Three on Xcasting Treaty

(3 items below.  -- Seth)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] IHT on Broadcast/Webcasting Treaty
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:35:53 -0400
From: James Love <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

This article ran in Monday's International Herald Tribune.  It is
useful to have some news coverage of the treaty (nothing from the
US press yet), but the article does not really describe the
nature of the treaty proposals, and is framed in the language of
piracy used by the broadcast and webcast industry lobbyists,
despite the fact that the treaty is largely about the creation of
a new 50 year- exclusive economic rights to prohibit and
authorize copies of works they transmit but do not own under
copyright.  The words "50 years" or "public domain" do not appear
in the article, and there is no reference to the problems of
orphan works.  They give many examples of unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted works, a practice that is already
illegal under several copyright treaties.

Rather than explain to the readers that the "broadcaster" or
"webcaster" right is a "related right," that does not depend upon
a creative contribution, or that the right does not even require
a license from the creative party, or that it would apply even to
works in the public domain or freely licensed to the public (such
as under a creative commons license), the IHT article describes
the right as a "new copyright," and uses phrases like "they want
to copyright the copy."    One of the challenges will be to get
the press to both understand and explain how this new IPR right
is *NOT* a copyright, and why it is controversial to create an
IPR right that is based upon protecting investments (for 50
years) in the transmission of information, completely outside of
the framework we have for copyright.

    Jamie

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/03/business/IPRvideo.php

Broadcasters scramble for a Net defense

By James Kanter International Herald Tribune

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2005

BRUSSELS In the days of old-fashioned analog signals, Dutch and
Belgian viewers living on the North Sea coast had a simple way to
watch British television: they just readjusted their antennas to
grab the signal.

Today, cheap computers and fast online connections have taken the
place of rooftop aerials in cracking the lock on video that was
once held by broadcasters and, more recently, satellite and cable
television companies. Digital technologies are putting television
series, sports matches and other fare onto the Internet, within
easy reach of millions of people across the world.

TV programming is migrating online, and material is copied and
redistributed around the world as soon as it hits the airwaves.
The Internet, it seems, is about to punch a hole in the
traditional model of broadcasting, just as it already has with
the recording industry.

Scrambling to survive, broadcasters are seeking new rights and
protections - not for their original programming, but for the way
they distribute. They want to copyright the copy.

But international negotiations seeking to set these rules have
been stymied since 1998 because of fissures between the United
States and the rest of the world; between traditional
broadcasters and Web-based rivals; and between broadcasters who
emit programs and those who create them.

One big stumbling block is the position of Webcasters. The U.S.
government says that any new agreement must give companies like
Yahoo, RealNetworks and America Online the same protection sought
by traditional broadcasters.

Unsurprisingly, traditional broadcasters, fearing competition,
have bridled. Europeans, developing countries and civil
libertarians also suspect Washington of taking this stand to seal
or gain U.S. supremacy in the new field.

Pushed by the European Broadcasting Union, which unites state-run
broadcasters like the BBC in Britain and ARD of Germany, the
European Commission wants any future global agreement to protect
only "simulcasts," programs sent over the Internet at the same
time they are broadcast on TV.

"Webcasting is a novel form of Internet-based radio or TV
transmission which has been developed by major corporations like
Microsoft in the U.S. but has not taken off elsewhere in the
world," said Tilman Lüder, an official with the European
Commission. "Protection of Webcasting is therefore primarily in
the U.S. interest."

With the parties still arguing over a new global agreement, many
inside and outside the industry fear that television channels
could perish. Pirates work so quickly, and in so many locations,
that viewers could flee, with advertisers following. The channels
would be starved of resources to make and buy programs.

Shaun Hopkins lives in Sydney, where the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation owns the rights to "Doctor Who," a wildly popular
science fiction program from Britain. When the BBC revived
"Doctor Who" this year with a new cast, Hopkins was able to watch
the first episode a month before it was aired in Sydney, courtesy
of the Internet.

"I don't want to wait for weeks," said Hopkins, 36, who
downloaded the program from a file-sharing Web site using
BitTorrent software.

Even within the United States, with its multiple time zones, the
problem is apparent. "Desperate Housewives," a hit show broadcast
by ABC, is routinely pirated online by viewers on the East Coast
of the country before it airs just hours later on the West Coast,
according to the Motion Picture Association of America.

So broadcasters are seeking the right to punish the misuse of
digital data. They want to update the global rules on protecting
television and radio broadcasters, a treaty called the Rome
Convention, which was originally signed in 1961.

"The advent of broadcasting over the Internet means we have a new
animal in the fold," said Jorgen Blomqvist, director of the
copyright law division of the World Intellectual Property
Organization in Geneva. "The tussle shows that the way we did
things in the old broadcast world won't necessarily apply in the
new digital world."

Under current rules, ownership usually rests with program makers,
artists and producers. Broadcasters now want their own copyright,
for the signal itself, so that they can ask courts from Los
Angeles to Lagos for immediate injunctions against pirates.

"Forty years ago, television programs were filmed on tape and
edited in studios," said Ross Biggam, director general of the
Association of Commercial Television, which is based in Brussels
and represents companies including BSkyB of Britain and Canal
Plus of France. "These days we're more concerned with asserting
copyright in perfect-quality images stolen from a digital editing
machine before those images have even gone on air."

Efforts to exert control through technology alone so far have
foundered. The U.S. government, for example, wanted to plant
electronic "flags" in broadcasts that would stop unauthorized
copying. But this year a U.S. court sank that plan by stopping
the government from forcing equipment makers to make devices that
read the flags.

Some artists are skeptical of the broadcasters' motivation.
"Giving more rights to the broadcasters might mean less revenue
for the rights holders," said Jonathan Band, a copyright attorney
in Washington who has represented companies involved in
negotiating the broadcasting treaty. "The revenue pie from
broadcasting is finite, and if the broadcasters get a bigger
slice, the rights holders will get a smaller one."

Another obstacle to agreement comes from the developing world.
Recognizing that high-technology issues are critical to richer
nations, countries like India and Brazil are opposing the U.S.
version of a new treaty, hoping to use this stance as a
bargaining chip for concessions in other areas being discussed
within the framework of the World Trade Organization. In
addition, demands to tighten global copyright rules offer no
obvious benefit to poorer nations.

Among the most vocal opponents of the U.S.-backed version of the
treaty are campaigners for free expression. They say new-media
companies - which, as shown by the likes of Yahoo, Google or
Microsoft, may already be extremely wealthy and powerful - could
take advantage of new copyright powers by requiring creative
artists and political protesters to ask permission to reuse text,
sounds and images gleaned from the Internet.

"This is rewriting the old treaty on steroids and then applying
it to the whole Internet," said James Love, director of the
Consumer Project on Technology, a Washington-based activist
group. "There's not a single country on the planet that's tried
this kind of law before, not even the United States."

But powerful lobbying groups representing new media and Hollywood
are pushing the U.S. government to stand firm. "Broadcasters,
cable and satellite companies and Webcasters are all in the same
business," said Jonathan Potter, executive director of the
Digital Media Association, which is based in Washington and
includes AOL, RealNetworks and Yahoo among its members. "The law
should treat Webcasters equally in virtually every respect if
new-media investors are going to get a return on their
investment."

Webcasters also have the support of the Motion Picture
Association of America, said Fritz Attaway, general counsel of
the association. Movie studios support equal treatment of all
broadcasters, he said, and all those broadcasters need "a right
to prohibit unauthorized use of their signals, in addition to the
existing rights of authors and copyright owners."

A committee at the World Intellectual Property Organization has
put forward a compromise to break the deadlock, suggesting that
Webcasting be an optional part of a new treaty. Many television
broadcasters, even in the United States, favor that approach,
saying that further delay would hurt their business.

Ben Ivins, of the National Association of Broadcasters in the
United States, said he believed that giving a new copyright to
traditional broadcasters, and addressing the concerns of online
operators later, was the best way to put a treaty in place
quickly.

He noted that, so far, global copyright authorities had not even
considered intangibles like Internet traffic as intellectual
property, where ownership begins and ends or how much it is
worth.

Deciding these matters could take years and may not even be
possible, Ivins suggested. "Does an Internet signal eventually
turn into ether, into something so ephemeral that nobody can
own?" he said.  "The argument has become almost theological."


---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org /
mailto:[email protected] /
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits

---

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] FYI: IP Watch on Broadcasting and Webcasting
treaty moving forward
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:16:32 -0400
From: Manon Ress <[email protected]>
To: Broadcast Discuss <[email protected]>,a2k
discuss list <[email protected]>

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
IP Watch Story on "way forward" for diplomatic conference on
broadcasting and webcasting treaty.

Please note the "euphemism" for dealing with webcasting
provisions inclusion, it's referred as "discussions on working
paper (SCCR/12/5/ Prov)".  Pure WIPO jargon for how to include
webcasting provisions.

Manon

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=96&res=1024_ff&print=0


WIPO Negotiators Agree On Way Forward For Broadcasting Treaty


The member governments of the World Intellectual Property
Organisation today agreed on a plan to negotiate a treaty on the
rights of broadcasters by 2007 after two more committee meetings.

The proposal before the WIPO General Assembly, meeting from 26
September to 5 October, was whether and when to schedule a
diplomatic conference (a high-level treaty negotiation) for a
broadcasting treaty. The final agreement of the assembly, to be
formally adopted in an afternoon plenary session, states in part:

“Two additional meetings of the Standing Committee on Copyright
and Related Rights (SCCR) will be scheduled to accelerate
discussions on the second revised consolidated text (SCCR/12/2
Rev. 2) and the working paper (SCCR/12/5 Prov.). These meetings
shall aim to agree and finalize a basic proposal for a treaty on
the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations in
order to enable the 2006 WIPO General Assembly to recommend the
convening of a Diplomatic Conference in December 2006 or at an
appropriate date in 2007.”

SNIP

************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
[email protected],
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

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

---

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [A2k] WIPO Assembly: WIPO Members divided over proposed
Broadcasting Treaty
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:41:49 +0800
From: "Sangeeta" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]> This is a multi-part message in
MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] 
Please post this to the list.

Sangeeta

SUNS #5884 Friday 30 September 2005

south-north development monitor SUNS [Email Edition]

Development: WIPO Members divided over proposed Broadcasting
Treaty Geneva, 29 Sep (Sangeeta Shashikant) -- The WIPO General
Assembly heard divided views on Wednesday between Members that
wished to hold a diplomatic conference (to negotiate a new
treaty) on the protection of broadcasting organizations in 2006
and those that felt that discussions on the treaty had not yet
matured sufficiently to warrant a diplomatic conference.

Informal consultations were held by the Assembly Chairman,
Ambassador Enrique Manalo of the Philippines, with a view to
bridging the gap and come up with appropriate language agreeable
to all Members, but the consultations were unable to reach a
conclusion. Argentina and the United Kingdom were appointed as
facilitators of the Chair to try and reach a solution. The issue
is expected to be resolved only next week, perhaps at the end of
the Assembly.

Advocates claim that broadcasters' rights have to be protected,
as present copyright laws do not adequately cover these. Those
who are against or are cautious of the proposed treaty say it
creates a new layer of rights for organizations (broadcasters and
web-casters) that are not creators, add on costs to the
consumers, and hinder access to information and knowledge.

At the Assembly discussion, many developing countries criticised
what they said was the un-transparent and non-inclusive process
by which the WIPO Secretariat had organized regional
consultations on the issue. The process by which the treaty is
being pushed has become as big an issue as the treaty's contents.

Rita Hayes, WIPO Deputy Director-General in charge of the
Copyright and Related Rights and Industry Relations Division,
introduced the document prepared by the International Bureau (i.
e. the WIPO Secretariat) on the protection of broadcasting
organizations (WO/GA/32/5).

The issue has been discussed at the Standing Committee on
Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at its past 12 consecutive
sessions (from 1998 to 2004). According to the Secretariat
document, the idea to launch a diplomatic conference was first
mooted at the SCCR in June 2004. The venue for deciding on this
shifted last year to the General Assembly, which did not make a
decision.

A revised version of the Consolidated Text for a Treaty on the
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations was prepared for the
12th session of SCCR in November 2004. At that meeting several
developing countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, India
and Iran) had indicated that they were not in favour of regional
consultations on the issue but preferred "open-ended
inter-sessional" consultations that allowed all Member States and
observers to participate.

