Please go back to doing what you do best; selling iPods.

Q: What is the difference between Jesus and Bono?

A: Jesus doesn’t think He’s God.

Geez, what’s the difference? I guess there isn’t one.

He didn’t add it to his list because it was “too icky.”

.~.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXyEc1oxVyM

Never mind that the great firewall of China is used to filter dissidents first and foremost, least of all file-sharing.

If anyone wants to attack his position on file-sharing I suggest they refrain from red-herrings and ad hominem accusations.

Talking about “sexy cars”…? “70′s Jag’s” and then about revolution…. WTF?

This guy has not spent many seconds in “reality” the last 30 years. Drink your “fine wines” in your palace in silence please.

Huh? If you’re Catholic (or any mainstream Christian) he does.

Why people take this self-important, hypocritical ass seriously is beyond me.

Conservative 1: Liberals are against the war in Iraq!
Conservative 2: That must mean they support the terrorists.
Conservative 1: Why do liberals hate America?

A: Jesus doesn’t think He’s Bono .

FTFY

Way to go Bono!

The governments of many developing and transitional countries are currently being encouraged to enact new legislation involving intellectual property to align with the the latest international protocols, standards and conventions. However, before drafting new laws, it may be worthwhile for these governments to consider alternative formats for intellectual property management that may be more in line with their cultural history and practices.

In general, these global standards as presented are IP systems designed to match the legal standards and protocols of the United States and the EU—protocols for copyright, patent and trademark law that allow for the licensing or permanent transfer of rights to a corporation from an individual artist, inventor, scientist or creator.

Often, the need for globally-aligned standards is expressed in carrot-and-stick rhetoric: it’s a critical matter of cultural protection; it’s also an opportunity for generation of revenue. It is argued that regional artists, craftspeople, inventors, even traditional medicine practitioners, will gain new opportunities to sell their products and services on the global market with the security of knowing that their ownership and innovation will be protected and rewarded.

A problem inherent, of course, is that in many cultures, much of the work of creators and practitioners draws from shared knowledge, technology, resources and traditions. To fully adopt a system in which an individual may take the creative idea or technique they use in their practice—an idea or technique that may draw from centuries of history and collaboration—and in that particular moment in time define that item as their individual property, might in fact be inappropriate, unprecendented and damaging to the future functioning of that culture. Moreover, for that individual then to have the ability to sell these exclusive rights to, for example, a local or foreign company, seems an open invitation to exploitation. A practitioner in traditional medicine or textiles might, for example, work with materials and techniques that have potentially significant benefit and value on the world market. If that practitioner’s methodology is successful, even innovative, that does not negate the fact that it may have been constructed out of elements of traditional practice that many other people in the region are concurrently using as well. In this case, transferring that technology to exclusive control by a corporate entity could be potentially devastating, limiting the use of those techniques by others and constraining future innovations within a previously collaborative system.

On the other hand, many of these societies, individual creators and practitioners are seeking to “go global”, and might benefit greatly if they were able to transform traditional practices into more robust economic engines. Simultaneously, interested external players—free market advocacy lobbies, opportunity-seeking companies and world protocol bodies looking to unify and rationalize international trade law—are putting on the pressure to act, and act now.

What might be an alternative to wholesale, immediate adoption of these international IP conventions?

A productive approach to this challenge might initially involve establishing an internal review body within the given country in which a range of options could be examined and potentially integrated into the developing policy.

“Open source” exchange systems, cultural co-ops, regional marketing alliances, and community ownership may each have a significant role to play. Certainly, IP traditions that are built into current global protocols, such as Fair Use and Public Domain, may need a larger field of action and protection within some societies.

Bringing into the discussion professionals, academics and policymakers with both expertise in the scope of options within IP law, and sensitivity to historical and traditional forms of sharing and collaborative culture, this clearly would be a critical component to counterbalance potentially one-sided or incentivized IP advocacy. Most importantly, the region’s practitioners, inventors, artists, craftspeople, and other creators and tradition-keepers must have a central role in the dialogue and ultimate development of any new policy or legislation.