The new HD technologies include anti-user nasties like "renewability" -- the ability to remotely disable some or all of the device's features without your permission. If someone, somewhere, figures out how to use your DVD burner to make copies of Hollywood movies, they can switch off *everyone's* burner, punishing a limitless number of innocents to get at a few guilty parties.
The HD DRM systems also include gems like "selectable output control" -- wherein? some programs will refuse to be played on some devices. As you flip up and down the dial, parts of your home theater will go dark. Creepier still is "authorized domain" -- the ability to flag content so that it can only be played within a "household," where the studios get to define what is and isn't a valid living arrangement.
On top of these restrictions are the punishing "robustness" regimes that come with HD DRM systems. These are the rules manufacturers have to follow to ensure that the anti-user stuff in their devices isn't compromised. It's a requirement to add expensive armor to products that stop a device's owner from opening up her device to see what's inside, and make changes. That's bad news for open source, of course, since open source is all about being able to look at, modify and republish the code that runs a device.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193005696
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Gilberto Gil rocks!
Gilberto Gil, an internationally acclaimed musician and songwriter since the 1960s, is Brazil’s Minister of Culture. Educated in his native state of Bahia, Gil has lived and travelled extensively abroad and speaks four languages fluently. He reflects the Brazilian government’s position of caution about the rapid rise of intellectual property rights policy and protection globally, and has released some of his music under a Creative Commons license. Gil is leading the Brazilian delegation to the 25 September to 3 October World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly, where the agenda includes a proposal to negotiate a broadcasters’ rights treaty and a decision on continuing debate about a WIPO development agenda.
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What has brought you to Geneva?
Gilberto Gil (GIL): Yes, I am here for the General Assembly of WIPO, which is an international organization of the UN system, getting many countries together and proposing treaties and legal frameworks and regulatory standards for the intellectual property-related aspects of the economy. So I’m here as a minister of culture to participate in the discussions, especially this year they are discussing something that relates directly to our area, the broadcast treaty that is being proposed.
Basically this time here is for that. Also for the development agenda that has been proposed by Brazil and some other countries. It’s been also subjected to appreciation by members of WIPO, and I think in this matter of the development agenda, we are advancing basically all the African nations, South American countries now strongly support the agenda because the association between development and creativity and intellectual property-related goods and services is understood as something crucial and strategic for the whole global economy. So it’s progressing now. A sort of sceptical position held by some developed countries before has changed, now they consider the fact that the development agenda should be implemented, and we feel comfortable about that. The meeting of the assembly [on 25 September] showed very clearly that we are progressing in this matter.
As far as the broadcasting treaty, there is a cautious position by many countries including Brazil, because of the interests involved. We think that we should discuss it deeper and more extensively and avoid the imposition of a new layer of rights given to the holders of the broadcast companies, because the existing legal framework is in our view sufficient, the guarantee of the rights and for the need for functioning and so forth. The argument of the big companies is that piracy regarding the signals is becoming something very difficult, and we think a treaty should go directly to that point. Our government thinks we should consider something exactly on the point of guaranteeing [protection] for the signal holders. That should be sufficient, and not necessarily [a] new treaty giving extra rights, extra power and monopolising conditions to the companies.
This is our position, and I think that many countries agree about that. If they don’t necessarily agree about this matter of substance, they at least agree that we should postpone the diplomatic conference so we can discuss and guarantee all the different states’ positions and solve the matter, clear the doubts and the questions about it. I think those are the two main things as far as Brazil is concerned for this assembly.
IPW: You have a leadership quality, everybody in the world knows you and loves your music and ideas. Is your presence here in part in order to put a little extra impact on the position or are you just here as a government functionary?
GIL: A government functionary. That is not on my side. We are not using an extra dimension that I have, to add to the pressure elements that we could have here. I’m just as a minister, whoever would be the minister would be here to do that. It happens that I am from the area, from the sector, I am an artist, I’m involved with the universe of communications, broadcasting, media, and so and so, which brings a visibility and a little more sort of exposure to the Brazilian representation here, which is good but it’s not intentional in the sense, ‘Let’s send our minister who is a pop star so we can use his pop star status to add value to our political side.’ It’s just coincidence.
IPW: On broadcasting, I think at least one country has sought to extend the treaty to webcasting and simulcasting, the rest of the world said, ‘We are not ready for that’ and so it was agreed to take it out…
GIL: It’s been agreed, it is agreed, so now as far as our understanding goes, we are separating the two things, the Internet and the traditional broadcasts. This decision should be maintained we suppose. It’s been agreed even by the United States.
IPW: Then my question is that if it is already agreed, then that agreement cannot be undone before the negotiation that would take place next summer. If it is postponed, then webcasting and broadcasting could be reintroduced. If you want to limit it to signal piracy, why not let it move ahead without these other elements?
GIL: Because we have no consensus on the different matters regarding the different opinions and different proposals by different countries, so there’s a lot of work to be done. So we should proceed taking into account the decisions already made. We should separate traditional broadcast and electronic and Internet broadcasts. This is a point agreed upon, so we should continue from that point. But then there are many, many other aspects and details, included by different countries that should be negotiated so that we can get to a minimum common ground regarding the whole of the treaty and all the matters conveyed. Only when this consensus is obtained or close to being obtained, only then should we call for a diplomatic conference. I think this is the position now of the United States, and Brazil, Argentina, South American countries, Asian countries, South Africa and other African countries, and I think even the European Union.
IPW: There have been some eight years of discussion on this now. But it’s not a matter of how long but rather how close you are to agreement? Also, I’ve noticed some apparent differences between some developing countries on this. Some oppose, seem not to be pushing for it nor opposed, and some seem to say they see a need for this. Is there a split between developing countries?
GIL: I think the developing countries, they all consider that the signal piracy should be attacked, this is basically agreed by everybody. On the other matters, sometimes the developing or least developed countries don’t try to push or be absolutely clear about their position, but this is like diplomacy, not only on that matter. There will always be a group of countries that move forward, take the lead, and then act in the name of the others. This is the case of Brazil, for instance, [which] understands the role that should be played by a country with such a big territory and big population and a cultural diversity, and a strong broadcast economic sector. Brazil naturally moves a little faster and a little bolder than other developing countries and because of that it takes the lead and assumes a representing role.
IPW: If you were just starting out now, you were the young Gilberto Gil today, maybe making your first album, would you have a better opportunity now or did you have a better opportunity then to get your ideas out, get them known and receive payment for them?
GIL: It’s different today. We have a much, much larger number of competitors, newcomers, different from how it was when I started. But at the same time, the means of exposure and means of reaching the market out there, we have a better situation today. The tools that we have today are quite significant in terms of efficiency compared to how it was when I started. So I think that today, if I was a beginner, I would basically go for large use of new tools, new means, strong support of intellectual property flexibility, welcome to initiatives like Creative Commons and peer-to-peer, and fair use, and copyleft, and all those new things that are there, and Internet as an instrument for propagating the presence of our music. I’m acting as if I was young and a beginner.
IPW: Are you concerned about digital rights management, technical protection measures, efforts by holders of rights of music to protect it? I don’t know in your case who has the rights to your music.
GIL: I have the rights to my music, I had a big fight for almost eight years with my editors. There were at least three or four different editors, and I fought during seven years to have my copyrights back. I got it, and since then I have my own editing company.
IPW: Do you worry about piracy at all?
GIL: I worry as anybody else, but at the same time I don’t get nervous and anxious about enforcing, [using] repressive means. I think that together with enforcing the repression, the policing and escalating processes, I think that also “flexibilising,” using new business models, using new forms of approaching audiences and things are also ways to fight piracy, to annul the piracy actions.
IPW: On Creative Commons, why did you choose to issue some of your music under the licenses?
GIL: To say yes. To say yes, this is valuable, this is a new instrument, this is a new possibility, this is a new political element that society should use to improve this concept of opening and creating culture and multiplying the possibilities for multiple players. Let’s get back to balancing the concept of protection of individual rights, authors’ rights, and public domain and public access, the public dimension of culture. It’s like Creative Commons licenses help more than the opposite, they are more positive than negative.
IPW: How did you choose which songs or which previous recordings to put under Creative Commons license, and how did you choose which licenses among those that they have?
GIL: Well, I got some songs and then I said let’s get some different licenses considering how far I wanted to go in terms of giving free access to them, if just half-way or all the way through, and keeping some rights protected and letting some others go. Also to show everybody that we can go from all rights reserved to none, and places in between.
IPW: You kept some licenses?
GIL: Sure. The [CC] licenses that I use allow people to use the songs, use parts of the songs, reshape the songs, and everything, but when it comes to the commercial exploitation of them, we should at least be consulted and then go for an authorising or not.
IPW: Have you had pressure from industry or from anyone not to use the Creative Commons license?
GIL: Yes, a little from my record company at the time.
IPW: Can you give an example of something you’ve really liked that someone did with your music as a result of your having put your music out there?
GIL: No, I’m not really following it in terms of that. I just give the material, put the material there, support the Creative Commons concept, let’s go, let’s do it. What I know is that for instance, licenses in the Creative Commons were up to 45-50 million last year. They’ve come to 150 million this year. So it’s moving fast. I’m glad that I could sort of be part of that process as it kicks off.
IPW: Is there anything you’d like to say on WIPO or any other policies or politics in Geneva?
GIL: I had a meeting with the president of WIPO [on 25 September], and I was very much enthusiastic about the future role about the future role we think WIPO should play in terms of interpreting the trends, the tendencies, of intellectual property flexibility, inclusion, as the president himself puts it. Meaning, not just including as many as possible number of countries in the functioning of the institution today, but also inclusion in the sense that we should include the new themes, the new demands, and intellectual property flexibilities is one of the main things today. Not only considering the protection of the authors and of the authors’ rights, but also taking care of the public domain, of the social role of intellectual property, democratisation, universalisation, all of those contexts that should be referential to the work of an organisation like WIPO today already but mainly in the future. So like horizon, we were discussing horizon ahead of us for the next years. This is, I think, besides the regular day-to-day process of the subjects, and the multilateral and bilateral situations for WIPO, we should consider this advancing in terms of substance, of policy, I would even use the word ideology.
Intellectual Property Watch, 26/9/2006
Inside Views: Interview With Gilberto Gil, Brazil’s Culture Minister
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
(Thanks William New from A2K)
Intellectual Property Watch (IPW): What has brought you to Geneva?
Gilberto Gil (GIL): Yes, I am here for the General Assembly of WIPO, which is an international organization of the UN system, getting many countries together and proposing treaties and legal frameworks and regulatory standards for the intellectual property-related aspects of the economy. So I’m here as a minister of culture to participate in the discussions, especially this year they are discussing something that relates directly to our area, the broadcast treaty that is being proposed.
Basically this time here is for that. Also for the development agenda that has been proposed by Brazil and some other countries. It’s been also subjected to appreciation by members of WIPO, and I think in this matter of the development agenda, we are advancing basically all the African nations, South American countries now strongly support the agenda because the association between development and creativity and intellectual property-related goods and services is understood as something crucial and strategic for the whole global economy. So it’s progressing now. A sort of sceptical position held by some developed countries before has changed, now they consider the fact that the development agenda should be implemented, and we feel comfortable about that. The meeting of the assembly [on 25 September] showed very clearly that we are progressing in this matter.
As far as the broadcasting treaty, there is a cautious position by many countries including Brazil, because of the interests involved. We think that we should discuss it deeper and more extensively and avoid the imposition of a new layer of rights given to the holders of the broadcast companies, because the existing legal framework is in our view sufficient, the guarantee of the rights and for the need for functioning and so forth. The argument of the big companies is that piracy regarding the signals is becoming something very difficult, and we think a treaty should go directly to that point. Our government thinks we should consider something exactly on the point of guaranteeing [protection] for the signal holders. That should be sufficient, and not necessarily [a] new treaty giving extra rights, extra power and monopolising conditions to the companies.
This is our position, and I think that many countries agree about that. If they don’t necessarily agree about this matter of substance, they at least agree that we should postpone the diplomatic conference so we can discuss and guarantee all the different states’ positions and solve the matter, clear the doubts and the questions about it. I think those are the two main things as far as Brazil is concerned for this assembly.
IPW: You have a leadership quality, everybody in the world knows you and loves your music and ideas. Is your presence here in part in order to put a little extra impact on the position or are you just here as a government functionary?
GIL: A government functionary. That is not on my side. We are not using an extra dimension that I have, to add to the pressure elements that we could have here. I’m just as a minister, whoever would be the minister would be here to do that. It happens that I am from the area, from the sector, I am an artist, I’m involved with the universe of communications, broadcasting, media, and so and so, which brings a visibility and a little more sort of exposure to the Brazilian representation here, which is good but it’s not intentional in the sense, ‘Let’s send our minister who is a pop star so we can use his pop star status to add value to our political side.’ It’s just coincidence.
IPW: On broadcasting, I think at least one country has sought to extend the treaty to webcasting and simulcasting, the rest of the world said, ‘We are not ready for that’ and so it was agreed to take it out…
GIL: It’s been agreed, it is agreed, so now as far as our understanding goes, we are separating the two things, the Internet and the traditional broadcasts. This decision should be maintained we suppose. It’s been agreed even by the United States.
IPW: Then my question is that if it is already agreed, then that agreement cannot be undone before the negotiation that would take place next summer. If it is postponed, then webcasting and broadcasting could be reintroduced. If you want to limit it to signal piracy, why not let it move ahead without these other elements?
GIL: Because we have no consensus on the different matters regarding the different opinions and different proposals by different countries, so there’s a lot of work to be done. So we should proceed taking into account the decisions already made. We should separate traditional broadcast and electronic and Internet broadcasts. This is a point agreed upon, so we should continue from that point. But then there are many, many other aspects and details, included by different countries that should be negotiated so that we can get to a minimum common ground regarding the whole of the treaty and all the matters conveyed. Only when this consensus is obtained or close to being obtained, only then should we call for a diplomatic conference. I think this is the position now of the United States, and Brazil, Argentina, South American countries, Asian countries, South Africa and other African countries, and I think even the European Union.
IPW: There have been some eight years of discussion on this now. But it’s not a matter of how long but rather how close you are to agreement? Also, I’ve noticed some apparent differences between some developing countries on this. Some oppose, seem not to be pushing for it nor opposed, and some seem to say they see a need for this. Is there a split between developing countries?
GIL: I think the developing countries, they all consider that the signal piracy should be attacked, this is basically agreed by everybody. On the other matters, sometimes the developing or least developed countries don’t try to push or be absolutely clear about their position, but this is like diplomacy, not only on that matter. There will always be a group of countries that move forward, take the lead, and then act in the name of the others. This is the case of Brazil, for instance, [which] understands the role that should be played by a country with such a big territory and big population and a cultural diversity, and a strong broadcast economic sector. Brazil naturally moves a little faster and a little bolder than other developing countries and because of that it takes the lead and assumes a representing role.
IPW: If you were just starting out now, you were the young Gilberto Gil today, maybe making your first album, would you have a better opportunity now or did you have a better opportunity then to get your ideas out, get them known and receive payment for them?
GIL: It’s different today. We have a much, much larger number of competitors, newcomers, different from how it was when I started. But at the same time, the means of exposure and means of reaching the market out there, we have a better situation today. The tools that we have today are quite significant in terms of efficiency compared to how it was when I started. So I think that today, if I was a beginner, I would basically go for large use of new tools, new means, strong support of intellectual property flexibility, welcome to initiatives like Creative Commons and peer-to-peer, and fair use, and copyleft, and all those new things that are there, and Internet as an instrument for propagating the presence of our music. I’m acting as if I was young and a beginner.
IPW: Are you concerned about digital rights management, technical protection measures, efforts by holders of rights of music to protect it? I don’t know in your case who has the rights to your music.
GIL: I have the rights to my music, I had a big fight for almost eight years with my editors. There were at least three or four different editors, and I fought during seven years to have my copyrights back. I got it, and since then I have my own editing company.
IPW: Do you worry about piracy at all?
GIL: I worry as anybody else, but at the same time I don’t get nervous and anxious about enforcing, [using] repressive means. I think that together with enforcing the repression, the policing and escalating processes, I think that also “flexibilising,” using new business models, using new forms of approaching audiences and things are also ways to fight piracy, to annul the piracy actions.
