[DMCA-Activists] Love: Major Developments at WIPO

[Seth Johnson]

(Our fearless public advocates are issuing a statement to WIPO in
the wake of major developments that rock the institution to the
core; they seek signers.  This is the next step that follows
after the efforts a short while ago to get WIPO to address
collaborative works.  Now if we could just get WIPO to change
their name . . .  :-)  -- Seth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] Debate over WIPO future -- what you can do
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:33:09 -0400
From: James Love <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden

A battle has erupted within the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) over the most fundamental questions of its
mission.  A number of developing countries, lead by Argentina and
Brazil, have tabled a proposal for a "development agenda," which
involves stopping work on new treaties that hike intellectual
property protections, and redirecting the agency to a range of
initiatives more responsive to development and concerns of WIPO
critics.  Officially, this is debated on September 30, 2004. 
Below is a copy of a Declaration on the Future of WIPO, which
discusses the problems with WIPO, the proposal for a development
agenda, and other reforms at WIPO. We are seeking additional
signatures for this Declaration.  To sign, send an email note to

mailto:address@hidden

You can read about the debate in WIPO on the development agenda,
see the signatures of persons who have already signed the
Declaration, and review relevant WIPO documents here:

http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html

This debate is not a small thing.  Industry groups, governments
representing right-owners, and several persons on the WIPO
Secretariat are now very active in opposing the Argentina/Brazil
proposals.  There is much that people can do, starting with
contacting your own government to find out where they stand the
"Development Agenda" for WIPO, and share information on us and
other groups working on this issue.  We also need help getting
more signatures for the Declaration on the Future of WIPO.  The
following is the text of the English version of the Declaration
we are seeking signatures.

   Jamie Love

------------------

Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual
Property 
Organization

Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of knowledge,
technology and culture.  The crisis is manifest in many ways.

* Without access to essential medicines, millions suffer and die;

* Morally repugnant inequality of access to education, knowledge
and technology undermines development and social cohesion;

* Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose
enormous costs on consumers and retard innovation;

* Authors, artists and inventors face mounting barriers to
follow-on innovation;

* Concentrated ownership and control of knowledge, technology,
biological resources and culture harm development, diversity and
democratic institutions;

* Technological measures designed to enforce intellectual
property rights in digital environments threaten core exceptions
in copyright laws for disabled persons, libraries, educators,
authors and consumers, and undermine privacy and freedom;

* Key mechanisms to compensate and support creative individuals
and communities are unfair to both creative persons and
consumers;

* Private interests misappropriate social and public goods, and
lock up the public domain.

At the same time, there are astoundingly promising innovations in
information, medical and other essential technologies, as well as
in social movements and business models.  We are witnessing
highly successful campaigns for access to drugs for AIDS,
scientific journals, genomic information and other databases, and
hundreds of innovative collaborative efforts to create public
goods, including the Internet, the World Wide Web, Wikipedia, the
Creative Commons, GNU Linux and other free and open software
projects, as well as distance education tools and medical
research tools.  Technologies such as Google now provide tens of
millions with powerful tools to find information.  Alternative
compensation systems have been proposed to expand access and
interest in cultural works, while providing both artists and
consumers with efficient and fair systems for compensation. 
There is renewed interest in compensatory liability rules,
innovation prizes, or competitive intermediators, as models for
economic incentives for science and technology that can
facilitate sequential follow-on innovation and avoid monopolist
abuses.  In 2001, the World Trade Organization (WTO) declared
that member countries should "promote access to medicines for
all."

Humanity stands at a crossroads - a fork in our moral code and a
test of our ability to adapt and grow.   Will we evaluate, learn
and profit from the best of these new ideas and opportunities, or
will we respond to the most unimaginative pleas to suppress all
of this in favor of intellectually weak, ideologically rigid, and
sometimes brutally unfair and inefficient policies?  Much will
depend upon the future direction of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO), a global body setting standards
that regulate the production, distribution and use of knowledge.

A 1967 Convention sought to encourage creative activity by
establishing WIPO to promote the protection of intellectual
property.  The mission was expanded in 1974, when WIPO became
part of the United Nations, under an agreement that asked WIPO to
take "appropriate action to promote creative intellectual
activity," and facilitate the transfer of technology to
developing countries, "in order to accelerate economic, social
and cultural development."

