Re: WIPO Treaty: Worse than CDA- Deadline 22 Nov 96

At 01:22 AM 11/11/96 +0000, attila@primenet.com wrote:
>                WIPO Treaty:  Worse than CDA
>                Deadline 22 Nov 96 for comment to Congress
>        WIPO was introduced this spring to Congress.  It is not 
>    understood by either the Clinton administration or the Congress and
>    few of the public are aware of the problem!
[snip]
>        I am deleting the bulk of the report for brevity, including only
>    the definition of the "database" as it applies to WIPO.
>
>-.WHAT IS A DATABASE? WHAT ISN'T A DATABASE?
>-.The treaty would protect "any database that represents a 
>-.substantial investment in the collection, assembly, verification, 
>-.organization or presentation of the contents of the database." 
>-.
>-.This term should be understood "to include collections of 
>-.literary, musical or audiovisual works or any other kind of 
>-.works, or collections of other materials such as texts, sounds, 
>-.images, numbers, facts, or data representing any other matter or 
>-.substance" and "may contain collections of expressions of 
>-.folklore." The "protection shall be granted to databases 
>-.irrespective of the form or medium in which they are embodied. 

Somebody must have said, once, that the winner in an argument is the one who 
gets to define the terms.  Notice how the term "protect" and "protection" 
are misused above. (not by Attila, of course; but by whomever he's quoting.)  

However, the term "protect" has long been misused by lawyers in just such a 
way.  "Monopolize" would be a more appropriate word under the circumstances.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

In <199611110655.WAA23446@mail.pacifier.com>, on 11/10/96 
   at 10:50 PM, jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> said:

-.Somebody must have said, once, that the winner in an argument is the one who 
-.gets to define the terms.  Notice how the term "protect" and "protection" 
-.are misused above. (not by Attila, of course; but by whomever he's quoting.)  

-.However, the term "protect" has long been misused by lawyers in just such a 
-.way.  "Monopolize" would be a more appropriate word under the circumstances.

        monopolized is actually too 'weak' a final description of the 
    results --how about 'absolute denial of information?'

        what itrigues me the most is the bill originated at the White 
    House!   I won't waste time preaching to the choir, but the
    original intent was to protect West Publishing's "keyed" and
    proofed legal reference material (in return for a a hefty campaign
    contribution, and who nows what else under the table...).  just
    because it is legal, does not make it moral.

        some lame-brain (probably DOJ and whitehouse political hacks)
    expressed the terms in the treaty bill so broadly that it is all inclusive --everything.

        this is a case of no speech at all....     goodbye information 
    age, hello darkness.

        of course, there is always the possibility that Bubba _desires_
    to crash the economy so he can declare martial law for his NWO
    mentor, George Bush.

                --attila

--
            Cyberspace and Freedom are Information.  
                FUCK your WIPO, too. 
                                                                -attila