[Ecommerce] [Fwd: 20 Tech Companies on Webcasting in WIPO XCasting Treaty]

[Manon Ress]

Thanks to Cory, the following statement by 20 technology companies in the
WIPO proposed broadcaster, cablecaster and webcaster's treaty played an
important role at WIPO today during the 2d day of the negotiations.  If
only because the "webcaster" lobbyist present here cannot really claim he
represents all "webcasting industries".  It appears that they are not all
asking to be saved from widespread piracy and other undefined problems...
Manon

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] Statement of Twenty Technology
Companies on the Inclusion of Webcasting
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:42:38 +0100
From: Cory Doctorow <cory@eff.org>
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