IPW: On Creative Commons, why did you choose to issue some of your music under the licenses?
GIL: To say yes. To say yes, this is valuable, this is a new instrument, this is a new possibility, this is a new political element that society should use to improve this concept of opening and creating culture and multiplying the possibilities for multiple players. Let’s get back to balancing the concept of protection of individual rights, authors’ rights, and public domain and public access, the public dimension of culture. It’s like Creative Commons licenses help more than the opposite, they are more positive than negative.
IPW: How did you choose which songs or which previous recordings to put under Creative Commons license, and how did you choose which licenses among those that they have?
GIL: Well, I got some songs and then I said let’s get some different licenses considering how far I wanted to go in terms of giving free access to them, if just half-way or all the way through, and keeping some rights protected and letting some others go. Also to show everybody that we can go from all rights reserved to none, and places in between.
IPW: You kept some licenses?
GIL: Sure. The [CC] licenses that I use allow people to use the songs, use parts of the songs, reshape the songs, and everything, but when it comes to the commercial exploitation of them, we should at least be consulted and then go for an authorising or not.
IPW: Have you had pressure from industry or from anyone not to use the Creative Commons license?
GIL: Yes, a little from my record company at the time.
IPW: Can you give an example of something you’ve really liked that someone did with your music as a result of your having put your music out there?
GIL: No, I’m not really following it in terms of that. I just give the material, put the material there, support the Creative Commons concept, let’s go, let’s do it. What I know is that for instance, licenses in the Creative Commons were up to 45-50 million last year. They’ve come to 150 million this year. So it’s moving fast. I’m glad that I could sort of be part of that process as it kicks off.
IPW: Is there anything you’d like to say on WIPO or any other policies or politics in Geneva?
GIL: I had a meeting with the president of WIPO [on 25 September], and I was very much enthusiastic about the future role about the future role we think WIPO should play in terms of interpreting the trends, the tendencies, of intellectual property flexibility, inclusion, as the president himself puts it. Meaning, not just including as many as possible number of countries in the functioning of the institution today, but also inclusion in the sense that we should include the new themes, the new demands, and intellectual property flexibilities is one of the main things today. Not only considering the protection of the authors and of the authors’ rights, but also taking care of the public domain, of the social role of intellectual property, democratisation, universalisation, all of those contexts that should be referential to the work of an organisation like WIPO today already but mainly in the future. So like horizon, we were discussing horizon ahead of us for the next years. This is, I think, besides the regular day-to-day process of the subjects, and the multilateral and bilateral situations for WIPO, we should consider this advancing in terms of substance, of policy, I would even use the word ideology.
Intellectual Property Watch, 26/9/2006
Inside Views: Interview With Gilberto Gil, Brazil’s Culture Minister
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
(Thanks William New from A2K)
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
UK: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A BALANCE The British Library Manifesto
The British Library have issued a position paper about DMCA and DRM. It is timely and relevant to Australia's situation.
http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/ipmanifesto.pdf
(Thanks Peter Miller)
http://www.bl.uk/news/pdf/ipmanifesto.pdf
(Thanks Peter Miller)
Monday, September 25, 2006
A2K: Highlights of Minister Gilberto Gil's (Ministry of Culture, Brazil) remarks to WIPO General Assembly 2006
We are living a historical moment when, more than ever, intellectual property deserves to be the object of a debate that corresponds to the breadth and complexity that this subject has acquired. We have seen that a number of sectors of the international community has become increasingly aware of the importance of discussing intellectual property in all its aspects, particularly its effects on social and economic development, as illustrated by the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public
Health.
It is clear to us that development will only be ensured if there is a balance between intellectual property rights and obligations and the public interest, as had been highlighted by the Ambassador of Argentina, on behalf of the Group of Friends of Development. If such balance is lost we will violate the nature of knowledge itself: we should never forget Thomas Jefferson's words, according to which there would not be any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property
than ideas, whose sharing does not necessarily harm anyone.
...
The Brazilian Government is concerned with the fact that the Basic Proposal for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, approved by the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, remains the object of disagreements and had not been able to please the majority of Members, both developed and developing.
Should this Assembly confirm the convening of a Diplomatic Conference with a view to finalizing the Treaty, we must be aware that many questions remain to be solved after several years of hard work on the subject, shedding doubt on the very opportunity of such a negotiating exercise.
The Brazilian Government calls for the Assembly to hold reasonable and comprehensive discussions on this subject. If the Diplomatic Conference is ultimately confirmed by this Assembly, notwithstanding many pending issues, we will be consciously assuming the risk of another failure at WIPO, repeating the outcome of the Diplomatic of the year 2000, meant to approve a new audiovisual treaty.
...
At the international level, many different organizations are already engaged in assessing the impacts of intellectual property. The UN, UNESCO, WTO, WHO, CBD, UNCTAD and many others have been contributing to the debate on intellectual property and development.
(Thanks to Thiru Balasubramaniam and the A2K CPTech list)
Health.
It is clear to us that development will only be ensured if there is a balance between intellectual property rights and obligations and the public interest, as had been highlighted by the Ambassador of Argentina, on behalf of the Group of Friends of Development. If such balance is lost we will violate the nature of knowledge itself: we should never forget Thomas Jefferson's words, according to which there would not be any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property
than ideas, whose sharing does not necessarily harm anyone.
...
The Brazilian Government is concerned with the fact that the Basic Proposal for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, approved by the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, remains the object of disagreements and had not been able to please the majority of Members, both developed and developing.
Should this Assembly confirm the convening of a Diplomatic Conference with a view to finalizing the Treaty, we must be aware that many questions remain to be solved after several years of hard work on the subject, shedding doubt on the very opportunity of such a negotiating exercise.
The Brazilian Government calls for the Assembly to hold reasonable and comprehensive discussions on this subject. If the Diplomatic Conference is ultimately confirmed by this Assembly, notwithstanding many pending issues, we will be consciously assuming the risk of another failure at WIPO, repeating the outcome of the Diplomatic of the year 2000, meant to approve a new audiovisual treaty.
...
At the international level, many different organizations are already engaged in assessing the impacts of intellectual property. The UN, UNESCO, WTO, WHO, CBD, UNCTAD and many others have been contributing to the debate on intellectual property and development.
(Thanks to Thiru Balasubramaniam and the A2K CPTech list)
Sunday, September 24, 2006
UK: Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science
Royal Society, 2003
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11403
In short, although IPRs are needed to stimulate innovation and investment, commercial forces are leading in some areas to legislation and case law that unreasonably and unnecessarily restrict freedom to access and use information and to carry out research. This restriction of the commons by patents, copyright and databases is not in the interests of society and unduly hampers scientific endeavour.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11403
In short, although IPRs are needed to stimulate innovation and investment, commercial forces are leading in some areas to legislation and case law that unreasonably and unnecessarily restrict freedom to access and use information and to carry out research. This restriction of the commons by patents, copyright and databases is not in the interests of society and unduly hampers scientific endeavour.
UK: Copyright hindering scholarship in the humanities and social sciences
The Academy publishes with the report a draft set of guidelines for Fellows and scholars on their rights and duties under copyright legislation. They include;
- authors and producers of original creative material should understand that their interests in copyright are not necessarily identical with those of publishers and should not rely on publishers to protect them;
- the law should be clarified - statutorily if necessary – to make clear that the use of copyright material in the normal course of scholarly research in universities and other public research institutions is covered by the exemptions from the copyright act;
- publishers should not be able to use legal or technological protection through digital rights management systems to circumvent copyright exemptions;
- the growth of digital databases should be monitored to ensure that ready access continues to be available for the purposes of scholarship.
http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/release.asp?Newsid=219
(Thanks Manon Ress CPTech)
- authors and producers of original creative material should understand that their interests in copyright are not necessarily identical with those of publishers and should not rely on publishers to protect them;
- the law should be clarified - statutorily if necessary – to make clear that the use of copyright material in the normal course of scholarly research in universities and other public research institutions is covered by the exemptions from the copyright act;
- publishers should not be able to use legal or technological protection through digital rights management systems to circumvent copyright exemptions;
- the growth of digital databases should be monitored to ensure that ready access continues to be available for the purposes of scholarship.
http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/release.asp?Newsid=219
(Thanks Manon Ress CPTech)
Saturday, September 23, 2006
UK user-generated sites: Who owns the content?
Sites like MySpace and YouTube are an interesting phenomenon for highlighting the inconsistencies in the copyright debate:
At recent industry fest IBC in Amsterdam, Robert Amlung, head of technology at German broadcaster ZDF, said its programme to encourage viewers to upload photos and videos to the ZDF website had proved a success, and was clear on rights. "We want to own the rights, so if someone puts images up on our site, they are giving their rights away," he said. It seems viewers can have the fame; the broadcaster wants the money.
But it's not the same if the user feels like using some of the broadcaster's content - even for no money. There are an uncountable number of TV clips (or entire TV shows) on sites like YouTube - which have led to repeated legal threats. Last week Doug Morris, chief executive of Universal Music, implied that YouTube others might be sued for tens of millions of dollars for the illegal posting of music videos.
That irked Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Jupiter Research: "If any action is taken against MySpace and YouTube then it will be an own goal," he observed. "It's time for record labels to wake up to the reality that the internet's prime role is not distribution but discovery."
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1876697,00.html
At recent industry fest IBC in Amsterdam, Robert Amlung, head of technology at German broadcaster ZDF, said its programme to encourage viewers to upload photos and videos to the ZDF website had proved a success, and was clear on rights. "We want to own the rights, so if someone puts images up on our site, they are giving their rights away," he said. It seems viewers can have the fame; the broadcaster wants the money.
But it's not the same if the user feels like using some of the broadcaster's content - even for no money. There are an uncountable number of TV clips (or entire TV shows) on sites like YouTube - which have led to repeated legal threats. Last week Doug Morris, chief executive of Universal Music, implied that YouTube others might be sued for tens of millions of dollars for the illegal posting of music videos.
That irked Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Jupiter Research: "If any action is taken against MySpace and YouTube then it will be an own goal," he observed. "It's time for record labels to wake up to the reality that the internet's prime role is not distribution but discovery."
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1876697,00.html
Thursday, September 21, 2006
ECommerce Times: Robin Gross on Broadcast Treaty
"Broadcasters argue they need the additional rights to fight piracy of their services. Civil liberties groups, developing nations and technology organizations maintain those additional rights will stifle technological innovation, freedom of expression and access to knowledge."
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/53106.html
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/53106.html
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Oct 3 is Day against DRM
Disney on DRM:
"If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed" - Disney Executive.
http://defectivebydesign.org/en/node
"If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed" - Disney Executive.
http://defectivebydesign.org/en/node
Monday, September 18, 2006
NZ: SCC wants to avoid data lock-out
New Zealand takes a sensible lead in drafting requirements for DRM systems:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3799364a28,00.html
(Thanks MotherLUG)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3799364a28,00.html
(Thanks MotherLUG)
The Government will consider vesting an agency with powers to strip digital restrictions off documents containing government information.
The State Services Commission released a set of policies advising government departments how to use digital rights management (DRM) - under which only certain software can open certain files - as well as Trusted Computing, which embeds technology in hardware to make information on it harder to view, steal or alter.
DRM is commonly used to impose restrictions on media files to prevent "piracy" of films and music, but can apply to any proprietary file formats that can only be read by certain software. Trusted Computing is a concept involving several technologies promoted by a group of industry heavyweights that include AMD, Microsoft, HP and IBM.
The SSC wants to ensure government agencies can always access their own information. It says government agencies must not use DRM or Trusted Computing unless there's a clear business reason to do so.
They also call for an independent agency - probably Archives New Zealand - to hold "master keys" to all tools that government agencies applied to restrict access to documents. This would let it strip DRM protection from documents to regain control of the information in them if it needed to.
Without a master key, the SSC fears the Government might not be able to access documents if software companies went bust, refused to support older versions of their products, or got into a dispute with the Government.
The policies also ensure digital restrictions used by the Government don't violate citizen's privacy rights.
State Services Commission spokesman Jason Ryan says the policies are deliberately written without mentioning New Zealand, in the hope that other countries might adopt the same guidelines.
"We wanted the document to spark debates in other jurisdictions," he says.
Mr Ryan says if more countries adopt similar policies, software and hardware vendors would be more likely to start designing products to meet their requirements.
Trusted Computing is controversial with privacy groups because it can involve recording the software that is used on computers to verify DRM hasn't been compromised.
It's more commonly used to encrypt data on a hard drive so it can't be accessed if it's stolen, and to make computers less susceptible to viruses.
So far DRM tools have been relatively easy to circumvent.
However, if DRM is combined with Trusted Computing - for example, by ensuring a file can only be run on the computer that created it, or with software that hasn't been altered - the prospect of users being locked out of documents could become a more pressing issue.
Kim Weatherall: The TPM Exposure Draft: what does it mean for ... consumers?
Kim has been following the copyright process and has posted a thorough article on her assessment of its impact on consumers.
Summary: consumers are worse off under the Exposure Draft than they are under current law. This is because they now risk liability where they did not before (liability for the individual act of circumvention has been introduced). This is the intended effect of the laws, and was inevitable under the FTA. The hot-button issues for consumers, however, are:
1. region-coding: here, the result is a little murky;
2. spare parts (printer cartridges, garage door openers): problem avoided;
3. the making of back-ups: there will be no such right. Unfortunate, but probably inevitable. But note that so far, the making of more than one copy or provision of replacement copies is tending to be accommodated (iTunes).
One important point to note for consumers is that there is little in this package to protect us from malfunctioning TPMs, or even evil wicked mean and nasty Sony Root-kit type TPMs.
Doctorow: Excellent speech on DRM impact on society.
Doctorow looks at characteristics of business models which indicate that they are not internet ready.
Google Video
Lift conference
http://www.lift06.org/2006/
Last February, I gave a keynote on copyright and DRM at the LIFT conference in Geneva, joining speakers like Euan Semple, Hugh Macleod, Robert Scoble, Bruce Sterling, Regine Debatty, Jasmina Tesanovic, and many others. The videos from all the talks have just been posted on Google Video, including mine -- some good viewing there.
Google Video
Lift conference
http://www.lift06.org/2006/
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
WIPO Broadcast Treaty process excludes NGO perspectives
"Normally, NGOs can speak, and often their contributions address important substantive and strategic issues overlooked or not adequately explored during the interventions by governments, partly because governments are often constrained by diplomatic and political considerations. There is certainly plenty of time. The meetings have started late, and often adjourned early, and many countries are saying very little during the debates.
One interpretation of decision to stop the public from speaking is to control the perception that there is a consensus in favor of a new intellectual property right for broadcasting and cablecasting entities, in a model that will likely be extended to the Internet in different ways.
Given the poor track record of government negotiators in protecting the public interest in several recent negotiations on intellectual property rights, ** it is certainly rational to ask if government voices are sufficient in these debates."
James Love at the WIPO Broadcast Treaty Negotiations
http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/
One interpretation of decision to stop the public from speaking is to control the perception that there is a consensus in favor of a new intellectual property right for broadcasting and cablecasting entities, in a model that will likely be extended to the Internet in different ways.
Given the poor track record of government negotiators in protecting the public interest in several recent negotiations on intellectual property rights, ** it is certainly rational to ask if government voices are sufficient in these debates."
James Love at the WIPO Broadcast Treaty Negotiations
http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Asian Group: TPMs stifle technological innovation, restrict access to public domain works.
WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=11264
Indonesia on behalf of the Asian Group expressed their view that their group could not "not support any provisions that would provide for legal protection of TPMs". The Asian Group believed these measures would stifle technological innovation and could restrict the public's ability to access information and restrict access to public domain works.
The recommendation of the Asian Group was that Article 19 of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal on "Obligations Concerning Technological Measures" be deleted.
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=11264
Indonesia on behalf of the Asian Group expressed their view that their group could not "not support any provisions that would provide for legal protection of TPMs". The Asian Group believed these measures would stifle technological innovation and could restrict the public's ability to access information and restrict access to public domain works.
The recommendation of the Asian Group was that Article 19 of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal on "Obligations Concerning Technological Measures" be deleted.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Response from tech and creative communities on proposed broadcast treaty.
