[Ecommerce] FT on WIPO casting treaty

[Jeff Williams]

James and all,

 Today I received a communication from the FTC requesting me
to review this and other trade related proposals now being
considered for our organization, INEGroup.  I shall be
passing it along to our policy review committee and the
BoD for review in short order, along with this that you
have so kindly sent below.

  I personally see several problems with this proposed
"Casting Treaty" in it's current form and it is likely that
many in public sector as well as within our organization
shall see some of the more glaring or obvious anti-trade
aspects contained in it.

  Our review and recommendations will be forwarded to
you Jamie as well as to the relevant government agencies,
including the FTC (US) within the next several weeks...

James Love wrote:

> http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565842326
>
> Broadcasters seek deal for internet age
> By Frances Williams in Geneva
> Published: November 12 2003 21:55
>
> New attempts are being made by international copyright experts to update
> broadcasters' rights to cover cable and internet distribution.
>
> Member countries of the World Intellectual Property Organisation last week
> asked the body's secretariat to put together a draft text updating a 1961
> treaty for consideration next June. Wipo members will then decide whether
> to hold a diplomatic conference to adopt a new pact, perhaps in 2005.
>
> Wipo says a consensus exists on the need to upgrade broadcasters' rights
> to take account of technological developments including cable and
> distribution of programmes over the internet. A growing signal piracy
> problem and the hacking of digital television subscriber codes have also
> increased pressure from broadcasters for improved protection.
>
> Digital transmission makes piracy easy because computers can download
> perfect reproductions of programmes for onward transmission via the
> internet or for copying on to DVDs.
>
> Updated pacts extending rights for music performers and record companies
> to the internet were adopted in 1996 - but broadcasters and audio-visual
> performers continue to be covered by a 1961 treaty known as the Rome
> convention, which the US has never ratified.
>
> Discussions on the rights of audio-visual performers have stalled over
> transatlantic differences on how these rights can be acquired by
> producers, but talks on broadcasters' rights have progressed since 1997.
>
> The most contentious issues centre on the level of rights broadcasters
> should enjoy and whether webcasting programmes exclusively through the
> internet should be covered as well as traditional and cable broadcasters
> (which may also transmit web programmes).
>
> "The US is quite isolated" in its proposal that webcasts be covered, one
> official present at last week's meeting said. Developing countries and
> Japan argued that extending rights to webcasters was premature when the
> business was in its infancy. The European Union has proposed protection
> only for webcasts made at the same time as conventional transmissions.
>
> The scope of broadcasters' rights is also controversial. Most governments
> have proposed 50-year protection for broadcasts, the same term granted to
> copyright holders and music performers.
>
> Broadcasts are currently protected for 20 years, and information
> campaigners say 50 years is unjustified for broadcasts that do not involve
> significant creative input. More worrying, they say, is the suggestion
> that the right could run from the most recent broadcast, enabling
> broadcasters to maintain their rights almost indefinitely. There are also
> concerns that broadcasters might be able to claim rights over material in
> the public domain, merely by broadcasting it.
>
> "If you transmit it, you own it," said Jamie Love of CPTech, a US-based
> consumer pressure group. But treaty advocates say this would pose a
> problem only in the rare eventuality that the material could not be
> accessed in any other form.
>
> Campaigners also oppose proposals that would require governments to outlaw
> the sale of equipment designed to circumvent rights protection, for
> instance by erasing digital watermarks on television broadcasts.
>
> --
> James Love
> http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> mobile +1.202.361.3040
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801