[Ecommerce] Statement of Twenty Technology Companies on the Inclusion of Webcasting]

[Manon Ress]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] Statement of Twenty Technology Companies on
the Inclusion of Webcasting From:    "Cory Doctorow" <cory@eff.org>
Date:    Thu, November 18, 2004 1:42 am
To:      "Broadcast Discuss" <broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of=A0Twenty Technology Companies on the Inclusion of=A0Webcasting
in=A0the Proposed Broadcasting Treaty , Presented by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, Twelfth Session
November 17-19, 2004

The World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee on
Copyright and Related Rights is undertaking a Treaty on the Protection  of
Broadcasting Organizations. This treaty will confer upon the
transmitters of information a host of "related" or "pseudo" copyrights
that have the potential to trump true copyright and restrict the flow  of
information on the Internet.

One proposal within the Treaty would extend these pseudo-copyrights to
the Internet, by means of a controversial "Webcasting Provision." While
there has been very little support from the national delegations for  this
proposal, the insistent voice of self-styled representatives of  the
technology industry has been loud enough to see to it that this  proposal
has persisted through draft after draft of the Treaty.

We, the undersigned representatives of technology businesses large and
small, reject the idea that the Internet needs or will benefit from the
extension of these pseudo-copyrights to so-called "Webcasters."

Briefly, we reject the Webcasting Provision for the following reasons:

1. The Internet depends on permission-free access. This is reflected in
the exemptions in many countries' copyright laws for online and
internet service providers. When authors or rights-holders' permission
has been required for fixation, copying, retransmission or decoding in
other situations, the negotiation of licenses from creators and
copyright rights-holders have provided ample protection for all
parties. Adding a new layer of intermediaries, over and above copyright
holders, for the re-use of information on the Internet benefits no one  --
save those intermediaries.  If an Internet company has the rights to  a
work, or need not secure the rights to a work due to a limitation in
copyright, or because the work is in the public domain, there is no
rational reason to require that the company also seek the permission of  a
further intermediary whose sole creative contribution to the work is  in
making it available.

2. There is no demonstrable problem. Internet businesses are famously,
legendarily well-capitalized from angels, venture capitalists, public
markets, private investors, governments and every other source of  capital
imaginable.   Proponents of webcasting rights have offered no  credible
evidence that the lack of legal protection for webcasting  rights has
precluded the establishment of any new Internet businesses.  Indeed, the
businesses most volubly calling for Webcasting protection  are among the
best-capitalized in the history of the world. There is no  certainty of
benefit here, but it *is* certain that the creation of a  new
psuedo-copyright will slow down adoption and innovation in Internet
markets by requiring all content-related businesses to negotiate yet
another layer of license agreements before they can offer new products  or
services to the public. The most likely result of introducing these  new
rights will be to skew the market; in practice it will provide  financial
assistance to incumbents who will be able to assure investors  of their
right to exclude their competitors and new entrants from the  market. At
the same time, it is likely to constrain, not increase, the  creation of
more information products for the public.

We do not desire the "protection" you offer us, nor do we believe it  will
benefit us.

Thank you,

Mark Cuban, HDNet, Dallas Mavericks NBA Team Owner
mark.cuban@dallasmavs.com
(Mr Cuban is also the owner of over US$500,000,000 in copyrighted video
works)

Elliot Noss, TuCows, Inc.
enoss@tucows.com

Tim O'Reilly: O'Reilly and Associates
tim@oreilly.com

Scott Rosenberg, Salon Media Group/Salon.com
scottr@salon.com

Jeremy Hogan, Lulu, Inc
jhogan@lulu.com

Austin Wallender, pictothink
austin@pictothink.com

Jonathan M. Hollin, Digital-World, Ltd (UK)
urbanmainframe@gmail.com

Adam Rifkin, KnowNow, Inc.
ifindkarma@gmail.com

Rohit Khare, CommerceNet Coalition
Rohit@KnowNow.com

Michael J. Masin, M2 Group Corp.
mmasin@m2gc.com

David Daniels, Starfish Internet Services
daniels@starfishnet.com

John Burden, FuturesGuide, Inc
info@bwp.net

Leisa Fearing, Elf Systems Corporation
leisa@elf.net

Arthur van Dorp, Siteware Systems GmbH Switzerland
vandorp@siteware.ch

Matt Rudderham, DynamicHosting.Biz
matt_AT_norex.ca

Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies LLC
business@tigertech.net

Anil Gupte, ke.e.n., Inc.
anilgupte@keeninc.net

Kai Schaetzl, Conactive GmbH & Co KG
vertrieb@conactive.com

Marc Gadsdon, In-Tuition Networks Ltd
marc.gadsdon@in-tuition.co.uk

Joyce Thomas, Bizgrok, Inc.
jt@bizgrok.com
_______________________________________________
Broadcast-discuss mailing list
Broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss