[Ecommerce] [Fwd: [Broadcast-discuss] UPD Position on the Treaty]

[Jeff Williams]

Manon and all,

 Shrinking the public domain is something that WIPO has been
trying to get done for many years and why increasingly WIPO has
met with growing disdain from the public sector for over two
decades that I am aware of.  So Davids argument here is
quite correct.  However it is not quite correct to argue on
economic grounds as David did < See Below > and certainly
not on "Moral" grounds.  It would be accurate to say that
There is not "Reasonable" economic reason to grant fifty year
licenses or grants for usage of such resources of public use
and interest.

  Note of possible interest:
We have four members that have broadcast licenses and I have
one relative that does.  None support such an extension even though
all recognize the economic security and potential advertising
benefit such an extension would almost certainly bring.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Davids reference follows =3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

d) Since many public domain works are available only when
    transmitted by broadcasters, requiring countries to grant fifty years o=
f

    power and control to broadcasters would dramatically shrink the
    public domain. There is no economic or moral rationale for this
    extension.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DRefrence ends here=
 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Manon Anne Ress wrote:

> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --
> The WIPO Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is meeting next week
> (June 7-9) in Geneva.  Comments on the chairman's draft or the NGO
> proposal are welcome.  Please find the Union for the Public Domain
> statement on the proposed Broacasters treaty in the forwarded message.
> Manon
> http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/wipo-casting.html
> --
> Manon Anne Ress
> Consumer Project on Technology
> www.cptech.org
> PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> manon.ress@cptech.org, voice: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176
> --
> Delivered-To: manon.ress@cptech.org
> Delivered-To: broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
> From: David Tannenbaum <davidt@public-domain.org>
> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Macintosh/20040502)
> To: broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
> Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] UPD Position on the Treaty
> Sender: broadcast-discuss-admin@lists.essential.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 17:34:00 +0100
>
> (http://www.public-domain.org/?q=3Dnode/view/38)
>
> UPD Resolution on the WIPO Casting Treaty
> -----------------------------------------
>
> 1) The proposed WIPO "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting
> Organisations" threatens to encroach on the public domain for the
> following reasons:
>
> a) This treaty would give broadcasters the power to control all
> recording and use of broadcasts. Other international agreements, such as
> TRIPS, give countries the option of granting these powers only to
> copyright holders. With this treaty each program or piece that is
> broadcast could be controlled by both copyright holders and broadcasters
> at the same time. Users of broadcast material would then have to get
> =93clearance=94 from both groups, creating harmful burdens for the public=
.
>
> b) Currently, if countries decide to give special powers to
> broadcasters, they only have to grant these powers for twenty years.
> This treaty would require countries that sign the treaty to extend the
> length of broadcasters=92 powers to fifty years. The twenty years is
> already longer than the effective life of a patent, and four times as
> long as the US government restricts the use of data on clinical trials
> for pharmaceutical drugs. With the proposed extension, WIPO would set a
> precedent that governments should give investors the long periods of
> control over works that have only been granted to authors and other
> creative works.
>
> c) The treaty would give broadcasters exceptional powers over materials
> that are in the public domain, cannot be copyrighted, or were created by
> third parties who have no interest in suppressing distribution.
> Broadcasters would receive these powers simply by transmitting
> materials. This is a much lower bar than copyright, which does not grant
> authors and artists control unless there is originality and creativity
> involved. Even controversial powers granted to database compilers
> require substantial investment. Giving broadcasters 50 years of control
> every time something is broadcast is in effect equivalent to granting an
> endlessly renewable copyright, with no standards for originality,
> creativity or substantial investment.
>
> d) Since many public domain works are available only when transmitted by
> broadcasters, requiring countries to grant fifty years of power and
> control to broadcasters would dramatically shrink the public domain.
> There is no economic or moral rationale for this extension.
>
> e) The definition of "webcasting" in Article 2(g), Alternative C, is so
> broadly drawn that it could be interpreted as granting control over
> nearly all transmissions of images and sounds over the internet and
> internet-like networks.
>
> f) The WIPO treaty requires signatories to outlaw the circumvention of
> technology locks that prevent fair use. One version of the treaty would
> even outlaw the sale or provision of any device capable of decrypting a
> program signal. Broadcasters can use these locks to prevent uses of
> broadcasts that are clearly for the public good, such as the ability to
> archive public domain works for preservation and historical interest.
>
> g) A prohibition against "formalities," means that broadcasters won't
> have to indicate their control over any particular broadcast, which will
> make it difficult to know who "owns" the rights to a broadcast. This
> would make it nearly impossible for the public to discern the boundaries
> of the public domain.
>
> 2) The public is not served by imposing these restrictions. A
> "compromise" version imposing part of these restrictions could be less
> bad, but no one has made the case that the treaty will benefit the
> public, or that it is needed. The risks to the public of potentially bad
> outcomes in a diplomatic conference outweigh the possible benefits, if
> any, of proceeding.
> _______________________________________________
> Broadcast-discuss mailing list
> Broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827