[Ecommerce] Limitations on Casters' rights
Manon Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org
Wed Sep 21 09:56:02 2005
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
re limitations and exceptions for casters' rights:
Article 14 of the draft follows closely, mutatis mutandis, the
corresponding provisions in the WPPT.
Paragraph (1) reproduces the main principle of Article 15.2 of the
Rome Convention, and it corresponds to Article 16(1) of the WPPT.
Paragraph (2) contains the provisions of the three-step test
originally established in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention.
Corresponding provisions were used in Article 13 of the TRIPS
Agreement, Article 16(2) of the WPPT, and Article 10(2) of the WCT.
Interpretation of the proposed Article, as well as of this whole
family of provisions, follows the established interpretation of
Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention.
Paragraph (3), in Alternative T, recognizes the proposals made by
Egypt and the United States of America to provide a =E2=80=9Cgrandfathering
clause=E2=80=9D that would allow Contracting Parties to maintain certain
limitations and exceptions concerning retransmissions. That's what
we call the PBS exception from US proposal.
Here's the draft:
Article 14
Limitations and Exceptions
(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national
legislation, provide for the same kinds of limitations or exceptions
with regard to the protection of broadcasting organizations as they
provide for, in their national legislation, in connection with the
protection of copyright in literary and artistic works, and the
protection of related rights.
(2) Contracting Parties shall confine any limitations of
or exceptions to rights provided for in this Treaty to certain
special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the
broadcast and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests
of the broadcasting organization.
Alternative T
(3) If on [the date of the Diplomatic Conference], a
Contracting Party has in force limitations and exceptions to the
rights conferred in Article 6 in respect of non=E2=80=91commercial
broadcasting organizations, it may maintain such limitations and
exceptions.
Alternative U
(3) [No such provision]
[End of Article 14]
On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:32 PM, James Heald wrote:
> Note that the TVWF directive is quite a different thing to the
> 'casters
> treaty; (though it does shed an interesting sidelight on some of the
> "convergence" issues and arguments).
>
>
> TVWF is basically about imposing EU-wide rules on the /content/ of
> broadcasts (and potentially webcasters).
>
> These could include:
> - "Protection of minors and human dignity" (ie restrictions on
> violence
> and pornography)
> - Restrictions on advertising / requirements to identify
> advertiser content
> - Rules for statutory "Right of reply"
> - Requirements for in-signal identifiers of the broadcaster.
>
> TVWF is /supposed/ to be about establishing a minimum standands,
> beyond
> which material should be accessible anywhere in the EU. But in
> practice, member states have been pretty resistant to any easing up of
> their existing standards, making TVWF look like an additional layer of
> regulation.
>
> Rather than giving the 'casters more rights therefore, TVWF is about
> imposing obligations on them -- hence their negative reaction; and a
> certain amount of weaselling about the implications of 'convergence'.
>
> (Though on the other hand, there are some quite challenging
> examples of
> what should and what should be "broad"casting on page 3 of
> http://www.broadbanduk.org/reports/Directives/
> Revision_of_EU_TVWF_Directive_BSG_responseFinal.pdf
> )
>
> Note also that the people protesting here against TVWF (especially
> Intellect) are many of them the same people most actively trying
> (especially through EICTA) to push a "DRM with everything" agenda, and
> an end to the 'droit du copie'/blank media levies.
>
>
> As a side-note, one other interesting question the EU is thinking
> about
> in the TVWF directive process is whether to mandate "fair use" access
> for news organisations to broadcasts.
>
> Is this just the sort of regulation that might be /forbidden/ by the
> 'casting treaty?
>
> I confess I haven't actually read the 'casters treaty drafts -- do
> they
> allow signatory states to establish exceptions as they wish (eg for
> news
> broadcast access; or for personal use / time-shifting / format-
> shifting
> / interoperability), subject to eg the usual Berne limitations --
> or are
> such loopholes completely forbidden ?
>
>
> All best,
>
> James.