However, no open-ended meeting was convened. Instead, the
Secretariat organized six regional consultation meetings between
May to July 2005. A second revised version of the Consolidated
Text (SCCR/12/2/Rev. 2) and the working Paper on alternative and
non-mandatory solutions on protection in relation to web-casting
(SCCR/12/5) (released after the November SCCR and not discussed
at any SCCR meeting) were the basis for discussions at the
regional meetings.

Norway also organized an informal consultation in Brussels (13-14
September) for representatives of WIPO member states that were
not represented in the regional consultations. Most of the
participants came from developed countries.

According to the Secretariat document, the regional consultations
produced broad agreement that a Diplomatic Conference be
convened. The paper recommends that the WIPO General Assembly
(GA) "approve the convening of a Diplomatic Conference" (to take
place in the second quarter of 2006) and "approve the
organizational and procedural matters" for the Conference. It
also proposes that the 13th SCCR session be convened on 21-22
November, before the diplomatic conference to discuss the
remaining issues, and that the Chairman of the SCCR, Mr. Jukka
Liedes, in cooperation with the International Bureau, be
requested to prepare the Basic Proposal for the Diplomatic
Conference.

The legitimacy of the consultations was questioned by many
developing countries who said that invitations had been issued to
selected countries and to officials to participate in their
personal capacity. An African delegate said that his country and
many other African countries had not been invited to participate
in the African Regional consultations. At the meeting Wednesday,
many countries severely criticised the process of convening of
the regional meetings for not being transparent or inclusive.

WIPO members that support the convening of a diplomatic
conference next year are the Group B (comprising developed
countries), the European Community, and some of the members that
participated in the regional consultations.

On the other hand, those opposed to the holding of a diplomatic
conference in 2006 (and instead want further discussions at the
SCCR on the text and an assessment of the implications of such a
treaty) include the Asian Group, and many members of the Group of
Friends of Development (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Iran, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Tanzania, and Venezuela) and Chile.

The Czech Republic speaking on behalf of the Central European and
Baltic states said that the consultations led to useful exchange
of information and came to the understanding that it is possible
to move forward, and so supports the holding of a diplomatic
conference.

Group B (comprising developed countries) supported the holding of
a diplomatic conference. Norway and New Zealand supported this.
The UK (speaking on behalf of the European Community) said that
it is timely to hold the conference. The remaining outstanding
issues can be resolved in the SCCR meetings.

Morocco said that progress on the protection of broadcasting
organizations had been made over the years. It had hosted a
consultation for Arab states in May. It said the WIPO Copyright
Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty do not include
broadcasters' rights. There are many important aspects, for
example, to prevent illegal use of broadcasting signals. It said
the consultation's participants asked the Assembly to take
necessary steps.

Moldova and Russia briefed the meeting about the regional
consultation held for countries of Central Asia, Caucasus and
Eastern Europe in June in Moscow. They supported a diplomatic
conference in the first half of 2006.

Kenya, which hosted an African regional consultation in May, said
that the current legal framework is inadequate, that the
consultation recognized the significant social and economic role
of broadcasting and the importance of protection of broadcasting
organizations, and it supported the convening of the diplomatic
conference in 2006.

Benin on behalf of the least developed countries also supported
the convening of the diplomatic conference in 2006.

Antigua and Barbuda, supported by St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, said it approved the holding of
the diplomatic conference. Similar support was expressed by
Mexico, Nicaragua and Colombia.

The United States also stated that it was timely and appropriate
to convene the Diplomatic Conference in 2006.

On the other hand, many other countries said that it was
premature to convene a diplomatic conference, and wanted further
discussions at the SCCR, including an assessment of the
implications of a treaty.

Iran on behalf of the Asian Group said the complexity and
cross-cutting nature of the issue and its implications means that
the issue is sensitive and of serious concern to member states.

It criticised the organizing of the regional consultations, and
the putting forward of the second text to regional consultations
as there was not even any consensus on the holding of such
consultations in the 12th session of SCCR. It stressed the
importance of transparency in the process.

The Asian group, said Iran, feels that there is need for
sufficient time for members to address the second consolidated
text in depth during at least two further SCCR sessions in 2006.
The SCCR would then report its progress to the next GA. The
holding of any diplomatic conference is premature.

It added that web-casting is an evolving and unknown issue for
member states and the implications for developing countries are
not clear. The Asian group is of the opinion that web-casting
should be excluded from the process of SCCR and the issue should
not be raised in any form during any diplomatic conference in
this process.

Brazil (speaking on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Iran, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Tanzania, and Venezuela) said that WIPO as a UN body is expected
to operate as a Member-driven institution. Brazil said the
Secretariat's document does not fully reflect the decision taken
by Member states on the issue a year ago, in particular the
request put forth to the SCCR to accelerate its work on the
protection of broadcasting organizations "with a view to
considering the possibility of convening a diplomatic conference
in 2005". [The Secretariat Document states "with a view to
approving the convening of a diplomatic conference ."]

The expectation was that the SCCR would afford WIPO members an
opportunity to engage in an in-depth consideration of the complex
legal and technical issues involved in the proposed new
broadcasting treaty, added Brazil. Only by these means could the
GA be in a position to take a fully informed decision on whether
to convene a diplomatic conference to conclude negotiations on
the treaty.

Notwithstanding the decision to accelerate the work of SCCR, only
one meeting was held between the last GA and the current GA and
this did not provide a number of developing countries with an
opportunity to grasp the difficult and multifaceted issues
involved.

It added that the SCCR in November 2004 did not allow proper
examination of the various provisions contained in the
consolidated text of the Chairman. NGOs were also given little
space and time for interventions. The call by some developing
countries for an inter-sessional meeting of the SCCR to allow for
a narrowing of differences went unheeded. Instead regional
consultations were held although few regional groups had actually
agreed on the need and convenience of holding such consultation
during the 12th Session of the SCCR, said Brazil.

It added that there was a clear lack of consensus on whether
regional meetings should be convened as several Member states
felt that the issue as a whole needed further clarification and
debate in an appropriate formal multilateral setting, with the
presence of official government representatives assigned to
represent their countries' interest in WIPO in Geneva.

It noted that not all countries belonging to their respective
regional groups attended the regional meetings. It gave examples
of the African consultation, which was attended only by 13 of the
53 Members of the African Group, and the GRULAC consultation,
attended by only 15 of the 33 nations. Invitations were issued
directly to capital officials in their personal capacity without
going through the normal diplomatic channels. Thus, obviously the
outcomes of these consultations are not binding and cannot be
invoked as a basis on which Member states should make their
decision.

The group expressed the view that discussions had not progressed
to the point where a consensus on a diplomatic conference can be
achieved. The debate at the November SCCR showed that significant
differences persist among Members on several crucial substantive
issues and proposed clauses, including the scope of the treaty,
duration of protection, the nature of the rights conferred,
technological protection measures, digital rights management, the
inclusion of web-casting, and the relationship between the
proposed new treaty and other WIPO conventions.

In some areas, positions have actually grown further apart from
each other, said Brazil, as the group is not prepared to go along
with the inclusion of "web-casting" as a subject matter of
negotiations.

It is particularly important to have more in-depth substantive
discussions on the several complex and difficult provisions that
have been proposed and to assess the potential development impact
of such a major international treaty.

It suggested that at least two other meetings of the SCCR be
organized in the coming year to consider the second consolidated
text, and they should devote more time to the issues of
exceptions and limitations. It also pointed out that the "Basic
Proposal" of a Diplomatic Conference would have to be discussed
and approved by the SCCR and not be elaborated under the sole
responsibility of the Chair and the Secretariat.

South Africa agreed with Brazil and said a diplomatic conference
will take place in future but it would be too optimistic to call
it in 2006. It expressed dissatisfaction with the regional
consultations which reflected a process that is not member-driven
and registered concern about lack of balance and transparency.

It concurred with Brazil that invitations were issued to
personnel in their personal capacity and gave the example of the
African regional consultations which was attended by a handful of
African countries. It agreed with Brazil that there was no
agreement on many issues, stressing that the rights of other
stakeholders are still being discussed and to reach a conclusion
while these issues are not resolved would be counterproductive.
In addition, no empirical studies have been conducted. The GA
should take a principled position that development impact
assessment be conducted. It did not support the holding of a
diplomatic conference in 2006 and suggested that the issue be
decided at the next GA.