From Manon Ress CPTech
Statement concerning the WIPO Broadcast Treaty provided by certain information technology, consumer electronics and telecommunications industry representatives, public interest organizations, and performers' representatives. Some of the groups will be at the USPTO roundtable and will present the statement to the members of the US delegation to WIPO about to leave for the Sept 11-14, 2006 Standing Committee on Copyright and related rights.
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WIPO BROADCAST TREATY PROVIDED BY CERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERFORMERS’ REPRESENTATIVES
The undersigned represent a broad and diverse group, united in a common belief that the WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations, as currently drafted, would harm important economic and public policy interests. This Statement offers comments on several key aspects of the treaty.
No justification for treaty. We remain unconvinced that a treaty is necessary at all. We note with concern that treaty proponents have not clearly identified the particular problems that the treaty would ostensibly solve, and we question whether there are in fact significant problems that
are not addressed adequately under existing law. Further, we are concerned that the current treaty approach differs radically from U.S. legal traditions, and, if implemented, would require substantial and unnecessary changes to current U.S. law.
Scope. If the treaty moves forward in any form, we believe that the current rights-based approach of the treaty must be abandoned. Creating broad new intellectual property rights in order to protect broadcast signals is misguided and unnecessary, and risks serious unintended negative consequences. We recommend instead a signal protection-oriented approach, ideally focusing narrowly and specifically on protecting signals from intentional misappropriation
or theft. We note that most of the concerns expressed in this Statement would be rendered moot by a treaty and associated implementing legislation that narrowly addressed signal theft.
Limitations and exceptions. To the degree that the treaty leaves room for implementing states to create broader rights or protections beyond protection against intentional signal theft, then we believe that a mandatory set of limitations and exceptions must be included in the treaty in order
to ensure that uses of broadcast content that are lawful under copyright law are not inhibited by the treaty. At a minimum, limitations and exceptions under the treaty should be equivalent to
those that an implementing state provides under its copyright laws, and should provide flexibility
for additional limitations and exceptions that are appropriate in a digital network environment.
Home and personal networking. Under the current draft of the treaty, the broad scope of the proposed rights, combined with proposed additional rights regarding technological protection measures (TPMs) in connection with these rights, raises questions about whether “casters” would gain the ability to control signals in the home or personal network environment. Such control is without precedent and would interfere with the rollout of broadband and home and personal
networking services and limit the development of innovative devices that provide home and personal networking functionality. Accordingly, the treaty should include a provision excluding coverage
of fixations, transmissions or retransmissions across a home or personal network. Further, we should note that many of our group believe that TPM provisions are inappropriate in connection with this treaty and should be excluded from the treaty entirely.
Intermediary liability. We have serious concerns that network intermediaries would face the threat of direct or secondary liability for infringement of the broad rights granted under the current treaty draft. The exceptions from liability afforded under the current text
of the treaty only apply to broadcasters, not to intermediaries. Further, the limitations of liability afforded to intermediaries today under existing national laws would only protect against
copyright infringement, not against a violation of these broad new rights. We believe that the treaty should ensure that network intermediaries do not face liability for alleged infringement of
rights or violations of prohibitions by virtue of actions they take in their normal course of business or by actions of their customers.
Computer networks. The current treaty draft includes protection for Internet simulcasts made by traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, but otherwise excludes computer networks from its
scope. While members of our group do not share a common view about the best approach to addressing Internet-related issues, we are united in our belief that the current approach is unacceptable. Further, to the extent that the treaty continues to take a rights-based approach rather than a signal-theft-based approach, we oppose the treaty’s application to the Internet.
Please note that issues identified in this Statement do not represent a comprehensive list of the concerns of all members of our group. Individual group members intend to independently raise other issues of serious concern, and to further discuss the issues identified here.
SIGNED:
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
AT&T
Broadband Service Providers Association
Center for Democracy & Technology
Computer and Communications Industry
Association
Consumer Electronics Association
Consumer Project on Technology
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Dell Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
FreePress
Hewlett Packard Company
Home Recording Rights Coalition
Intel Corporation
International Music Managers Forum
Internet Society
IP Justice
Media Access Project
Medical Library Association
National Association of State PIRGs
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Public Knowledge
RadioShack Corporation
Special Libraries Association
Sony Electronics Incorporated
TiVo Inc.
Union for the Public Domain
U.S. Internet Industry Association
U.S. Music Managers Forum
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
USTelecom
Verizon Communications Inc.
Verizon Wireless
Yale Information Society Project
Statement concerning the WIPO Broadcast Treaty provided by certain information technology, consumer electronics and telecommunications industry representatives, public interest organizations, and performers' representatives. Some of the groups will be at the USPTO roundtable and will present the statement to the members of the US delegation to WIPO about to leave for the Sept 11-14, 2006 Standing Committee on Copyright and related rights.
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WIPO BROADCAST TREATY PROVIDED BY CERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, PUBLIC INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERFORMERS’ REPRESENTATIVES
The undersigned represent a broad and diverse group, united in a common belief that the WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations, as currently drafted, would harm important economic and public policy interests. This Statement offers comments on several key aspects of the treaty.
No justification for treaty. We remain unconvinced that a treaty is necessary at all. We note with concern that treaty proponents have not clearly identified the particular problems that the treaty would ostensibly solve, and we question whether there are in fact significant problems that
are not addressed adequately under existing law. Further, we are concerned that the current treaty approach differs radically from U.S. legal traditions, and, if implemented, would require substantial and unnecessary changes to current U.S. law.
