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

Ricardo Andere de Mello gandhi at quilombodigital.org
Sat Oct 1 23:04:49 CEST 2005

e cadê a versão espanhola/portuguesa...
vou repassar para a lista da fsfla.

[]s, gandhi

Rafael Evangelista wrote:

> Pela FSFLA não assina ninguém? E FSF e FSF India não assinam em conjunto?
> 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 
>> assemblies
>>   Mr. Chairman,
>>   on behalf of the Free Software Foundations Europe and Latin America,
>>   let me express my congratulations to you and your colleagues on your
>>   chairing this historic general assembly. The Free Software Foundations
>>   are globally active centres of expertise acting in a network of sister
>>   organisations based in India, Latin America, Europe and the United
>>   States of America.
>>   Our area of expertise are the issues raised by a digitised society and
>>   economy, questions which are addressed effectively by Free Software;
>>   as defined by the freedom of unlimited use for any purpose, the
>>   freedom to study, the freedom to modify and the freedom to 
>> distribute..
>>   Through the Free Software Foundation Europe the FSFs participated in
>>   all sessions of the Development Agenda IIM process and also followed
>>   the broadcasting treaty negotiations with great interest. Our comments
>>   relate to both activities.
>>   Mr Chairman,
>>   much has been said and written about the knowledge society that
>>   humankind is about to enter. Looking at the regulatory initiatives,
>>   one stumbles upon a paradox: While society is getting ready to unleash
>>   human creativity as it has never done before, regulatory proposals
>>   seek to create new barriers.
>>   The Broadcasting Treaty is a good example of such a new barrier for
>>   which the potential benefits and costs seem unequally matched in
>>   disfavor of humankind.
>>   The result of ignoring the wisdom of approaching crucial legal
>>   regulation can be seen in another area: software patents have been
>>   introduced without evaluation, and according to the findings of
>>   several renowned institutions we now have to realise that they are
>>   harmful to competition and stifle innovation. For your information:
>>   these institutions include Massachussetts Institute of Technology
>>   (MIT), the Boston University School of Law, Price Waterhouse Coopers,
>>   US Federal Trade Commission and Deutsche Bank Research.
>>   The situation has degenerated to the point that a vice president of
>>   IBM, Mr Wladawsky-Berger, likened software patents to weapons of mass
>>   destruction in a New York Times interview.
>>   Similar experiences seem possible with the Broadcasting Treaty.
>>   Erecting additional barriers and raising all barriers by introduction
>>   of criminal sanctions against commercial infringement at a time when
>>   humankind is still struggling to fully understand the implications of
>>   the digital age would be hasty and unwise.
>>   Mr. Chairman,
>>   the traditional toolset of WIPO revolves centrally around limited
>>   monopolies, such as Copyrights, Patents or Trademarks. These have
>>   often been treated on the basis that more is always better, an
>>   approach that ignores both Liebigs law of the minimum as well as
>>   Shelfords law of tolerance: Not only will increasing the dose of the
>>   non-limiting factor have no positive effect, an overdose can be 
>> toxic..
>>   Finding the proper balance between too little and too much is the
>>   challenge that lies before any regulation. Given the fundamental
>>   impact of all regulations made on WIPO level, wisdom would suggest a
>>   conservative approach:
>>   New regulations should only be introduced if scientific evidence and
>>   evidence from a public review period conclusively show it to have a
>>   positive effect.
>>   Old regulations should be reviewed periodically as to whether they are
>>   still up to the needs of the time, or whether they require 
>> adjustment..
>>   In the light of the wisdom of Liebig and Shelford, agreeing to the
>>   creation of a WIPO Research and Evaluation Office (WERO) would seem
>>   trivial, so would the search for alternative means of fostering
>>   creativity.
>>   As the secretariat and member states correctly pointed out repeatedly
>>   in the past: WIPO exists to promote creativity. At the time of its
>>   inception, most alternative means of fostering creativity were not yet
>>   concieved, in particular those related to digitalisation. Now that
>>   they exist, what would seem more natural for WIPO than exploring them?
>>   The discussions around the Development Agenda have proven to be most
>>   difficult, also because of procedural discussions, which indeed took
>>   the majority of the time spent in the IIM process. After these had
>>   been largely resolved, substantive discussion took place, cut short by
>>   the need to come to a formal outcome that could be presented to this
>>   general assembly.
>>   Not continuing what was begun, or changing from a horse to a mule
>>   midstream, as the honored Indian delegate so eloquently put it, would
>>   be wasting the time and effort spent on this initiative by all sides,
>>   North and South. For this reason we strongly support the notion of
>>   letting the IIM process finish what it began.
>>   Mr Chairman,
>>   Thank you for your attention.
>>   Statement by Mr. Georg C.F. Greve <greve at fsfeurope.org>
>>   Free Software Foundation Europe, President
> _______________________________________________
> Quilombodigital-filosofia mailing list
> Quilombodigital-filosofia at listas.quilombodigital.org
> http://listas.quilombodigital.org/mailman/listinfo/quilombodigital-filosofia 

Ricardo Andere de Mello
Presidente do Quilombo Digital
55 (11) 3271-7928 / 55 (11) 9917-7722

More information about the FSFLA-discusion mailing list