[atlarge-discuss] Re: [Ecommerce] CPTech views on proposed WIPO broadcast/cablecast/webcast treaty

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

James and all,

  Thank you James for providing this very interesting info
that has significant impact on stakeholder/users globally.

 I shall pass it along...

James Love wrote:

> This was distributed in Geneva at the WIPO Standing Committee on
> Copyright this morning.  Apparently broadcasters are asking WIPO for a
> decision *this week* on whether or not to schedule a diplomatic
> conference.  Jamie
>
> Statement of Manon A. Ress to the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright,
> regarding the proposed Broadcast/Cablecast/Webcast Treaty
>
> Geneva
> June 23, 2003
>
> My name is Dr. Manon A. Ress, and I am here on behalf of the Civil
> Society Coalition. I would like to thank the Standing Committee for
> accepting the CSC as an observer. The CSC is a coalition of a number of
> different NGOs that are interested in intellectual property policy. Our
> mission is to enhance the transparency of policy making on IP issues,
> and to represent the views of consumers in particular and more generally
> the public. Today I provide the views of the Consumer Project on
> Technology, which is one of the members of the CSC. CPTech will address
> the proposed Broadcast Treaty.
>
>     1. CPTech's first concern is that the proposed treaty would extend
> broadcast rights from the 20 years in the TRIPS and the Rome Convention
> to 50 years. We oppose this extension of the term. We note that the
> broadcaster right is an additional layer over that enjoyed by creators,
> and we see no public interest that would be advanced by extending this
> layer of protection for an addition 30 years. Indeed, this will shrink
> the public domain, and harm the public.
>
>     2. CPTech is also concerned that the proposals to extend
> broadcasters rights to "webcasters" has the potential to vastly expand
> the ability of persons to assert rights over material that should be in
> the public domain. One key issue concerns the definition of webcasting.
> We note that the definition is different in important respects from the
> definition for cable or broadcasting. The technology of the Internet is
> complex, and we are concerned that this new instrument would be used to
> exercise rights in areas that currently not considered protectable.
>
>        We would like to know if such Internet activities such as
>            * the operation of listserves,
>            * peer to peer networks,
>            * the distribution of text documents, or more generally
>            * posting materials that are available for download and then
> archived
>
>        would be covered by the treaty, for example. We recognize that
> proponents of the treaty have tried to present the webcasting extention
> as a type of parity. However, it may be quite difficult to justify
> different levels of protection for the same types of materials
> distributed over the Internet, and the last thing we want is to see this
> new layer of protection extended into areas where there is (a) no need,
> and (b) a potential to harm the public and the shrink the availability
> of public domain materials on the Internet. .
>
>     3. We are also concerned about the proliferation of new digital
> rights management obligations, and believe that before WIPO creates yet
> another treaty obligation in this areas, it would be appropriate to
> evaluate the impact of the existing obligations, and to take an
> inventory of issues that concern the public. In particular, we are
> concerned about the impact of such measures on:
>           1. privacy
>           2. innovation,
>           3. consumer convenience and perceived value,
>           4. the ability to archive materials,
>           5. the public rights under the various exceptions to rights
> such as the rights of the blind or both non- commercial and commercial
> fair use rights, and
>           6. the relationship between new digital rights management
> systems and the framework for recognizing and enforcing non-negotiated
> mass market contracts that are embeded in documents or web page servers.
>
>        To this end, we propose that WIPO Schedule a meeting in 2004 to
> discuss consumer and other public perspectives on digital rights
> management schemes. Also, there should be an effort to examine the
> thorny but very important problem of exports when rights are exercised
> under varioius copyright or DRM exceptions provisions, a problem already
> indentified by the blind, and which is a major issue accross the
> Internet. Finally, there should be more attention to the issue of the
> aggressive use of mass market non-negotiated licenses to curtail public
> rights beyond that which is provided for by copyright laws.
>
> Thank You.
>
> Manon A. Ress
>
> --
> James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> tel. +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de