[DMCA-Activists] WIPO Newest "Internet Treaty" Will be Discussed Next Week (Sign on Statement)

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] WIPO newest "internet treaty" will
be discussed next week (sign on statement)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:04:04 -0500
From: Manon Ress <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden,Broadcast Discuss
<address@hidden>,Info Soc
<address@hidden>, address@hidden

Dear Colleagues,

Next week, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Standing Committee on Copyright and related Rights (SCCR)will
meet in Geneva from Monday to Wednesday Nov 21-23, 2005 to
discuss a new instrument that will provide intellectual property
rights to broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting
organizations. A coalition of NGOs which have been involved in
the process are preparing a statement recommending that the
Committee clarifies and limits the scope of the treaty. See Joint
Statement at:
 http://homepage.mac.com/nashtonhart/FileSharing1.html
Let me know if you're interested in signing the statement or if
you have questions.

Background:

What is at stake? The proposed treaty for the protection of
broadcasting organizations being negotiated at WIPO will create a
new intellectual property right. Broadcasters, cablecasters and
webcasters or organizations that make broadcast or “beam” audio
visual works and make them available to the public will be
granted a 50 year exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the
copying, fixation or redistribution of such works, among other
rights. These new rights, called “related rights” in Europe, will
be an additional layer of rights on top of copyright owners’
existing rights. When the broadcast, cablecast or webcast
includes non-copyrighted works (either in the public domain or
not copyrightable like facts), the transmitter, i.e. the
broadcasting, cablecasting or webcasting organizations will be
granted exclusive rights to control the works they transmit.
Although, this is presented as a simple update of the Rome
Convention (which the US never signed), it goes beyond what is
required in the TRIPS[i]. Furthermore, by adding webcasting
organizations to the list of beneficiaries, the treaty drafters
are creating a new intellectual property rights regime for the
Internet.

Presented as an anti-piracy treaty to protect a signal[ii], the
treaty will in fact give intermediaries more power and control
over creators (copyright owners and performers) and the public.
Furthermore, by adding webcasting organizations as a new
beneficiary of intellectual property rights, the treaty will
change how the Internet functions and its use. It will add to the
already existing thicket of rights for audiovisual work and
multimedia works that create obstacles for creators, distributors
and the public. Like new tollbooths on the Internet, the new
rights will slow down traffic and prevent the dissemination of
information and various works.

The discussions on this controversial treaty have been going on
since 1998 but the WIPO secretariat, with the help of the US
delegation, is now putting pressure on members states to agree to
a diplomatic conference by 2006. We have been asking the US
delegation to answer the following questions:

Has there been any analysis of how US law would have to change if
the treaty is passed?
Has there been any analysis or concern about how this new
intellectual property right would impact copyright owners?
Has there been any analysis of the unintended consequences of
creating a new right of transmission that does not exist in any
country for the Internet?
Has there been any analysis on how the new intellectual property
right would affect the orphan works problems?
Has there been any analysis of the impact of the webcasting
provisions on podcasting and on peer-to-peer networks?

The US delegation headed by Mike Keplinger of the USPTO and Jule
Sigall of the Copyright Office have confirmed that there has been
no analysis or attempt to answer these questions. There has been
no public consultation on this controversial treaty and we are
now asking for a federal register notice before a final draft is
negotiated at WIPO in Geneva. By that time, it will be difficult
to change the broad scope and the language of the treaty. We
believe that the public, copyright owners and performers, small
webcasters and others would have much to say about this proposed
treaty if given the opportunity to comment.

More information at:
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html

November 2, 2005. Jonathan Krim for the Washington Post. Weighing
Webcasters' Rights to Content.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/
AR2005110203187.html

October 13, 2005. Letter from 17 NGOs, 7 law professors and 31
music and technology experts, asking the leadership of the the
U.S. House and Senate for a period of public comment on the
treaty proposals.
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/2cong4frnotice.html

September 26, 2005. Column by James Boyle in the Financial Times.
More Rights Are Wrong for Webcasters.
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html

[i] In Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement: broadcasters "shall
have the right to prohibit the following acts when undertaken
without their authorization: the fixation, the reproduction of
fixations, and the rebroadcasting by wireless means of
broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of
television broadcasts of the same. Where Members do not grant
such rights to broadcasting organizations, they shall provide
owners of copyright in the subject matter of broadcasts with the
possibility of preventing the above acts, subject to the
provisions of the Berne Convention (1971)."

[ii] broadcasting organizations are already protected all over
the world if not under a related rights regime under other
regulatory regimes. In the US broadcasting organizations
protection is under the communications law which provides a
direct right for broadcasters to control the use and
dissemination of their signals (Section 325 of the Comm. Act from
1934, as amended, 47 USC Section 325). The provision was
originally enacted as part of the Radio Act of 1927, prohibiting
the rebroadcasting of a station's signal without the originating
station's consent. It has since been expanded to cover the new
cable and satellite retransmission technologies developed later
in the 20th century. There are also separate civil and criminal
provisions prohibiting the unauthorized interception and
disclosure of certain wire, radio, and electronic communications
(see section 605 and 18 USC sections 2510-2512). Beyond these
direct statutory rights important additional sources of legal
protection under IP law can be used by broadcasters against
unauthorized use of a broadcaster's signal such as trademark
laws, the Lanham Act, and state competition laws, as well as the
Copyright law.


************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
address@hidden,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607


_______________________________________________
Broadcast-discuss mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss