[A2k] Statement re WIPO broadcasting treaty signed by information technology, consumer electronics telecommunications industry representatives, public interest organizations, and performers' representatives.

[Manon Ress]

Please find enclosed a copy of statement concerning the WIPO
Broadcast Treaty provided by certain information technology, consumer
electronics
and telecommunications industry representatives, public interest
organizations, and performers' representatives.  Some of the groups
will be at the USPTO roundtable and will present the statement to the
members of the US delegation to WIPO about to leave for the Sept
11-14, 2006 Standing Committee on Copyright and related rights.


SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WIPO BROADCAST TREATY PROVIDED BY CERTAIN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS, AND
PERFORMERS=92 REPRESENTATIVES

The undersigned represent a broad and diverse group, united in a
common belief that the WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasts
and Broadcasting Organizations, as currently drafted, would harm
important economic and public policy interests.  This Statement
offers comments on several key aspects of the treaty.

No justification for treaty.  We remain unconvinced that a treaty is
necessary at all.  We note with concern that treaty proponents have
not clearly identified the particular problems that the treaty would
ostensibly solve, and we question whether there are in fact
significant problems that
are not addressed adequately under existing law.  Further, we are
concerned that the current treaty approach differs radically from
U.S. legal traditions, and, if implemented, would require substantial
and unnecessary changes to current U.S. law.

Scope.  If the treaty moves forward in any form, we believe that the
current rights-based approach of the treaty must be abandoned.
Creating broad new intellectual property rights in order to protect
broadcast signals is misguided and unnecessary, and risks serious
unintended negative consequences.  We recommend instead a signal
protection-oriented approach, ideally focusing narrowly and
specifically on protecting signals from intentional misappropriation
or theft.  We note that most of the concerns expressed in this
Statement would be rendered moot by a treaty and associated
implementing legislation that narrowly addressed signal theft.

Limitations and exceptions.  To the degree that the treaty leaves
room for implementing states to create broader rights or protections
beyond protection against intentional signal theft, then we believe
that a mandatory set of limitations and exceptions must be included
in the treaty in order
to ensure that uses of broadcast content that are lawful under
copyright law are not inhibited by the treaty.  At a minimum,
limitations and exceptions under the treaty should be equivalent to
those that an implementing state provides under its copyright laws,
and should provide flexibility
for additional limitations and exceptions that are appropriate in a
digital network environment.

Home and personal networking.  Under the current draft of the treaty,
the broad scope of the proposed rights, combined with proposed
additional rights regarding technological protection measures (TPMs)
in connection with these rights, raises questions about whether
=93casters=94 would gain the ability to control signals in the home or
personal network environment.  Such control is without precedent and
would interfere with the rollout of broadband and home and personal
networking services and limit the development of innovative devices
that provide home and personal networking functionality.
Accordingly, the treaty should include a provision excluding coverage
of fixations, transmissions or retransmissions across a home or
personal network.
Further, we should note that many of our group believe that TPM
provisions are inappropriate in connection with this treaty and
should be excluded from the treaty entirely.

Intermediary liability.  We have serious concerns that network
intermediaries would face the threat of direct or secondary liability
for infringement of the broad rights granted under the current treaty
draft.  The exceptions from liability afforded under the current text
of the treaty only apply to broadcasters, not to intermediaries.
Further, the limitations of liability afforded to intermediaries
today under existing national laws would only protect against
copyright infringement, not against a violation of these broad new
rights.  We believe that the treaty should ensure that network
intermediaries do not face liability for alleged infringement of
rights or violations of prohibitions by virtue of actions they take
in their normal course of business or by actions of their customers.

Computer networks.  The current treaty draft includes protection for
Internet simulcasts made by traditional broadcasters and
cablecasters, but otherwise excludes computer networks from its
scope.  While members of our group do not share a common view about
the best approach to addressing Internet-related issues, we are
united in our belief that the current approach is unacceptable.
Further, to the extent that the treaty continues to take a rights-
based approach rather than a signal-theft-based approach, we oppose
the treaty=92s application to the Internet.

Please note that issues identified in this Statement do not represent
a comprehensive list of the concerns of all members of our group.
Individual group members intend to independently raise other issues
of serious concern, and to further discuss the issues identified here.

SIGNED:
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
AT&T
Broadband Service Providers Association
Center for Democracy & Technology
Computer and Communications Industry
Association
Consumer Electronics Association
Consumer Project on Technology
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Dell Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
FreePress
Hewlett Packard Company
Home Recording Rights Coalition
Intel Corporation
International Music Managers Forum
Internet Society
IP Justice
Media Access Project
Medical Library Association
National Association of State PIRGs
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Public Knowledge
RadioShack Corporation
Special Libraries Association
Sony Electronics Incorporated
TiVo Inc.
Union for the Public Domain
U.S. Internet Industry Association
U.S. Music Managers Forum
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
USTelecom
Verizon Communications Inc.
Verizon Wireless
Yale Information Society Project

************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607