[IP] asking to have public debate on webcasting treaty
Begin forwarded message:
From: Manon Ress <manon.ress@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 19, 2005 9:58:41 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Love <james.love@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: asking to have public debate on webcasting treaty
Dave,
Maybe of interest to you? This is a letter we sent today to the US
government to state our opposition to the efforts of the US
delegation at the World Intellectual Property Organization to push
for a treaty that will create new webcasting rights for material
transmitted over the internet.
Manon Ress
To: Senators Ted Stevens, John McCain, Mark Pryor, Ron Wyden, John
Kerry, Orrin G. Hatch, Patrick Leahy; Representatives Lamar S. Smith,
Howard L. Berman, Bob Goodlatte, John Conyers, Jr., and Rick Boucher
From: James Love (james.love@xxxxxxxxxx), Manon Ress
(manon.ress@xxxxxxxxxx), Consumer Project on Technology (http://
www.cptech.org, 1.202.332.2670)
Date: September 19, 2005
Re: WIPO Treaty Proposal on Webcasting
We are writing to state our objections to the efforts of the US
Patent and Trademark Office and the US Office of Copyright to push
for a global treaty that would create a new intellectual property
regime for material transmitted over the Internet. This new
"webcasting" treaty language would impose a radical change on the
free movement of information on the Internet, harm copyright owners,
and restrict access to knowledge.
The treaty discussions are taking place at the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO). The United States trade negotiators
are seeking to tack-on the webcasting proposal to a different treaty
involving broadcasting organizations. The treaty proposals
involving broadcasting are basically a vastly expanded version of the
broadcasters protections from the Rome Convention -- a treaty the
United States has never signed, and are problematic in their own
right. The current version of the WIPO proposal would give
broadcasters an expanded set of commercial rights, lasting at least
50 years, for broadcasting materials. These rights are in addition
to the copyright owners rights. They are automatic rights that do
not depend upon formalities, and will exist in parallel to copyright,
and also extend to materials that are in the public domain. These
expanded commercial rights will harm copyright owners and the public,
by imposing a new layer of rights that must be cleared before works
can be used, and by forcing the copyright owners to share revenues
with broadcasters. This has nothing to do with piracy, since the
copyright laws and treaties, including the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty
(WCT) and WIPO Performers and Phonographs Treaty (WPPT), already
provide extensive protections for those who make creative
contributions to works. The new Broadcasting treaty is designed to
give these quasi-copyright rights to broadcasters solely for
transmitting the works, without any creative contribution.
As bad as the broadcasting treaty is, it will be far worse to extend
this restrictive regime to the Internet. Largely due to the lobbying
efforts of one firm -- Yahoo, the US delegation at WIPO is pushing
for "parity" between broadcasters and an ill-defined group of
"webcasters." The current definition of a webcast is the making
available to the public any combinations or representations of images
or sounds. According to the WIPO delegates, this will include not
only audio-visual works, but also text and data.
The only rationale for creating this new right is to provide "parity"
between the broadcasters who benefit from Rome Convention type
protections (a treaty never signed by the United States) and parties
who transmit information over the Internet. This issue is sometimes
presented in the context of a policy objective of providing a
technology neutral IP regime. While neutrality may have some
intrinsic appeal as a policy goal, it should not excuse policy makers
from considering the consequences of extending a regime designed for
one platform -- the Rome Convention type protections for broadcasting
organizations, to something that is completely different in character
and tradition -- the Internet. The Internet is much more than a
platform for passive listening to content sent out by licensed and
regulated broadcast organizations. As noted by Mark Cooper at a
recent meeting with USPTO and Copyright Office negotiators, the
Internet is a system of two-way communication that is far more
democratic and decentralized, and which provides extensive
opportunities to publish, and to create innovative services.
We see the webcasting treaty proposal as poorly conceived and harmful
to the Internet. But even without making a decision on the merits of
the proposal, you can certainly agree that is it is completely
inappropriate and dangerous to create this radical new form of
Internet regulation without any public debate. The agencies in the
US delegation to WIPO have so far refused to publish a federal
register notice asking the public for their views on whether or not a
new layer of intellectual property rights for webcasting is a good
idea. There have been no Congressional hearings on this topic. The
US Congress has never debated a webcasting IPR regime, and neither
have any other national parliaments. This is an example of a US
trade policy that is completely captured by a handful of corporate
lobbyists.
We know that sometime in the future, if the Copyright Office and the
USPTO are successful in coercing other countries to accept this
proposal, the Congress and the American public will then be told it
has no choice but to accept an "international consensus" on the need
for the webcasting right.
At a September 16, 2005 meeting in Washington, DC, the US Copyright
Office explained a few of things they have not considered. The
Copyright Office agreed that there was:
1. No analysis of how US law would have to change in the treaty passed.
2. No analysis of the unintended consequence of creating a new right
of transmission for the Internet.
3. No analysis of the impact of the new right on copyright owners.
4. No analysis or concern about how the new IPR right would affect
the orphan works problem.
5. No analysis of the impact of the webcasting treaty on podcasting.
6. No analysis of whether the treaty language would unwittingly
create a property right to persons operating peer-to-peer networks or
search engines.
As soon as September 28, 2005, the WIPO General Assembly will debate
whether or not to schedule a diplomatic conference on this ill
conceived treaty, and if so, whether or not to include proposals for
a new and completely untested global IP regime for webcasting. The
new diplomatic conference could be scheduled as soon as the 2nd
quarter of 2006. We urge you to call upon the US negotiators to slow
this process down, and to ask the American public if a webcasting
treaty would help or hurt copyright owners or the public.
For addition information, see:
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/wipo-casting.html
************************************************
Manon Ress
manon.ress@xxxxxxxxxx
www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
London, N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/