[Ecommerce] WIPO newest "internet treaty" will be discussednext
week (sign on statement)
Seth Johnson
seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org
Thu Nov 17 07:59:01 2005
Is there any sort of followup going on in the U.S., regarding the
call for a Federal Register Notice and public comments period?
Seth
Michelle Childs wrote:
>
> Dear EU Colleagues
>
> As further background you may wish to know that we have also written to
> the European Commission about the webcasting proposals.
>
> To date the European Commission has not supported the proposal for the
> inclusion of webcasting. However the WIPO Secretariat has produced an
> options paper on webcasting, which is to be discussed at the Special
> Standing Committee session on 20-21 November 2005, and the Commission wil=
l
> have to confirm its position. We are concerned about rumours
> from the US that the Commission is minded to change its opposition to the
> inclusion of webcasting in some form. We have asked the Commission to
> confirm their opposition. They will not do so at this stage, instead the=
y
> are waiting until the meeting to decide their position.
>
> The Commission has however, put forward its own troubling proposal, that
> new rights should be given to broadcasters to cover simulcasting (the
> simultaneous and unchanged retransmission on computer networks of its
> broadcast, by broadcast organisations.) There is a grave danger that this
> will in effect cover webcasting by the back door. The Commission is aware
> that there are real difficulties in formulating a clear distinction
> between simulcasting and webcasting. Indeed a number of organisations who
> are supporting this Treaty, which gives them new rights over digital
> content are opposing content obligations in the context of the current
> review of the Television without Frontiers Directive. =91
>
> We have also asked the Commission to undertake Impact assessments in
> similiar terms to the US. To date we are not aware that they have done so=
.
> . Despite the fact that WIPO has been discussing this Treaty for years ,
> there is almost no real analysis of how the Treaty will impact copyright
> owners or the public. The effect of the Treaty will be to create new
> rights and harmonise them on a Europe wide basis, with little ability for
> either the EU or National Parliaments to amend any detail. It will
> pre-empt the conclusions of the proposed review of relevant EU Directives=
.
>
> It is therefore vital that full scrutiny is undertaken now before any
> final agreements are made.
>
> Its important that groups in the EU make their concerns known to the
> Commission prior to the meeting. You can sign on to the NGO statement and
> /or contact Tilman Leuder Head of Copyrights and the
> Knowledge based economy at DG Internal Market and Services who is dealing
> with this matter within the Commission.
>
> If you have any questions please contact me
>
> Michelle
> Head of European Affairs - Cptech
>
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Next week, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
> > Standing Committee on Copyright and related Rights (SCCR)will meet in
> > Geneva from Monday to Wednesday Nov 21-23, 2005 to discuss a new
> > instrument that will provide intellectual property rights to
> > broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting organizations. A coalition
> > of NGOs which have been involved in the process are preparing a
> > statement recommending that the Committee clarifies and limits the
> > scope of the treaty. See Joint Statement at:
> > http://homepage.mac.com/nashtonhart/FileSharing1.html
> > Let me know if you're interested in signing the statement or if you
> > have questions.
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > What is at stake? The proposed treaty for the protection of
> > broadcasting organizations being negotiated at WIPO will create a new
> > intellectual property right. Broadcasters, cablecasters and
> > webcasters or organizations that make broadcast or =93beam=94 audio
> > visual works and make them available to the public will be granted a
> > 50 year exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the copying,
> > fixation or redistribution of such works, among other rights. These
> > new rights, called =93related rights=94 in Europe, will be an additiona=
l
> > layer of rights on top of copyright owners=92 existing rights. When
> > the broadcast, cablecast or webcast includes non-copyrighted works
> > (either in the public domain or not copyrightable like facts), the
> > transmitter, i.e. the broadcasting, cablecasting or webcasting
> > organizations will be granted exclusive rights to control the works
> > they transmit. Although, this is presented as a simple update of the
> > Rome Convention (which the US never signed), it goes beyond what is
> > required in the TRIPS[i]. Furthermore, by adding webcasting
> > organizations to the list of beneficiaries, the treaty drafters are
> > creating a new intellectual property rights regime for the Internet.
> >
> > Presented as an anti-piracy treaty to protect a signal[ii], the
> > treaty will in fact give intermediaries more power and control over
> > creators (copyright owners and performers) and the public.
