Posted on 05/09/2007 11:51:28 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
A coalition of consumer groups and corporations that includes everyone from IP Justice to AT&T has just issued a statement calling on the US WIPO delegation to opppose WIPO's proposed Broadcast Treaty in its current form. In the letter, the groups worry that the treaty's support for worldwide legal rules regulating any device that can decrypt video signals "would presumably require wholesale regulation of general purpose computers and other devices, and have significant harmful consequences for the technology industry generally."
We've taken a detailed look at the treaty before, but let's refresh our collective memories. The Broadcast Treaty has been under development at WIPO for years, but it should be finalized within the next 12 months. The treaty is designed to give broadcasters more control over their signals, but early drafts adopted a "rights-based" approach that would give broadcasters a new intellectual property right over their signals.
Why is this a bad idea? The new letter sums up the argument in a single sentence: "the rights-based approach creates the specter of direct and secondary infringement liability risks for telecommunications intermediaries, network service providers, device manufacturers, and end-users of broadcast and cablecast content." Broadcasters who show public-domain material, for instance, would gain a right to their broadcast of that material and could restrict the way it is used. Even the US Senate has its doubts about a rights-based regime.
As noted above, the signatories (including AMD, the Consumer Electronics Association, Creative Comments, CTIA, Dell, the EFF, Google, Intel, Verizon, and others) are also deeply troubled about extending DMCA-like protections into a worldwide regulatory framework.
What's truly odd about the current situation is that the rights-based approach is still being considered by the chair of the working committee—a Finn named Jukka Liedes—despite explicit guidance from the WIPO General Assembly last year that ordered the group to adopt a "signal theft" approach. Such an approach would give broadcasters specific legal rights to stop piracy without creating a new IP right.
Ars had a chance to hear from Michael Keplinger, the WIPO Deputy Director General, at a recent conference, where he claimed that WIPO had in fact committed itself to the rights-based approach. He sounded less than thrilled that NGOs and other advocacy groups were now taking an active role in monitoring WIPO meetings, saying that they have "complicated the process." WIPO increasingly has to take technology companies and users into account, Keplinger said—though without much apparent enthusiasm at the prospect.
Such organizations are certainly raising their collective voice and can't be ignored. On the other side of the debate, though, are the broadcasters, a powerful lobby who generally would prefer more rights to fewer, along with protection for encrypted signals.
The treaty's end game is approaching; we should know in the next few months how all of this shakes out. Those who want more background should consult our in-depth look at the treaty, along with the following links.
He sounded less than thrilled that NGOs and other advocacy groups were now taking an active role in monitoring WIPO meetings, saying that they have "complicated the process."
Our overlords do not like it when we keep tabs on them. They make meetings open because they have to, but this shows that they really hope none of us show up so that they can do whatever they want unopposed.
I’ll be the first to say that Intellectual Property rights must be protected, just as do Real Property ownership rights.
But is this necessary? Or a pretext to quash any annoying opportunities for Free Speech that Thompson/McCain/Feingold, a renewed push for a ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and all kinds of Hate Speech legislation doesn’t cover....
.
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1829786/posts
.
.
.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled NewThink.
This is some evil stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.