[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DMCA-Activists] WIPO Deliberations on XCasting Treaty
From: |
Seth Johnson |
Subject: |
[DMCA-Activists] WIPO Deliberations on XCasting Treaty |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:00:33 -0500 |
(Forwarded from CPTech Random Bits list)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] WIPO deliberations on "casting" treaty
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:47:05 -0500
From: James Love <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Monday's meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related
Rights (SCCR).
James Love <address@hidden> +41.79.566.0475
I am in Geneva attending 3 days of meetings at WIPO, mostly focused on the
proposed treaty on Broad/cable/web/casting. The treaty seeks to expand
and extend a "related right" for casting organizations, that would exist
independent of copyright, and extend to areas where is there no copyright
in the underlying information, or where the casting organization did not
have authorization from copyright owners to manage or restrict access to
information created by others. (see
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/wipo-casting.html).
I am part of a very large delegation from the Civil Society Coalition
(CSC), which registered a dozen members for the meeting, of whom eleven are
here in Geneva.
The day began with an informational session on the problems facing the
blind, and in particular, the proposals by organizations for the visually
impaired to have global exceptions to copyrights in order to reverse
engineer work, and create products such as Braille, large type, or audio
performances of works, and to have the ability to export such works across
borders, including via the Internet. The publishers opposed these
efforts.
At 1 pm the South Centre held a briefing for several developing country
WIPO delegates on the importance of new open collaborative efforts to
create public goods. CPTech worked with the South Centre on the event.
The speakers included Sir John Sulton, last year's winner of the Nobel
prize for Medicine (the Human Genome Project and open life sciences),
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (Free Libre Open Source Software), Darius Cuplinskas
from the Open Society Institute (Open Access Journals) and Cory Doctorow
(Importance of open standards for the Internet and for innovation).
At 3 pm, the SCCR meeting formally began, with a discussion of the proposed
treaty on broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting. The chair began with
a review of the history of discussions, which began in 1997. The treaty
was described as an "updating" of the TRIPS and Rome Convention provisions
on broadcasting, but it clearly was going much further, extending the term
of protection from 20 to 50 years, expanding the covered platforms
(including in some proposals all computer networks), and creating a host of
new rights and national enforcement obligations.
The meeting began with a number of comments by national governments, many
urging the SCCR to find a way to move forward to a diplomatic convention in
2005. The majority of delegations who spoke did not want webcasting
included in the new treaty. The US clearly did.
Senegal asked that a committee be set up to draft a proposed treaty.
The US said that it was trying to balance the needs of right owners, and
the legitimate interests of consumers, while providing new protections
against "misappropriation." In the discussion on the scope of covered
material, the US made a surprising and welcome (by CPTech and other CSC
NGOs) intervention, saying that the definition of the scope of material was
possibly too broad, and that this should be worked on, to make sure that it
did not cover materials on ordinary web pages.
Russia was one of several countries supporting a wide array of new
commercial rights for "casting" organization.
Australia was one of several countries opposing the extension of the treaty
to the Internet, referring to some Internet webcasters as a "motley lot."
More importantly, apparently in Australia, courts have recently held that a
"single frame" constitutes a broadcast, illustrating how difficult it will
be to limit the scope of covered materials.
Canada called for a scaling back of the treaty to deal mostly with
anti-piracy of broadcasting, and avoiding new content management rights for
broadcasting organizations.
China expressed concern over webcasting provisions, saying the technology
was not mature enough for inclusion in this treaty, and proposing a
separate regulation be considered at a later date. I believe that China
made a comment about the rights extending to groups who were not the
original right owners, and comparing casting organizations to "users," but
I'm not confident my notes are correct on this.
Kenya proposed a long list of technical changes in the proposed treaty,
including a proposal that the 50 year term of protection would begin after
the last (rather than the first) broadcast. Kenya also proposed
elimination of formalities, making this an "accidental" rights such as
copyright (term coined by James Boyle and others), where rights are
automatic, creating burdens on the public to secure rights, even when no
right was ever desired in the first place.
Today NGOs may be allowed to speak. There are dozens of industry and
right-owners NGOs, plus one library NGO and the CSC. If given the
opportunity, I will talk about the inappropriate use of a 50 year term of
protection for a right based up investment, the scope of content covered
(to exclude coverage of text, data, software and more generally public
domain materials), and the dangers of applying this right to the Internet.
--
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:address@hidden
tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040
_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [DMCA-Activists] WIPO Deliberations on XCasting Treaty,
Seth Johnson <=