Lessig At CERN: Scientific Knowledge Should Not Be Reserved For Academic Elite

By Catherine Saez on 19 April 2011 @ 3:26 pm

Free culture leader and Harvard University law professor Larry Lessig was at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) yesterday to talk about access to scientific knowledge on the internet. In the symbolic place where the World Wide Web was invented and where scientists are now trying to unravel the creation of the universe, Lessig praised CERN’s open access initiative and in this temple of reasoning, said the copyright architecture was on the edge of absurdity.

[Update: the video of Lessig's speech is now available here ^[1].]

Although the major focus of copyright has been on entertainment, science is a field where internet access is unnecessarily restricted to privileged scholars, he said. The copyright architecture is obsolete and needs to protect copyright as an essential tool for creation, but recognise that sharing is at the core of the architecture of the internet.

The fight over the scope of copyright has been almost exclusively centred on artists’ rights, in particular in music, he said, and although everybody agrees that copyright is essential for certain creative work, a “sensible” copyright policy should be developed to protect and encourage that creative work.

“We’ve been fighting a battle in the context of copyright where copyright is essential,” and spending too little attention in a context where copyright is not essential, such as the context of science, he said.

Most scientific resources are protected on the internet, Lessig said. It can only be accessed by professors and students in a university setting. If “you are a member of the knowledge elite,” he said, then there is free access, but “for the rest of the world, not so much.”

The open access movement was inspired by the dramatic increase in prices for journals, he said. The market power of publishers had been exploding because the purchasers had no other choice than to buy those journals, he said.

Publisher restrictions do not achieve the objective of enlightenment, but rather the reality of “elite-nment,” he said.

YouTube Needs Clearer Legal Terms

Lessig said that YouTube occupies a prominent place in knowledge access. “We should not minimise” the significance of YouTube in the infrastructure of culture right now, Lessig said. YouTube has 43 different languages and there is more uploading in one month than was broadcasted by major networks in the United States over the last 60 years, he said. The world has gone from a read-only culture to a read-write culture, he said.

The system as it is, is not working, he said, as it lacks transparency and basic information so that people know where they stand. A sensible system should clearly state that it is plainly legal to make a remix, a non-commercial creation in which a user builds on something that already exists, even if it is not legal for YouTube to distribute it without paying some royalties to the copyright owner whose work has been remixed, he said.

Reforms are needed, 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 the digital age, as the architecture of the 21st century does not make sense in this age, he said.

The five elements of the copyright architecture that would make sense in the digital age should be the following, according to Lessig:

1) Copyright has to be simple. If it purports to regulate 15-year-olds, they have to be able to understand it. “They don’t understand it now” – nobody does, he said.
2) Copyright needs to be efficient. It is a property system, he said, but “happens to be the most inefficient property system known to man,” he said. “We can’t know who owns what under our system,” and there is a need to restore some kind of formality, such as a system to record ownership.
3) Copyright needs to be better targeted and should regulate selectively. For example, between copies and remix, between professional and amateurs. Copyright needs to efficiently regulate copies of professional work, but amateur remix need to be free of the regulation of copyright, not “even triggering a copyright concern.” Lessig proposed to deregulate a significant space of culture and focusing the regulation of copyright where “it can do some good.”
4) Copyright needs to be effective and provide revenue for artists, which is not the case today, Lessig said.
5) Copyright needs to be realistic. A war has been fought against peer to peer file sharing, where the so-called pirates are “our children,” he said, and that war “has been a total failure,” not achieving its objective of reducing illegal file sharing. Alternative solutions need to be used, such as compulsory licences, or voluntary collective licences.

Had one of those alternatives been applied 10 years ago, artists would have more money because fighting the copyright war came with high legal costs, businesses would have had more competition, and “we would not have a generation of criminals who have grown up being called criminals because they are technically pirates” under the current copyright legislation.

Academia’s Ethical Obligation

In the context of academia, there is a need to recognise its ethical obligation of universal access to knowledge, “not American university access to knowledge, but universal access to knowledge in every part of the globe.” Academia should not practice exclusivity, Lessig said, and leadership in open access should be exercised by those who can “afford to take the lead,” such as senior academics, “those with tenure,” people who can help redefine what open access is, and support, respect and encourage it.

Praise for CERN’s Open Access Work

CERN “gave us” the World Wide Web, he said, and CERN has taken the lead supporting open access in a crucial space of physics. This work will have a dramatic effect on changing the debate in science. It remains to find a way to leverage this leadership into leadership for the globe, he said.

CERN launched an open access initiative, to facilitate open access publishing in high-energy physics (IPW, Access to Knowledge, 5 January 2009 ^[3]). The Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3) is a consortium of high-energy physics funding agencies, high-energy physics laboratories, and leading national and international libraries and library consortia, according to its website ^[4].

Related Articles:

• Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System ^[5]
• Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig ^[6]
• Experts Meet To Weigh Health And Environment Scientific Innovations ^[7]

Categories: Access to Knowledge,Copyright Policy,Education/ R&D/ Innovation,English,European Policy,Human Rights,IP Policies,Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting,Language,News,Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer,Themes,Venues

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/04/19/lessig-at-cern-scientific-knowledge-should-not-be-reserved-for-academic-elite/

URLs in this post:

[1] now available here: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1345337

[2] IPW, WIPO, 5 November 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system/

[3] IPW, Access to Knowledge, 5 January 2009: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/01/05/project-underway-to-convert-high-energy-physics-literature-to-open-access/

[4] its website: http://scoap3.org/

[5] Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system/

[6] Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/12/global-copyright-reform-a-view-from-the-south-in-response-to-lessig/

[7] Experts Meet To Weigh Health And Environment Scientific Innovations: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/28/experts-meet-to-weigh-health-and-environment-scientific-innovations/

Click here to print.

By Catherine Saez on 18 April 2011 @ 3:36 pm

Biodiversity and climate change issues are coming together under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), according to a new working paper from the University of Edinburgh.

The CBD is engaged in questions relating to climate change, it found. In particular, the CBD has progressively addressed legal and policy implications of the impacts on biodiversity of climate change, as well as mitigation and adaptation measures.

The author, Elisa Morgera, a lecturer in European environmental law at the University of Edinburgh School of Law, analysed the links between biodiversity loss and climate change, and reviewed the main climate change-related outcomes of the 10th CBD Conference of the Parties (COP), in October 2010.

According to Morgera, the CBD “has been steadily working on climate-change-related issues since its seventh meeting in 2004.” At COP 10, delegates agreed on increased cooperation between the CBD and the international climate change regime, in particular with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

However, “the ultimate value of the developments under the CBD related to climate change rests with the systematic application at all levels of environmental governance of its guidelines aimed at ensuring that climate change measures are environmentally, socially, and culturally sustainable,” the paper said ^[1].

Related Articles:

• Climate-Ready Crop Patents Present Danger For Biodiversity, Group Says ^[2]
• UN Climate Change Talks Start With Little Faith From Observers ^[3]
• Panellists See Critical Moment For International Policy On Biodiversity And Trade ^[4]

Categories: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech,English,Environment,IP Live,Language,Themes,United Nations,Venues

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/04/18/biodiversity-climate-change-policy-on-convergent-roads-paper-says/

URLs in this post:

[1] the paper said: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1753810&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1753810

[2] Climate-Ready Crop Patents Present Danger For Biodiversity, Group Says: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/10/26/climate-ready-crop-patents-present-danger-for-biodiversity-group-says/

[3] UN Climate Change Talks Start With Little Faith From Observers: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/29/un-climate-change-talks-start-with-little-faith-from-observers/

[4] Panellists See Critical Moment For International Policy On Biodiversity And Trade: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/23/panellists-see-critical-moment-for-international-policy-on-biodiversity-and-trade/

Click here to print.

By Catherine Saez on 28 February 2011 @ 7:23 pm

Having successfully advanced discussions toward treaties on the protection of folklore and traditional knowledge, country experts this week are meeting at the World Intellectual Property Organization to discuss the protection of genetic resources. But this time, it might prove trickier.

The positive results of the two previous working groups have established momentum toward producing the basis for an international treaty text. However, experts this week might face a tougher task with multiple working documents from which to work and the objectives might have to be humbler.

The Third Intersessional Working Group ^[1] (IWG 3) of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), gathering country experts, is meeting from 28 February – 4 March. The aim is to try to produce a text that would be a basis for negotiations at the 18th session of the IGC from 9-13 May.

The IGC was established by the WIPO General Assembly in October 2000 with the objective of “reaching agreement on a text of an international legal instrument (or instruments) which will ensure the effective protection” of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources, according to WIPO.

In order to help the process, the IGC established three expert working groups to meet between IGC sessions to address the three issues separately. The groups were tasked with providing expert advice and discussions on each subject and provide draft text as a basis for negotiations at the May IGC.

The First Intersessional Working Group (IWG 1) of the IGC worked on traditional cultural expressions in July and produced a text that will be presented to the next IGC (IPW, WIPO, 26 July 2010 ^[2]). The Second Intersessional Working Group (IWG 2) addressed traditional knowledge from 21-25 February and also produced a set of draft articles to be brought forward to the ICG (IPW, WIPO, 25 February 2011 ^[3]).

Key Issues this Week

A key issue of this week’s discussions is the mandatory disclosure of genetic resources in patent applications, according to sources. Another key point is the inclusion of derivatives in the discussions they said. Derivatives are referring to plant extracts, or metabolites (active compounds in plants or animals).

Both of those issues were keenly discussed in October during the negotiations leading to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity ^[4] [pdf].

The experts meeting this week have a heavy load of working documents compiled by WIPO to go through, including proposals kept on the table by countries at the 17th IGC meeting in December (IPW, WIPO, 11 December 2010 ^[5]), such as the draft objectives and principles ^[6] [pdf] proposed by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United States, a submission ^[7] [pdf] by the African Group on genetic resources and future work, a proposal ^[8] [pdf] by Switzerland on the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications, and a document ^[9] [pdf] submitted by the European Union also on the source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications.

José López de León, second secretary of the Geneva Mexican permanent mission, was elected chair of IWG 3, and laid out its roadmap this morning. Today and tomorrow should be devoted to discussing objectives and principles with the aim of shortening the deadline if possible, he told Intellectual Property Watch.

The following days will be devoted to developing a matrix of different options, see where they fit with the objectives and principles discussed before, and define priorities. It is important to keep in mind that the discussions have to be kept at a technical level, he said.

On the topic of genetic resources, countries can be broadly defined by two extreme positions and the aim of this week is to deliver two options to which countries can relate to so that the IGC can start negotiating on that basis, he added.

According to participants, indigenous peoples vigorously opposed the mention in the objectives and principles of the sovereign rights of states over genetic resources, as that goes against the right to self-determination and the sovereign rights of indigenous peoples as stated in different United Nations conventions and covenants, and in particular their rights over their genetic resources. They also said that the human rights dimensions should be taken into account in the efforts to establish an international instrument.

Several countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela also said they wished to have national sovereign rights on the scope of patentability, in particular on life forms, according to sources.

The Nagoya Protocol, whose aim is to prevent unlawful appropriation of genetic resources, was adopted on 29 October (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010 ^[10]). It includes languages on prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities (Article 6). The protocol was characterised by many as a good starting point but containing softening language like “as appropriate” and “where applicable,” with much left to interpretation and to national level implementation.

A developed country source told Intellectual Property Watch that disclosure of patent applications is an intellectual property issue and as such should remain under WIPO competence. Another developed country source said that the discussions on objectives and principles would be key to further progress.

On 25 February, Mexico became the fifth country to sign the Nagoya Protocol, according to a CBD press release ^[11] [pdf]. The instrument will take effect at the 50th ratification by countries.

Side Events this Week

On Tuesday, South Africa will hold a side event to the IWG 3 on “The National Recordal System as multimedia platform for the recording, documentation and dissemination of indigenous knowledge in South Africa.” On Thursday, the International Centre For Trade and Sustainable Development and the United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) will co-organise a panel discussion on The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing and its impact on other multilateral debates on intellectual property and biodiversity.

Related Articles:

• Draft WIPO Instrument On Genetic Resources Shows Lists Of Options ^[12]
• Debate Rises Over Elevating Profile Of Genetic Resources At WIPO ^[13]
• WIPO Draft Treaty Text On Genetic Resources Joins Folklore, Traditional Knowledge ^[14]

Categories: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech,English,Human Rights,Language,News,Themes,Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge,Venues,WIPO

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/28/long-week-ahead-for-wipo-experts-considering-treaty-on-ip-and-genetic-resources/

URLs in this post:

[1] Third Intersessional Working Group: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=22093

[2] IPW, WIPO, 26 July 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/26/wipo-sees-first-real-progress-on-text-for-protection-of-folklore-in-10-years-2/

[3] IPW, WIPO, 25 February 2011: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/02/25/after-folklore-traditional-knowledge-makes-steps-toward-wipo-treaty-text/

[4] Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity:http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/signature/2010/Ch-XXVII-8-b.pdf

[5] IPW, WIPO, 11 December 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/12/11/wipo-members-move-into-detailed-talks-toward-folklore-treaty/

