[A2k] US government proposes sweeping new IPR rules for Internet

[Janet Hawtin]

Hullo folks

I have been discussing Norbert's question with him.
I feel our perspectives on the impact of the law differ dramatically and
so I would like to post mine here for comment.

IANAL so I feel it is important for me to gain clarification about the
scope and purposes of the broadcast law so that I can be effective in
communicating the issues to others.

My understanding that 'parity' with offline broadcasting laws means
that the offline broadcasters are claiming sole rights to broadcast
video and sound online. This effectively outlaws any peer to peer
sharing of music or self publishing of music and video by authors or
musicians or communities of authors and musicians.

In addition from discussions such as the following online, I understand that
scientific writers have the right of 6 months exclusive right to a
concept they have developed whereas the publishers are claiming 50
years rights to the same material if they publish it.

> "The United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization has
> called a last-minute meeting on June 21 in Barcelona, out of the
> normal diplomatic venues to try to ram through the Broadcasting
> Treaty. This treaty gives broadcasters (not creators or copyright
> holders) the right to tie up the use of audiovisual material for 50
> years after broadcasting it, even if the programs are in the public
> domain, Creative Commons licensed, or not copyrightable."
> Doctorow: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/15/wipo_wants_to_give_w.html
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004739.php

I feel that forced mediation through broadcast entities is bad for the
internet because it reduces the advantages which the internet brings.
ie freedom of expression, freedom to publish yourself, freedom to
share music and ideas with other people directly, and structurally
creates an artificial content holder consumer structure on the
internet instead of the more distributed and flexible creator-consumer
to creator-consumer models possible currently.

I feel this is being done because we are accustomed to music and film
being mediated through publishers. I feel that this will set a
precedent for all content online to be mediated through a publisher. I
think that if we look at this issue as one facet of the information
and content online being changed to a centrally controlled model the
risks for the same model to be proposed for text and code become more
apparent.

I do not understand why music and video as just a different format of
information exchange should be required to be controlled centrally.

I do understand that because publishers have enjoyed this right to
control the market offline it is an obvious step for them to try to
apply the idea online.

In an online context there is no inherent value in granting control of
distribution to a licensed broadcaster.

There is far more flexibility for creators in being able to publish
their ideas and creative works directly. Blogging, webrings, and all
kinds of communities of interest are possible where you do not have a
mediated controller.

The current offline broadcast industry provides a very limited channel
for a few artists to be heard, in the same way that the offline text
publishing entities publish only a few authors according to their own
selection criteria. Online the voices are more diverse because people
are able to speak, write, draw, freely.

Hosting content is a trivial contribution to provide in return for
owning copyright of a person's creative work. There is no parity in
the investment of publishers and broadcasters offline compared to
online. This law provides these entities with money for nothing and
would begin a process of restricting the right to express ideas to
these same groups who have taken it upon themselves to overturn fair
use rights in order to press their own interests.

Please let me know if my assessment is flawed or accurate.

Thankyou

Janet