>
>
>
> Manon Ress wrote:
>
>
>> QUOTE:
>> While acknowledging that the TV Without Frontiers directive, drawn up
>> in 1989, needs updating for the modern age, both Intellect and the
>> BSG are calling for the European Commission to go back to the drawing
>> board with its plans.
>>
>> The lobby groups are calling for a fuller consultation with all the
>> industries that will be affected.
>>
>> "The broadcasting world is entering a period of rapid change and the
>> regulatory framework will need to be amended," Philip Graf, chairman
>> of the BSG, told delegates at the i2010 European Broadcast
>> Conference.
>>
>> "But this blanket regulatory approach is absolutely not the way to do
>> it," he said.
>> END of QUOTE
>>
>> EC regulation 'could stifle' net
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4264558.stm
>>
>> Tech lobby groups in the UK have warned that proposed changes to
>> European TV regulation could stifle net content.
>> The European Commission wants to update its TV Without Frontiers
>> directive to take account of new developments such as video-on-
>> demand, broadcasting via broadband and podcasting.
>>
>> The Broadband Stakeholder Group and trade body Intellect have branded
>> the planned changes unworkable.
>>
>> It could be an attempt to regulate the net by the backdoor, they
>> said.
>>
>> Premature and unworkable
>>
>> The European Commission is planning to extend the regulation of
>> traditional broadcasting to cover all audio-visual content.
>>
>> The BSG and Intellect are worried that the definitions the Commission
>> has come up with to distinguish traditional and new methods of
>> broadcast are already out of date.
>>
>> They also believe the proposed changes could extend to areas such as
>> online newspapers which currently fall outside of the EC's regulatory
>> remit.
>>
>> "Our members are seriously concerned that the European Commission's
>> proposals will inhibit growth of the content and new media market in
>> Europe," said Antony Walker, Director of the Knowledge Economy at
>> Intellect.
>>
>> "New audio-visual content services, made possible through innovation
>> in digital technology and the internet, should be given time to
>> evolve and develop rather than being shackled by premature and
>> unnecessary regulation intervention by the EU," he added.
>>
>> The two organisations believe the proposals are premature,
>> unjustified, inappropriate and unworkable.
>>
>> In this view, they seem to have the support of the telecoms,
>> publishing and new media industries.
>>
>> A straw poll, conducted by the BSG, found that the majority of senior
>> executives of affected industries, wanted the directive put on hold.
>>
>> Over 80% felt that the legislation could open the door for wider net
>> regulation and 77% felt the proposals could inhibit the emerging new
>> media market.
>>
>> TV delivered via broadband will be a reality within a decade,
>> according to a recent report from Lovelace Consulting and informitv.
>>
>> TV is likely to become more web-like with millions of shows to
>> download as the worlds of digital TV and the net increasingly
>> converge, the report found.
>>
>> Blanket regulation
>>
>> While acknowledging that the TV Without Frontiers directive, drawn up
>> in 1989, needs updating for the modern age, both Intellect and the
>> BSG are calling for the European Commission to go back to the drawing
>> board with its plans.
>>
>> The lobby groups are calling for a fuller consultation with all the
>> industries that will be affected.
>>
>> "The broadcasting world is entering a period of rapid change and the
>> regulatory framework will need to be amended," Philip Graf, chairman
>> of the BSG, told delegates at the i2010 European Broadcast
>> Conference.
>>
>> "But this blanket regulatory approach is absolutely not the way to do
>> it," he said.
>>
>> FRAME
>> INTELLECT AND BSG SURVEY
>> 80% agreed reform of broadcast regulation is necessary in the light
>> of new methods of content delivery
>> 77% thought current proposals were 'inappropriate'
>> 82% thought it set a precedent for wider regulation of the internet
>> 82% agreed that current proposals did not take account of the pace of
>> change within technology, content and media markets
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************************************
>> Manon Ress
>> manon.ress@cptech.org
>> www.cptech.org
>>
>> Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC USA
>> Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>>
>> Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des Morillons, CP
>> 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727
>>
>> Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
>> London, N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
>> 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecommerce mailing list
>> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
>
>
************************************************
Manon Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org
www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent,
London, N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386
4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607