[A2k] M. Geist: US Copyright Lobby out-of-touch

[Manon Ress]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6379309.stm

US copyright lobby out-of-touch
Internet law professor Michael Geist takes a look at intellectual
property protection in the US and finds it somewhat out of step with
the rest of the world.

The US has very strict approach to DRM issues
The International Intellectual Property Alliance, an association that
brings together US lobby groups representing the movie, music,
software, and publisher industries, last week delivered its annual
submission to the US government featuring its views on the inadequacy
of intellectual property protection around the world.

The report frequently serves as a blueprint for the US Trade
Representative's Section 301 Report, a government-mandated annual
report that carries the threat of trade barriers for countries that
fail to meet the US standard of IP protection.

The IIPA submission generated considerable media attention, with the
international media focusing on the state of IP protection in Russia
and China, while national media in Canada, Thailand, and Taiwan
broadcast dire warnings about the consequences of falling on the
wrong side of US lobby groups.

While the UK was spared inclusion on this year's list, what is most
noteworthy about the IIPA effort is that dozens of countries - indeed
most of the major global economies in the developed and developing
world - are singled out for criticism.

The IIPA recommendations are designed to highlight the inadequacies
of IP protection around the world, yet the lobby group ultimately
shines the spotlight on how US copyright policy has become out-of-
touch and isolated from much of the rest of the globe.

The IIPA criticisms fall into three broad categories. First, the
lobby group is very critical of any country that does not follow the
US model for implementing the World Intellectual Property
Organisation's Internet Treaties.

Those treaties, which create legal protection for technological
protection measures, have generated enormous controversy with many
experts expressing concern about their impact on consumer rights,
privacy, free speech, and security research.

Double standards?


Prof Michael Geist (Michael Geist)
Countries singled out for criticism should not be deceived into
thinking that their laws are failing to meet an international standard.


Michael Geist
The US implementation, contained in the 1997 Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, represents the world's most aggressive approach to the
WIPO Internet Treaties, setting very strict limits on the
circumvention of digital rights management systems and establishing a
ban on devices that can be used to circumvent DRM, even if the
circumvention is for lawful purposes.

Given the US experience, it is unsurprising that many countries have
experimented with alternate implementations.

This experimentation invariably leads to heavy criticism from the
IIPA as countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Switzerland,
Hong Kong, South Korea, Israel, Mexico, and India are all taken to
task for their implementation (or proposed implementation) of anti-
circumvention legislation.

Further, countries that have not signed or ratified the WIPO Internet
treaties (which still includes the majority of the world), face the
wrath of the US lobby group for failing to do so.

Second, in a classic case of "do what I say, not what I do", many
countries are criticised for copyright laws that bear a striking
similarity to US law. For example, Israel is criticised for
considering a fair use provision that mirrors the US approach.

The IIPA is unhappy with the attempt to follow the US model, warning
that the Israeli public might view it as a "free ticket to copy."
Similarly, the time shifting provisions in New Zealand's current
copyright reform bill (which would permit video recording of
television shows) are criticised despite the fact that US law has
granted even more liberal copying rights for decades.

The most disturbing illustration of this double standard is the
IIPA's criticism of compulsory copyright licensing requirements.

Countries around the world, particularly those in the developing
world (including Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Kuwait,
Nigeria, and Vietnam) all face demands to eliminate compulsory
licensing schemes in the publishing and broadcasting fields.

Moreover, the report even criticises those countries that have merely
raised the possibility of new compulsory licensing systems, such as
Sweden, where politicians have mused about an Internet file sharing
license.

Long list

Left unsaid by the IIPA, is the fact that the US is home to numerous
compulsory licenses.

These include statutory licenses for transmissions by cable systems,
satellite transmissions, compulsory licenses for making and
distributing phonorecords as well as the use of certain works with
non-commercial broadcasting.

students at Ottawa University
Some countries are criticised for offering exceptions to universities

Third, the IIPA recommendations criticise dozens of efforts to
support national education, privacy, and cultural initiatives.

For example, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea are criticised for
copyright exceptions granted to students and education institutions.

Italy and Mexico are criticised for failing to establish an easy
method for Internet service providers to remove allegedly infringing
content (without court oversight), while Greece is viewed as being
offside for protecting the privacy of ISP subscribers.

Greece is also taken to task for levying a surcharge at movie
theatres that is used to support Greek films.

Moreover, countries that have preserved their public domain by
maintaining their term of copyright protection at the international
treaty standard of life of the author plus an additional fifty years
are criticised for not matching the US extension to life plus 70 years.

There are literally hundreds of similar examples, as countries from
Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America are criticised for not
adopting the DMCA, not extending the term of copyright, not throwing
enough people in jail, or creating too many exceptions to support
education and other societal goals.

In fact, the majority of the world's population finds itself on the
list, with 23 of the world's 30 most populous countries targeted for
criticism (the exceptions are the UK, Germany, Ethiopia, Iran,
France, Congo, and Myanmar).

Countries singled out for criticism should not be deceived into
thinking that their laws are failing to meet an international
standard, no matter what US lobby groups say.

Rather, those countries should know that their approach - and the
criticism that it inevitably brings from the US - places them in very
good company.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-
commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

************************************************************************
***
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@keionline.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