As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced a
culture of creating and expanding monopoly privileges, often
without regard to consequences.  The continuous expansion of
these privileges and their enforcement mechanisms has led to
grave social and economic costs, and has hampered and threatened
other important systems of creativity and innovation.  WIPO needs
to enable its members to understand the real economic and social
consequences of excessive intellectual property protections, and
the importance of striking a balance between the public domain
and competition on the one hand, and the realm of property rights
on the other.  The mantras that "more is better" or "that less is
never good" are disingenuous and dangerous -- and have greatly
compromised the standing of WIPO, especially among experts in
intellectual property policy.  WIPO must change.

We do not ask that WIPO abandon efforts to promote the
appropriate protection of intellectual property, or abandon all
efforts to harmonize or improve these laws.  But we insist that
WIPO to work from the broader framework described in the 1974
agreement with the UN, and 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
creativity intellectual activity.

WIPO must also express a more balanced view of the relative
benefits of harmonization and diversity, and seek to impose
global conformity only when it truly benefits all of humanity.  A
"one size fits all" approach that embraces the highest levels of
intellectual property protection for everyone leads to unjust and
burdensome outcomes for countries that are struggling to meet the
most basic needs of their citizens.

The WIPO General Assembly has now been asked to establish a
development agenda.  The initial proposal, first put forth by the
governments of Argentina and Brazil, would profoundly refashion
the WIPO agenda toward development and new approaches to support
innovation and creativity.

This is a long overdue and much needed first step toward a new
WIPO mission and work program.  It is not perfect.  The WIPO
Convention should formally recognize the need to take into
account the "development needs of its Member States, particularly
developing countries and least-developed countries," as has been
proposed, but this does not go far enough.  Some have argued that
the WIPO should only "promote the protection of intellectual
property," and not consider, any policies that roll back
intellectual property claims or protect and enhance the public
domain.  This limiting view stifles critical thinking.   Better
expressions of the mission can be found, including the
requirement in the 1974 UN/WIPO agreement that WIPO "promote
creative intellectual activity and facilitate the transfer of
technology related to industrial property."  The functions of
WIPO should not only be to promote "efficient protection" and
"harmonization" of intellectual property laws, but to formally
embrace the notions of balance, appropriateness and the
stimulation of both competitive and collaborative models of
creative activity within national, regional and transnational
systems of innovation.

The proposal for a development agenda has created the first real
opportunity to debate the future of WIPO.  It is not only an
agenda for developing countries.  It is an agenda for everyone,
North and South. It must move forward.  All nations and people
must join and expand the debate on the future of WIPO.

There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization of
standards that expand and strengthen monopolies and further
restrict access to knowledge.  For generations WIPO has responded
primarily to the narrow concerns of powerful publishers,
pharmaceutical manufacturers, plant breeders and other commercial
interests.  Recently, WIPO has become more open to civil society
and public interest groups, and this openness is welcome.  But
WIPO must now address the substantive concerns of these groups,
such as the protection of consumer rights and human rights. 
Long-neglected concerns of the poor, the sick, the visually
impaired and others must be given priority.

The proposed development agenda points in the right direction. 
By stopping efforts to adopt new treaties on substantive patent
law, broadcasters rights and databases, WIPO will create space to
address far more urgent needs.

The proposals for the creation of standing committees and working
groups on technology transfer and development are welcome.  WIPO
should also consider the creation of one or more bodies to
systematically address the control of anticompetitive practices
and the protection of consumer rights.

We support the call for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and
Technology. The Standing Committee on Patents and the Standing
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights should solicit views
from member countries and the public on elements of such a
treaty.

The WIPO technical assistance programs must be fundamentally
reformed. Developing countries must have the tools to implement
the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, and "use, to
the full" the flexibilities in the TRIPS to "promote access to
medicines for all." WIPO must help developing countries address
the limitations and exceptions in patent and copyright laws that
are essential for fairness, development and innovation.  If the
WIPO Secretariat cannot understand the concerns and represent the
interests of the poor, the entire technical assistance program
should be moved to an independent body that is accountable to
developing countries.

Enormous differences in bargaining power lead to unfair outcomes
between creative individuals and communities (both modern and
traditional) and the commercial entities that sell culture and
knowledge goods.  WIPO must honor and support creative
individuals and communities by investigating the nature of
relevant unfair business practices, and promote best practice
models and reforms that protect creative individuals and
communities in these situations, consistent with norms of the
relevant communities.

Delegations representing the WIPO member states and the WIPO
Secretariat have been asked to choose a future.  We want a change
of direction, new priorities, and better outcomes for humanity. 
We cannot wait for another generation.  It is time to seize the
moment and move forward.


-- 
James Love | Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org | mailto:address@hidden
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176
_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits