Talk:Intellectual property in Iran/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Suggested templates

this article and the copyright article does not give a worldwide view of both the concept of copyright and the subject

the citations are sometimes not trustable. and it needs more citation

the subject is politically complex. political aspect must be seperated from economic aspect

it seems that some parts of the article is against U.S. and some parts against iran. instead, it must be rewritten in a neutral manner

it is a worldwide matter. not just U.S. and Iran. please mention the view of the other countries in this subject.

the article needs cleanup. some materials are not correctly placed. some are repititve. some are trivia. some are highly controvercial.

Saeed.Veradi (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

taken here for discussion

mentioned in the text:

<quote> In practice Iran does not respect designer rights. The Iranian Air Force has publicly demonstrated a "new", domestically produced fighter jet, named Saequeh-80, which is based on an enlarged american F-5 Freedom Fighter airframe, upgraded with a twin tail section, whose design was reverse engineered from an F-18 wreckage inspected in Iraq. The Republic of Iran did not ask for permission to use the American design, nor did it pay licences to the IP holder American companies. </quote> i removed it because:

It is not verified

Copyright belongs to invention itself. not just the idea. (see: copyright) building such a plane is not against copyright law.

Yet claiming it to be "new" is against the law

Saeed.Veradi (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Overtly optimistic

> Iran however must eventually change this status when it becomes a full-member of WTO, <

Do you actually mean the "Sahdom of Persia" becomes a full-member of WTO? Islamocratic Iran will never be a WTO member and war is to start before Bush leaves office. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe if I see it.

> It is not uncommon nowadays for IRIB, Iran's state run television broadcasting organization, to air edited and censored versions of Hollywood blockbusters in Persian language. <

This is a dubious claim. US special forces have C-130 "Compass Call" and "Commando Solo" plane variants capable of jamming nationwide on-air transmissions. They could use them to protect US intellectual property assets and no country could oppose such a move, because almost all countries of the world are WIPO members bound to protect copyright. I cannot imagine USA missing out on such an easy option to humiliate the iranian ayatollahdom. Back in the good ol' cold war days commie countries jammed Voice of America, RFE and austrian state TV day and night. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This article may be biased towards US and intellectual property owners

This article, in my opinion, fails to explain to the reader what justification Iran may have in ignoring copyright, and fails to exlain or link to the wider US-Iran foreign relations issues. Shane (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Move

Page shoudl be moved to "Copyright issues between Iran and the United States". 83.146.13.167 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

suggested page move

Many edits have been made to this article that have nothing to do with copyright; they have to do with things like patents, trademark and industrial property. I don't suggest deleting the non-copyright material, but it seems the article has outgrown being merely about copyright. I propose a page move to Intellectual property in Iran. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually this was only the edits by user:69.116.251.98, see history, and before radical edits. Also see my concerns below. This article did not need an expansion of scopeScientus (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wholly biased

The new content introduced by user:69.116.251.98 gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single WIPO report, an organization with strong conflicts of interest. Moreover in its current state it promulgates stereotypes of Iran, and also makes presumptions that Iran cannot set its own laws. It strongly suggests that doing something legal in Iran is illegal, simply because western societies have differn't laws, and also constantly presumes opinion as truth. I propose that if the added text cannot be cleaned up it should be deleted. Scientus (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT TRUE. The section that you mention comes from the World Bank and the Economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.251.98 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1.You inserted into this article countless grand generalizations of Iranian society and laws with no support.

2.This article is about Copyrights.

3.The inline citations to back up the content you added largely point to WIPO (an organization with very specific goals) being the only source.

4.Thinking the WB or the economist is somehow an authoritative source on Iranian law, or somehow represents the point of view of any sizable segment of Iranian society, (not to mention a holistic one) is absurd.Scientus (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Again not true, but since the controversial information is gone i don't see any problem with this version here. I think the additional technical information is welcome for the readers since this is a "speciality" field. Moreover, I see the mainstream Iranian press saying the same about the situation of intellectual property in Iran like here with Iran Daily:

Deputy Chairman of Software Exporters Union Mohammad Reza Talaei told ISNA that failure to draw investment is among the main problems facing the sector. He added that the failure to observe the Copyright Law prevents overseas companies from investing in Iran’s software industry.

but also B.M.I (Business Monitor International) besides the Economist and the World bank like here. Finally, this older version is more structured in my opinion. 69.116.236.229 (talk)

moved your content to Intellectual property in Iran Scientus (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whole article is US-centric = rename page

The article Copyright in Iran seems to be written wholly from the point of US copyright law, not from an international perspective, as other countries will have differing aspects. It probably should be called something like Iran from a US copyright perspective. Then the article talks about the banning by the US Government of the export and sale of Microsoft products in the Iran. Umm, this is not about copyright. The article seems to be very much about commentary, and not about encyclopaedic information. billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but your comments should be on the Copyright in Iran's page. Its content is reproduced here in the correct context. Therefore I would simply suggest to delete Copyright in Iran. SSZ (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with billinghurst. Added neutality template. 95.223.187.171 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not really agreeing with anyone since billnghusrt's comments were made on the Copyright in Iran's talk page at that time and not here (there was a re-direct on that talk page which I have since corrected). Now, if you have a specific comment, please do share, so we can improve the article further. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This problem has been taken care of now: please see here. SSZ (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Intellectual property in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)