<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IP Justice</title>
	<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp</link>
	<description>IP Justice is an international civil liberties organization promoting balanced intellectual property laws in a digital world.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 15:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Statement at IGF Open Consultation of IGF Dynamic Coalition for Access to Knowledge and Free Expression (A2K@IGF)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/statement-at-igf-open-consultation-of-igf-dynamic-coalition-for-access-to-knowledge-and-free-expression-a2kigf/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/statement-at-igf-open-consultation-of-igf-dynamic-coalition-for-access-to-knowledge-and-free-expression-a2kigf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 15:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/statement-at-igf-open-consultation-of-igf-dynamic-coalition-for-access-to-knowledge-and-free-expression-a2kigf/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["IPR protection has always been given to creators and inventors in exchange for some benefit to the public.  These are usually included in IP law as exceptions and limitations that can provide a benefit to the public.  For example, when copyright owners permit the copying of their materials for private and educational use, they contribute to the general pool of knowledge available on the Internet.  The practice of remixing, re-using, editing, and combining of audio-video and text to comment on culture and create transformative works depends upon a system of robust exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights.  This coalition supports innovation and the creation of wealth through IPR incentivization, but we also seek to support alternative models for creating knowledge goods, including free and open source software, or open scholarly and scientific journals, and on-line access to scholarly research, publicly funded research, and essential documents such as legal information.  The A2K@IGF coalition welcomes a discussion in Hyderabd that explores best practices for promoting sharing of knowledge and access to information and that explores a variety of business models designed to encourage creativity and innovation.  We welcome participation from all stakeholders in this ongoing discussion to build an open and inclusive Internet to promote human development and individual empowerment...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/statement-at-igf-open-consultation-of-igf-dynamic-coalition-for-access-to-knowledge-and-free-expression-a2kigf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<enclosure url="http://ipjustice.org/Audio/A2K@IGF_Open_Consultation_Statement.mp3" length="7563110" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A2K@IGF Statement at IGF Open Consultation (Audio)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/a2kigf-statement-at-igf-open-consultation-audio/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/a2kigf-statement-at-igf-open-consultation-audio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 15:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/a2kigf-statement-at-igf-open-consultation-audio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Statement at the IGF Open Consultation from the IGF Dynamic Coalition for Access to Knowledge and Free Expression (A2K@IGF) (Audio file - .mp3)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/13/a2kigf-statement-at-igf-open-consultation-audio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Crown copyright is overdue for retirement (Toronto Star)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/12/crown-copyright-is-overdue-for-retirement-toronto-star/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/12/crown-copyright-is-overdue-for-retirement-toronto-star/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 17:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/12/crown-copyright-is-overdue-for-retirement-toronto-star/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["...Given the significant costs associated with a program that does more harm than good and that appears susceptible to political manipulation, any new copyright reform should eliminate Crown copyright and adopt in its place a presumption that government materials belong to the public domain to be freely used without prior permission or compensation."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/12/crown-copyright-is-overdue-for-retirement-toronto-star/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mandate of Advisory Group of Internet Governance Forum Extended</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/02/mandate-of-advisory-group-of-internet-governance-forum-extended/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/02/mandate-of-advisory-group-of-internet-governance-forum-extended/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 16:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance Forum]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/02/mandate-of-advisory-group-of-internet-governance-forum-extended/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The mandate of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum has been extended.  The Special Adviser for Internet Governance to the Secretary-General, Nitin Desai, has been asked to continue as the Chairman of the Advisory Group, which will meet again on 13 to 15 May in Geneva before handing over to a renewed group to prepare the next Internet Governance Forum meeting in Hyderabad, India, on 3 to 6 December.  The Advisory Group will renew up to one third of its members within each stakeholder group. ... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/02/mandate-of-advisory-group-of-internet-governance-forum-extended/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Law Prof Michael Geist Submission on ACTA to Canadian Govt</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/01/canadian-law-prof-michael-geist-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-govt/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/01/canadian-law-prof-michael-geist-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-govt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 17:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/01/canadian-law-prof-michael-geist-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-govt/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["I begin by noting that it is difficult to provide meaningful feedback on a treaty that no one has publicly seen.  However, with some public documents indicating that lobby groups hope to use the treaty to increase intermediary liability, force cross-border disclosure of Internet service provider subscriber information, and further advance the cause of anti-circumvention legislation, there is reason for concern.  In light of those concerns, I raise the following issues: 1. Lack of Transparency.  2. Absence of Evidence of the Need for the ACTA. 3.  Substantive Concerns with ACTA ....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/05/01/canadian-law-prof-michael-geist-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-govt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;The Problem with the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty (and What To Do About It)&#8221; by Aaron Shaw (KEI Studies)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/the-problem-with-the-anti-counterfeiting-treaty-and-what-to-do-about-it-by-aaron-shaw-kei-studies/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/the-problem-with-the-anti-counterfeiting-treaty-and-what-to-do-about-it-by-aaron-shaw-kei-studies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EU IPR Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/the-problem-with-the-anti-counterfeiting-treaty-and-what-to-do-about-it-by-aaron-shaw-kei-studies/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In mid-February 2008, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a request for public comments on the proposed “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA). However, with the exception of a handful of press releases, information about the proposal itself remains scarce. Mainstream media outlets have printed USTR officials' talking points about the importance of winning “the fight against fakes,” but have failed to analyze either the origins or the nature of the ACTA in any detail. What is ACTA? Where did it come from? How would it affect the trade and governance of the knowledge- based economy? In what follows, I provide preliminary answers to these questions and argue that ACTA would impose a narrow trade agenda at
the expense of global cooperation and evidence-based policies.....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/the-problem-with-the-anti-counterfeiting-treaty-and-what-to-do-about-it-by-aaron-shaw-kei-studies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CIPPIC Submission on ACTA to Canadian Government</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/cippic-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-government/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/cippic-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/cippic-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-government/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The content of ACTA could have significant implications for Canada. Counterfeiting activity harms Canadian consumers and Canadian trade. All Canadians endorse the dedication of appropriate law-enforcement resources to addressing trade-debilitating commercial infringement.  However, intellectual property policy equally touches on important policy frameworks governing innovation, privacy, security, trade, creativity and freedom of expression. Enthusiasm to address the harms legitimately attributed to counterfeiting could push ACTA’s content beyond that sphere to undermine other values that Canadians hold dear. CIPPIC urges Canadian negotiators to remain cognizant of this reality, and to approach ACTA discussions with an understanding that balanced intellectual property policies are the best means of advancing Canada’s interests.....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/30/cippic-submission-on-acta-to-canadian-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Uninvited to the Public Policy Forum Symposium (Howard Knopf)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/uninvited-to-the-public-policy-forum-symposium-howard-knopf/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/uninvited-to-the-public-policy-forum-symposium-howard-knopf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/uninvited-to-the-public-policy-forum-symposium-howard-knopf/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["I have now been uninvited to the Public Policy Forum (“PPF”) IP program entitled INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REFORM: INNOVATION AND THE ECONOMY on April 28, 2008, which will now proceed without me on the program.  It seems that strong pressure was brought to bear on PPF to have me removed from the program and that PPF capitulated.  The presentation that I would have made would have been based upon the presentation I gave at the 16h Annual Fordham conference in NYC on March 28, 2008 entitled: WHY CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW IS ALREADY STRONGER AND BETTER THAN THAT OF THE USA - AND WHY THE USA SHOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR RATHER THAN AT ITS “SPECIAL 301" WATCH LIST....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/uninvited-to-the-public-policy-forum-symposium-howard-knopf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2008 USTR Special 301 Report (full report)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/2008-ustr-special-301-report-full-report/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/2008-ustr-special-301-report-full-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:52:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/2008-ustr-special-301-report-full-report/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The “Special 301” Report is an annual review of the global state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement, conducted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pursuant to Special 301 provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act).  The 2008 Special 301 review process examined IPR protection and enforcement in 78 countries.   Following extensive research and analysis, USTR designates 46 countries in this year’s Special 301 Report in the categories of Priority Watch List, Watch List, and/or Section 306 Monitoring status. This report reflects the Administration’s resolve to encourage and maintain effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide.  The Special 301 designations and actions announced in this report are the result of close consultations with affected industry groups and other private sector representatives, foreign governments, Congressional leaders, and interagency coordination within the United States Government....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/2008-ustr-special-301-report-full-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada Remains in Good Company in USTR Special 301 Report (Micheal Geist)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/canada-remains-in-good-company-in-ustr-special-301-report-micheal-geist/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/canada-remains-in-good-company-in-ustr-special-301-report-micheal-geist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/canada-remains-in-good-company-in-ustr-special-301-report-micheal-geist/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The U.S. Trade Representative has released its annual Special 301 report, in which it criticizes dozens of countries over their intellectual property laws while ignoring its own shortcomings.  Despite demands from the copyright lobby that Canada be placed on the "Priority Watch List," Canada is again on the lower level Watch List along with 35 other countries including Norway, Greece, Italy, Spain, and South Korea....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/canada-remains-in-good-company-in-ustr-special-301-report-micheal-geist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USTR&#8217;s 2008 Special Section 301 Report (William Paltry)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/ustrs-2008-special-section-301-report-william-paltry/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/ustrs-2008-special-section-301-report-william-paltry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/ustrs-2008-special-section-301-report-william-paltry/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Friday, April 25th, the Office of the United States Trade Representative issued its 2008 Special 301 report. Nine countries were placed on the naughtiest of the naughty list, the Priority Watch List: China, Russia, Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela. Of these China gets the most extensive treatment. Thirty-six countries were placed on the naughty list, the Watch List...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/25/ustrs-2008-special-section-301-report-william-paltry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Internet Bill of Rights Coalition on &#8220;Search Engine&#8221; (CBC Radio)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/17/internet-bill-of-rights-coalition-on-search-engine-cbc-radio/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/17/internet-bill-of-rights-coalition-on-search-engine-cbc-radio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Media Coverage]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/17/internet-bill-of-rights-coalition-on-search-engine-cbc-radio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Radio interview (.mp3) of Robin Gross and Robert Guerra discuss the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Dynamic Coalition for an Internet Bill of Rights on CBC's "Search Engine" with host Jesse Brown.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/17/internet-bill-of-rights-coalition-on-search-engine-cbc-radio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Draft Programme Outline for the Third Meeting of the IGF in Hyderabad in Dec. 2008</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/07/draft-programme-outline-for-the-third-meeting-of-the-igf-in-hyderabad-in-dec-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/07/draft-programme-outline-for-the-third-meeting-of-the-igf-in-hyderabad-in-dec-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance Forum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/07/draft-programme-outline-for-the-third-meeting-of-the-igf-in-hyderabad-in-dec-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/07/draft-programme-outline-for-the-third-meeting-of-the-igf-in-hyderabad-in-dec-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Reflections from Fordham 2008 &#8221; from Howard Knopf</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/03/reflections-from-fordham-2008-from-howard-knopf/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/03/reflections-from-fordham-2008-from-howard-knopf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/03/reflections-from-fordham-2008-from-howard-knopf/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The annual Fordham International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference has just taken place, as always The First Thursday and Friday After Easter.™ The following is a very limited and personal take on a very complex and comprehensive conference.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/04/03/reflections-from-fordham-2008-from-howard-knopf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ipj-white-paper-acta-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ipj-white-paper-acta-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EU IPR Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Intermediary Liability]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[trips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ipj-white-paper-acta-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  ACTA is spearheaded by the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland -- those countries with the largest intellectual property industries.  Other countries invited to participate in ACTA’s negotiation process are Canada, Australia, Korea, Mexico and New Zealand.  Noticeably absent from ACTA’s negotiations are leaders from developing countries who hold national policy priorities that differ from the international intellectual property industry....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ipj-white-paper-acta-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ip-justice-white-paper-on-the-proposed-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ip-justice-white-paper-on-the-proposed-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Intermediary Liability]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[trips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ip-justice-white-paper-on-the-proposed-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anti-Consumer and Anti-Public Interest Treaty Proposed by Intellectual Property Industry, US, Europe, Switzerland, and Japan]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/ip-justice-white-paper-on-the-proposed-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Provisions for ACTA - According to Office of US Trade Representative</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/provisions-for-acta-according-to-office-of-us-trade-representative/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/provisions-for-acta-according-to-office-of-us-trade-representative/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:59:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[trips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/provisions-for-acta-according-to-office-of-us-trade-representative/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Oct. 2007 USTR "Fact Sheet", the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would contain the following provisions: International Cooperation, Enforcement Practices &#038; New Legal Framework....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/25/provisions-for-acta-according-to-office-of-us-trade-representative/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACTA’s Misguided Effort to Increase Govt Spying and Ratchet-Up IPR Enforcement at Public Expense</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/21/acta-ipj-comments-ustr-2008march/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/21/acta-ipj-comments-ustr-2008march/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Development Agenda]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[trips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/21/acta-ipj-comments-ustr-2008march/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IP Justice Comments to the U.S.T.R. on the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  IP Justice firmly believes that ACTA’s costs to the public far outweigh any public benefit it might provide.  The financial expense to tax-payers to fund ACTA would be enormous and steal scarce resources away from programs that deal with genuine public needs like providing education and eliminating hunger.  ACTA would burden the judicial system and divert badly needed law enforcement and customs resources away from public security and towards private profit.  Unfortunately the zeal to “beef-up” enforcement measures on which ACTA rides often leads to the violation of privacy rights, bypassing due process protections, and cutting-off the free flow of information.  ACTA proposes to set new international norms to lock countries into pre-determined policy choices when flexibility is needed. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/21/acta-ipj-comments-ustr-2008march/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Essential Action Comments to USTR on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/essential-action-comments-to-ustr-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/essential-action-comments-to-ustr-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:49:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[trips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/essential-action-comments-to-ustr-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The comments argue that background information on the treaty conflate the concepts of counterfeiting, "piracy" and infringement. "An agreement based on, or reflecting, such a conflation of distinct concepts is likely to be overly broad, proscribing behavior that cannot correctly be identified as counterfeiting and that is not necessarily detrimental to the public interest." As regards medicines, the proper focus should be on public health -- in the context of the broader problem of substandard medicines -- rather than on counterfeiting.  The comments argue that Big Pharma should be obligated to disclose publicly information it has on fake pharmaceuticals.   The comments also point out that the key market incentive for medicines counterfeiting is the high price of patented medicines, and that efforts to make medicines available at marginal cost will reduce counterfeiting incentives....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/essential-action-comments-to-ustr-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;UNESCO Policy Guidelines on the Development and Promotion of Governmental Public Domain Information&#8221; (Paul Uhlir) 2004</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/unesco-policy-guidelines-on-the-development-and-promotion-of-governmental-public-domain-information-paul-uhlir-2004/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/unesco-policy-guidelines-on-the-development-and-promotion-of-governmental-public-domain-information-paul-uhlir-2004/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Development Agenda]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/unesco-policy-guidelines-on-the-development-and-promotion-of-governmental-public-domain-information-paul-uhlir-2004/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/unesco-policy-guidelines-on-the-development-and-promotion-of-governmental-public-domain-information-paul-uhlir-2004/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comments of Knowledge Ecology International on the Proposal for ACTA</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/comments-of-knowledge-ecology-international-on-the-proposal-for-acta/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/comments-of-knowledge-ecology-international-on-the-proposal-for-acta/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/comments-of-knowledge-ecology-international-on-the-proposal-for-acta/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Lack of Transparency is Not Encouraging.  The Request for Comment in the February 15, 2008 Federal Register (Volume 73, Number 32), contains very little information about the proposal.  The "Fact Sheet" on the USTR website has very little real
information.  We have, in fact, located an undated "Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement," that has apparently been circulated to lobbyists for some businesses, but not to civil society groups, which contains far more detail than one can obtain from the Federal Register Notice or the USTR web page.  KEI suggests USTR be more open about this project....
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/20/comments-of-knowledge-ecology-international-on-the-proposal-for-acta/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public-Interest Principles for the Networked Communications Environment</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/18/public-interest-principles-for-the-networked-communications-environment/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/18/public-interest-principles-for-the-networked-communications-environment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Expression &amp; Media Dynamic Coalition]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Standards]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/18/public-interest-principles-for-the-networked-communications-environment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why is Free Expression Important in an Information Society?  The UK-based "Freedom of Expression Project" posted "Public Interest Principles for the Networked Communications Environment".  The draft document provides useful analysis on the importance of freedom of expression, open standards, interoperability, respect for privacy, and balanced copyright law as key policy goals for a healthy and robust information society.  The project aims to complete an agreed set of principles by December 2008....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/18/public-interest-principles-for-the-networked-communications-environment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO Copyright Committee Considers Many Proposals for 2008 Work Program</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/wipo-copyright-committee-considers-many-proposals-for-2008-work-program/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/wipo-copyright-committee-considers-many-proposals-for-2008-work-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:44:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Broadcasting Treaty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[IP Justice Blog on WIPO Broadcast Treaty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WIPO News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/wipo-copyright-committee-considers-many-proposals-for-2008-work-program/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
WIPO Copyright Committee: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back&#160;
&#8216;Broadcast Treaty Chair&#8217; Remains, Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright Considered
(15 March 2008) &#160;The WIPO Copyright Committee (SCCR) met from 10-12 March 2008 in Geneva to debate the future work program for the committee after the Member States of the WIPO General Assembly told the committee last Fall [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/wipo-copyright-committee-considers-many-proposals-for-2008-work-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USTR - Special 301 Public Submissions 2008</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/ustr-special-301-public-submissions-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/ustr-special-301-public-submissions-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bilateral agreements]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/ustr-special-301-public-submissions-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Industry submissions to the USTR regarding its Special 301 list to recommend trade sanctions against foreign countries....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/15/ustr-special-301-public-submissions-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CFP 2008 Call for Proposals on &#8220;US Technology Policy for the Next Administration&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/14/cfp-2008-call-for-proposals-on-us-technology-policy-for-the-next-administration/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/14/cfp-2008-call-for-proposals-on-us-technology-policy-for-the-next-administration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/14/cfp-2008-call-for-proposals-on-us-technology-policy-for-the-next-administration/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This year, the 18th annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference will focus on what constitutes technology policy. CFP: Technology Policy '08 is an opportunity to help shape public debate on those issues being made into laws and regulations and those technological infrastructures being developed. The direction of our technology policy impacts the choices we make about our national defense, our civil liberties during wartime, the future of American education, our national healthcare systems, and many other realms of policy discussed more prominently on the election trail. Policies ranging from data mining and wiretapping, to file-sharing and open access, and e-voting to electronic medical records will be addressed by expert panels of technologists, policymakers, business leaders, and advocates....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/14/cfp-2008-call-for-proposals-on-us-technology-policy-for-the-next-administration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sign the Petition to EU Parliament to Use Open Standards and Promote Interoperability</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/sign-the-petition-to-eu-parliament-to-use-open-standards-and-promote-interoperability/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/sign-the-petition-to-eu-parliament-to-use-open-standards-and-promote-interoperability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EU IPR Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ODF]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Standards]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/sign-the-petition-to-eu-parliament-to-use-open-standards-and-promote-interoperability/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are a European citizen, sign the petition to "Open Parliament" and encourage the use of open standards and interoperable systems in the European ICT sector.   The Open Parliament Petition states that citizens should not have to use the software of a single company in order to communicate with their elected officials or participate in the legislate process.  All companies should be given the chance to compete freely for contacts to supply ICT services to the European Parliament.  Read and sign the full-petition here....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/sign-the-petition-to-eu-parliament-to-use-open-standards-and-promote-interoperability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Text Adopted by WIPO Copyright Committee on Exceptions and Limitations</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/text-adopted-by-wipo-copyright-committee-on-exceptions-and-limitations/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/text-adopted-by-wipo-copyright-committee-on-exceptions-and-limitations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/text-adopted-by-wipo-copyright-committee-on-exceptions-and-limitations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay presented a proposal which elaborated further the proposal by the delegation of Chile (SCCR/13/5).  Many of the delegations who took the floor supported the proposal, in whole or in part.  Other delegations expressed support or opposition to specific elements of document SCCR/13/5, which are reflected in their
interventions in the report of the meeting....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/13/text-adopted-by-wipo-copyright-committee-on-exceptions-and-limitations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Privacy-Invasive&#8221; Domain Name Trademark Bill Before US Congress</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/privacy-invasive-domain-name-trademark-bill-before-us-congress/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/privacy-invasive-domain-name-trademark-bill-before-us-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/privacy-invasive-domain-name-trademark-bill-before-us-congress/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sign the Petition.  A new bill (S. 2661) is currently before the US Congress that would once again expand trademark rights to domain names and threaten free expression on the Internet.  The bill, introduced by US Senator Snowe (R-Maine), also contains a privacy-invasive provision over the revelation of "whois" data (ICANN's online database about website owners).  The Snowe bill pretends to be an "anti-phishing" bill, but is really a trademark bill in disguise.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/privacy-invasive-domain-name-trademark-bill-before-us-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO Copyright Committee Done For Year; Exceptions And Limitations ‘Here To Stay’</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/wipo-copyright-committee-done-for-year-exceptions-and-limitations-%e2%80%98here-to-stay%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/wipo-copyright-committee-done-for-year-exceptions-and-limitations-%e2%80%98here-to-stay%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Broadcasting Treaty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/wipo-copyright-committee-done-for-year-exceptions-and-limitations-%e2%80%98here-to-stay%e2%80%99/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee on Wednesday concluded work until next November in a way similar to recent years, with the same chair, European dominance, no agreement, and division over a proposed treaty on broadcasters’ rights.  But it also contained the elevation of a proposal to improve exceptions and limitations to copyright, and a proposal for four new agenda items: resale royalties, collective management, orphan works, and applicable law.  “Exceptions and limitations is here to stay,” a supporting government official said afterward.....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/12/wipo-copyright-committee-done-for-year-exceptions-and-limitations-%e2%80%98here-to-stay%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Govt Seizes Blacklisted Domain Names of European Company for Selling Cuba Trips</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/us-govt-seizes-blacklisted-domain-names-of-european-company-for-selling-cuba-trips/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/us-govt-seizes-blacklisted-domain-names-of-european-company-for-selling-cuba-trips/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Domain Names]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Expression &amp; Media Dynamic Coalition]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[institutional-governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/us-govt-seizes-blacklisted-domain-names-of-european-company-for-selling-cuba-trips/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["An interesting story broke recently in the NY Times about a Spanish travel company that had its domain names taken away by the US Government for selling Europeans vacations to Cuba.   Even though the company's business was not targeted at the US and was lawful in its national jurisdiction, the company's websites were put on a domain name blacklist maintained by the US Treasury Department.  According to the NY Times, US Treasury officials contacted the Spanish company's domain name registrar, which is based in the US, and ordered that the websites be disabled, since it was "a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people."  Unfortunately this case is another example of the US Government using the Internet's Domain Name System to censor freedom of expression, violate due process, and interfere with the sovereign rights of other nations.  The US Government has a history of leveraging its position as the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN, most of the world's registrars, and the registry that manages .com resides in order to impose its own national policy agendas on the entire world...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/us-govt-seizes-blacklisted-domain-names-of-european-company-for-selling-cuba-trips/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO Copyright Committee Begins New Era With Revised Agenda, Same Chair (IP-Watch)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/wipo-copyright-committee-begins-new-era-with-revised-agenda-same-chair-ip-watch/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/wipo-copyright-committee-begins-new-era-with-revised-agenda-same-chair-ip-watch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Broadcasting Treaty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/wipo-copyright-committee-begins-new-era-with-revised-agenda-same-chair-ip-watch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee on Monday began a new era in the wake of a failed decade of negotiations for a broadcasters’ rights treaty. But it will tackle its new agenda including limitations and exceptions to copyright with the same chairman who guided the broadcasting talks with fervour.  Finland’s Jukka Liedes was re-elected chairman of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) Monday after closed-door debate that lasted most of the first day. It was unclear how a deal was reached on returning Liedes to the chair he has held for about a decade, but sources said there were no other candidates formally put forth. The SCCR is meeting from 10-12 March....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/wipo-copyright-committee-begins-new-era-with-revised-agenda-same-chair-ip-watch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Proposal At WIPO For Exceptions and Limitations Agreement; US Unconvinced (IP-Watch)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/new-proposal-at-wipo-for-exceptions-and-limitations-agreement-us-unconvinced-ip-watch/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/new-proposal-at-wipo-for-exceptions-and-limitations-agreement-us-unconvinced-ip-watch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/new-proposal-at-wipo-for-exceptions-and-limitations-agreement-us-unconvinced-ip-watch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Several nations have joined Chile in presenting a new proposal for work on limitations and exceptions to this week’s meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee. The work would include establishing an international agreement on the issue.  But the United States told the plenary on Tuesday that it is “not ready” for norm-setting activities on exceptions and limitations and needs to see “evidence-based” analysis to show the need for more work on this area, according to sources....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/new-proposal-at-wipo-for-exceptions-and-limitations-agreement-us-unconvinced-ip-watch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Corporate Reps and US Trade Officials Meet in New York to Discuss ACTA (Aaron Shaw)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/corporate-reps-and-us-trade-officials-meet-in-new-york-to-discuss-acta-aaron-shaw/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/corporate-reps-and-us-trade-officials-meet-in-new-york-to-discuss-acta-aaron-shaw/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/corporate-reps-and-us-trade-officials-meet-in-new-york-to-discuss-acta-aaron-shaw/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[”Representatives from the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP) initiative gathered with government officials in New York yesterday to discuss strategies for ending the international trade in fake goods.  The meeting was attended by CEO’s of companies such as Microsoft, General Electric and Pfizer, as well as the executive director of INTA, Alan Drewsen, the deputy secretary-general of WIPO, Michael Keplinger, and the secretary-general of the World Customs Organization (WCO), Michael Danet. US Trade Representative Susan Schwab also took part”...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/11/corporate-reps-and-us-trade-officials-meet-in-new-york-to-discuss-acta-aaron-shaw/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO Member States Request Agenda for Copyright Exceptions and Limitations</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/10/wipo-member-states-request-agenda-for-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/10/wipo-member-states-request-agenda-for-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/10/wipo-member-states-request-agenda-for-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A group of developing countries submitted a proposal for a work program for WIPO's Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights (SCCR) on 10 March 2008.  The new proposal from Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay, calls for work on three areas: identification from members’ national IP systems of models and practices on exceptions and limitations; analysis of exceptions and limitations needed to promote and disseminate creation and innovation; and establishment of an agreement on exceptions and limitations for the public interest, as a minimum in all national legislatio]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/10/wipo-member-states-request-agenda-for-copyright-exceptions-and-limitations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Complaint Lodged Over EU Parliament’s Exclusive Use Of Microsoft Systems (IP-Watch)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/complaint-lodged-over-eu-parliament%e2%80%99s-exclusive-use-of-microsoft-systems-ip-watch/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/complaint-lodged-over-eu-parliament%e2%80%99s-exclusive-use-of-microsoft-systems-ip-watch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ODF]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/complaint-lodged-over-eu-parliament%e2%80%99s-exclusive-use-of-microsoft-systems-ip-watch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A formal complaint has been lodged with the European Parliament over how its information technology systems rely almost exclusively on software manufactured by Microsoft.  Advocates of open standard software, which is developed on a not-for-profit basis, allege that the Seattle-based giant enjoys an effective monopoly or ‘lock-in’ within the European Union institutions. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and EU officials are unable to read attachments sent with emails if these are in an open document format that is incompatible with Microsoft’s Windows, the operating system found in most of the world’s personal computers.  Three organisations have jointly filed a complaint, claiming that the current situation limits the possibilities that EU citizens have to communicate with their elected representatives....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/complaint-lodged-over-eu-parliament%e2%80%99s-exclusive-use-of-microsoft-systems-ip-watch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom of Expression at Risk by Council of Europe</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/freedom-of-expression-at-risk-by-council-of-europe/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/freedom-of-expression-at-risk-by-council-of-europe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:58:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/freedom-of-expression-at-risk-by-council-of-europe/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Council of Europe needs something useful to do.  Although the inter-governmental organization of European states frequently makes beautiful statements about the importance of freedom of expression and other human rights, unfortunately, the actions of the CoE too frequently take another direction: censorship...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/freedom-of-expression-at-risk-by-council-of-europe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Conceiving an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright&#8221; (Hugenholtz, Okediji / March 2008)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/conceiving-an-international-instrument-on-limitations-and-exceptions-to-copyright-hugenholtz-okediji-march-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/conceiving-an-international-instrument-on-limitations-and-exceptions-to-copyright-hugenholtz-okediji-march-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/30/conceiving-an-international-instrument-on-limitations-and-exceptions-to-copyright-hugenholtz-okediji-march-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The task of developing a global approach to limitations and exceptions (“L&#038;E’s”) is
one of the major challenges facing the international copyright system today. As mechanisms of access, L&#038;E’s contribute to the dissemination of knowledge, which in turn is essential for a variety of human activities and values, including liberty, the exercise of political power, and economic, social and personal advancement. Appropriately designed L&#038;E’s may alleviate the needs of people around the world who still lack access to books and other educational materials, and also open up rapid advances in information and communication technologies that are fundamentally transforming the processes of production, dissemination and storage of information. As new technologies challenge copyright’s internal balance, and as the costs of globalization heighten the vital need for innovation and knowledge dissemination, a multilateral instrument that can effectively harness various national practices with regard to L&#038;E’s, and that can provide a framework for dynamic evaluation of how global copyright norms can be most effectively translated into a credible system that appropriately values author and user rights, is a necessity. This paper examines policy options and modalities for framing an international instrument on limitations and exceptions to copyright within the treaty obligations of the current international copyright system. We consider this international copyright acquis as our general starting point, and evaluate options for the design of such an instrument, including questions of political sustainability and institutional home....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/06/conceiving-an-international-instrument-on-limitations-and-exceptions-to-copyright-hugenholtz-okediji-march-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trent Reznor Puts Fans in Charge with Successful Experimental Business Model</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/05/trent-reznor-puts-fans-in-charge-with-successful-experimental-business-model/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/05/trent-reznor-puts-fans-in-charge-with-successful-experimental-business-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/05/trent-reznor-puts-fans-in-charge-with-successful-experimental-business-model/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trent Reznor has rocked the music world once again. The long-time front man for Nine-Inch-Nails is convinced the current music business infrastructure is broken since it requires artists to rely on labels.  Reznor is looking for a new model.

Last year NIN broke free from its major label and decided to go independent, look to its fans for support, and experiment with new business models made possible by the Internet.