Chile shared the concerns about the consultations and did not
think that the time was ripe for a diplomatic conference. Much
work needs to be done and there needs to be independent studies.
Egypt said that despite favouring a broadcasting treaty, it felt
that more vital work needs to be done prior to taking a decision
to hold a diplomatic conference.

India urged the holding of SCCR meetings to consider the
unresolved issues and expressed the view that the various
procedural aspects on diplomatic conference is premature. It said
that the draft treaty will create a new layer of rights and this
would have a negative impact on the content. It would affect
access to information and the public at large. India is willing
to consider the protection of broadcasting signals but opposed
the granting of exclusive rights to broadcasters that include the
content. It also opposed the inclusion of "web-casting" in a
treaty.

India said the time is not ripe for the treaty as the
implications are not fully understood. It had raised the matter
in UNESCO as the issue goes beyond intellectual property. It had
also requested that universal access to knowledge not be hindered
by a draft treaty.

Although the broadcasting industry in India had reached a certain
level of sophistication, it still felt that the current treaty
grants broad rights to broadcasters. India expressed its support
for the statement by the Asian group, the statement by Brazil on
behalf of the 12 members of the Group of Friends of Development
and by Chile, Egypt and South Africa.

Peru said that there was insufficient information and requested
that the time-frame be extended before a decision on a diplomatic
conference. Venezuela said that it was invited to the GRULAC
regional consultation but its representative left after realizing
that it had not been properly convened. It said that NGOs that
were against the treaty had not been invited, whereas the private
sector that supported the treaty was present. It proposed the
postponement of the diplomatic conference.

While making their general statements to the Assembly, a number
of NGOs made comments on the broadcasting rights issue.

The Civil Society Coalition (CSC) (comprising 28 NGOs from 12
countries) urged WIPO to take more seriously its role in
supporting development, and protecting the public interest. The
CSC opposed the convening of a diplomatic conference on a
proposed treaty for broadcasting, cable-casting and web-casting
organizations since the process for consideration of this treaty
is flawed.

The views of consumers and the technology community on the
radical and restrictive web-casting proposal has not been taken
account of, and there has been no economic analysis of the impact
of the treaties on consumers, or on copyright owners, said the
CSC delegate.

Further, the treaty is being sold by its advocates as something
that is necessary to address piracy. But in reality, said CSC, it
has little to do with piracy. Instead it provides for extensive
commercial rights to broadcasting organisations, lasting 50
years, to make reproductions and redistribute the works.

This new right is on top of the copyright in copyrighted work,
and applies even to works in the public domain. If this is
extended to the web and to web-casting organisations, it will
harm access to knowledge.

If rights are given to one group after another that asked for it,
where would it end? Multiple rights would be given on the same
works. The end result is that there will be no public domain
left. There would also be the curtailing of the free movement of
information, higher prices for information, and less access to
knowledge. It ends with a less informed and less equal society,
added the CSC.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) registered concern about
the proposed broadcasting treaty. In the US, thousands of people
have protested to the government about the treaty and requested a
thorough investigation of its potential impacts.

The EFF said it was concerned mainly with the broad scope and
questionable necessity of the treaty, adding: "For example, why
would an instrument intended to protect against signal piracy
include post-fixation rights for broadcasters and web-casters?
Why does it cover web-casters at all, when the incredible
proliferation of web-casting companies seems to indicate no need
for new monopoly rights? Are there any economic justifications
for such a radical new form of intellectual property?"

EFF pointed out that there is no consensus among American web
technology companies that web-casters would benefit from new
monopoly rights. The web-casting proposal has been rejected by 20
web technology companies. A letter by them to WIPO was signed
among others by Mark Cuban (operator of the largest digital HDTV
network in the world - HDNet), the owner of a major league sports
team whose matches are web-cast (Dallas Mavericks) and owner of
half a billion dollars' worth of digital content.

The EFF said in view of these basic questions, the discussion on
the broadcasting treaty should be in plain view and WIPO members
should not turn the treaty over to a diplomatic conference in
2006. +

--
[ image001.gif of type image/gif deleted ]
-- 
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k