[Chapter-delegates] Ideas requested on IP issues paper

[Elver Loho]

I would argue with the assertion that there should be an "equality of
rights." What we should aim for is a balance between fundamental
property rights and fundamental rights of self-expression.

Intellectual property rights are given with the aim of promoting
science and useful arts. You get a copyright on your photo, because
historically photography was a very expensive, but useful art, so it
made sense to give people a monopoly on copying these works. Nowadays
nearly everyone has a cheap digital HD camera in their pocket. Even
professional cameras cost very little. I can produce a hundred
high-quality photos that nobody else can use without my permission for
70 years in the time it takes for you to make a sandwich.

In the past copying (hence the term "copyright") was very expensive,
but nowadays it is cheap and you can reach an audience of millions in
a matter of hours without it costing you more than a few clicks on
YouTube to upload your work.

Even with all this technology making production cheaper, distribution
cheaper, and giving access to an audience of an unprecedented size
from the comfort of your bedroom -- copyright terms have increased
substantially. We've lost the balance between intellectual property
rights and the rights of the average citizen to express herself
creatively.

Another fundamental shift, not often talked about, will be in the area
of 3D printing. While previously manufacturing was protected by
trademark law and design patents, with 3D printing this will shift to
copyright law, because the digital files describing these 3D objects
will be covered by copyright. If someone designs a 3D object in a
printable format and publishes the description online, then any sort
of similar 3D object I design for my printer and give away freely
could be considered copyright infringement. With copyright lasting 70
years, this could seriously hamper the development of 3D printing
technology.

Any sort of position, which ISOC formulates in the area of
intellectual property law, should aim to balance fundamental human
rights to both privacy and self-expression with intellectual property
rights. IPR enforcement should never be used as an excuse to routinely
violate the right to privacy in online communications. The now-common
insanely long IPR terms are detrimental to the functioning of a
vibrant online culture.

The main issue, in my view, is that intellectual property law is
*only* debated between governments and almost exclusively in secret
trade agreement talks. As a result we get treaties, which are 90% good
and 10% bad, but national governments have already agreed to swallow
that 10%. Without mass protests, like happened with ACTA, these
treaties will be signed and ratified and there is nothing that local
citizens can do about it.

The clear aim of ISOC policy should be to change this common practice
of secret negotiations and demand that all negotiations concerning the
internet and the rights and duties of the citizenry on the internet,
must be done exclusively in public. Only then can we have a true
multistakeholder model of internet governnance.

Best,
Elver Loho
Vice Chair
Estonia Chapter

elver.loho at gmail.com
+372 5661 6933
skype: elver.loho


On 8 March 2013 16:40, Konstantinos Komaitis <komaitis at isoc.org> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As you may be aware, discussions on digital content have been going on for many years now and the Internet Society has been quite active in addressing some of the various intellectual property issues, specifically in relation to legislation like ACTA, SOPA and PIPA. The public policy team, having heard from many of you on this topic believes the time is opportune to submit a coordinated view on the issue of intellectual property via an issues paper.  The good news is that we have much material to draw upon - found here:http://www.internetsociety.org/our-work-intellectual-property
>
> The issues paper seeks to put forth minimum propositions relating to the discussions on intellectual property:
>
> o   Intellectual Property is part of Internet Governance: All discussions about intellectual property in the Internet should be conducted under a multistakeholder framework.
> o   Intellectual Property and Transparency: the need for transparency is reflected both in the Geneva Principles as well as in the Open Government Paradigm. The Internet Society believes that this need should further be reflected in agreements like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Canada-Europe Comprehensive Agreement (CETA).
> o   Intellectual Property and the Rule of Law: Intellectual property should be based on principles such as due process, equality of rights, fairness, transparency, the right to be heard and legal certainty.
> o   Intellectual Property and Internet Architecture: The Internet Society has long recognized that the infringement of intellectual property rights is a critical issue that needs to be addressed, but, at the same time, it must be addressed in ways that do not undermine the global architecture of the Internet or curtail internationally recognized rights.
> o   Innovation without permission: All intellectual property laws and policies should bear in mind the Modern Paradigm for Standards Development, shaped by adherence to the following principles: cooperation; adherence to principles including due process, consensus, transparency, balance and openness; collective empowerment; availability; and voluntary adoption.
>
> Based on these observations, the Internet Society would like to propose a set of standards which we believe should guide all policies on intellectual property. At its most basic level, the Internet Society believes that all issues pertaining to the way intellectual property rights are expressed in the Internet space can be addressed systematically only through an inclusive and open framework, as we believe that it is currently the only sustainable governance model for policy issues relating to the Internet and its platforms.
>
> I would appreciate your comments on the above points. We would also welcome information on whether and how Intellectual Property policy and/or law making is being considered or implemented in your country. Please send your feedback by Monday, 18 March 2013.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Konstantinos
>
>
> Konstantinos Komaitis
> Policy Advisor,
> Internet Society
> komaitis at isoc.org
> tel: +41 22 807 1453
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org