So far, I’d say its working for Reznor and NIN. Within 24 hours of releasing the band’s latest album online with a variety of payment options, including free, it sold more than 2,500 of the $300 Limited Edition Ultra-Deluxe Package, earning the ARTISTS $750,000 on the album’s first day available, from that option alone. ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/05/trent-reznor-puts-fans-in-charge-with-successful-experimental-business-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO Development Agenda Proposals CDIP/1</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/wipo-development-agenda-proposals-cdip1/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/wipo-development-agenda-proposals-cdip1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Development Agenda]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/wipo-development-agenda-proposals-cdip1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Documents for discussion at the WIPO CDIP/1 Meeting in March 2008: (a) Preliminary Implementation Report with respect to the 19 proposals identified for immediate implementation by WIPO; and (b) Initial Working Document regarding the implementation of the 26 agreed proposals....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/wipo-development-agenda-proposals-cdip1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business, Governments See Momentum For ACTA, But EU Snags (IP-Watch)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/business-governments-see-momentum-for-acta-but-eu-snags-ip-watch/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/business-governments-see-momentum-for-acta-but-eu-snags-ip-watch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Media Coverage]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/business-governments-see-momentum-for-acta-but-eu-snags-ip-watch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Critics Raise Doubts on Narrow ACTA Process.  But some ACTA critics say that is not enough, and that developing countries and civil society groups not part of the inter-governmental discussions are at a disadvantage from the outset.  "These talks have all been going on between a select handful of countries that will basically decide what the parameters of the agreement will be and the concerns of developing countries, the concerns of civil societies, won't be included in the final text," said Robin Gross, executive director of the civil liberties organisation IP Justice.  Gross also is concerned that ACTA will result in increased data-sharing between governments - which could pose privacy concerns - as well as increased use of public resources that would be put toward trying to remedy a problem hurting "a very small number of companies" and would fund what she called "propaganda campaigns" to discourage...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/04/business-governments-see-momentum-for-acta-but-eu-snags-ip-watch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“Less Difficult” First WIPO Development Committee Meeting Begins (IP-Watch)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/03/%e2%80%9cless-difficult%e2%80%9d-first-wipo-development-committee-meeting-begins-ip-watch/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/03/%e2%80%9cless-difficult%e2%80%9d-first-wipo-development-committee-meeting-begins-ip-watch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Development Agenda]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/03/%e2%80%9cless-difficult%e2%80%9d-first-wipo-development-committee-meeting-begins-ip-watch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The “historic” first day of the new World Intellectual Property Organization Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) opened with a focus on procedure, a focus likely to carry through the whole first week, according to participants. “The goal [of this week’s meeting] is to progress on the first and most important item agreed in the General Assembly last year: to develop a work programme for the implementation of the adopted recommendations,” said C. Trevor Clarke, who was elected chair of the committee at the outset. ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/03/%e2%80%9cless-difficult%e2%80%9d-first-wipo-development-committee-meeting-begins-ip-watch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world: The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), 2004 (Musungu Dutfield/Quakers)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/multilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-world-intellectual-property-organisation-wipo-2004-musungu-dutfieldquakers/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/multilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-world-intellectual-property-organisation-wipo-2004-musungu-dutfieldquakers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:12:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/multilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-world-intellectual-property-organisation-wipo-2004-musungu-dutfieldquakers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/multilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-world-intellectual-property-organisation-wipo-2004-musungu-dutfieldquakers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bilateral Agreements and a TRIPS-Plus World: The Chile-USA Free Trade Agreement, 2004 (Roffe/ICTSD)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/bilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-chile-usa-free-trade-agreement-2004-roffeictsd/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/bilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-chile-usa-free-trade-agreement-2004-roffeictsd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bilateral agreements]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/bilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-chile-usa-free-trade-agreement-2004-roffeictsd/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/bilateral-agreements-and-a-trips-plus-world-the-chile-usa-free-trade-agreement-2004-roffeictsd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exploring Options and Modalities to Move the New Development Agenda Forward, 2005 (Oxford)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/exploring-options-and-modalities-to-move-the-new-development-agenda-forward-2005-oxford/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/exploring-options-and-modalities-to-move-the-new-development-agenda-forward-2005-oxford/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Development Agenda]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/exploring-options-and-modalities-to-move-the-new-development-agenda-forward-2005-oxford/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/exploring-options-and-modalities-to-move-the-new-development-agenda-forward-2005-oxford/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Education, IPRs and Fundamental Freedoms: The Right To Knowledge, 2005 (Suthersanen)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/education-iprs-and-fundamental-freedoms-the-right-to-knowledge-2005-suthersanen/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/education-iprs-and-fundamental-freedoms-the-right-to-knowledge-2005-suthersanen/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/education-iprs-and-fundamental-freedoms-the-right-to-knowledge-2005-suthersanen/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/education-iprs-and-fundamental-freedoms-the-right-to-knowledge-2005-suthersanen/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Circumventing Competition: The perverse consequences of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, 2006 (Timothy B. Lee/Show-Me-Institute)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/circumventing-competition-the-perverse-consequences-of-the-digital-millenium-copyright-act-2006-timothy-b-leeshow-me-institute/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/circumventing-competition-the-perverse-consequences-of-the-digital-millenium-copyright-act-2006-timothy-b-leeshow-me-institute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:49:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/circumventing-competition-the-perverse-consequences-of-the-digital-millenium-copyright-act-2006-timothy-b-leeshow-me-institute/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/circumventing-competition-the-perverse-consequences-of-the-digital-millenium-copyright-act-2006-timothy-b-leeshow-me-institute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The International Copyright System: Limitations, Exceptions and Public Interest Considerations for Developing Countries in the Digital Environment (Okediji/ UNCTAD-ICTSD)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/the-international-copyright-system-limitations-exceptions-and-public-interest-considerations-for-developing-countries-in-the-digital-environment-okediji-unctad-ictsd/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/the-international-copyright-system-limitations-exceptions-and-public-interest-considerations-for-developing-countries-in-the-digital-environment-okediji-unctad-ictsd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:39:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/the-international-copyright-system-limitations-exceptions-and-public-interest-considerations-for-developing-countries-in-the-digital-environment-okediji-unctad-ictsd/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/the-international-copyright-system-limitations-exceptions-and-public-interest-considerations-for-developing-countries-in-the-digital-environment-okediji-unctad-ictsd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USTR 2008 Trade Policy Agenda and 2007 Annual Report (Mar. 2008)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/ustr-2008-trade-policy-agenda-and-2007-annual-report-mar-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/ustr-2008-trade-policy-agenda-and-2007-annual-report-mar-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Intermediary Liability]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[trips]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/ustr-2008-trade-policy-agenda-and-2007-annual-report-mar-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Annual Report from the Office of the United States Trade Representative on efforts to influence national laws of other countries to better serve US industry.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/02/ustr-2008-trade-policy-agenda-and-2007-annual-report-mar-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The International IP Enforcement Landscape from a Developing Country Perspective: South Center Research Paper 15</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/01/the-international-ip-enforcement-landscape-from-a-developing-country-perspective-south-center-research-paper-15/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/01/the-international-ip-enforcement-landscape-from-a-developing-country-perspective-south-center-research-paper-15/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:22:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/26/the-international-ip-enforcement-landscape-from-a-developing-country-perspective-south-center-research-paper-15/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/03/01/the-international-ip-enforcement-landscape-from-a-developing-country-perspective-south-center-research-paper-15/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Free, Open Software Supporters Advocate Against Microsoft Document Standard (IP-Watch)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/29/free-open-software-supporters-advocate-against-microsoft-document-standard-ip-watch/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/29/free-open-software-supporters-advocate-against-microsoft-document-standard-ip-watch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ODF]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Source]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Standards]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/29/free-open-software-supporters-advocate-against-microsoft-document-standard-ip-watch/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Free software and open standards proponents met this week in Geneva to discuss the importance of standards-setting and to debate the role of patent protections and advocate freedom of information sharing in the digital economy.  Organised by open source software advocacy group OpenForum Europe and happening against the backdrop of Microsoft’s bid to have its document format Office Open XML (OOXML) made an international standard at the International Standards Organization (IPW, Access to Knowledge, 27 February 2008), the event advocated a digital future in which fundamental operating principles for the development of technical standards include certain guaranteed freedoms and raised questions as to whether Microsoft’s new document standard would adhere to those goals....