[Ecommerce] FT on WIPO Broadcast Treaty

[Jeff Williams]

James and all,

  It is in our members opinion as well as even some RIAA and MPAA
members whom are pushing the US position that the US position
is or has not been adequately vetted and not broadly shared amongst
those whom are most effected and is therefore untenable.
See:http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
For example.

  The american value system which has been promoted intensely for
almost 60 years is through the current crop of US negotiators
being undermined as if to only promote one segment of american
society's values.  A very dangerous and misleading message to
attempt to send to our trading partners in such a manner.

James Love wrote:

> * Wipo's annual assembly in September is expected to give the go-ahead
> in principle, but the date of the conference will not be decided until
> November when Wipo's copyright committee meets again for another round
> of negotiations.
>
> *  While there is broad agreement on the need to upgrade broadcasters'
> rights to take account of technological developments, Wipo members
> remain divided over key aspects of the treaty.
>
> * Civil society groups have also expressed concerns that the proposed
> strengthening of broadcasters' rights goes too far in restricting public
> access to information.
>
> *  Wipo officials said there had been "very little support" for a US
> proposal to extend protection to webcasters as well as traditional
> broadcasters, a move that many fear would place restrictions on large
> swathes of information distributed over the internet.
>
> * Ms Hayes said discussion of webcasting would probably be postponed
> until after the broadcasting treaty was settled.
>
> http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1086445588409
>
> Talks on broadcast rights may lead to new pact
> By Frances Williams in Geneva
> Published: June 11 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: June 11 2004 5:00
>
> Negotiations on an inter-national treaty updating broadcasters' rights
> for the internet age have made significant progress, paving the way for
> possible adoption of a new pact within the next two years, the World
> Intellectual Property Organisation said yesterday.
>
> "Most member states are confident that differences on this important
> issue can be narrowed in a reasonable time frame," said Rita Hayes,
> deputy director-general in charge of copyright. She said a diplomatic
> conference to adopt a new treaty could take place in late 2005 or early
> 2006.
>
> Wipo's annual assembly in September is expected to give the go-ahead in
> principle, but the date of the conference will not be decided until
> November when Wipo's copyright committee meets again for another round
> of negotiations.
>
> While there is broad agreement on the need to upgrade broadcasters'
> rights to take account of technological developments, Wipo members
> remain divided over key aspects of the treaty.
>
> Civil society groups have also expressed concerns that the proposed
> strengthening of broadcasters' rights goes too far in restricting public
> access to information.
>
> Wipo officials said there had been "very little support" for a US
> proposal to extend protection to webcasters as well as traditional
> broadcasters, a move that many fear would place restrictions on large
> swathes of information distributed over the internet.
>
> Ms Hayes said discussion of webcasting would probably be postponed until
> after the broadcasting treaty was settled.
>
> But countries also differ on the scope of protection, with some arguing
> that rights be confined to combating signal piracy. Information
> campaigners worry that broadcasts of unprotected information will give
> broadcasters effective rights over that information, removing it from
> the public domain.
>
> Campaigners, and some governments, also oppose proposals to raise to 50
> years the 20-year protection period for broadcasts that is now the
> international minimum. However, the European Union already protects
> broadcasts for 50 years and broadcasters argue that they are entitled to
> the same rights already granted to music performers and record companies.
>
> Updated pacts extending rights for music performers and record companies
> on the internet were adopted in 1996, but audiovisual performers and
> broadcasters continue to be covered by a 1961 treaty known as the Rome
> convention, which the US has never ratified.
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
===============================================================
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