[A2k] James Boyle: Obama in Cyberspace (FT)

[James Love]

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 15:00 -0400, Robert Martinengo wrote:
> What is the deal here people? I will pay $10 to the first person who
> provides proof that the Obama administration opposes, quietly or
> otherwise, the WBU treaty (that is, a documented comment from a
> government official, not James Love's tweets from Geneva). Get it
> right or get off it already.

Robert,

Much of what has been written about this topic concerns the position
that the United States and other members of "Group B" took on May 28-29,
the last two days of the SCCR meeting, on the topic of whether or not
the SCCR would discuss the proposal for a treaty at its November SCCR
meeting.

Support for discussion of a treaty was extensive in Asia, Latin America
and Africa.  The SCCR 18 conclusions report that some members expressed
the view "that deliberations regarding any instrument would be
premature."  That was the Group B position, and the US is the most
important member of Group B.  At the SCCR the US delegation was clear in
private briefings that it was not looking for "polarizing" solutions. So
far, the publishers have vehemently opposed a treaty.  The US had
Germany (a hardliner against the treaty) negotiate on its behalf in the
Green Room discussions.  I doubt any member of the US delegation would
deny that.

That was SCCR 18.   Now we are headed to SCCR 19. The final decision in
SCCR 18 was that the treaty will in fact be discussed at SCCR 19.  The
US is now "looking forward" to the discussion it tried in May to block.
This is good.  The Obama Administration is now focusing more on this
issue, and appears, from Jim Fruchterman's posts, to have a more open
view than what was evident in May.

Jim Fruchterman reported in the same blog* that "Nothing I heard from
the Copyright Office made me think they were pro-Treaty."   That is our
impression also.  However, as Jim notes, the Copyright Office is not the
final decider.  That would be the White House.  The White House position
today is better than the US Delegation to WIPO position was in May.  How
much better is unclear.

If Robert Martinego has evidence that the Administration is supporting
work on a treaty, that is indeed welcome news.  Is that what you are
saying?

*
http://benetech.blogspot.com/2009/06/fascinating-meeting-at-copyright-office.html


> People might want to read what Maria Pallante from the US Copyright
> Office wrote on Jim Fruchtermans blog:
>
> "...In the months ahead, we also will be looking at the Chafee
> Amendment to see how it (and other provisions of U.S. law) would
> interact with the treaty proposal that was tabled by Brazil, Ecuador
> and Paraguay at the WIPO meeting. Because copyright treaties are
> implemented through the national laws of member states, this is an
> essential step in analyzing the proposal and one for which the U.S.
> government will continue to solicit the views of stakeholders...."
>
> https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5979923&postID=1969469041493033599&pli=1
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

--
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584