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/29/free-open-software-supporters-advocate-against-microsoft-document-standard-ip-watch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Internet, two modes of governance (IGP)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/27/one-internet-two-modes-of-governance-igp/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/27/one-internet-two-modes-of-governance-igp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:27:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance Forum]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/27/one-internet-two-modes-of-governance-igp/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Having received nearly 170 comments representing a diversity of civil society, private sector and government views from inside and outside the United States, it should be clear to the NTIA that its processes and decisions are relevant to a global Internet community. Regrettably though, the lineup of expected panelists does not reflect this diversity, but rather powerful domestic interests and a few choice policy allies from outside the United States. In particular, the second panel, "Ensuring ICANN's Continued Progress and Sustainability," lacks multi-stakeholder balance, and offers only the perspectives of the business, registry, registrar and technical communities. Non-commercial interests are noticeably and unfortunately absent, as are other governments’ interests. The failure to include all constituencies is unfortunate since the NTIA inquiry and public meeting is the first step in a critical discussion about whether the political oversight of ICANN by a single government will be extended in 2009...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/27/one-internet-two-modes-of-governance-igp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Statement of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on an Internet Bill of Rights at the IGF Consultations in Geneva</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/statement-of-the-igf-dynamic-coalition-on-an-internet-bill-of-rights-at-the-igf-consultations-in-geneva/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/statement-of-the-igf-dynamic-coalition-on-an-internet-bill-of-rights-at-the-igf-consultations-in-geneva/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/statement-of-the-igf-dynamic-coalition-on-an-internet-bill-of-rights-at-the-igf-consultations-in-geneva/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our mission is as follows: Bring awareness and promote fundamental human and civil rights and liberties on the internet; Identify ways in which these rights and liberties can be translated on the Internet, and evaluate the applicability of existing legislation; Promote the addressing of issues of human and civil rights in policy-making proposals by all stakeholders; Promote the specification of how the existing rights can be applied and what they practically imply in the context of new ICT technologies; Identify ways in which new rights and principles deriving from the innovations caused by the Internet can be defined, agreed and promoted when necessary; Seek to identify measures for the protection and enforcement of these rights; Seek to engage the various stakeholders within the Coalition's mission and express the Coalition's interest to work with them....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/statement-of-the-igf-dynamic-coalition-on-an-internet-bill-of-rights-at-the-igf-consultations-in-geneva/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lobby groups oppose plans for EU copyright extension</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/lobby-groups-oppose-plans-for-eu-copyright-extension/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/lobby-groups-oppose-plans-for-eu-copyright-extension/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EU IPR Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/lobby-groups-oppose-plans-for-eu-copyright-extension/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Commission currently has proposals on the table to extend performers' copyright terms. Described by Professor Martin Kretschmer as the "Beatles Extension Act", the proposed measure would extend copyright from 50 to 95 years after recording. A vast number of classical tracks are at stake; the copyright on recordings from the fifties and early sixties is nearing its expiration date, after which it would normally enter the public domain or become 'public property'. E.U. Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services Charlie McCreevy is proposing this extension, and if the other relevant Directorate Generales (Information Society, Consumers, Culture, Trade, Competition, etc.) agree with the proposal, it will be sent to the European Parliament....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/26/lobby-groups-oppose-plans-for-eu-copyright-extension/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class Action Lawsuit Against Network Solutions &#038; ICANN for &#8220;Front-Running&#8221; of Domains and Defrauding Consumers</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/904/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/904/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/904/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.  Each time someone asks Network Solutions about a domain name, the firm creates a monopoly for itself, forcing consumers to pay the price they demand," said Brian Kabateck, lead counsel in the class action and Kabateck Brown Kellner's Managing Partner.  Whenever someone searches for the availability of a domain name through Network Solutions' website, the company immediately registers the name for itself, preventing other companies from selling it and forcing consumers to pay Network Solutions' expensive fees.  If a consumer were to go to another, cheaper site to register the name, they would find the name is "unavailable." Consumers are never informed that inquiring as to a name's availability through Network Solutions results in the company holding a monopoly on selling that name.  This allows Network Solutions to continue charging substantially higher prices for domain name registration. Network Solutions charged $34.99 to register the name sought by this suit's lead plaintiff. A competitor would have charged $9.99.  Network Solutions' scheme is made possible by ICANN. ICANN allows companies that sell domain names to avoid paying registration fees for names cancelled within five days. Thus, Network Solutions can defraud customers at no cost to itself....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/904/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Economist Loses Battle Over Domain Name (Folio)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/the-economist-loses-battle-over-domain-name-folio/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/the-economist-loses-battle-over-domain-name-folio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/the-economist-loses-battle-over-domain-name-folio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An attempt by The Economist to gain rights to the domain name TheEconomist.com has been denied by the World Intellectual Property Organization.  The Economist filed its claim with WIPO on November 9, 2007. The magazine’s Web site is registered as simply economist.com.   In its decision, the WIPO concluded that, although it was “skeptical,” and “has some doubts,” The Economist magazine failed to prove that Rose and TE Internet Services used the domain name in bad faith. “The only way that Mr. Rose’s assertions can be tested is in litigation where a judge would have proper opportunity of assessing the quality of this evidence. A proceeding under the policy is not the proper forum for determining such a belated issue of fact,” WIPO said in the document....
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/25/the-economist-loses-battle-over-domain-name-folio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Big Business Urges Adoption of Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/big-business-urges-adoption-of-anti-counterfeiting-treaty/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/big-business-urges-adoption-of-anti-counterfeiting-treaty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/big-business-urges-adoption-of-anti-counterfeiting-treaty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Take a look at the support that the international big business is giving to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with an opinion article below from BASCAP on the proposed treaty. ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/big-business-urges-adoption-of-anti-counterfeiting-treaty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UK Gowers Review on Intellectual Property (Dec. 2006 Final Report)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/uk-gowers-review-on-intellectual-property-dec-2006-final-report/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/uk-gowers-review-on-intellectual-property-dec-2006-final-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EU IPR Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/uk-gowers-review-on-intellectual-property-dec-2006-final-report/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The principle recommendations of the Review are aimed at: 1. tackling IP crime and ensuring that rights are well enforced; 2. reducing the costs and complexity of the system; and 3. reforming copyright law to allow individuals and institutions to use content in ways consistent with the digital age.  The IP framework must create incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators. The Review examined the instruments of Intellectual Property i.e. patents, copyright, designs and trade marks, to ensure that they are balanced, coherent and flexible, and at the operations; how IP is awarded, used, and enforced. ...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/23/uk-gowers-review-on-intellectual-property-dec-2006-final-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Council of Europe Lurches Forward to Create Broadcasters Rights</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/21/council-of-europe-lurches-forward-to-create-broadcasters-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/21/council-of-europe-lurches-forward-to-create-broadcasters-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:50:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Broadcasting Treaty]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[IP Justice Blog on WIPO Broadcast Treaty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/25/council-of-europe-lurches-forward-to-create-broadcasters-rights/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Council of Europe takes step to create the Broadcast Treaty that WIPO Member States rejected in 2007.  Interestingly, CoE calls the rejection of the treaty at WIPO as "deadlock" rather than admitting that the only ones who wanted the treaty were a handful of European broadcasters and the treaty was REJECTED, not deadlocked.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/21/council-of-europe-lurches-forward-to-create-broadcasters-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Domain Names are Bigger than Trademarks: ICANN&#8217;s New Consumer Protection Role</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/20/domain-names-are-bigger-than-trademarks-icanns-new-consumer-protection-role/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/20/domain-names-are-bigger-than-trademarks-icanns-new-consumer-protection-role/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[New Domain Names (gtlds)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/20/domain-names-are-bigger-than-trademarks-icanns-new-consumer-protection-role/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The terminology “confusingly similar” lends itself to the expansion of trademark rights to domain names by commercial uses and governments to the disadvantage of non-commercial users.  ICANN should refrain from taking on consumer protection type roles (such as preventing “confusion” in people) and only regulate issues related to the technical coordination of the Domain Name System.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/20/domain-names-are-bigger-than-trademarks-icanns-new-consumer-protection-role/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to USTR</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/comment-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-to-ustr/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/comment-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-to-ustr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Bilateral agreements]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/comment-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-to-ustr/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deadline: 21 March 2008.  The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) seeks to negotiate an anti-counterfeiting trade agreement to strengthen
international cooperation, enforcement practices, and participants' legal frameworks to address counterfeiting and piracy. USTR requests written comments from the public concerning specific matters that should be the focus of such an agreement.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/comment-on-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-to-ustr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gilberto Gil&#8217;s challenge: Reconciling counter-culture with copyright (Gazette)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/gilberto-gils-challenge-reconciling-counter-culture-with-copyright-gazette/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/gilberto-gils-challenge-reconciling-counter-culture-with-copyright-gazette/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/gilberto-gils-challenge-reconciling-counter-culture-with-copyright-gazette/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agitating the status quo is in Gil's genetic code, even as he creates government policies. Gil helped pioneer Tropicalism, the art movement that did away with traditional Brazilian music. He angered military dictatorships enough to be sent to exile. Now he finds himself an irritant to record labels and big software companies, earning the admiration of hackers and geeks as much as music lovers....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/16/gilberto-gils-challenge-reconciling-counter-culture-with-copyright-gazette/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Comments to US Government on Review of Joint Project Agreement with ICANN by Robin Gross</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/comments-to-us-government-on-review-of-joint-project-agreement-with-icann-by-robin-gross/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/comments-to-us-government-on-review-of-joint-project-agreement-with-icann-by-robin-gross/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[institutional-governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/comments-to-us-government-on-review-of-joint-project-agreement-with-icann-by-robin-gross/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["...In my view, given the international nature of the Internet, it is imperative that ICANN work toward moving away from oversight by a single nation and toward responding to the needs of the global Internet community.  However, ICANN has yet to demonstrate that it has sufficiently evolved to the point that it should be left without any oversight and accountability, although it has made some progress in recent years.   There remain significant problems with the existing structure and management of ICANN that must be resolved before ICANN can be left to itself to manage this crucial and shared public resource.  In particular, “Internet users” (or the public-at-large) still remain outside of the ICANN decision-making process, such that the concerns of individuals, who have no “business” stake in ICANN policy are not adequately taken into account.  ICANN continues to be dominated by large business interests and by specific commercial interests involved in providing Internet services...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/comments-to-us-government-on-review-of-joint-project-agreement-with-icann-by-robin-gross/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ICANN Not Yet Ready to Sever Ties to US Government</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/icann-not-yet-ready-to-sever-ties-to-us-government/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/icann-not-yet-ready-to-sever-ties-to-us-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/icann-not-yet-ready-to-sever-ties-to-us-government/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ICANN argues that it should be cut-lose from the only oversight it currently knows in the ongoing debate over who governs Cyberspace.  I submitted my statement from the 31st public ICANN Meeting at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi, India.  I said that ICANN has not provided for sufficient representation of Internet users in its policy making process, nor has it committed to respecting human rights in Cyberspace, although it has made progress to become more international....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/icann-not-yet-ready-to-sever-ties-to-us-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Threat Of Jail Time Increases Respect For Copyright, Microsoft Says</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/threat-of-jail-time-increases-respect-for-copyright-microsoft-says/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/threat-of-jail-time-increases-respect-for-copyright-microsoft-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:14:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/threat-of-jail-time-increases-respect-for-copyright-microsoft-says/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an attempt to scare youth regarding copyright infringement, Microsoft has turned to Topics Education, a developer of custom curricula, to create a curriculum called "Intellectual Property Rights Education" for middle school and high school teachers. The Microsoft-sponsored curriculum consists of Web-based resources and case-study driven lesson plans that aim to engage students about intellectual property issues.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/threat-of-jail-time-increases-respect-for-copyright-microsoft-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business coalition opposes harsh copyright reform in Canada (CBC)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/business-coalition-opposes-harsh-copyright-reform-in-canada-cbc/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/business-coalition-opposes-harsh-copyright-reform-in-canada-cbc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/business-coalition-opposes-harsh-copyright-reform-in-canada-cbc/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google, Rogers, Retail Council among those urging changes to legislation.  A who's who of powerful companies and business associations have banded together to push for less restrictive copyright reform, driving a stake into the heart of the federal government's argument for its new copyright bill.

The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, a group that includes Google, Yahoo, Rogers, Telus, the Canadian Alliance of Broadcasters and the Retail Council of Canada, among others, on Tuesday sent its stance on seven key copyright principles to Industry Minister Jim Prentice, Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner and several other cabinet ministers....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/business-coalition-opposes-harsh-copyright-reform-in-canada-cbc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No One Likes a Bully: the IIPA and Canada (William Patry)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/no-one-likes-a-bully-the-iipa-and-canada-william-patry/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/no-one-likes-a-bully-the-iipa-and-canada-william-patry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/no-one-likes-a-bully-the-iipa-and-canada-william-patry/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Despite the use of the word “International” in its name, the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is an umbrella group comprised of 7 U.S. trade associations: the Association of American Publishers, Business Software Alliance, Entertainment Software Association (video game industry), The Independent Film &#038; Television Alliance, The Motion Picture Association of America, National Music Publishers’ Association, and Recording Industry Association of America; it pursues a purely U.S. corporate copyright agenda...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/13/no-one-likes-a-bully-the-iipa-and-canada-william-patry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US-Antigua Gambling Dispute Highlights Defect in the WTO Dispute Settlement System (IQsensato)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/08/us-antigua-gambling-dispute-highlights-defect-in-the-wto-dispute-settlement-system-iqsensato/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/08/us-antigua-gambling-dispute-highlights-defect-in-the-wto-dispute-settlement-system-iqsensato/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/08/us-antigua-gambling-dispute-highlights-defect-in-the-wto-dispute-settlement-system-iqsensato/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The dispute between the United States (US) and Antigua and Barbuda has already made GATT/WTO history. Antigua challenged various US measures relating to gambling and betting services arguing that they were inconsistent with the US obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This was the first dispute arising under the GATS to reach the Appellate Body. It was also the first time that the GATT/WTO has adjudicated on the public morals defence, namely, whether a member can justify imposition of trade restrictions on the basis of the protection of public morals in its territory. Additionally, the case has resulted in a rare withdrawal of commitments under the GATS as the US decided to modify its GATS Schedule to exclude gambling and betting from its market access commitments.  This is a classic David versus Goliath case..."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/08/us-antigua-gambling-dispute-highlights-defect-in-the-wto-dispute-settlement-system-iqsensato/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public Comments Open on USTR Special 301 List</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/05/public-comments-open-on-ustr-special-301-list/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/05/public-comments-open-on-ustr-special-301-list/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:53:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bilateral agreements]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Robin's Cyberlaw Remix]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Section 301]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/05/public-comments-open-on-ustr-special-301-list/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has requested written submissions from the public "concerning foreign countries' acts, policies, and practices that are relevant to the decision as to whether particular trading partners should be identified" in its Special 301 List.  The USTR's Special 301 Lists are used to impose trade sanction on foreign countries that do not adhere to US preferences for intellectual property right protections.  These lists are also used to require foreign countries to enter into bi-lateral trade negotiations with the US that results in a change in the foreign country's domestic law to comply with US demands.  Members of the public at large and foreign countries are strongly encouraged to send comments to the USTR.  ..."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/05/public-comments-open-on-ustr-special-301-list/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 16th Session - 10-12 March 2008</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/04/wipo-standing-committee-on-copyright-and-related-rights-sccr-16th-session-10-12-march-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/04/wipo-standing-committee-on-copyright-and-related-rights-sccr-16th-session-10-12-march-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Limitations &amp; Exceptions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/04/wipo-standing-committee-on-copyright-and-related-rights-sccr-16th-session-10-12-march-2008/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Info on the WIPO Copyright Committee's meeting]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/04/wipo-standing-committee-on-copyright-and-related-rights-sccr-16th-session-10-12-march-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>French Police Move to Open Source</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/30/french-police-move-to-open-source/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/30/french-police-move-to-open-source/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:01:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Source]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/30/french-police-move-to-open-source/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The French paramilitary police force said Wednesday it is ditching Microsoft for the free Linux operating system, becoming one of the biggest administrations in the world to make the break.  The move completes the gendarmerie's severance from Microsoft which began in 2005 when it moved to open sourcing for office applications such as word processing. It switched to open source Internet browsers in 2006.  There are three reasons behind the move.  The first is to diversify suppliers and reduce the force's reliance on one company, the second is to give the gendarmerie mastery of the operating system and the third is cost, he said.  He also added that "the Linux interface is ahead of other operating systems...