[DMCA-Activists] FSF Europe & Latin America Address to WIPO GA

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Statement of the Free Software Foundations Europe &
Latin Americato the 2005 WIPO general assemblies
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:09:17 -0300
From: "Georg C. F. Greve" <address@hidden>,Georg C F Greve
<address@hidden>
To: address@hidden


> http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/statement-20050930.en.html


Statement of the Free Software Foundations

  Free Software Foundation Europe

  Free Software Foundation Latin America

towards the 2005 WIPO general assemblies

Mr. Chairman,

on behalf of the Free Software Foundations Europe and Latin
America, let me express my congratulations to you and your
colleagues on your chairing this historic general assembly. The
Free Software Foundations are globally active centres of
expertise acting in a network of sister organisations based in
India, Latin America, Europe and the United States of America.

Our area of expertise are the issues raised by a digitised
society and economy, questions which are addressed effectively by
Free Software; as defined by the freedom of unlimited use for any
purpose, the freedom to study, the freedom to modify and the
freedom to distribute.

Through the Free Software Foundation Europe the FSFs participated
in all sessions of the Development Agenda IIM process and also
followed the broadcasting treaty negotiations with great
interest. Our comments relate to both activities.

Mr Chairman,

much has been said and written about the knowledge society that
humankind is about to enter. Looking at the regulatory
initiatives, one stumbles upon a paradox: While society is
getting ready to unleash human creativity as it has never done
before, regulatory proposals seek to create new barriers.

The Broadcasting Treaty is a good example of such a new barrier
for which the potential benefits and costs seem unequally matched
in disfavor of humankind.

The result of ignoring the wisdom of approaching crucial legal
regulation can be seen in another area: software patents have
been introduced without evaluation, and according to the findings
of several renowned institutions we now have to realise that they
are harmful to competition and stifle innovation. For your
information: these institutions include Massachussetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), the Boston University School of Law, Price
Waterhouse Coopers, US Federal Trade Commission and Deutsche Bank
Research.

The situation has degenerated to the point that a vice president
of IBM, Mr Wladawsky-Berger, likened software patents to weapons
of mass destruction in a New York Times interview.

Similar experiences seem possible with the Broadcasting Treaty.

Erecting additional barriers and raising all barriers by
introduction of criminal sanctions against commercial
infringement at a time when humankind is still struggling to
fully understand the implications of the digital age would be
hasty and unwise.

Mr. Chairman,

the traditional toolset of WIPO revolves centrally around limited
monopolies, such as Copyrights, Patents or Trademarks. These have
often been treated on the basis that more is always better, an
approach that ignores both Liebigs law of the minimum as well as
Shelfords law of tolerance: Not only will increasing the dose of
the non-limiting factor have no positive effect, an overdose can
be toxic.

Finding the proper balance between too little and too much is the
challenge that lies before any regulation. Given the fundamental
impact of all regulations made on WIPO level, wisdom would
suggest a conservative approach:

New regulations should only be introduced if scientific evidence
and evidence from a public review period conclusively show it to
have a positive effect.

Old regulations should be reviewed periodically as to whether
they are still up to the needs of the time, or whether they
require adjustment.

In the light of the wisdom of Liebig and Shelford, agreeing to
the creation of a WIPO Research and Evaluation Office (WERO)
would seem trivial, so would the search for alternative means of
fostering creativity.

As the secretariat and member states correctly pointed out
repeatedly in the past: WIPO exists to promote creativity. At the
time of its inception, most alternative means of fostering
creativity were not yet concieved, in particular those related to
digitalisation. Now that they exist, what would seem more natural
for WIPO than exploring them?

The discussions around the Development Agenda have proven to be
most difficult, also because of procedural discussions, which
indeed took the majority of the time spent in the IIM process.
After these had been largely resolved, substantive discussion
took place, cut short by the need to come to a formal outcome
that could be presented to this general assembly.

Not continuing what was begun, or changing from a horse to a mule
midstream, as the honored Indian delegate so eloquently put it,
would be wasting the time and effort spent on this initiative by
all sides, North and South. For this reason we strongly support
the notion of letting the IIM process finish what it began.

Mr Chairman,

Thank you for your attention.

Statement by Mr. Georg C.F. Greve <address@hidden> 

Free Software Foundation Europe, President
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
address@hidden
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion