Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Your Rights Online

FSFE Becomes WIPO Observer 118

Posted by timothy from the which-is-not-a-newspaper dept.
wikinerd writes "FSFE, the European branch of Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation announced that it was granted observer status in WIPO, the international organisation which influences nationwide copyright laws."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSFE Becomes WIPO Observer More

FSFE Becomes WIPO Observer

Comments Filter:

  • jaja (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Commander Trollco ( 791924 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:30PM (#10937953)
    Well, aside from perhaps making OSS people look like greasy hippies, this is perhaps good news for all that are concerned about software consumers' rights. having a free software advocacy group in such an influential organization will be a good way to ensure that a wrench is thrown into the gears every time lobbyists come around, throwing their specious arguments about intellectual "property"

    • Re:jaja (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hermeshome.se ( 233303 )
      Yes, it is good news. The question is how much influence they'll have in reality. WIPO seems to have quite a few members, and no small ones either. Check out this document [wipo.int] (pdf).

      • It helps (Score:5, Informative)

        by villoks ( 27306 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @05:03PM (#10938655) Homepage Journal
        Well,

        the more civil society organizations, the better. the reason - every organization has typically one chance to speak and currently right holders dominate these sessions because of the excess number of their participating organizations.

        FSFE is actually a bit late here, EFF and CSC are already full members and EDRI, IP Justice and the Union for the Public Domain have been observers for a while.

    • Re:jaja (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Selanit ( 192811 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @03:31PM (#10938239)
      Well, aside from perhaps making OSS people look like greasy hippies . . .

      Huh?

      I'm confused. How does gaining formal observer status at a massive international governmental body make the OSS crowd look like greasy hippies? I'd have thought it would be the other way around -- make us look like a bunch of tie-wearing authoritarians, maybe. I agree with your post otherwise -- this is good news -- but I don't understand that first bit.

      • Re:jaja (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BlackHawk-666 ( 560896 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @03:50PM (#10938322)
        I'd say he's referring to the fact that Stallman looks like he needs a bath, a good shampoo, and a haircut. Sometimes that guy is a two edged sword. One the one hand, you cannot doubt the major good that has come from his crusade, on the other, he makes us all look like smelly hippies.

        I would have thought that if he really truly cared about free software and how it is represented to the business world he might at least try and play the game dressed in a nice suit. I cut my hair and put on a suit to go feed my family, if he cares about free software he might consider doing the same, or risk leaving it marginalised forever in the smelly hippie freak power pre-conception that is so easy to derive from his appearance. Yes Richard, presentation counts for something too...it counted on your exams at MIT and will count in the real world. It's not for no reason the top tier of many development projects is called "The Presentation Layer".

        • Re:jaja (Score:2, Funny)

          by mazarin5 ( 309432 )

          I cut my hair and put on a suit to go feed my family

          The Devil is often seen about town in a sharp looking suit.

          So what exactly do you do for a living?

          • Lawyer? :-D

          • I'm a programmer, just like Stallman. I had long hair for quite a number of those years, but I get more business credence now I have cut it, and wear "the suit", and since it's important for my clients to listen to me I see it as a reasonable trade of personal freedom.

        • Re:jaja (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BlueWonder ( 130989 )
          I'd say he's referring to the fact that Stallman looks like he needs a bath, a good shampoo, and a haircut.

          I don't think the hair of Georg Greve, president of the FSFE, is too long or dirty. Judge for yourself, he has some pictures on his homepage. [gnuhh.org]

        • Re:jaja (Score:2)

          by ccp ( 127147 )
          I cut my hair and put on a suit to go feed my family, if he cares about free software he might consider doing the same,

          A little envious, aren't we?

          Cheers,

          Carlos Cesar

          • Envious of what? I like my hair short or long, either is fine with me. Envious of Stallman? No. Why would I be?

            • Re:jaja (Score:2)

              by ccp ( 127147 )

              Envious of him for not having to "dress the part" to live his life.
              The tone of your post suggested that you had to dress up in order to feed your family, and you didn't really liked it.

              Cheers,
              Carlos Cesar
              • Nah, I was fine with it since I was ready for a change in any case. I was really only growing my hair to see how long I could grow it (around 3 feet BTW). It took about 7 years to do, and I had already worked out that was about as long as it could grow. Now, if he could grow his to over 3 feet, then I might be envious ;->

      • Re:jaja (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Suffering Bastard ( 194752 ) *

        I agree with your post otherwise -- this is good news -- but I don't understand that first bit.

        I think what Cmdr Trollco is pointing out is that the FSFE folks in WIPO will be the only people speaking out against the mainstream opinions, which will further the image of FOSS advocates as angst-ridden, head-in-the-clouds, delusional hippies. It's a variation on the same theme of discrediting dissent as misplaced discontent by labeling all dissenters as hippie/unpatriotic/out of touch/bad eggs/self-serving

      • Re:jaja (Score:4, Funny)

        by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @04:30PM (#10938518) Homepage
        How does gaining formal observer status at a massive international governmental body make the OSS crowd look like greasy hippies?

        Well Stallman could turn up and demand it's called gnuWIPO

  • Progress (Score:3, Insightful)

    by comwiz56 ( 447651 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ziwmoc}> on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:31PM (#10937961) Homepage
    This is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of OSS. If the OSS liscenses can't be enforced internationally, they are worth nothing. Even though this is only observer status, this is a major step in making OSS a major part of internation trade.

    • Give credit where credit is due. (Score:4, Informative)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Sunday November 28, 2004 @04:19PM (#10938474) Homepage

      This is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of OSS.

      No, it is a substantial piece of progress for widespread recognition and acceptance of the older free software movement. The FSFE doesn't speak for "OSS" (open source software). In fact the FSF tells us that the two movements are not the same [gnu.org]. This essay explains much and is one of the most underrated essays the FSF has published.

      While I'm sure that the open source movement will get some increased publicity from this (largely from people who don't understand what "open source" really means or don't know the difference between the philosophies of the two movements), it's important to understand recent history and see how the messages of the FSF and OSI differ. It's also important and fair to give credit where credit is due. Here, that means using the phrase "free software". I don't know who wrote the blurb at Wikinerds, but they were wrong. The FSFE's press release [fsfeurope.org] doesn't mention "open source" or "OSS" at all. Your article is vastly overrated.

      • The movements are somewhat different, but Free Software and open Source Software is the same thing (all FS is OSS and all OSS is FS).

        • Re:Give credit where credit is due. (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          That's rubbish. The FSF and OSI have very different goals that happen to be the same in practice most of the time, but not all. OSI takes a much more pragmatic approach, so licenses that restrict freedom to some extent, but still provide the basic benefits of Open Source (access to use and modify code) are OSI compliant, but classified as Non-Free by the FSF.

          One example is the earlier versions of the Apple Public Source License (APSL version 1.x). This was OSI approved, but classified as non-free by the FS

          • FSF and OSI (Score:3, Interesting)

            by hweimer ( 709734 )
            The FSF and OSI have very different goals that happen to be the same in practice most of the time, but not all.

            Do you know that the OSI definition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which are of course very strongly influenced by the Free Software movement?

            OSI takes a much more pragmatic approach, so licenses that restrict freedom to some extent, but still provide the basic benefits of Open Source (access to use and modify code) are OSI compliant, but classified as Non-Free by the FSF.

            Th
            • It is interesting to see that both issues don't exist with the latest versions of these licenses.
              The FSF has considerable influence in licensing questions.

  • Awesome (Score:1, Insightful)

    by ilyanep ( 823855 )
    When OSS is recognized by whoever is the overlord of copyright, then OSS is one step closer to becoming the supreme overlord of software.

  • To what effect (Score:1, Interesting)

    by mordors9 ( 665662 )
    "By becoming a WIPO observer, FSFE will be able to communicate with WIPO more effectivelly and may attract attention and support from decision makers." So other than the power to be informed and squawk about bad decisions, what has the free software community gained. We have been squawking already and the powers that be do not care. How will this make them care any more. Maybe I am missing something.

    • Re:To what effect (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ingolfke ( 515826 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:51PM (#10938063) Journal
      There is a big difference between unofficial "squawking" and official "squawking". The first is a rant, the second is an enlightened observation. Although the argument may not change, the official status does have some intrensic value in presenting the argument to decision makers.
    • Instead of squawking away out on the internet and probably getting ignored, the FSFE gets to squawk directly at them. I see it as a question of how ignorable we are.

      Jeff
    • You are missing something. Being close to the decision makers means more power. as George W. Bush pointed out when he was still running a failing oil operation, people look up to you when you're the presidents son.

      This means that the FSFE has the same power as the ISO, if that gives you any idea of what this means.
    • You're missing the connection between authority and action.

      Squawking before was done without any authority. Precious little divided us from the tinfoil hats.

      Supposedly, by being admitted as an observer to the WIPO, it's been acknowledged by the powers that be there that the FSFE is not wearing tinfoil. This will encourage other leaders to look more seriously at the points raised, since they now have some assurance that it's not coming from the local loon.

  • the dark side of all this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blackomegax ( 807080 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:35PM (#10937990) Journal
    bad thing is that they only have OBSERVER status. meaning no control. the bright side is, when shit hits the fan, and the poo flingers try to cover it up, it'll get out anyway.
    • Although it's not unlikely that they would be kept out of the loop, observers can have a very large influence on the UN. Much of the action taken by the body in session is little more than a formality. The majority of resolutions pass by consensus, which means that the vast majority of UN work occurs outside the UN in caucusing to reach consensus. It is here that the FSFE could leave its mark. Although it is perhaps a bit offtopic, last weekend I attended a Model UN where several observers such as the Holy See were able to have a noticeable influence.
    • WIPO is an intergovernmental organisation. If you're not a government* then you can't possibly be a member. Obsever status is the way that NGOs can get involved in the process.

      There is actually a good reason why membership is for governments only: the output of WIPO is treaties and only governments can sign treaties. That too is logical - treaties impose mutual obligations on countries. An NGO can't legislate for its country and therefore can't sign treaties. That's unless you'd like other NGOs like the RI

  • Patents too! (Score:5, Informative)

    by compudj ( 127499 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:45PM (#10938038) Homepage
    Not only does the WIPO influences copyright laws, but it does also affect the patents, which is exactly the point that the GPL v3 plans to take care of.

    It's good to have an organism like the FSF being recognised in the, how critical, field of intellectual property!

  • We are surrounded (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:47PM (#10938049) Journal
    On the WIPO site [wipo.int] there is a passage that might sound kind of scary:

    Intellectual property surrounds us in nearly everything we do. At home, at school, at work. At rest and at play. No matter what we do, we are surrounded by the fruits of human creativity and invention.

    I wonder if it's possible to live in a IP-free environment. Let's assume that you build your house from a public domain blueprint, you read only books written by authors who died before 1954, you use self-assembled PC running only free software, you use only generic drugs and own devices that either never were patented or whose patents have already expired. I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia and living in such environment might even be quite comfortable and stylish (imagine all those 1960's refrigerators, air conditioning systems, eight-track stereo with nothing but folk and classic music etc.). Am I wrong? Any educated comment, please?

    • Re:We are surrounded (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Gandalfar ( 599790 )
      you use self-assembled PC running only free software


      How old PC? You would need to go probably 20 years back in time to get near IP-free PC.

      It's just that I don't think you would like computerf from 1984.
      • It's just that I don't think you would like computerf from 1984.

        Computers from 1984 were great... in 1984. Now I have more computing power strapped to my belt every day (as an iRiver) than most people had access to in 1994, let alone 1984.
    • I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia I think what you described is much worse than Amish-style technophobia. Meaningful tradition vs. paranoia-based-protest-idealism?
      • I'm rather thinking of it as a pet-project for some middle class guy with too much spare time and enough resources. I'd rather avoid imagining a billionaire, as it would make things too easy (you could invent your own technologies and release them for free). Let's assume the guy can afford buying a 1960 refrigerator on ebay and then restoring it to full working condition, but he's too short to sponsor a full-fledged research leading to building and entirely new CPU from scratch.
    • Well, the things you yourself create would be the IP of you, so, no, you wouldn't live in an IP-free environment.

    • Re:We are surrounded (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dasunt ( 249686 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:59PM (#10938097)

      I wonder if it's possible to live in a IP-free environment. Let's assume that you build your house from a public domain blueprint, you read only books written by authors who died before 1954, you use self-assembled PC running only free software, you use only generic drugs and own devices that either never were patented or whose patents have already expired. I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia and living in such environment might even be quite comfortable and stylish (imagine all those 1960's refrigerators, air conditioning systems, eight-track stereo with nothing but folk and classic music etc.). Am I wrong? Any educated comment, please?

      As mentioned by another poster, your computer hardware is probably embraced by patented IP.

      Your automobile would probably still have patented IP.

      Don't forget your local phone system you are using.

      I think its impossible, for all except the loosest definition.

      On the other hand, a life without a computer, car, or phone might be quite comfortable. :)

      • As mentioned by another poster, your computer hardware is probably embraced by patented IP. Your automobile would probably still have patented IP. Don't forget your local phone system you are using.

        But what if I'm using, say, '1984 PC AT, Sun or Apollo workstation, all of them running FreeBSD or compatible? What if I drive a '1973 AMX Javelin? Local phone is probably a hopeless case, but if I could have some sort of Internet access, I can live with no phone.

    • Re:We are surrounded (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @03:06PM (#10938120) Journal
      I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia and living in such environment might even be quite comfortable and stylish

      Well, of course it would be possible. That's the whole point of patents -- the inventor is rewarded with a temporary monopoly in return for full disclosure, early adopters may have to pay a premium and the whole thing passes into the public domain in a few years. Compare the available set of generic drugs today to the state of the art of medicine 25 years ago and you see why the patent system is a vital part of progress.

      Endless copyright extensions are a whole other matter -- compare generic statins and chemotherapeuticals to "you read only books written by authors who died before 1954".

      • Compare the available set of generic drugs today to the state of the art of medicine 25 years ago and you see why the patent system is a vital part of progress.

        Apparently humanitarian organisations [cnn.com] and Third world [bbc.co.uk] disagree that medical patents converting AIDS meds into profits are progress. I too, fail to see how letting people die around the world is "vital part of progress".
        • Because (and this really shouldn't be such a difficult concept for people to grasp), without the possiblity of patent protection, those drugs wouldn't exist at all.

          In fact, due to the campaign by your "humanitarian organisations and Third world" to declare AIDS treatments exempt from patent protection, work on new AIDS treatments has slowed to a trickle. Looking back in a decade, the AIDS fiasco is going to be the canonical example of why the short-sighted mentality you're championing is an enemy of progre

          • That's true, but I still wish that someone could come up with a less harmful/disruptive way to promote progress in the medical field than patents.

            It's a big difference between saying "you can't be cured because no drug exists" and "you can't be cured because our current economic system encourages and allows exclusive rights on this drug". (Even though that economic system made the drug possible in the first place. I'm grateful that it saved some lives, I can still think it sucks that it's kept out of reach
    • I wonder if it's possible to live in a IP-free environment. Let's assume that you build your house from a public domain blueprint, you read only books written by authors who died before 1954, you use self-assembled PC running only free software, you use only generic drugs and own devices that either never were patented or whose patents have already expired. I think it's possible without resorting to Amish-style technophobia and living in such environment might even be quite comfortable and stylish (imagine

    • Re:We are surrounded (Score:3, Informative)

      by Selanit ( 192811 )

      I wonder if it's possible to live in a IP-free environment.

      Basically, no. It's not possible. Especially not if you want to have a computer. That free/open source software you would run on your homebrew computer? It's covered by copyright. All free/open software licenses are based on the right of the copyright holder to determine how their work can be redistributed. This holds true for the GPL, even - when GPL'ing a bit of code, you have to put your name, the date, and claim copyright over the code

      • All free/open software licenses are based on the right of the copyright holder to determine how their work can be redistributed.

        Currently, yes.
        But it's outright silly to say that without copyright, there would be no free software when it's the other way around.

        • But it's outright silly to say that without copyright, there would be no free software when it's the other way around.

          Let me se if I understand:

          Without copyright, there would be no free software. Which reverses to:
          Without free software, there would be no copyright.

          No, I don't understand at all. The first copyright law was the Statute of Anne, [copyrighthistory.com] passed by the British Parliament in 1710. Software, per se, didn't really get going till the mid-20th century (ENIAC [arl.mil] was finished in 1945). So copyright

          • Are you trying to say that if there was no copyright, then all software would be free?

            Ok, let's tackle the "no copyright" example first:

            There would be no legal basis for asking people to share their innovations back to the community.

            Similar to how the *BSDs work today.

            You could take code, modify it, improve it, and then sell binary versions without releasing your improvements.

            And reverse-engineering it would be legal, and what's the point of keeping the source secret (and thus losing all the benifits o

    • Intellectual property surrounds us in nearly everything we do. [...] we are surrounded by the fruits of human creativity and invention.

      To me, that's WIPO newspeak in action, again trying to equate a fairly recent legal construct (intellectual property) with a fundamental aspect of intelligent life (human creativity and invention). Intellectual property has been around for hundreds of years, human creativity for hundreds of thousands of years. Without intellectual property law, there is no intellectual pr

    • .. passage that might sound kind of scary: "Intellectual property surrounds us in nearly everything we do (..)"

      I don't care shit if IP is everywhere. So is water, air or electromagnetic waves. What I DO care about is:

      • The annoying habit of using the term "property". As if it's the same as a house, book or car. Everybody knows it isn't. For some purposes, it may be convenient to treat it the same, but there is fundamental difference between ordinary property, and "IP". Let's make that distinction, shall

      • The annoying habit of using the term "property". As if it's the same as a house, book or car. Everybody knows it isn't. For some purposes, it may be convenient to treat it the same, but there is fundamental difference between ordinary property, and "IP".

        The problem with the term "property" is not the choice of word, but the confusion of what it applies to. As I wrote in another posting, the property here is not the written novel, but the rights to that novel. That right may be inherited or sold just like

    • It'd be cheaper and better to just buy current tech. I think one should be opposed to the abuses of intellectual property, not to intellectual property per se.
    • >I wonder if it's possible

      Just move to China.

  • OSS meets top dogs (Score:5, Informative)

    by bathmann ( 797470 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @02:54PM (#10938080)
    Being awarded the observer's status is quite an achievement. Check out the list of the 165 other observers: click me [wipo.int].

    FSFE will be among the likes of CISAC, IFPI, ISO, UNESCO, WHO, etc. FSFE better shows it's up to the task and comes up with clever arguments why OSS is the way to go (or at least a way to go).

    • FSF's message is not "OSS". (Score:5, Informative)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Sunday November 28, 2004 @04:32PM (#10938530) Homepage
      I agree with you that what the FSF has achieved here is remarkable. However, the FSF doesn't argue for "OSS". They argue for free software. Perhaps that is why they are called the "Free Software Foundation Europe". When the FSF started in the US, "open source" did not exist. The start of the open source movement was over a decade away and the OSI's founders chose to stand for different values, most notably pushing aside software freedom so they could more easily speak to their primary audience: business.

  • This can only be good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by puke76 ( 775195 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @03:08PM (#10938128) Homepage
    This can only be a good thing. WIPO's domain dispute resolution process is severely flawed [theregister.co.uk] , I wonder if the FSFE could bring some balance?
    • Probably not. Domain names are a trademark issue, and the FSF has no interest in trademark matters.
    • WIPO's domain dispute resolution process is severely flawed

      Man, it must be Monday. I read that as:
      WIPO's domain name resolution process is severely flawed,
      and was about to go into a big long rant about how wipo.int resolves perfectly in DNS. Sure they could probably benefit from resolving to more than one IP (pun not intended), but c'mon!

  • Amount of Copyrighted Material (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @03:54PM (#10938344)
    It occurs to me that the FSF is representative of an incredibly vast amount of copyrighted material. Although many people would not want to have the FSF be considered there representative, I think it's reasonable to consider the FSF to be the representative of at least a slight majority of all GPLed and LGPLed software. (I mean this in the same way that the RIAA is a representative of many other labels, yet usually doesn't hold the rights itself.)

    In that light, how much copyrighted software does the FSF represent when compared to other software organizations? I would not be surprised if that would make the FSF the largest in the world. In that light, the FSF should have an enormous amount of sway in such a situation.

    So, to take this further, could those of us who do have GPLed software which is used heavily denote the fact that the FSF does in some manner represent us, thus showing to the governments of the world how important they are? Governments tend not to listen to people who do not have some delineated backing, so I think so sort of declaration of this would be needed.

  • Concerns (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by petrus4 ( 213815 )
    I will admit to always having been worried about the size of the IP stockpile that RMS is essentially sitting on due to the GPL. Although I realise that having that degree of power no doubt suits *him* just fine, I find it considerably more disquieting.

    This is another of the objections I've tended to have to the GPL as opposed to some other licenses...Namely that from what I've read about Stallman I tend to find it very difficult not to see him as a megalomaniac. The problem with benevolent dictatorship is

    • What's your point? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by eldacan ( 726222 )
      the size of the IP stockpile that RMS is essentially sitting on due to the GPL sounds like you think Stallman or the FSF owns the copyright of every GPL-licensed program. This is absolutely wrong. Unless you decide to transfer the copyright to someone else, all IP rights are yours.

    • RMS, along with the help of experts, created a license. The material is still the creator's, unless he explicitly gives the rights to someone else.
    • I'm not sure that a lot of Free Software advocates do put RMS on a pedestal, but more his ideas.

      Do you put Henry Ford on a pedestal when you sit in your mass-produced vehicle every morning? Perhaps, on some abstract level. Do you put that IP-greedy pseudo-inventor Thomas Edison on a pedestal when you turn on an electric light? I doubt it.

      If RMS does turn out to be a self-serving baby-eating megalomaniac with the charm and social grace of an itchy verruca, then it's not going to change the massive impac
      • Maybe I should clarify something here. I don't see Stallman as a "baby eater." I think for the most part, from what I've seen, his motives are very good. But alongside the good motives, the desire to spread positive ideas etc, there is at times also a certain level of dogmatism and an attitude of, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but my opinion is the only *right* one." That, for the most part, is what I have issues with. It is also true I think what ESR and others have said that he does have somethi

        • But alongside the good motives, the desire to spread positive ideas etc, there is at times also a certain level of dogmatism and an attitude of, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but my opinion is the only *right* one."

          RMS would say that he has thought a lot about software freedom, probably more than most.

          It is also true I think what ESR and others have said that he does have something of a martyr complex...he wants to be seen as this glorious leader...which is something that I find rather nauseatin

  • It's genuinely a good thing, AND I don't deny that it does take some real work to get observer status with WIPO. That said, why should this be the case? Why can't any group, or even private individual, get recognized observer status with an organization like WIPO by filing a simple request, or a simple exchange of letters, or at worst, passing the sort of background check that it takes to get a good line of credit? Why does WIPO, basically just another legislative lobbying organization, make it cost effort

  • WIPO was bypassed in favor of WTO for TRIPS (Score:3, Informative)

    by philfr ( 89798 ) on Sunday November 28, 2004 @05:37PM (#10938828)
    The TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) are discussed at the WTO, and not at WIPO, which would have been a more logical place for the most important international treaty about intellectual property.
    Why ?
    Because US did not want to discuss separately a tailor-made law for Hollywood and parmaceutical firms.

    So, even with FSFE at WIPO, which is good news, what will this change if it is the WTO that makes the rules ?

  • WIPO Observer (Score:2, Informative)

    by Uukrul ( 835197 )
    It's not so dificult becom a WIPO "Observer":
    WIPO welcomes visitorsz [wipo.int] to its Geneva headquarters throughout the week. The WIPO Information Center is open to the public weekdays from 9:30 am to 13:00 pm and from 2.00 pm to 5:00 pm [...]

    If you are interested please use the Visit request form [wipo.int] (printable version)

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close