topic to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch, or leave a comment within any piece such as below.

    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.

    Copyright Law Reform in Brazil: Anteprojeto or Anti-project?

    A balancing of the rights of authors and consumers, the re-introduction of a private copying exception, a remixing permission and a new regulatory agency for copyright issues are among the core points the Brazilian Ministry of Culture has planned for the new copyright law. But at the Third Conference on Copyright and the Public Interest in São Paulo a month ago, the Ministry emphasised that the bits and pieces shown to the audience were not from an actual law draft (”anteprojeto”) but only a preliminary proposal for formulating such a draft. The bill still has not been published to date. The delay in releasing the bill for public consultation now threatens the work of more than two years on the reform.


    Take Two: China’s Proposed Regulations For Patent-Involving National Standards

    The Standards Administration of China patent policy proposal fails to strike the desired balance and undervalues the intellectual property included in a standard. If implemented as worded, it will discourage the contribution of innovative technologies for use in national standards and the participation of patent holders, writes George Willingmyre.


    18 May 2009

    Un caso sobre derechos de autor en Argentina pone en primer plano el acceso a la educación

    By Catherine Saez @ 4:54 pm

    Se ha entablado una demanda contra un profesor argentino de filosofía por una presunta violación de derechos de autor ante la publicación de versiones traducidas de las obras del filósofo francés Jacques Derrida en una página web, según informó el Grupo de Investigación CopySouth. El caso atrajo la atención de la comunidad internacional hacia las limitaciones en el acceso a la educación como resultado de los derechos de autor.

    En un esfuerzo por poner las obras de filósofos extranjeros a disposición de los lectores y los estudiantes de habla hispana, el profesor Horacio Potel señaló que creó un sitio web de código abierto denominado “Nietzsche en castellano” en diciembre de 1999, otro denominado “Heidegger en castellano” en junio de 2000 y otro denominado “Derrida en castellano” en junio de 2001.

    El 19 de febrero se le comunicó que se había entablado una acción penal en su contra. En diciembre de 2008, la editorial francesa Les Éditions de Minuit presentó una reclamación, que fue transmitida a la Embajada de Francia en Argentina y constituyó la base de la acción legal interpuesta por la Cámara Argentina del Libro contra Potel, según indicó CopySouth.

    En Buenos Aires, existen dos librerías especializadas en filosofía que cuentan con algunos libros de Derrida, afirmó Potel. Sin embargo, en el resto del país, es muy difícil tener acceso a las obras de Derrida; existen pocas librerías especializadas y mucho menos en filosofía, informó.

    En las últimas décadas, la industria editorial argentina se ha visto debilitada, señaló Potel en una entrevista, y aproximadamente el 90% de los libros de filosofía se importan de España con precios en euros, lo que los encarece significativamente. La enseñanza universitaria en Argentina se basa en las fotocopias, lo que se supone que también constituye una violación de los derechos de autor, observó.

    El fotocopiado de libros de texto representa un gran problema tanto para los estudiantes como para los profesores, según indicó Roberto Verzola de CopySouth a Intellectual Property Watch.

    “Los titulares de derechos de autor están intentando por todos los medios que el fotocopiado sea ilegal, aunque en muchos países esto simplemente se ignora”, afirmó. “Sin embargo, los gobiernos siguen recibiendo una fuerte presión por parte de Estados Unidos, Europa y otras partes interesadas para que se prohíba el fotocopiado en las universidades y en las bibliotecas públicas. Es posible que algunos gobiernos no puedan resistir tal presión. Esto generará un enorme problema en el ámbito educativo”, señaló.

    “La información que estaba disponible en mi web sobre Derrida es el fruto de años de trabajo y de recolección, era un instrumento de producción intelectual imposible de reemplazar por medios analógicos”, destaca Potel, quien ha eliminado todos los contenidos de su sitio en Internet.

    Les Éditions de Minuit reclama para sí los derechos de cinco obras de Derrida, las cuales están disponibles en francés. Los representantes de la editorial informaron a Intellectual Property Watch que tienen la intención de hacer respetar tales derechos, que les permiten, entre otras acciones, enviar cheques anuales en concepto de regalías a la viuda de Derrida.

