After Jonathan Krim published an account of WIPO's reversal of its previous decision to host discussions of open source projects at a global forum, Lawrence Lessig responds in fury and good argument:
If Lois Boland said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should be to promote the right balance of intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to "disclaim" or "waive" her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder's choice to do with his or her rights what he or she wants?These points are basic. They should be fundamental. That someone who doesn't understand them is at a high level of this government just shows how extreme IP policy in America has become.
This is especially grim, as IP owners wage global campaigns to control information usage, and as in the States SCO gears up to thrash GPL. IP is in full revenge mode, having seen the elephant, and trying every tool it can reach: DRM, broadcast flags, terror by lawyer, publicity campaigns, and law after law.
Comments