[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DMCA-Activists] 20 Tech Companies on Webcasting in WIPO XCasting Treaty
From: |
Seth Johnson |
Subject: |
[DMCA-Activists] 20 Tech Companies on Webcasting in WIPO XCasting Treaty |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:55:53 -0500 |
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] Statement of Twenty Technology
Companies on the Inclusion of Webcasting
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:42:38 +0100
From: Cory Doctorow <address@hidden>
To: Broadcast Discuss <address@hidden>
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 intermediary 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
address@hidden
(Mr Cuban is also the owner of over US$500,000,000 in copyrighted
video
works)
Elliot Noss, TuCows, Inc.
address@hidden
Tim O'Reilly: O'Reilly and Associates
address@hidden
Scott Rosenberg, Salon Media Group/Salon.com
address@hidden
Jeremy Hogan, Lulu, Inc
address@hidden
Austin Wallender, pictothink
address@hidden
Jonathan M. Hollin, Digital-World, Ltd (UK)
address@hidden
Adam Rifkin, KnowNow, Inc.
address@hidden
Rohit Khare, CommerceNet Coalition
address@hidden
Michael J. Masin, M2 Group Corp.
address@hidden
David Daniels, Starfish Internet Services
address@hidden
John Burden, FuturesGuide, Inc
address@hidden
Leisa Fearing, Elf Systems Corporation
address@hidden
Arthur van Dorp, Siteware Systems GmbH Switzerland
address@hidden
Matt Rudderham, DynamicHosting.Biz
matt_AT_norex.ca
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies LLC
address@hidden
Anil Gupte, ke.e.n., Inc.
address@hidden
Kai Schaetzl, Conactive GmbH & Co KG
address@hidden
Marc Gadsdon, In-Tuition Networks Ltd
address@hidden
Joyce Thomas, Bizgrok, Inc.
address@hidden
_______________________________________________
Broadcast-discuss mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [DMCA-Activists] 20 Tech Companies on Webcasting in WIPO XCasting Treaty,
Seth Johnson <=