[DMCA-Activists] Jonathan Krim in WP: Weighing Webcasters' Rights to Content

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] Jonathan Krim in WP: Weighing Webcasters'
Rights to Content
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:46:11 -0500
From: James Love <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden


This is Jonathan Krim's story about the WIPO Broadcast/Webcast
treaty in today's Washington Post.

*  For example, say an independent filmmaker releases a movie on
a cable TV station. If someone copies it and gets permission from
the creator to post some or all of it on a Web site, should that
person also need rights from the first broadcaster? 
Increasingly, some artists are making their works available under
nonrestrictive copyright terms. Would they need to retool those
agreements to trump the distribution rights set forth in the
proposed treaty? And then there is the public event, which might
be as local as a school board meeting or as international as a
war. If Yahoo has the feed, either from its own employee or
someone else, what rights does it have as the conduit for
millions of viewers?

* Ivins argues that users could still make copies of such
broadcasts for private use; they simply could not turn around and
redistribute them commercially. When a broadcaster spends money
to prepare and distribute footage of an event or a historical
work, it should be assured that somebody else can't benefit from
that investment by copying the program and retransmitting it, he
says.

* Seth Greenstein, an attorney for the Digital Media Association,
which represents many webcasters, argues that protecting the
transmissions of webcasters will encourage them to show obscure
works that the public might otherwise never see.

* "This new layer turns every distributor into yet another
owner," argues James Love, head of the Consumer Project on
Technology, which is fighting the treaty. When it comes to
content in the public domain, Love contends, there should be no
restrictions on who can use the work.

* [note the dishonesty in this statement] Broadcasters and
webcasters insist that the balance of fair use and public domain
works will not be upset by the treaty. Even if the treaty passes
and the United States signs it, Congress then must pass
implementing rules, and the broadcasters and webcasters say they
have no desire to change U.S. laws.   [CPTech comment:  The whole
point of the treaty is to change US law, and law everywhere
else.  There is no "webcasting right" in US law.  There is no
"webcasting right" anywhere. It would be created by the treaty,
and require changes in US law.  Likewise, the US does not have a
"broadcaster right," like some European countries.   It relies
upon copyright and regulatory measures to protect creative
content.  The treaty would definitely require changes in US law,
particularly if the super ROME+ rights that the NAB is pushing
are included in the treaty.]

Here is the Krim story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/AR2005110203187_pf.html

Weighing Webcasters' Rights to Content
By Jonathan Krim

Washington Post
Thursday, November 3, 2005; Page D01

Battles over illegal sharing of music online are so last summer.
The hot fight now is over copying of video from television or the
Internet that generally has been considered freely available to
the public.

If television broadcasters and webcasters have their way in
international treaty talks, they would gain new, 50-year rights
to virtually any video they beam out, even if no one owns the
rights to the content.

So, for example, say ABC or Yahoo offers a broadcast or webcast
of a movie no longer under copyright protection, historical
footage of a news event or a live feed of a breaking story -- no
one could make a copy of that program and rebroadcast it to
others.

The result, according to digital rights advocates, is that the
viral power of the Internet to expose millions (or billions) of
people to news or unprotected creative works will be in jeopardy.
The seemingly instant, online cycle of people posting
information, seeing it, linking to it or retransmitting it -- as
happened with the amateur tsunami videos -- could be dragged into
a morass of new ownership questions.

"This new layer turns every distributor into yet another owner,"
argues James Love, head of the Consumer Project on Technology,
which is fighting the treaty. When it comes to content in the
public domain, Love contends, there should be no restrictions on
who can use the work.

That's a bunch of alarmist hooey, responds Benjamin F.P. Ivins,
senior associate general counsel of the National Association of
Broadcasters.

Ivins argues that users could still make copies of such
broadcasts for private use; they simply could not turn around and
redistribute them commercially. When a broadcaster spends money
to prepare and distribute footage of an event or a historical
work, it should be assured that somebody else can't benefit from
that investment by copying the program and retransmitting it, he
says.

Ivins and his allies, including the federal government, see the
treaty as a simple effort to standardize international laws on
what they call "signal theft." In certain Caribbean countries,
for example, cable programming has been effectively intercepted
and pirated by rival broadcasters.

Internet companies such as Yahoo Inc. and America Online Inc.,
which are pushing into webcasting of video content, say they are
entitled to the same rights as TV broadcasters.

Seth Greenstein, an attorney for the Digital Media Association,
which represents many webcasters, argues that protecting the
transmissions of webcasters will encourage them to show obscure
works that the public might otherwise never see.

The minutiae and complexity of rights and treaties in those
matters are enough to cure a small nation of insomnia.

But the battle demonstrates yet again the high stakes and
tensions of an era in which information is king, yet products and
services are being produced at lightning speed to make
information ever more copyable, malleable and portable.

"We do have an economy that operates on market principles," says
Michael Keplinger, a senior counsel at the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. "And intellectual property rights have served
very well to help that market function."

At a fundamental level, digital-rights advocates agree. But that
does not mean, they argue, that everything should be owned. They
see social value in some works and information being freely
accessible, especially in an interconnected world.

For example, say an independent filmmaker releases a movie on a
cable TV station. If someone copies it and gets permission from
the creator to post some or all of it on a Web site, should that
person also need rights from the first broadcaster?

Increasingly, some artists are making their works available under
nonrestrictive copyright terms. Would they need to retool those
agreements to trump the distribution rights set forth in the
proposed treaty?

And then there is the public event, which might be as local as a
school board meeting or as international as a war. If Yahoo has
the feed, either from its own employee or someone else, what
rights does it have as the conduit for millions of viewers?

Broadcasters and webcasters insist that the balance of fair use
and public domain works will not be upset by the treaty. Even if
the treaty passes and the United States signs it, Congress then
must pass implementing rules, and the broadcasters and webcasters
say they have no desire to change U.S. laws.

Opponents fear the balance will be upset, noting the support
Congress has consistently given to intellectual property holders.

It all might come to a head over the next several months at the
World Intellectual Property Organization. At this point, there
appears to be sufficient support for proposed rules governing
broadcasters, though that could change. U.S. negotiators are in a
distinct minority in seeking parity for webcasters.

Jonathan Krim can be reached address@hidden


For more on this treaty proposal, see: 
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/
bt/index.html

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org /
mailto:address@hidden /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

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