Re: Re: News coverage of WIPO Broad/Web/Casting Treaty

You could make the same argument against book publishers. It is just a medium.

Broadcasters buy performance rights from copyright holders. If they can't enforce the performance right, they won't buy it, and it will then have no value to the copyright holder.

John Noble

At 11:10 AM -0500 11/19/03, Javier Perez wrote:
>Hi.
>This clipping has made me think, should broadcasters have any right
>at all?
>
>Let's divide broadcasting companies into two functions: broadcast
>(or webcast or wathever) and production. As producers of
>broadcasting material, they should have all rights copyright already
>gives them. But as Broadcasters, they should not have Any right at all!!
>"sweat of the brow" does not confer any right, despite Mr Ivins
>assertion. I think the Supreme Court said something about it
>on the phone book case. By its very nature, broadcasting
>just passes along facts without adding anything original.
>It is just a medium. Should a wire obtain ownership of the
>electrons that just happen to whiz momentarily by?
>Any new addition made by the broadcasting company is protected by
>their role as producer, not their role of broadcasters.
>
>Creating Broadcasting rights is a very bad idea.
>
>-------------------------
>
>November 6, 2003, Lisa Schlein, Voice of America, UN Discusses New
>Internet Copyright Treaty</a> Lisa Schlein, Voice of America.
>href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ecommerce/2003q4/001125.html
>
>
>On the other side of the debate is the U.S. National Association of
>Broadcasters, a trade group that represents the interests of about 1,000
>television and radio stations in the United States. One of its lawyers
>Benjamin Ivins says the consumer group's argument is completely false.
>
>"Even though that work, the content, is in the public domain, the
>protection of the signal and the effort that the broadcaster went
>through in providing that work, making it available for public
>performance to the public ought to be protected," he said. "That has
>nothing to do with the inherent public domain status of the work."
>
>Mr. Ivins says the aim of the treaty is to protect the investment the
>broadcasters put into producing the programs, and the increased
>investment often required to update them years later. He says older
>works that are in the public domain would stay there. But he says
>companies that enhance older material and release it in a new form,
>would have a copyright on that new version.
>
>
>===============
>
>
>
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
>To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
>Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
>Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
><https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Received on Thu Nov 20 2003 - 01:45:11 GMT