[Random-bits] 21 Questions on WIPO Broadcast/cablecast/webcast Treaty

James Love james.love@cptech.org
Mon Nov 15 13:44:01 2004 

The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) meets 
this week in Geneva, beginning Wed, November 17.  The big topic is the 
debate over whether or not to schedule a diplomatic conference for a 
treaty that would create a new layer of exclusive rights for broastcast, 
cable and webcasting entities.  These rights would be granted to the 
entities just for transmitting information, even if the 'casting" entity 
did not create or own the underlying works.

Several civil society NGOs are attending the meeting, including CPTech 
(manon.ress@cptech.org, thiru@cptech.org), EFF, IP Justice, the Union 
for the Public Domain, EDRi, BEUC, CPSR-Peru, Open Knowledge Foundation, 
CSC and IFLA).

The following is one of the NGO handouts for delegates.  Jamie

-------

         21 Civil Society NGO Questions on the Proposed Treaty
            for the Protection of Broadcast Organizations

November 16, 2004

1. In what way is the theft of broadcast signals not adequately 
protected by safeguards in existing treaties (Berne, TRIPS, Rome, WCT, 
WPPT, etc) or national laws?

2. Is there actual evidence of widespread unauthorized uses of broadcast 
signals that cannot be stopped because of inadequate intellectual 
property legislation?

3. Given the extensive nature of rights in copyrighted materials, why do 
broadcasters need a new layer of sui generis rights to protect creative 
works?

4. Are new exclusive rights, beyond that provided by copyright, the 
TRIPS, or Rome, needed to protect broadcast signals, or is it better to 
address theft of signal problems directly?

5. What is the definition and the difference between content and signal?

6. An update is not always "more".  (For example, the TRIPS Agreement 
gave to broadcasters less rights than they had under Rome, and the Doha 
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health provided new exceptions and 
limitations.)  Why should this instrument provide more rights and fewer 
exceptions?

7. Why should the SCCR give priority to broadcasters when it has yet to 
address the rights of performers?

8. How is the work on the protection of broadcasting, cablecasting and 
webcasting organizations consistent with the WIPO Development Agenda 
that was approved at the WIPO General Assembly in October 2004?

9. If 'casting' organizations are not interested in acquiring rights in 
content, why don't they support a signal protection based approach?

10. How will the SCCR ensure that the level of protection for 'casting' 
organizations does not exceed the rights of other right holders 
(copyright holders and performers) for the content being broadcasted?

11. What is the economic rationale for a term of protection for 
broadcasts of 50 years?  Do broadcast organizations invest based upon 
50-year business plans?

12. How does the broadcasters treaty shrink the public domain?

13. How do librarians, educators, the blind and consumers overcome the 
new technological protection measures and digital rights management 
systems to obtain access to public domain materials?

14. If investment is a valid basis for giving broadcasters 50 year 
rights in material they did not create and do not own, then will this 
rationale carry over to the debate over rights in databases?

      Technological Protection Measures (TPMs)

15. Copyright owners assert that technological protection measures were 
put into the WCT and WPPT to provide an incentive to put previously 
unavailable digital copyrighted works online. In contrast, broadcasters 
already make their content widely available. What credible evidence is 
there to support the claim that broadcasters have inadequate investment 
incentives to justify a new broadcaster TPM regime?

16. If the stated objective of the treaty is to protect broadcast 
organizations' signals  independent of the content carried by the 
signal, and the copyrighted content is already protected  by copyright 
holder TPMs, why do broadcasters need legally sanctioned TPMs to protect 
against theft of their signal?

17. Where is the evidence that TPMs in any context have had any success 
in keeping unauthorized works off the Internet?

      Webcasting

18. Why are new exclusive rights for webcasters justifiable? Given the 
number of well-capitalized webcasting enterprises on the Internet, and 
the explosion of webcasting activity, are a new layer of exclusive 
rights on top of copyright really needed to encourage webcasting?

19. Will the proposed webcasters' rights harm copyright owners by 
creating rival channels to exploit works?

20. Has WIPO evaluated the possible harm of creating a new layer of 
exclusive rights for webcasters?  What is the harm from restricting the 
free flow of public domain works?  Will the new layer of rights for 
webcasters reduce access by educators, the blind, libraries or others?

21. If webcasters are granted these rights, won't exceptions have to be 
granted for every Internet entity that helps to transmit the webcast 
content, in the same way that exceptions have had to be granted for ISPs 
for transmitting copyrighted content on the Internet?

Selected links to civil society NGO pages on the proposed Treaty on the 
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

Consumer Project on Technology: 
www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/wipo-casting.html

Electronic Frontier Foundation: www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/

IP Justice: www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/

Union for the Public Domain: 
www.public-domain.org/node/view/47?PHPSESSID=f77cd744ebe07793af3d6d4bc43a5404


-- 
James Love | Consumer Project on Technology
www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176

Related searches:
public domain content broadcast treaty
gipoco.com is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.