Civil Society Coalition Statement to the WIPO SCCR on opposition to
the Inclusion of Webcasting/Simulcasting in proposed treaty for the
protection of Broadcasting Organizations
WIPO SCCR
Geneva, Switzerland
November 23, 2005
The Civil Society Coalition opposes the creation a new intellectual property right to protect investment, rather than creative activity, for webcasting organizations.
We ask the Chair for the right to submit a longer statement for the record, but to summarize the main points in our oral presentation.
As noted by Brazil in yesterday’s discussion, the webcasting proposal is essential a new system of Internet regulation.
The Webcasting proposal is not about the protection of copyright, which has a robust and strong legal framework, but rather an effort to radically change the ownership of information and knowledge goods, based upon who transmits information, rather than who creates the work.
If we extended this logic further, should we consider granting an intellectual property right to Amazon Books, because they made books available to the public?
We note that the United States has not considered such a legal regime in its own Congress. Why is WIPO being asked to create a treaty for this new form of Internet regulation, when none of the WIPO members think it is important enough to enact in their national legislatures?
What is webcasting?
The definitions of webcasting activities in the treaty are not meaningfully restrictive. The protected content is any combination or representations of images or sounds that are made "accessible to the public . . . at substantially the same time." This is basically the definition of a web page.
Proponents of the inclusion of webcasting argue that they are simply seeking technological neutrality, by extending a legal regime that some countries have adapted for broadcasting to the Internet. But this begs the question that is most important. Why is the Internet so much different from television or radio? It is because nearly every user of the Internet is a also a publisher. People exchange, share and remix information on the Internet in ways that are not done for traditional TV or radio. The Internet is different from traditional television and radio and that is a good thing, and something worth protecting.
The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights should reject this attempt to create a new legal regime that would introduce a new and unwanted form of regulation of the distribution of information on the Internet.
---The following is the longer version for the record---
The Civil Society Coalition opposes the creation a new intellectual property right to protect investment, rather than creative activity, for webcasting organizations.
(We ask the Chair for the right to submit a longer statement for the record, but to summarize the main points in our oral presentation).
As noted by Brazil in yesterday’s discussion, the webcasting proposal is essential a new system of Internet regulation. This proposal has been often presented to the news media as something that is associated with piracy of copyrighted information, which of course is deliberately misleading.
Copyrighted material is already protected by a plethora of copyright laws, treaties and trade agreements, including the WTO TRIPS Accord, the Berne Convention, the two 1996 WIPO Internet treaties (the WCT and the WPPT), and a growing web of bilateral trade agreements. Virtually all of the major copyright holder organizations have opposed the webcasting treaty proposal.
The Webcasting proposal is not about the protection of copyright, which has a robust and strong legal framework, but rather an effort to radically change the ownership of information and knowledge goods, based upon who transmits information, rather than who creates the work.
If we extended this logic further, should we consider granting an intellectual property right to Amazon Books, because they made books available to the public?
The Webcasting regulation will have a negative impact on the rights of the general public and the rights of copyright holders.
We note that the United States has not considered such a legal regime in its own Congress. If there is truly a compelling need to regulate the Internet in this way, and to completely change the intellectual property system, then why are not countries in North America or Europe rushing to enact such proposals in their own countries?
Why is WIPO being asked to create a treaty for this new form of Internet regulation, when none of the WIPO members think it is important enough to enact in their national legislatures?
What is webcasting?
The definitions of webcasting activities in the treaty are not meaningfully restrictive. The protected content is any combination or representations of images or sounds that are made "accessible to the public . . . at substantially the same time." This is basically the definition of a web page.
(a) "webcasting" means the making accessible to the public of transmissions of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof, by wire or wireless means over a computer network at substantially the same time. Such transmissions, when encrypted, shall be considered as "webcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the webcasting organization or with its consent.
(b) "webcasting organization" means the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof, and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission;
By making any work available to the public, the web page owner will suddenly accrue a layer of rights, with no creative input whatsoever, even if the work itself is in the public domain or copyrighted someone else. If the work were already under copyright, those who obtain it from the web page and want to use the work would be forced to clear rights from both the copyright owner and the owner of the web page that distributed the work. These new rights are cumulative, involving the entire chain of intermediaries who have played a role in the dissemination of the work. Given the way information is currently disseminated on the Internet, this is will lead to an enormous increase in transaction costs for clearing rights.
This new right would allow webcasters to effectively lock up works in the public domain, and place restrictions on the distribution of works that were freely licensed under creative commons type licenses. It would also create an economic claim to remuneration in cases involving unauthorized or collective management of intellectual property rights, that would compete with the rights of the copyright owners.
The new layer of rights and the creation of new regulation of the distribution of content would be harmful for innovation, reduce access to works, and it will change the nature of the Internet in ways that have not been acknowledged by the proponents of this regime.
Only a small number of webcasters are asking that they be given the same exclusive rights that the treaty would give to broadcasters and cablecasters. Many other Internet companies, including some webcasters, "reject the idea that the Internet needs or will benefit from the extension of these pseudo-copyrights to so-called 'Webcasters.' For these companies, adding a new layer of intermediaries with rights over and above copyright holders will benefit no one but those intermediaries. "If an Internet company has the rights to a work, or need not secure the rights to a work due to a limitation in copyright, or because the work is in the public domain, there is no rational reason to require that the company also seek the permission of a further intermediary whose sole creative contribution to the work is in making it available."
We are concerned by the "Working Paper on Alternative and Non- Mandatory Solutions for the protection in relation to Webcasting" prepared by the Chair of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.
Despite the concerted opposition to the inclusion of webcasting, the paper sets out a series of options on how to include webcasting. This paper contains a number of fundamental flaws including:
Proponents of the inclusion of webcasting argue that they are simply seeking technological neutrality, by extending a legal regime that some countries have adapted for broadcasting to the Internet. But this begs the question that is most important. Why is the Internet so much different from television or radio? It is because nearly every user of the Internet is a also a publisher. The Internet is a two-way communications medium. The cost of transmitting information on the Internet is low and falling. People exchange, share and remix information on the Internet in ways that are not done for traditional TV or radio. The Internet is different from traditional television and radio and that is a good thing, and something worth protecting.
The proposed webcasting treaty would:
It is important that the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights absolutely reject this attempt to create a new legal regime that would introduce a new and unwanted form of regulation of the distribution of information on the Internet.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT