[DMCA-Activists] A Law Unto Themselves: WIPO/XCast Treaty

[Seth Johnson]

(Forwarded from James Love's Random Bits list)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] Observor on WIPO Broadcast Treaty:  A law unto
themselves
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:06:37 -0400
From: James Love <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden,ecommerce
<address@hidden>


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1237374,00.html

A law unto themselves

John Naughton
Sunday June 13, 2004
The Observer


'All that is required for evil to triumph,' wrote Edmund Burke, 'is for 
good men to do nothing'. His words came to mind last week as I read the 
daily reports from Geneva about the meeting of the standing committee on 
copyright and related rights of the (Wipo). The meeting was assembled to 
discuss a draft treaty to 'protect' broadcasters and broadcasting signals.

For 'protect' read 'unprecedented, restrictive and anti-social powers'. 
If enacted, this treaty would require countries to change their laws to 
grant broadcasters astonishing freedoms. These include: 'the exclusive 
right to authorise or prohibit the fixation [copying/recording] of their 
broadcasts'; 'the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the direct or 
indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their 
broadcasts'; 'the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the 
retransmission, by wire or wireless means, whether simultaneous or based 
on fixations, of their broadcasts'; and other rights, including control 
of exhibition and distribution of recordings of broadcasts.

In addition, signatories would be required 'to provide adequate legal 
protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of 
effective technological measures' that are used by broadcasting 
organisations to secure their new rights. Most scandalous of all, the 
draft proposes that these new rights should apply for 50 years.

This treaty would undermine many of the public's rights under the 
copyright laws of most countries. It would, for example, eliminate my 
right to record off-air without the permission of a broad caster, or to 
copy a recording from one medium to another (eg from tape to DVD).

When I first saw the draft (it was published in April), I assumed it 
must have been written by executives at Fox, NBC and other US TV 
networks while high on cocaine, because it read like a wish-list of 
everything a failing industry could want to protect it from the future.

It is a control-freak's charter. This is predictable, because an 
obsession with control has worked its way into the industry's DNA. 
Broadcasting is a few-to-many medium: a small number of 
content-providers decide what is to be offered, produce the content, and 
push it to passive consumers. Central to the broadcasting ethos is a 
desire to control the viewer, to restrict choice to the menus chosen by 
the industry - like Skinnerian pigeons pecking at coloured levers to 
obtain food.

The problem is that emerging digital technologies undermine 
control-freakery. Digital TV recorders let viewers create their own 
schedules - and automatically skip ads. DVD recorders let viewers make 
perfect copies of broadcast movies in an easily accessible form. And so 
on. Digital technology empowers consumers, making them less passive. It 
makes even couch potatoes sit up. And that is bad news for TV.

Experience over the last decade has shown us how established industries 
react when they are threatened by new technology. First they go into 
denial. Then they resort to legal countermeasures - which invariably 
fail. Finally they nobble legislators, seeking to persuade them to enact 
laws that will protect the old business models.

Which is where the draft broadcast treaty comes in. The great thing 
about Wipo, from the point of corporate lobbyists and their allies in 
certain national governments, is that it offers more bangs per buck. 
Instead of having to petition 50 or 100 national legislatures, you 
persuade Wipo to propose a draft treaty, which is submitted to a 
diplomatic conference and ratified. Then all the signato ries are 
obliged to do what you want. This is how the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act was globalised - a Wipo agreement signed back in 1996 
became the basis for national laws everywhere embodying the same 
anti-circumvention clause.

This is clearly the strategy the broadcasting industry is now embarked 
on. The discussions in Geneva sparked a number of reflections. The first 
is how compromised Wipo officialdom seems to be: a decision to proceed 
to a diplomatic conference is supposed to be made only if there is 
substantial agreement at the standing committee.

There was no such consensus last week in Geneva, but Wipo is 
nevertheless proceeding as if there were. Why? Because negotiations in a 
diplomatic conference will be conducted behind closed doors - away from 
the NGOs and the public-domain campaigners who raise awkward questions.

A second observation is how ignorant many national delegates are about 
these matters. A third is how refreshingly informed, insightful and 
forthright the Indian delegation was. Reading the reports, one sometimes 
had the feeling only the Indians understood what is at stake.

Finally, one began to wonder where our own beloved national broadcaster 
stands on these issues. The select committee on culture, media and sport 
is currently inquiring into the renewal of the BBC charter. The 
committee should ask if the BBC is pushing this pestilential draft 
treaty. And if so, why?

address@hidden

www.briefhistory.com/footnotes/


_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits