[Random-bits] Statement of Twenty Technology Companies on the Inclusion of Webcasting

[James Love]

---------------------------- Original Message--------------------
Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] Statement of Twenty Technology Companies on
the Inclusion of Webcasting
From:    "Cory Doctorow" <cory@eff.org>
Date:    Thu, November 18, 2004 1:42 am
To:      "Broadcast Discuss" <broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org>
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Twenty Technology Companies on the Inclusion of Webcasting
in the 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 i ntermediary 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