> > Furthermore, by adding webcasting organizations as a new beneficiary
> > of intellectual property rights, the treaty will change how the
> > Internet functions and its use. It will add to the already existing
> > thicket of rights for audiovisual work and multimedia works that
> > create obstacles for creators, distributors and the public. Like new
> > tollbooths on the Internet, the new rights will slow down traffic and
> > prevent the dissemination of information and various works.
> >
> > The discussions on this controversial treaty have been going on since
> > 1998 but the WIPO secretariat, with the help of the US delegation, is
> > now putting pressure on members states to agree to a diplomatic
> > conference by 2006. We have been asking the US delegation to answer
> > the following questions:
> >
> > Has there been any analysis of how US law would have to change if the
> > treaty is passed?
> > Has there been any analysis or concern about how this new
> > intellectual property right would impact copyright owners?
> > Has there been any analysis of the unintended consequences of
> > creating a new right of transmission that does not exist in any
> > country for the Internet?
> > Has there been any analysis on how the new intellectual property
> > right would affect the orphan works problems?
> > Has there been any analysis of the impact of the webcasting
> > provisions on podcasting and on peer-to-peer networks?
> >
> > The US delegation headed by Mike Keplinger of the USPTO and Jule
> > Sigall of the Copyright Office have confirmed that there has been no
> > analysis or attempt to answer these questions. There has been no
> > public consultation on this controversial treaty and we are now
> > asking for a federal register notice before a final draft is
> > negotiated at WIPO in Geneva. By that time, it will be difficult to
> > change the broad scope and the language of the treaty. We believe
> > that the public, copyright owners and performers, small webcasters
> > and others would have much to say about this proposed treaty if given
> > the opportunity to comment.
> >
> > More information at:
> > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html
> >
> > November 2, 2005. Jonathan Krim for the Washington Post. Weighing
> > Webcasters' Rights to Content.
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/
> > AR2005110203187.html
> >
> > October 13, 2005. Letter from 17 NGOs, 7 law professors and 31 music
> > and technology experts, asking the leadership of the the U.S. House
> > and Senate for a period of public comment on the treaty proposals.
> > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/2cong4frnotice.html
> >
> > September 26, 2005. Column by James Boyle in the Financial Times.
> > More Rights Are Wrong for Webcasters.
> > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html
> >
> > [i] In Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement: broadcasters "shall have
> > the right to prohibit the following acts when undertaken without
> > their authorization: the fixation, the reproduction of fixations, and
> > the rebroadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the
> > communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same.
> > Where Members do not grant such rights to broadcasting organizations,
> > they shall provide owners of copyright in the subject matter of
> > broadcasts with the possibility of preventing the above acts, subject
> > to the provisions of the Berne Convention (1971)."
> >
> > [ii] broadcasting organizations are already protected all over the
> > world if not under a related rights regime under other regulatory
> > regimes. In the US broadcasting organizations protection is under
> > the communications law which provides a direct right for broadcasters
> > to control the use and dissemination of their signals (Section 325 of
> > the Comm. Act from 1934, as amended, 47 USC Section 325). The
> > provision was originally enacted as part of the Radio Act of 1927,
> > prohibiting the rebroadcasting of a station's signal without the
> > originating station's consent. It has since been expanded to cover
> > the new cable and satellite retransmission technologies developed
> > later in the 20th century. There are also separate civil and criminal
> > provisions prohibiting the unauthorized interception and disclosure
> > of certain wire, radio, and electronic communications (see section
> > 605 and 18 USC sections 2510-2512). Beyond these direct statutory
> > rights important additional sources of legal protection under IP law
> > can be used by broadcasters against unauthorized use of a
> > broadcaster's signal such as trademark laws, the Lanham Act, and
> > state competition laws, as well as the Copyright law.
> >
> >
> > ************************************************
> > Manon Anne Ress
> > manon.ress@cptech.org,
> > www.cptech.org
> >
> > Consumer Project on Technology
> > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
> > Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
> >
> > Consumer Project on Technology
> > 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
> > Tel: +41 22 791 6727
> >
> > Consumer Project on Technology
> > 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
> > Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ecommerce mailing list
> > Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
> >
>
> --
> Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
> 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
> http://www.cptech.org
>
> Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
> +1.202.332.2670,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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Broadcast-discuss mailing list
> Broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss
--
RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.