Re: [QD-Filosofia] Statement of the Free Software Foundations Europe & Latin America to the 2005 WIPO general assemblies

Pela FSFLA n=E3o assina ningu=E9m? E FSF e FSF India n=E3o assinam em con=
junto?


Ricardo Andere de Mello wrote:
> [ 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=20
> 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 Foundation=
s
>   are globally active centres of expertise acting in a network of siste=
r
>   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 an=
d
>   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 comment=
s
>   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 unleas=
h
>   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 ar=
e
>   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 ye=
t
>   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 b=
y
>   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 <[email protected]>
>   Free Software Foundation Europe, President
>