One of the first problems I identified
when getting involved with WIPO is that all these IP-skeptic groups (TransAtlantic
Consumer Dialogue, Third World Network, Union for the Public Domain, IP
Justice, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), etc.) had either purposely
or incidentally created confusion by identifying their anti-IP agenda as
the agenda of "civil society."
The assumption here is that "civil society" groups have the best interests of the world at heart, rather than evil corporate self-interest. The moral high ground, in other words. But all these "civil society" groups have been left-wing, IP-skeptics.
The impression that has been created is that all those who care about people, rather than profits, are anti-IP.
So one of our goals with our work at WIPO has been to make it clear that there is not a single civil society position on IP, and that there is certainly not a unified anti-IP position among civil society groups. To make it clear that these IP-skeptic groups do NOT represent the view of "civil society." We wanted to make sure that policy makers found out that there was a diversity of opinion in the civil society world, and that there were civil society groups who strongly believed in intellectual property protection.
As part of this strategy, an event was organized for the lunch period on Wednesday. It's title was as follows:
Members of the Civil Society Coalition on Innovation, Creativity and Development
Invite you to a seminar on
The role of Intellectual Property in Social, Economic, and Cultural Development
But when the IP-skeptics saw this, they came unhinged. The claim was that the sponsors of this event had purposely taken the informal name of a group of anti-IP fellow travellers, the Civil Society Coalition. They demanded that the title of the event be changed. So it was changed to:
The Coalition on Innovation, Creativity and Development, representing members of civil society
Invite you to a seminar on
The role of Intellectual Property in Social, Economic, and Cultural Development
The real point here, I think, is not that the names were somewhat similar (They apparently care very much that their proprietary name be protected. Some irony there?). I think the real point here is that we've hit a sore spot in not letting the IP-skeptic groups have the label "civil society" to themselves. They've been getting away with an assumption of the moral high ground with this label for a long time, but not anymore. The opposition has showed up, and they don't like it.
The assumption here is that "civil society" groups have the best interests of the world at heart, rather than evil corporate self-interest. The moral high ground, in other words. But all these "civil society" groups have been left-wing, IP-skeptics.
The impression that has been created is that all those who care about people, rather than profits, are anti-IP.
So one of our goals with our work at WIPO has been to make it clear that there is not a single civil society position on IP, and that there is certainly not a unified anti-IP position among civil society groups. To make it clear that these IP-skeptic groups do NOT represent the view of "civil society." We wanted to make sure that policy makers found out that there was a diversity of opinion in the civil society world, and that there were civil society groups who strongly believed in intellectual property protection.
As part of this strategy, an event was organized for the lunch period on Wednesday. It's title was as follows:
Members of the Civil Society Coalition on Innovation, Creativity and Development
Invite you to a seminar on
The role of Intellectual Property in Social, Economic, and Cultural Development
But when the IP-skeptics saw this, they came unhinged. The claim was that the sponsors of this event had purposely taken the informal name of a group of anti-IP fellow travellers, the Civil Society Coalition. They demanded that the title of the event be changed. So it was changed to:
The Coalition on Innovation, Creativity and Development, representing members of civil society
Invite you to a seminar on
The role of Intellectual Property in Social, Economic, and Cultural Development
The real point here, I think, is not that the names were somewhat similar (They apparently care very much that their proprietary name be protected. Some irony there?). I think the real point here is that we've hit a sore spot in not letting the IP-skeptic groups have the label "civil society" to themselves. They've been getting away with an assumption of the moral high ground with this label for a long time, but not anymore. The opposition has showed up, and they don't like it.
Update: By "unhinged," I mean profanity and crude language was involved. Really.