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/30/french-police-move-to-open-source/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;It&#8217;s Time to Overhaul Copyright Law&#8221;: Law Should Distinguish Between Cultural and Commercial Uses (Guardian UK)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/its-time-to-overhaul-copyright-law-law-should-distinguish-between-cultural-and-commercial-uses-guardian-uk/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/its-time-to-overhaul-copyright-law-law-should-distinguish-between-cultural-and-commercial-uses-guardian-uk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Development Agenda]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/its-time-to-overhaul-copyright-law-law-should-distinguish-between-cultural-and-commercial-uses-guardian-uk/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Cory Doctorow.  "We need to stop shoe-horning cultural use into the little carve-outs in copyright, such as fair dealing and fair use. Instead we need to establish a new copyright regime that reflects the age-old normative consensus about what's fair and what isn't at the small-scale, hand-to-hand end of copying, display, performance and adaptation.  A diverse and extremely sensible group of people are doing just this: the Access to Knowledge (A2K) treaty is a proposal from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to set out the rights and responsibilities of archivists, educators and people who provide access to disabled users of information...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/its-time-to-overhaul-copyright-law-law-should-distinguish-between-cultural-and-commercial-uses-guardian-uk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Top EU Court: File-Sharers Don&#8217;t Have to be Named (Reuters)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/top-eu-court-file-sharers-dont-have-to-be-named-reuters/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/top-eu-court-file-sharers-dont-have-to-be-named-reuters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:43:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Intermediary Liability]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[P2P]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/top-eu-court-file-sharers-dont-have-to-be-named-reuters/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[EU countries can refuse to disclose names of file sharers on the Internet in civil cases, the EU's top court said on Tuesday in a blow to copyright holders trying to fight digital piracy.  The European Court of Justice ruled on a dispute between Spanish music rights holders association Promusicae and Spain's top telecommunications operator, Telefonica.  "Community law does not require the member states, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, to lay down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings," the court said in a statement....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/29/top-eu-court-file-sharers-dont-have-to-be-named-reuters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Dangers of Locking-down the Internet (The Star)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/28/the-dangers-of-locking-down-the-internet-the-star/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/28/the-dangers-of-locking-down-the-internet-the-star/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Free Expression]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/28/the-dangers-of-locking-down-the-internet-the-star/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Micheal Geist.  "As digital technologies and the Internet began to emerge in the mid-1990s, many content companies responded by betting on the ability of technological protection measures to re-assert the control that was rapidly slipping from their grasp.  The vision of control through technology required considerable co-ordination – the insertion of encryption on content distributed to consumers, co-operation from electronics makers to respect the technological limitations within their products and new legal provisions to prohibit attempts to pick the new digital locks....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/28/the-dangers-of-locking-down-the-internet-the-star/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Does ‘Openness’ Matter for ICT?</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/24/why-openness-matters/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/24/why-openness-matters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:41:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS)]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Internet Governance]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ODF]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Source]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Open Standards]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/24/why-openness-matters/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IT is increasingly embedded into our daily lives and continues to meld
with traditional industries and applications such as healthcare,
transportation, media, security, and telecommunications. Battles over
non-interoperability and consumer access due to a lack of open IT
standards are popping up in unexpected places. The automotive repair
industry provides a good example of this: consumers and non-dealer-owned
repair shops are fighting for access to technical interface information
required for diagnosing and repairing cars, which are quickly becoming
computers on wheels. Another example is the global debate around varying
levels of ‘openness’ in standardised office document formats....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/24/why-openness-matters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;The Changing Structure and Governance of Intellectual Property Enforcement&#8221; (SouthCentre Research Paper)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/21/the-changing-structure-and-governance-of-intellectual-property-enforcement-southcentre-research-paper/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/21/the-changing-structure-and-governance-of-intellectual-property-enforcement-southcentre-research-paper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FTA's]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Library]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/21/the-changing-structure-and-governance-of-intellectual-property-enforcement-southcentre-research-paper/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["This research paper provides a broad overview and analysis of the changing multilateral framework for intellectual property enforcement and the challenges that it presents for developing countries. It examines current multilateral obligations and traces developments in the field of intellectual property enforcement in various multilateral fora, including the WCO, WHO, WIPO, WTO and Interpol. Finally, it analyses the approach of the United States and European Union to strengthening intellectual property enforcement in third countries through regional, bilateral and unilateral mechanisms such as regional and bilateral agreements.  The main findings of the paper are the following: ..."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/21/the-changing-structure-and-governance-of-intellectual-property-enforcement-southcentre-research-paper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WTO: Antigua Awarded Modest Cross-Retaliation Rights in Gambling Dispute with US (ICTSD)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/wto-antigua-awarded-modest-cross-retaliation-rights-in-gambling-dispute-with-us-ictsd/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/wto-antigua-awarded-modest-cross-retaliation-rights-in-gambling-dispute-with-us-ictsd/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/wto-antigua-awarded-modest-cross-retaliation-rights-in-gambling-dispute-with-us-ictsd/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Antigua and Barbuda last month won the right to retaliate against US intellectual property, including patents and copyrights, as part of their longstanding WTO dispute on internet gambling. However, the value of the penalties Antigua was awarded fell far short of what it had initially sought.  The tiny Caribbean island nation had asked to impose $3.443 billion in annual retaliatory sanctions, after WTO dispute panels and the Appellate Body ruled that the US' multilateral commitments to liberalise its "recreational services" sector prevented it from legally shutting its internet gambling market to operators based in Antigua. Washington's attempt to justify the ban on the grounds of public morals was compromised by the fact that domestically-based companies there are currently permitted to provide online betting on horseracing.  Instead, a WTO arbitrator awarded Antigua the right to impose annual sanctions worth only $21 million against US patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, as well as services companies....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/wto-antigua-awarded-modest-cross-retaliation-rights-in-gambling-dispute-with-us-ictsd/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Supreme Court Declines to Hear &#8220;Orphan Works&#8221; Case (Library Journal)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-orphan-works-case-library-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-orphan-works-case-library-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-orphan-works-case-library-journal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Kahle v. Ashcroft, brought by Internet Archive and Open Content Alliance founders Brewster Kahle and Rick Prelinger in 2003, which challenged the constitutionality of the current copyright regime. Although not unexpected, the Supreme Court's refusal comes after a recent ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals raised hopes of a review and lets stand the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' rejection, effectively ending the case....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/16/us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-orphan-works-case-library-journal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MIT Courseware Provides Online Model for Digital Education (Toronto Star)</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/14/mit-courseware-provides-online-model-for-digital-education-toronto-star/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/14/mit-courseware-provides-online-model-for-digital-education-toronto-star/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Access to Knowledge]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/14/mit-courseware-provides-online-model-for-digital-education-toronto-star/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Michael Geist.  "In 1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) faculty gathered to consider how they could use the Internet to advance knowledge and educate students around the world in science and technology.  The result was an ambitious plan – make the institute's course materials, including syllabi, lecture notes and exams, freely available online for a global audience.  Two years later, a pilot project called the MIT Open Courseware debuted with 50 courses. A year later, the project formally launched with 500 courses. Today, MIT Open Courseware features nearly every course offered by the institute – about 1,800 in all. While students must still attend MIT to obtain a degree, accessing its courses requires little more than a computer with an Internet connection....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/01/14/mit-courseware-provides-online-model-for-digital-education-toronto-star/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WTO Gives Antigua Right to Violate US Copyrights in Gambling Dispute (IHT))</title>
		<link>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/12/21/wto-gives-antigua-right-to-violate-us-copyrights-in-gambling-dispute-iht/</link>
		<comments>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/12/21/wto-gives-antigua-right-to-violate-us-copyrights-in-gambling-dispute-iht/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Hidden - No Front]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[WTO-TRIPS]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[World IP News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/12/21/wto-gives-antigua-right-to-violate-us-copyrights-in-gambling-dispute-iht/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["In an unusual ruling Friday at the World Trade Organization, the tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua won the right to violate copyright protections on goods like films and music from the United States - worth up to $21 million - as part of a dispute between the two countries over online gambling.  The award comes after a WTO decision that Washington had wrongly blocked online gaming operators on the island from the American market at the same time it permitted online wagering on horse racing.   The ruling is significant in that it grants a rare form of compensation: the right of one country, in this case, Antigua, to violate intellectual property laws of another - the United States - by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among other items...."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/12/21/wto-gives-antigua-right-to-violat