The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has a pretty long history of basically being the leading supporter of ever stricter and more ridiculous copyright (and patent and trademark laws). To be fair, in recent years, WIPO has actually been somewhat more open to at least hearing from folks actually representing the public, who have pointed out that stronger IP laws often do much more harm than good for wider society. But, on the whole, the group is still very much representing the interests of copyright, patent and trademark holders, rather than the general public. It's why the group gets called out for crazy ideas like making service providers into IP cops and suggesting that things would have been better if the web had been patented.

Either way, it appears that WIPO has hired a company to reach out to get "Stakeholder Perceptions of WIPO." It's pretty rare that WIPO actually hears from the public that its efforts and agreements really impact, so here's a chance to make sure WIPO knows what you think of its efforts to expand IP law over the years... Have at it, and let them know your thoughts.

Unfortunately, many of the questions are kind of ridiculous in the "and when did you stop beating your wife" variety. For example, at one point they ask you to "rank" how important specific WIPO priorities are -- and looking down the list, I though pretty much all of them should not be priorities, because all of them focused on expanding IP, rather than looking at more effective IP, or even exploring where IP might hurt the public. There are a few other questions like that as well, where I wanted to challenge the nature of the question itself, but was forced to choose the "least bad" or "least incorrect" answer instead. Still, there were a few opportunities to make it clear to WIPO that you'd prefer the organization not just be a representative to expand IP at all costs, but one that should pay attention to what actually helps society the most -- even if that means cutting back on some IP rules -- something that seems to be completely foreign to WIPO's world view so far.

It's really unfortunate that WIPO would stack the questions so badly such that the only thing you can really say for most of them is just how awesome IP is and how much better it would be if IP expanded. But hopefully some of you will figure out ways to make it clear to WIPO that perhaps it should be focusing on making sure the public benefits, not just how to expand IP.

One of the talking points we've been hearing about SOPA from the lobbyists pushing to get it approved is that the majority of Americans are in favor of the bill, because they want to "protect" intellectual property or jobs. This has never made much sense, since SOPA doesn't protect jobs at all. It destroys them, by hindering one of the few parts of our economy that has been creating jobs -- new and small businesses, particularly in the tech community. Now, the same folks who brought you that incredibly in-depth study on media piracy in emerging markets, have come out with a new report revealing some of their latest research on infringement among Americans. There are a ton of useful data revealed here, but none more timely and key than the following:

56% of people surveyed oppose government involvement in blocking access to infringing material. This number increases to 64% when the term censor is used.

Furthermore, when asked specifically if ISPs, social media sites and search engines should block access to infringing content if it also meant that some legal content would also get blocked (basically the definition of SOPA -- where even the defenders of the bill admit it will block some legal content), only 36% say that's an acceptable form of copyright enforcement.

In other words, a majority Americans are very opposed to the methods and impact of SOPA.

The study also found that, when compelling legal services are around, it can cause a massive decrease in the amount of content obtained through unauthorized means. This isn't a surprise. We've been pointing this out for a while now. And it again shows why SOPA is the exact wrong approach. Instead of actually decreasing infringement, it will increase the burdens and costs for the new businesses who provide those compelling new services. Separately, the report has a whole bunch of other important factoids as well. We've seen a bunch of disputes in the comments about how "common" infringement is. Part of the problem is that it probably depends on how you define it. What this report shows makes a lot of sense: 46% of adults have "bought, copied or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies." Look at just the 18 to 29 year old demographic, and that number shoots up to 70%. These are the voters of tomorrow, politicians... In most cases, however, it appears to be personal downloading or sharing with friends and family. 75% of people say it's fine to send music files to family members. 70% say that for movies. 56% of people say it's fine to send music to friends. 54% say that about movies. In other words, an awful lot of the "piracy" that's out there is really just friends and family sharing some content. The really "massive" piracy issue is pretty limited. About 2% of adults have huge collections of unauthorized music, and 1% have huge collections of unauthorized films. Furthermore, a much smaller percentage of people think it's okay to upload content to file sharing services or (of course) to sell copies of unauthorized files:
Given all of this, it shouldn't be a surprise that most people think that enforcement should be pretty limited, and not particularly burdensome. From the report:

• Only a slim majority of Americans (52%) support penalties for downloading copyrighted music and movies -- and limit this support to warnings and fines. Other penalties, such as bandwidth throttling and disconnection, receive much lower levels of support.
• Disconnection from the internet, in particular, is very unpopular, with only 16% in favor and 72% of Americans opposed.
• Among those who support fines, 75% support amounts under $100 per song or movie infringed -- hugely undershooting the current statutory penalties.
• For a majority of Americans (54%), due process in such matters requires a court -- not adjudication by private companies.
• Solid majorities of American internet users oppose copyright enforcement when it is perceived to intrude on personal rights and freedoms. 69% oppose monitoring of their internet activity for the purposes of enforcement. 57% oppose blocking or filtering by commercial intermediaries if those measures also block legal content or activity.

So what is there to make from all of this? It appears that our current laws (especially statutory damages) are way out of line with what the majority of Americans think would be appropriate. Furthermore, a ton of people infringe regularly, and especially think nothing's wrong with sharing among family and friends. On top of that, they seem to agree that enforcement is way out of line with the "problem," and certainly don't approve of the types of changes that SOPA is seeking to put in place.

So why are so many in Congress so out of touch with the American public and so focused on passing a law that goes against the wishes of Americans? This is the question Congress should be answering at tomorrow's hearings. The report's author, Joe Karaganis, should be one of the witnesses testifying, rather than a bevy of industry representatives all trotting out unsubstantiated reasons for moving forward with SOPA.

Apparently the maker of the gun preferred by (yes, fictional) James Bond has been able to get a trademark on the design, as "James Bond's weapon of choice." The USPTO initially rejected the trademark request, leading the company, Walther, who makes the PPK handgun, to do an online survey that suggested 54% of gun owners recognized the gun, with some of them mentioning James Bond in explaining how they recognized it. Apparently this online survey was enough to convince the USPTO that it had made a mistake. Who knew that the USPTO could so easily be influenced by online surveys? Can we have 4chan or Reddit folks stuff the ballot on future online surveys that might influence USPTO rulings?

One of the examples I used in the Trent Reznor case study I did was how he sent out a survey to everyone on his mailing list -- but was quite open and honest about doing it -- and he did so in a way that actually made him sound human. Such surveys are a pain in the ass and they certainly annoy some people -- but, as Reznor pointed out in his email, since he and his team are figuring out everything as they go along, it certainly would help to have some info from his fans. We're in something of the same position. We're always working on ways to improve things for our community, as well -- and have a bunch of projects in the works, all focused on helping to reward you, in the community, further. The Insight Community has been quite successful so far, and in 2008 we were able to pay out five figure commissions to our top contributors. What other community are you a member of that pays you for being smart?

Please take a moment to fill out our reader survey.

Like Reznor, it would help if we knew a bit more about you. And, yes, we know that taking surveys is a pain in the ass. And, for those of you who feel that way, please just skip right on over this post and the survey. Sorry for wasting your time. But, for those of you who do feel like a part of the community and wouldn't mind sharing a bit of information that should help us provide more for you in the future, we'd really appreciate it if you could take just a few minutes of your time and fill out the survey. Thanks!