[Ecommerce] CPTech views on proposed WIPO broadcast/cablecast/webcast treaty

[James Love]

This was distributed in Geneva at the WIPO Standing Committee on 
Copyright this morning.  Apparently broadcasters are asking WIPO for a 
decision *this week* on whether or not to schedule a diplomatic 
conference.  Jamie

Statement of Manon A. Ress to the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright, 
regarding the proposed Broadcast/Cablecast/Webcast Treaty

Geneva
June 23, 2003

My name is Dr. Manon A. Ress, and I am here on behalf of the Civil 
Society Coalition. I would like to thank the Standing Committee for 
accepting the CSC as an observer. The CSC is a coalition of a number of 
different NGOs that are interested in intellectual property policy. Our 
mission is to enhance the transparency of policy making on IP issues, 
and to represent the views of consumers in particular and more generally 
the public. Today I provide the views of the Consumer Project on 
Technology, which is one of the members of the CSC. CPTech will address 
the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

    1. CPTech's first concern is that the proposed treaty would extend 
broadcast rights from the 20 years in the TRIPS and the Rome Convention 
to 50 years. We oppose this extension of the term. We note that the 
broadcaster right is an additional layer over that enjoyed by creators, 
and we see no public interest that would be advanced by extending this 
layer of protection for an addition 30 years. Indeed, this will shrink 
the public domain, and harm the public.

    2. CPTech is also concerned that the proposals to extend 
broadcasters rights to "webcasters" has the potential to vastly expand 
the ability of persons to assert rights over material that should be in 
the public domain. One key issue concerns the definition of webcasting. 
We note that the definition is different in important respects from the 
definition for cable or broadcasting. The technology of the Internet is 
complex, and we are concerned that this new instrument would be used to 
exercise rights in areas that currently not considered protectable.

       We would like to know if such Internet activities such as
           * the operation of listserves,
           * peer to peer networks,
           * the distribution of text documents, or more generally
           * posting materials that are available for download and then 
archived

       would be covered by the treaty, for example. We recognize that 
proponents of the treaty have tried to present the webcasting extention 
as a type of parity. However, it may be quite difficult to justify 
different levels of protection for the same types of materials 
distributed over the Internet, and the last thing we want is to see this 
new layer of protection extended into areas where there is (a) no need, 
and (b) a potential to harm the public and the shrink the availability 
of public domain materials on the Internet. .

    3. We are also concerned about the proliferation of new digital 
rights management obligations, and believe that before WIPO creates yet 
another treaty obligation in this areas, it would be appropriate to 
evaluate the impact of the existing obligations, and to take an 
inventory of issues that concern the public. In particular, we are 
concerned about the impact of such measures on:
          1. privacy
          2. innovation,
          3. consumer convenience and perceived value,
          4. the ability to archive materials,
          5. the public rights under the various exceptions to rights 
such as the rights of the blind or both non- commercial and commercial 
fair use rights, and
          6. the relationship between new digital rights management 
systems and the framework for recognizing and enforcing non-negotiated 
mass market contracts that are embeded in documents or web page servers.

       To this end, we propose that WIPO Schedule a meeting in 2004 to 
discuss consumer and other public perspectives on digital rights 
management schemes. Also, there should be an effort to examine the 
thorny but very important problem of exports when rights are exercised 
under varioius copyright or DRM exceptions provisions, a problem already 
indentified by the blind, and which is a major issue accross the 
Internet. Finally, there should be more attention to the issue of the 
aggressive use of mass market non-negotiated licenses to curtail public 
rights beyond that which is provided for by copyright laws.

Thank You.

Manon A. Ress

-- 
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:james.love@cptech.org
tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040