    “Horacio Potel ha publicado durante varios años, sin autorización y de manera gratuita, versiones completas de varias obras de Jacques Derrida, lo que resulta perjudicial para la difusión de las ideas de Derrida”, dejó trascender la editorial francesa que afirma haber instado a Potel en varias ocasiones a poner fin a esta práctica antes de iniciar la acción legal.

    Potel, quien niega haber recibido tales comunicaciones, afirmó que recuerda haber recibido un único mensaje por correo electrónico en 2007 (que luego perdió tras una falla en la computadora) en el que se le solicitaba que cerrara el sitio web “como si ellos fueran dueños de Jacques Derrida y de toda su obra y derechos”.

    Potel señaló que la editorial francesa no tenía ningún derecho de exigirle que desactivara el sitio web para eliminar el material por el cual la editorial había adquirido los derechos de autor.

    Aclara que cuando publicó esos textos en su sitio web, aproximadamente hace 10 años, nadie hubiese pensado que la ley de propiedad intelectual [11.723 (235)] vigente en el país desde 1933 sancionaría una actividad que ni siquiera existía en el momento de la creación de tal ley.

    Los titulares de derechos adoptan medidas más estrictas con el material educativo
    Según Federico Heinz de la Fundación Vía Libre, una organización no gubernamental argentina que se dedica a los derechos civiles en el sector digital, el caso de Potel es “un claro ejemplo de la falta de adecuación actual de la ley de propiedad intelectual”. La legislación de derecho de autor, que alguna vez fue el marco normativo de las actividades comerciales, actualmente se utiliza contra usuarios que hacen un uso no comercial, señala Heinz y agrega que el hecho de que Argentina sea un país signatario de los tratados de derecho de autor relacionados con Internet de 1996 de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual contribuye a la mala fortuna de Potel.

    Según CopySouth, la Cámara Argentina del Libro fue responsable de un allanamiento policial en la Universidad de Buenos Aires y ha acusado a algunos profesores de alentar a los estudiantes para que fotocopien libros y artículos.

    En Colombia, también existen algunos casos judiciales relacionados con el fotocopiado, señaló Carolina Botero, abogada y miembro de CopySouth, Creative Commons y la Fundación Karisma de Colombia.

    La Oficina del Representante Comercial de Estados Unidos (USTR) incluyó a Colombia en su lista de vigilancia “Informe Especial 301” [pdf en inglés] de 2009, según el informe de esta oficina publicado el 30 de abril. En particular, Estados Unidos solicitó al gobierno colombiano que adoptara medidas para reducir la piratería de medios ópticos y libros. El Informe Especial 301 constituye una revisión anual de la protección y la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual de los socios comerciales de EE. UU. Botero afirmó que se espera que se incrementen las medidas de observancia tras esta decisión.

    La Alianza Internacional de la Propiedad Intelectual (IIPA), una coalición de grupos de titulares de derechos de EE. UU., también solicitó específicamente a la USTR que impida el fotocopiado no autorizado de libros y revistas especializadas en instituciones educativas de Colombia en un informe paralelo [pdf en inglés] que presentó antes de la publicación del informe de la USTR, informó Botero.

    La abogada agregó que en América Latina los libros académicos aún dependen de las editoriales extranjeras a precios elevados. A los estudiantes de pocos recursos les resulta casi imposible comprar estos libros.

    “El sector educativo tiene necesidades especiales y no se están satisfaciendo”, señaló. El solo hecho de comprar libros representa un desafío, dado que la mayoría de las librerías y bibliotecas están ubicadas en las áreas urbanas y principalmente en las grandes ciudades, por lo que los estudiantes que viven en ciudades pequeñas cuentan con muy pocas opciones, advirtió.

    Potel afirmó que desconoce el contenido de la demanda interpuesta por Les Éditions de Minuit y que no ha recibido aún una notificación judicial; no obstante, su abogado había solicitado que se retiraran los cargos en su contra. Les Éditions de Minuit no tiene derecho de pronunciarse en nombre de Derrida ni de sus descendientes, dijo Potel y agregó: “le han infligido una nueva muerte al retirarlo de Internet”.

    Traducido del inglés por Fernanda Nieto Femenia


    Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported  Print This Post Print This Post

    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.