Describe the new page here.
Seth forwarded this:
> Next week, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) > Standing Committee on Copyright and related Rights (SCCR)will > meet in Geneva from Monday to Wednesday Nov 21-23, 2005 to > discuss a new instrument that will provide intellectual property > rights to broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting > organizations. A coalition of NGOs which have been involved in > the process are preparing a statement recommending that the > Committee clarifies and limits the scope of the treaty. See Joint > Statement at: > http://homepage.mac.com/nashtonhart/FileSharing1.html > Let me know if you're interested in signing the statement or if > you have questions.
I (Laura Creighton) think we should sign. The creators of media works need protection from the distributors, again.
This is from the posting.
> Background: > > What is at stake? The proposed treaty for the protection of > broadcasting organizations being negotiated at WIPO will create a > new intellectual property right. Broadcasters, cablecasters and > webcasters or organizations that make broadcast or <93>beam<94> audio > visual works and make them available to the public will be > granted a 50 year exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the > copying, fixation or redistribution of such works, among other > rights. These new rights, called <93>related rights<94> in Europe, will > be an additional layer of rights on top of copyright owners<92> > existing rights. When the broadcast, cablecast or webcast > includes non-copyrighted works (either in the public domain or > not copyrightable like facts), the transmitter, i.e. the > broadcasting, cablecasting or webcasting organizations will be > granted exclusive rights to control the works they transmit. > Although, this is presented as a simple update of the Rome > Convention (which the US never signed), it goes beyond what is > required in the TRIPS[i]. Furthermore, by adding webcasting > organizations to the list of beneficiaries, the treaty drafters > are creating a new intellectual property rights regime for the > Internet. > > Presented as an anti-piracy treaty to protect a signal[ii], the > treaty will in fact give intermediaries more power and control > over creators (copyright owners and performers) and the public. > Furthermore, by adding webcasting organizations as a new > beneficiary of intellectual property rights, the treaty will > change how the Internet functions and its use. It will add to the > already existing thicket of rights for audiovisual work and > multimedia works that create obstacles for creators, distributors > and the public. Like new tollbooths on the Internet, the new > rights will slow down traffic and prevent the dissemination of > information and various works. > > The discussions on this controversial treaty have been going on > since 1998 but the WIPO secretariat, with the help of the US > delegation, is now putting pressure on members states to agree to > a diplomatic conference by 2006. We have been asking the US > delegation to answer the following questions: > > Has there been any analysis of how US law would have to change if > the treaty is passed? > Has there been any analysis or concern about how this new > intellectual property right would impact copyright owners? > Has there been any analysis of the unintended consequences of > creating a new right of transmission that does not exist in any > country for the Internet? > Has there been any analysis on how the new intellectual property > right would affect the orphan works problems? > Has there been any analysis of the impact of the webcasting > provisions on podcasting and on peer-to-peer networks? > > The US delegation headed by Mike Keplinger of the USPTO and Jule > Sigall of the Copyright Office have confirmed that there has been > no analysis or attempt to answer these questions. There has been > no public consultation on this controversial treaty and we are > now asking for a federal register notice before a final draft is > negotiated at WIPO in Geneva. By that time, it will be difficult > to change the broad scope and the language of the treaty. We > believe that the public, copyright owners and performers, small > webcasters and others would have much to say about this proposed > treaty if given the opportunity to comment. > > More information at: > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html > > November 2, 2005. Jonathan Krim for the Washington Post. Weighing > Webcasters' Rights to Content. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/02/ > AR2005110203187.html > > October 13, 2005. Letter from 17 NGOs, 7 law professors and 31 > music and technology experts, asking the leadership of the the > U.S. House and Senate for a period of public comment on the > treaty proposals. > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/2cong4frnotice.html > > September 26, 2005. Column by James Boyle in the Financial Times. > More Rights Are Wrong for Webcasters. > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html > > [i] In Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement: broadcasters "shall > have the right to prohibit the following acts when undertaken > without their authorization: the fixation, the reproduction of > fixations, and the rebroadcasting by wireless means of > broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of > television broadcasts of the same. Where Members do not grant > such rights to broadcasting organizations, they shall provide > owners of copyright in the subject matter of broadcasts with the > possibility of preventing the above acts, subject to the > provisions of the Berne Convention (1971)." > > [ii] broadcasting organizations are already protected all over > the world if not under a related rights regime under other > regulatory regimes. In the US broadcasting organizations > protection is under the communications law which provides a > direct right for broadcasters to control the use and > dissemination of their signals (Section 325 of the Comm. Act from > 1934, as amended, 47 USC Section 325). The provision was > originally enacted as part of the Radio Act of 1927, prohibiting > the rebroadcasting of a station's signal without the originating > station's consent. It has since been expanded to cover the new > cable and satellite retransmission technologies developed later > in the 20th century. There are also separate civil and criminal > provisions prohibiting the unauthorized interception and > disclosure of certain wire, radio, and electronic communications > (see section 605 and 18 USC sections 2510-2512). Beyond these > direct statutory rights important additional sources of legal > protection under IP law can be used by broadcasters against > unauthorized use of a broadcaster's signal such as trademark > laws, the Lanham Act, and state competition laws, as well as the > Copyright law. > > > ************************************************ > Manon Anne Ress > manon.ress@cptech.org, > 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 > > > _ > Broadcast-discuss mailing list > Broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss
