Greenspan, and WIPO disingenuousness (possible dup?)

[Max.Hyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

   Gentlefolk:

   Mr. Kenny Crews noted

> When someone with the prominence and respect of Greenspan
> makes the case that stronger IP rights will be critical
> to economic grownth, our argument about information access,
> public domain, and the like is diluted if not lost in the
> process.

   While I share your astonishment at having Mr. Fed weigh in,
and your concern about having these issues addressed by movers
and shakers who may be less than versed in copyright issues,
I think we can't yet label Mr. Greenspan a liability.  In the
article, we find these comments:

	"Are the protections sufficiently broad to
	encourage innovation but not so broad as to
	shut down follow-on innovation?"

	"Whether we protect intellectual property [sic]
	as an inalienable right or as a privilege
	vouchsafed by the sovereign, such protection
	inevitably entails making some choices that
	have crucial implications[.]"

   From these, I can only infer that he is aware of the balance
involved, which means he may be open to our concerns on these
subjects.  (Though that note about ``inalienable right'' is
worrisome, as the U.S. Constitution makes it perfectly clear
that it is to be treated as ``a privilege vouchsafed by the
sovereign''.)


   In another e-mail, Mr. Crews says:

> Complying with that treaty led to the US enactment of the DMCA.

>From all my reading, this is precisely reversing cause and effect,
in a way that DMCA-ites are promoting for all they're worth.  The
WIPO requirements were essentially written by U.S. commercial
interests (after failure to get such a law passed by frontal
attack?).  Said interests then cried out that we were dangerously
out of step with world laws, and we must quickly catch up, using
the WIPO treaty as a spur.


-- 

                         Best wishes,

                                  Max Hyre