[DMCA-Activists] CI Statement on WIPO Webcasting Debate

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] CI Statement on Broadcast/Webcast Treaty proposals
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:38:38 -0500
From: James Love <address@hidden>
To: a2k discuss list <address@hidden>


CI Statement on Broadcast/Webcast Treaty proposals
WIPO SCCR
23 November 2005
Geneva, Switzerland

The CI statement delivered orally at WIPO today on the broadcast
and webcast proposals was based upon these six points:

1.    CI notes the comments of several other groups who have
questioned the wisdom of using WIPO as a global parliament to go
beyond harmonizing IP laws, and create new and untested IPR
regimes that no one has yet tried.  The EU and the USA trade
negotiators, which would are pushing for webcasting at this
meeting, should talk to their own parliament and Congress about
such a regime, and see if they can enact such a regime, and what
the impact will be, before they promote it for the whole world.

2.    CI notes the concern at this meeting over piracy.  We all
are alarmed at dishonest behaviour, stealing and crime in
general.  CI is among the NGOs that have supported an approach to
the treaty that protects signals against unauthorized access.  We
note also that these endless piracy stories are typically
directed at materials that are protected by copyright, an area
already subject to extensive legal measures, and it is unclear
how much of the push for the treaties is about piracy, and how
much is due to the effort to obtain new economic rights in
information that is transmitted by broadcasters or web pages.

3.    CI does not condone a grab for new economic rights that are
granted simply for transmitting information.  We oppose the
piracy of the knowledge commons.  We do not condone stealing from
the public domain, restricting access to creative commons works,
or creating thickets of unneeded rights and new intermediaries
that will predictably result in more orphaned works.

4.    We do note, however, the issue of sport broadcasting is a
serious issue, and we note the comments by ACT on this topic.  
We suggest WIPO consider a separate protocol for sports
broadcasting that would address the special problems facing this
sector.  Why design a huge treaty and apply it to the entire
contents of the Internet if you are really concerned about a
handful of football, cricket and other sports matches?  Why not
take care of sports in a serious way, for countries that seek to
address this issue, without mixing it with the other issues that
have little in common.

5.    In any type of regulation there are untended consequences,
and problems of regulatory capture.  WIPO should be modest in its
goals in this area, and conservative when it proposes changes
that would regulate the Internet.   What do we really know about
the growing practice of podcasting, or the future of webcasting
activity in general?  The definitions of the treaty are maddening
and unnecessarily vague.  If text or data are included or not
included, the treaty language should be clear.  We are living in
a digital age, designing a treaty for digital works, and these
older definitions just don’t explain very much about what is
covered and what is not covered.

6.    What is the precedent we are setting here?  As noted by
Nigeria, if you start with simulcasting, you find a logic in
webcasting.  But if you include webcasting, you find a logic in
giving the new economic rights to all web pages.  And if you find
a logic in protecting web pages, you find a logic in protecting
printing presses or booksellers.  This clearly is precedent also
for the protection of unoriginal databases. Where does this end? 
But this is crazy logic, or flawed logic.  There is no sense in
extending protections from one sector to the next simply to be
consistent, if the extension of a regime in one area has much
different consequences in the next sector, or if the regime was
never needed in the first place.  There are more than 100
countries, including the United States, that have never signed
the Rome Convention, but they all have a robust broadcast
industry.   There is no evidence that any of these sectors needs
an economic right purely for disseminating information.

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


_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k