[6] draft objectives and principles: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_9.pdf

[7] submission: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_8.pdf

[8] proposal: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_4.pdf

[9] document: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3/wipo_grtkf_iwg_3_2.pdf

[10] IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/10/29/compromise-un-protocol-treaty-against-biopiracy-adopted-in-japan/

[11] CBD press release: http://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2011/pr-2011-02-25-mexico-en.pdf

[12] Draft WIPO Instrument On Genetic Resources Shows Lists Of Options: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/04/draft-wipo-instrument-on-genetic-resources-shows-lists-of-options/

[13] Debate Rises Over Elevating Profile Of Genetic Resources At WIPO: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/01/debate-rises-over-elevating-profile-of-genetic-resources-at-wipo/

[14] WIPO Draft Treaty Text On Genetic Resources Joins Folklore, Traditional Knowledge: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/04/wipo-draft-treaty-texts-on-folklore-traditional-knowledge-genetic-resources-now-ready/

Click here to print.

Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig

By Ahmed Abdel Latif ^[1]

The copyright system 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 Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to consider a new international copyright architecture for the digital age. “If and only if WIPO leads in this debate will we have a chance” at fixing the copyright system, he told a WIPO conference on access to culture.

Professor Lessig is right. His call for global copyright reform is welcome and timely. However, past WIPO led efforts in this area have rather been unsuccessful. New reform initiatives should draw lessons from previous attempts in order to increase their prospects for success.

Past changes to the international copyright system, as embodied in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), have mostly resulted in the strengthening of copyright rules to the benefit of rights holders. All attempts to reform it to the benefit of users of copyrighted materials, such as consumers and developing countries, have either failed or been of limited effectiveness such as in the case of the Berne Appendix (1971) which contains special provisions for developing countries.

Why this dismal record? The answer is quite simple: for more than a hundred years, WIPO and its predecessors overseeing the Berne Convention were strongholds of intellectual property rights holders, such as authors and publishers, and their trade organisations. Even after becoming a United Nations agency in 1974, WIPO continued to promote a paradigm of intellectual property (IP) that tended to espouse the views of rights holders-based organisations in the developed world; a perspective even generally questioned by liberal economists all over and touted as perverse for innovation by the business academic world.

In 2004, developing countries launched the WIPO Development Agenda, an initiative aimed at promoting a public policy oriented and balanced view of IP in accordance with WIPO’s UN status.

At the time, many prominent civil society figures and academics, including Prof. Lessig, signed a ‘Declaration on the Future of WIPO’ supporting the initiative. The Declaration invited WIPO 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 creative intellectual activity.” It emphasized that WIPO “must change.”

Did this ‘Change’ Occur?

In 2007, after three years of discussions, 45 recommendations were adopted by WIPO’s membership, reflecting, to a certain extent, many of the demands made by countries and civil society groups. Under a new director general, elected in 2008, WIPO has shown an openness to address many issues which were previously considered taboo. Indeed, Prof. Lessig’s presence at WIPO bears testimony to this.

Naturally, this openness should be welcomed and encouraged.

However, it might be still too premature to consider if the ‘change’ that was called for has effectively taken place. The implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda is still very much an ongoing process. In many cases, it remains to be translated into tangible and concrete changes in WIPO’s activities and more importantly in the prevailing institutional culture of the organisation. It should also be recalled that almost 90 percent of WIPO’s income comes from fees paid by rights holders to use WIPO’s global registration systems, particularly the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

Last April, leading developing countries at WIPO formed the WIPO Development Agenda Group (DAG), which called for implementing the Development Agenda recommendations in a way that “truly reflects their underlying vision and spirit.” The group also appealed for “an enduring pro-development cultural transformation within the WIPO Secretariat.”

An instructive example to consider, in this regard, relates to the information on the institution’s website about the WIPO Internet Treaties (1996), which were implemented in the United States through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). A brochure on the ‘advantages’ of treaty adherence ^[3] [pdf] states that “adherence and implementation of the treaties offer a number of benefits for countries regardless of their stage of development (emphasis added).” This assertion seems at odds with both the letter and spirit of the WIPO Development Agenda, which fundamentally questions the validity of a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to global IP norm setting activities.

Another example comes from the “war on piracy,” which Prof. Lessig denounced as a failure that is criminalizing an entire generation.

However, Prof. Lessig forgot to mention that WIPO is fully engaged in the war against piracy. WIPO’s website advertises, on its home page, the Sixth Congress against Piracy and Counterfeiting (2nd -3rd February 2011), which WIPO is organizing along with Interpol, the World Customs Organization (WCO), the Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP) and the International Trademarks Association (INTA). The first session ^[4] has the chilling title of ‘Knowing the Enemy’. The question that is begged to be asked is whether WIPO’s ‘leading’ role in the war against piracy can be made fully compatible with its ‘lead’ role on in global copyright reform, particularly through ad hoc arrangements like the suggested ‘blue sky’ commission.

Finally, global copyright reform should not be confined to the digital environment. Developing countries’ grievances about global copyright rules extend well beyond the digital environment. In the past two years, developing countries have submitted to WIPO proposals for new treaties on limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired and for the disabled, educational and research institutions and libraries. Such proposals have been met with opposition by some developed countries and rights holders representatives who favour soft norms or technical solutions. More generally, developing countries view copyright reform through the lens of the broader ‘access to knowledge’ framework which is also an important component of the Development Agenda.

Global copyright reform is badly needed. It is ultimately up to WIPO member states to decide how to go about it. For the moment, hopes for ‘reform’ are embodied by the above mentioned proposals made by developing countries and they should be actively supported. Any future reform process of the global copyright system needs careful thinking and broad discussion about its objectives. Given that global copyright rules have acquired such a pervasive impact in many facets of our lives, their reform needs to take place through an open, inclusive and participatory consultation process where ‘all of us’ have a say.

Related Articles:

• Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System ^[2]
• Brazil’s Discussion On Copyright Law Reform – Response To The Digital Era? ^[5]
• Lessig At CERN: Scientific Knowledge Should Not Be Reserved For Academic Elite ^[6]

Categories: Access to Knowledge,Copyright Policy,English,IP Policies,Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting,Inside Views,Language,Themes,Venues,WIPO

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/12/global-copyright-reform-a-view-from-the-south-in-response-to-lessig/

URLs in this post:

[1] Ahmed Abdel Latif: #bio

[2] Speaking in Geneva in early November: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system/

[3] brochure on the ‘advantages’ of treaty adherence: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/activities/wct_wppt/pdf/advantages_wct_wppt.pdf

[4] first session: http://www.ccapcongress.net/

[5] Brazil’s Discussion On Copyright Law Reform – Response To The Digital Era?: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/15/brazil%e2%80%99s-discussion-on-copyright-law-reform-response-to-the-digital-era/

[6] Lessig At CERN: Scientific Knowledge Should Not Be Reserved For Academic Elite: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/04/19/lessig-at-cern-scientific-knowledge-should-not-be-reserved-for-academic-elite/

Click here to print.

By Kaitlin Mara on 5 November 2010 @ 3:47 pm

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 ^[1]. 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 ^[2].

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.

Related Articles:

• Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig ^[3]
• Copyright System Must “Adapt Or Perish,” WIPO Director Says ^[4]
• Should WIPO Lead Creation Of A Global Repertoire Database? ^[5]

Categories: Access to Knowledge,Copyright Policy,Education/ R&D/ Innovation,Enforcement,English,IP Policies,Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting,Themes,Venues,WIPO

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/05/lessig-calls-for-wipo-to-lead-overhaul-of-copyright-system/

URLs in this post:

[1] Emerging Copyright Licensing Modalities – Facilitating Access to Culture in the Digital Age: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/2010/wipo_cr_lic_ge_10/index.html

[2] Litman wrote: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm

[3] Global Copyright Reform: A View From The South In Response To Lessig: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/12/global-copyright-reform-a-view-from-the-south-in-response-to-lessig/

[4] Copyright System Must “Adapt Or Perish,” WIPO Director Says: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/15/copyright-system-must-%e2%80%9cadapt-or-perish%e2%80%9d-wipo-director-says/

[5] Should WIPO Lead Creation Of A Global Repertoire Database?: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/11/22/should-wipo-lead-creation-of-global-database-of-music-repertoire/

[6] : http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=13210

Click here to print.

Abstract:  Open access (OA) publishing, whereby authors, their institutions, or their granting bodies pay or provide a repository through which peer-reviewed work is available online for free, is championed as a model to increase the number of citations per paper and disseminate results widely, especially to researchers in developing countries. We compared the number of citations of OA and non-OA papers in six journals and four books published since 2000 to test whether OA increases number of citations overall and increases citations made by authors in developing countries. After controlling for type of paper (e.g., review or research paper), length of paper, authors’ citation profiles, number of authors per paper, and whether the author or the publisher released the paper in OA, OA had no statistically significant influence on the overall number of citations per journal paper. Journal papers were cited more frequently if the authors had published highly cited papers previously, were members of large teams of authors, or published relatively long papers, but papers were not cited more frequently if they were published in an OA source. Nevertheless, author-archived OA book chapters accrued up to eight times more citations than chapters in the same book that were not available through OA, perhaps because there is no online abstracting service for book chapters. There was also little evidence that journal papers or book chapters published in OA received more citations from authors in developing countries relative to those journal papers or book chapters not published in OA. For scholarly publications in conservation biology, only book chapters had an OA citation advantage, and OA did not increase the number of citations papers or chapters received from authors in developing countries.

Reference: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123369590/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Fundable Projects

Applicants may seek funding for activities that positively impact Creative Commons’ mission of fostering creativity (cultural, educational, scientific and other content) in the commons, to promote understanding and adoption of CC’s tools, licenses and technologies, and to support the building and work of communities that use or benefit from CC licenses, tools, and technologies.

Some funding may be ear-marked to address particular issues, programs or activities, geographies or other specified objectives or criteria, all as may be posted by Creative Commons.

Grants will range in amount from US$ 1,000 – US$ 10,000.

Example projects:

1. Convening a workshop on best/recommended practices for developing and publishing Open Educational Resources, or CC-licensed works in some other high-value field.
2. Publishing an academic article comparing multiple jurisdictions’ laws on copyright exceptions and limitations.
3. Establishing metrics for and measuring the impact of CC-licensed works within a particular field or discipline, such as education or science, or particular geography, such as Africa.
4. Documenting novel business models that are enabled by Creative Commons licenses and technologies, including commercial ventures.
5. Studying the benefits and challenges associated with incorporating CC licenses and technologies within governments, or libraries, museums and other cultural institutions.
6. Preparing a white paper on the negative effects of license proliferation, or documenting case studies involving license incompatibilities.
7. Supporting a local affiliate team implementing a CC-related technology challenge, such as adding license support to a specific CMS.
8. Examining the effects that the licensing of databases and data have on scientific research and discovery.
9. Creating a database of projects that have adopted the CC0 waiver, which places works in the public domain, for content and/or data they publish, and how such content and data is thereafter used by others and with what effects.
10. Capacity-building for CC affiliate projects such as development of proposals for and pursuit of local funding.
11. Outreach projects the demonstrate the value of CC, such as a clinic on using free software creation tools to remix CC-licensed content.

Funding may not be used for lobbying activities, license porting activities (launch events, legal review or translations of the licenses, etc.), Salons, exclusively for the creation of CC-licensed works, or for similar activities and events, all as determined by CC in its discretion. Events must be outcome-driven and integral to CC’s mission. Grants cannot be used to support "meetings for the sake of meetings" or regional meetings unless those meetings result in outputs such as those described above. Funding may not be provided for events that Creative Commons may be funding in whole or in part.

Funds will be distributed beginning in August and cannot be applied to previously incurred expenses. Applications for activities funded by other means will not be accepted.

Who May Apply

Any organization or institution may apply. Applications from or endorsed by official CC affiliate institutions* will receive preference. Joint applications from official CC affiliate institutions and other organizations are also welcomed, although each joint proposal will still be capped by the maximum grant amount. Applicants wishing to establish an official CC jurisdiction project in their country are encouraged to apply as well. Applications from non-OECD countries will be given special consideration.

There is no limit to the number of applications an organization or group of organizations may submit, although bear in mind that Creative Commons will try to distribute grants across organizations and regions.

• Affiliate institutions and related contact information can be found by visiting creativecommons.org/international. Institutions are listed by jurisdiction; simply click on a jurisdiction flag and scroll toward the bottom of the page where the information may be found.

Application Process

Creative Commons will publish one or more Calls for Grant Applications, which will detail application processes and deadlines, as well as any supplemental application criteria. All applications must be submitted in English and will be made public on the Creative Commons wiki. The application form must be accompanied by a proposed budget. See below for more details.

Successful applicants will be required to sign a Grant Agreement as a condition of receiving funds, which agreement will specify reporting, accounting and other terms and conditions governing receipt and use of the funds. Among other things, all Grant Agreements will provide that all original material produced within the scope of the grant program will be made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license or CC0 or if the material is software, afree/libre/open source software license.

Grant recipients must also agree to report on and document the project and use of funds as described by Creative Commons in the Grant Agreement. Recipients agree to participate in communication with the grant committee and coordinators, and also with fellow grantees, CC staff, and CC jurisdictions, all as may be reasonably requested.

Application and Grant Calendar

• Call for CC affiliate Catalyst Grants applications: opens April 23
• Call for public Catalyst Grants applications: opens May 14
• Catalyst Fundraising Campaign: June 1 – June 30
• Deadline for all Catalyst Grants applications: June 30
• Review Committee convenes: July 1 – July 30
• Catalyst Grants awarded: beginning August 1

Review Process

Following initial screening by CC for completeness and appropriateness of the project proposed, applications will be published online for a period of public review and comment. By submitting a grant application, Applicant agrees to such publication, and further agrees not to reveal any confidential or other information that the Applicant is restricted from disclosing publicly, to Creative Commons, or otherwise.

A Grant Review Committee established by Creative Commons will evaluate the grant applications and make recommendations to Creative Commons for final action. The committee will consist of CC staff as well as a single representative from each of the following regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America, Middle East/Arab world, and North America. Official CC affiliate institutions within each jurisdiction are expected to establish a process for selecting a single regional representative to serve on the Grant Review Committee; however, if no regional representative is selected or if a process is not established for any reason prior to the commencement of the Grant Review Committee’s work, then Creative Commons may select a representative for the region. Regional representatives will serve for a period of one year, and are expected to make themselves available for conference calls and meetings to review and establish recommendations for review and action by Creative Commons.

Creative Commons reserves the right to amend or modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion, and to discontinue the Catalyst Grants program at any time.

Grant applications in progress or submitted

AudioImager
CC Asia Pacific Conference 2010
Development of a Photovoice Database Resource Center
ElectricalWhat
FooCorp — a music label focused on sharing of creative works, providing new opportunities for free culture musicians.
Local Map Search
Magazines Web 2.0 Search
One Retweet
OneFileEverywhere for Creative Commons
Open Educational Resources Content Repository for training educational researchers in Latin America
Open Robotics Platform
Middle-Eastern Musicians under CC
Rural Peace Project
Shared Film Festival
Soapnote
Study of the Cypriot Legal Framework for Copyright law from the scope of openness requirements in the academic environment of Cyprus leveraging on legal-tech means such as the Creative Commons licensing.
Worldwide Center of Mathematics Textbook Series

source: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Grants

By Catherine Saez on 4 May 2010 @ 7:18 pm

Intellectual property rights and access to medicines were on the agenda at the first day of a biotechnology industry group’s annual convention yesterday. The group held a panel on IP rights and also released a policy statement on access to medicine in developing countries. The director of the US Patent and Trademark Office commented positively on the initiative.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)’s annual convention ^[1] is taking place in Chicago from 3-6 June. BIO is an industry advocacy group claiming some 1,200 members worldwide.

USPTO Director David Kappos, who is also the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, spoke at a session entitled “Leveraging IP to Spur Global Biotechnology Innovation, Investments and Jobs.” The session was aimed at examining the role of IP systems in biotech investment and how some countries are leveraging their patent policies to encourage economic growth, according to the BIO website.

BIO also released a policy statement ^[2] [pdf] yesterday on access to medicine in developing countries. The statement, entitled Options for Increasing Access to Medicines in the Developing World, calls on its members to consider several options to address the issue of access to medicine while at the same time protecting strong intellectual property rights.

Among those options are licensing practices. The statement encourages BIO members, when negotiating licensing agreement with universities, non-profit entities, or commercial partners, to “explore with their partners opportunities to expand access to resulting medicines in the developing world.” Also, “while researching and developing products, work to identify compounds or technologies that can have useful applications in the developing world.”

Companies may also consider pooling their IP rights in order to facilitate research and development of useful products or applications for the developing world, the statement said.

Partnerships were also strongly encouraged, in particular public-private partnerships with governmental or nongovernmental organisations. The needs of people living in developing countries should be taken into account when doing clinical trials, the statement said.

The price barrier is not the only one to address, according to BIO. There also are issues such as lack of adequate manufacturing, delivery and public health infrastructure, trade and tariff barriers, regulatory obstacles, and lack of market incentives. The statement encouraged members to explore tiered-pricing approaches with “special humanitarian pricing,” as well as licensing to generic companies in certain countries.

