[Ecommerce] ArsTechnica: XCasting Treaty Blocks Freedoms

[Seth Johnson]

> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060503-6742.html


UN Broadcasting Treaty seen as severely limiting essential
freedoms

5/3/2006 4:04:20 PM, by Anders Bylund (anders@arstechnica.com )


A remarkably unacceptable treaty proposal is currently being
pushed through the U.N. World Intellectual Property
Organization's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related
Rights, seemingly concieved by the RIAA and MPAA and backed by
traditional old-line media businesses
(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060222-6237.html). The
Broadcasting Treaty, currently undergoing review at a UN
convention in Geneva, Switzerland, contains passages that would
severely restrict the concepts of fair use
(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060121-6025.html) and
freedom of speech=97on a global level. IP Watch has an excellent
overview of the issues
(http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D286&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0):

    The proposed broadcasting treaty would create entirely new
global rights for broadcasting companies who have neither created
nor own the programming. What's even more alarming is the
proposal from the United States that the treaty regulate the
Internet transmission of audio and video entertainment.

    It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected
international treaty body to undertake the task of creating
entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law,
such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to
broadcasting. A global treaty is not the place for
experimentation with new rights, but rather for the harmonization
of existing legal norms. WIPO treads on shaky ground by proposing
to create new rights that no elected body in the world has yet
agreed to.

Under the treaty, broadcasters such as cable companies, radio
stations, and Webcasting operators would essentially take over
the rights to control material broadcast over the Internet
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1237374,00.html),
to the point where the original content creator would have to
"beg permission from broadcasting companies in order to make any
use of their own performances." If you don't think you should
care about a measure like this, consider the effects it could
have on freedoms we take for granted today in the US:

    For example, if US President Bush gave an interview to Fox
News, Fox could prevent any subsequent use of that footage
including fair use, commentary, or criticism of President Bush -
at its sole discretion - under the new anti-circumvention rights
created by this treaty. Much of the political humor available on
Comedy Central's "The Jon Stewart Show" could become illegal
under this treaty.

In addition, countries signed to the agreement would have to
enforce the implementation of DRM shackles
(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051227-5852.html) akin to
the proposed Broadcast Flag
(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060303-6310.html), harsh
enough that even Intel objects (http://drn.okfn.org/node/118).
Because you can never protect your pilfered ownership rights too
much, you know. Unsurprisingly, the EFF has voiced its opposition
to the proposal
(http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004619.php):

    As we've noted elsewhere, EFF believes that these new rights
will stifle innovation, create a new layer of liability for
Internet intermediaries, impair consumers' existing rights,
restrict the public's access to knowledge and culture, and change
the nature of the Internet as a communication medium. Many of
these concerns could be addressed by limiting the scope of the
treaty to its intended purpose=97signal theft. Unfortunately the
new draft doesn't remove any of our concerns, but only deepens
them.

It's disturbing how often it happens that innocuous or even
positive legal drafts get additional and often quite scary
addendums tacked on along the way toward final approval. And
opposing views seem to have a tendency to be overlooked, ignored,
or pushed aside. In this case, a majority of the UN member states
have already rejected the Webcasting inclusions, but that hasn't
stopped the current draft of the main document from retaining
that language. Instead, many of the proposed changes that would
lead to lesser broadcaster controls and better protection of
basic freedoms have been thrown out or relegated to a separate
document
(http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051102-5517.html).

"Core" parts of the proposal form the Draft Basic Proposal, while
"alternatives" make up the Draft Working Paper, where parties to
the treaty are free to opt out of individual clauses. Several
countries have complained about their voices not being heard in
this process, and after this week's discussions, the draft most
likely goes on to receive the official stamp of approval. Is the
whole world really that eager to protect the interests of big,
established media to the detriment of independent expression?