[Ecommerce] DIMA/Potter in FT on WIPO webcasting treaty -- alleges its all about piracy... does not address creation of non-copyright IPR right

[James Love]

Below is the response to Jamie Boyle's FT article on the WIPO
webcasting treaty issue, from Jonathan Potter from DIMA, the trade
association lobbying for the new (non-copyright) IPR right for
webasters.   Like the Broadcasters, Potter is deceptive about the
purpose of the treaty, talking almost exclusively about "signal
piracy" of copyrighted materials.  (Broadcasters and webcasters have
opposed a signal piracy only treaty).    Of course, piracy of
copyrighted material is already illegal under the Berne, TRIPS, WCT,
WPPT many regional trade agreements.   The Webcasting treaty language
is about giving web page operators a non-copyright IPR based upon
their transmission of works they do not own.   The proposed exclusive
rights to prohibit or authorize copying of works transmitted by the
web page operator will have a term of 50 years.  The talk about
piracy and the protection of copyright owners is bunk.  In fact,
virtually all of the major copyright owner groups have opposed the
webcasting treaty language, a fact Potter does not mention.  (See
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/rightholder-quotes.html), and other
tech savy firms oppose the new IPR layer as profoundly harmful to the
Internet (See Cuban et. all letter at http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/?
f=20041117_open_letter.html)   The nature of the treaty IPR right (an
additional "layer" of rights for 50 years, making all of the
permissions problems far more problematic, and eliminating the
concept of a public domain), is bad for both broadcasting and the
web, but it will be the largest shock if applied to the web.   Potter
also does not mention that the USA or other countries have never
enacted such a radical IPR regime for web page operators.   Jamie


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/67e40322-3474-11da-adae-00000e2511c8.html

We all have a stake in protecting webcasters from piracy
By Jonathan Potter
Published: October 4 2005

 From Mr Jonathan Potter.

Sir, Contrary to James Boyle's assertion that protecting webcasts
from signal piracy is not in the public interest ("More rights are
wrong for webcasters", September 27), the opposite is in fact true.
Of the many marvels of the world wide web, perhaps the most far-
reaching implication is the ability to transmit audio and video in
real time, anywhere in the world - internet webcasting. Anyone with a
computer or wireless device can listen to music or watch video,
transmitted live, from anywhere in the world.

Today's leading webcasters have audiences that rival stations and
networks, serving millions of people each day. During the July 2005
Live 8 concerts, more than 5m people from 178 countries reportedly
watched the performances live via webcasting. Webcast companies
invest tens of millions of dollars each year in their programming and
transmissions, and are licensing more exclusive content that will be
available only on the web.

The member countries of World International Property Organisation are
considering whether broadcasters need additional protections against
signal piracy, including retransmissions over the internet. Those
considerations also include internet webcasting, recognising that
webcasting is broadcasting over a different pipeline.

Equivalent legal protection against commercial theft of webcasts will
be a win for all. Copyright owners and performers who receive
royalties from webcasting will not lose money to which they are
entitled. Producers will know that material they license for webcast
cannot lawfully be retransmitted or commercially exploited without
their permission. Investors will know that webcasters have a chance
to protect their business and expand their own audience.

Webcasters themselves will be able to market their media to producers
and advertisers with confidence that they are competing on a legally-
protected level playing field.

Unless webcasters receive protection in the new WIPO treaty, only
broadcasters will be protected over the internet. Webcasters cannot
build a mass communications medium competitive with broadcasting if
they cannot protect their own webcast content over their own medium,
no less if broadcasters obtain even more rights than they have today.

As WIPO countries continue to consider these issues, they should look
to the future. Can a global communications medium such as webcasting
continue on its current trajectory, and reach its potential for
cultural exchange, without basic protections against signal piracy?
We all have a stake in WIPO's answer.

Jonathan Potter,
Executive Director,
Digital Media Association,
Washington, DC 20015, US

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040