“We believe government can, and should, play a role in providing incentives to encourage humanitarian commitments to treating disease in impoverished parts of the world,” said Kappos, according to prepared remarks, adding that “one mechanism we are currently discussing with various other government health agencies is the possibility of an annual award to companies that have done breakthrough research and development in a neglected disease area.”

Kappos also said he was looking to BIO members to provide the USPTO with ideas on the types of incentives that would be useful either for research on neglected diseases or for “exemplary humanitarian licensing.” He cited an example of the Priority Review Voucher of the Food and Drug Administration.

The voucher is transferable and is “awarded to a company that secures approval for a product that treats of prevents a neglected disease,” he said. It entitles its bearer to priority review for future new drug application.

World Intellectual Property Organization Director General Francis Gurry also spoke at the session.

Related Articles:

• Medicines Patent Pool Aims To Increase Access To HIV Drugs In Developing Countries ^[3]
• Patent On AIDS Medicine Denied In India; Seen Unlocking Market ^[4]

Categories: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech,Development,Education/ R&D/ Innovation,English,IP Policies,Language,Lobbying,News,Patent Policy,Public Health,Subscribers,Themes,US Policy,Venues

Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog

URL to article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/04/biotech-convention-pays-homage-to-ip-pledges-to-increase-access-to-medicine/

URLs in this post:

[1] annual convention: http://convention.bio.org/

[2] policy statement: http://www.bio.org/healthcare/innovation/Access_to_Medicines_Policy_Statement_Final.pdf

[3] Medicines Patent Pool Aims To Increase Access To HIV Drugs In Developing Countries: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/10/medicines-patent-pool-aims-to-increase-access-to-hiv-drugs-in-developing-countries/

[4] Patent On AIDS Medicine Denied In India; Seen Unlocking Market: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/01/04/patent-on-aids-medicine-denied-in-india-seen-as-unlocking-market/

Click here to print.

Lucid v3.3 is compatible with the latest Lucid v3.5 builder, so that any keys developed using Lucid v3.3 can be easily imported to Lucid v3.5.

How to obtain Lucid 3.3

I am not a Lucidcentral.org member yet.

If you are not currently a member of Lucidcentral.org (free to join) then you need to register to obtain Lucid v3.3. Your new Lucidcentral.org account will then be automatically given access to the Lucid 3.3 software. The install package will then be available in the support…download section of the website.

I am already a member of Lucidcentral.org.

If you are already a member of Lucidcentral.org just login to access Lucid v3.3 software in the support…downloads sections of the website or download options in the top right of this page.

Support

Lucid v3.3 Free edition does not come with help desk support. However, you are welcome to post any questions or issues to the Lucid Forum (under Support), support staff or other users may answer your questions.

Please Note:

* Lucid v3.3 is provided free for personal or non-commercial use. If you are developing a commercial Lucid 3 product,  please purchase version 3.5. No warranty or support is offered with this free edition. If you have specific v3.3 questions or issues relating to its use please use the Lucidcentral.org forums. Lucid v3.3 is not eligible for upgrade pricing to Lucid v3.5. This free offer does not convey the right to redistribute or host the Lucid v3.3 distribution packages for any purpose.

If you have any questions in regards to these conditions then please email enquiries@lucidcentral.org.

Afterwards, CCI leaders met with the Secretary of State at a reception at Judge Business School. ‘It was encouraging to hear Mr Benn speak so passionately about the vital role biodiversity plays in underpinning a sustainable economy,’ commented CCI Executive Director Dr Mike Rands. ‘It is vitally important that the UK government demonstrates at home, and champions globally, the need for integrating the conservation and management of biodiversity into policies addressing climate change, food production and energy supply’.

About CCI:

One of the greatest challenges of the 21st century is to understand and manage human impacts on the biosphere, and in particular on biodiversity.

The Cambridge Conservation Initiative represents a critical mass of expertise – on a scale unparalleled anywhere in the world – at the interface of research and education, policy and action, for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. It exists to:

• Foster and champion a comprehensive understanding of the values of biological diversity and the urgent need for sustainable biodiversity conservation.
• Engage with and provide analysis to inform the processes of decision-making by government, industry and civil society in local, national and international contexts.
• Increase the effectiveness of conservation actions by catalysing innovative and collaborative interdisciplinary work that delivers sustainable solutions for natural resource management.
• Enhance global leadership and knowledge exchange through training and networking leaders from research, practice, government and business communities.

Our vision is to secure a sustainable future for biodiversity and humanity through an effective partnership of leaders in conservation research, education, public and private policy and action.

URL: http://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/index.html