Scope. If the treaty moves forward in any form, we believe that the current rights-based approach of the treaty must be abandoned. Creating broad new intellectual property rights in order to protect broadcast signals is misguided and unnecessary, and risks serious unintended negative consequences. We recommend instead a signal protection-oriented approach, ideally focusing narrowly and specifically on protecting signals from intentional misappropriation
or theft. We note that most of the concerns expressed in this Statement would be rendered moot by a treaty and associated implementing legislation that narrowly addressed signal theft.
Limitations and exceptions. To the degree that the treaty leaves room for implementing states to create broader rights or protections beyond protection against intentional signal theft, then we believe that a mandatory set of limitations and exceptions must be included in the treaty in order
to ensure that uses of broadcast content that are lawful under copyright law are not inhibited by the treaty. At a minimum, limitations and exceptions under the treaty should be equivalent to
those that an implementing state provides under its copyright laws, and should provide flexibility
for additional limitations and exceptions that are appropriate in a digital network environment.
Home and personal networking. Under the current draft of the treaty, the broad scope of the proposed rights, combined with proposed additional rights regarding technological protection measures (TPMs) in connection with these rights, raises questions about whether “casters” would gain the ability to control signals in the home or personal network environment. Such control is without precedent and would interfere with the rollout of broadband and home and personal
networking services and limit the development of innovative devices that provide home and personal networking functionality. Accordingly, the treaty should include a provision excluding coverage
of fixations, transmissions or retransmissions across a home or personal network. Further, we should note that many of our group believe that TPM provisions are inappropriate in connection with this treaty and should be excluded from the treaty entirely.
Intermediary liability. We have serious concerns that network intermediaries would face the threat of direct or secondary liability for infringement of the broad rights granted under the current treaty draft. The exceptions from liability afforded under the current text
of the treaty only apply to broadcasters, not to intermediaries. Further, the limitations of liability afforded to intermediaries today under existing national laws would only protect against
copyright infringement, not against a violation of these broad new rights. We believe that the treaty should ensure that network intermediaries do not face liability for alleged infringement of
rights or violations of prohibitions by virtue of actions they take in their normal course of business or by actions of their customers.
Computer networks. The current treaty draft includes protection for Internet simulcasts made by traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, but otherwise excludes computer networks from its
scope. While members of our group do not share a common view about the best approach to addressing Internet-related issues, we are united in our belief that the current approach is unacceptable. Further, to the extent that the treaty continues to take a rights-based approach rather than a signal-theft-based approach, we oppose the treaty’s application to the Internet.
Please note that issues identified in this Statement do not represent a comprehensive list of the concerns of all members of our group. Individual group members intend to independently raise other issues of serious concern, and to further discuss the issues identified here.
SIGNED:
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
AT&T
Broadband Service Providers Association
Center for Democracy & Technology
Computer and Communications Industry
Association
Consumer Electronics Association
Consumer Project on Technology
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Dell Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
FreePress
Hewlett Packard Company
Home Recording Rights Coalition
Intel Corporation
International Music Managers Forum
Internet Society
IP Justice
Media Access Project
Medical Library Association
National Association of State PIRGs
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Public Knowledge
RadioShack Corporation
Special Libraries Association
Sony Electronics Incorporated
TiVo Inc.
Union for the Public Domain
U.S. Internet Industry Association
U.S. Music Managers Forum
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
USTelecom
Verizon Communications Inc.
Verizon Wireless
Yale Information Society Project
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Draft AU Copyright law is available for comment.
Draft for Comment
AG Interview on the Draft.
Our ideas are cows. With that kind of premise its not hard to see why we are ending up with fences and crushes and altogether heavy and unwieldy digital laws defining the speech bubbles around our cow thoughts. Suppose we should be looking forward to getting drenched for unsavoury statements.
Our new shiny draft says it is now legal to video a TV program but only legal to view it once.
This means cows are bound to be pirates anyway, they digest things 4 times!
AG Interview on the Draft.
Our ideas are cows. With that kind of premise its not hard to see why we are ending up with fences and crushes and altogether heavy and unwieldy digital laws defining the speech bubbles around our cow thoughts. Suppose we should be looking forward to getting drenched for unsavoury statements.
Our new shiny draft says it is now legal to video a TV program but only legal to view it once.
This means cows are bound to be pirates anyway, they digest things 4 times!
Friday, September 01, 2006
Responses to the Draft Treaty for protection of Broadcast Organisations
Risk to public domain material, to fair use and of further control through TPMS are raised in this collated document containing the responses by international and not for profit groups to the Draft Broadcast Treaty. Two excerpts included here much more material available at:
STATEMENTS FROM INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
UNESCO: Impact on broadcasted public domain material:
"If this approach is followed, future States parties to the treaty will be under no obligation to grant legal anti-circumvention protection against acts of circumvention that a user undertakes with regard to public domain material, or to make use of imitations and exceptions with regard to a work that has been broadcast.
From the point of view of freedom of expression and access to information, the legal anti-circumvention protection for broadcasts should be synchronized with and to copyright policy regarding the contents broadcast, similarly to the case of exceptions and limitations (see p.3 above). In this regard, it must be made sure that the legal anti-circumvention protection for the broadcast as such can not be used in order to block access to, and use of, material included in the broadcast, in cases where the use of this material is not subject to the broadcasters’ authorization."
Joint statement from NGO's including EFF and CPTECH:
Assuming that signal theft is a pressing concern, the manner in which the Committee remedies that issue is equally important. One option is to prohibit intentional theft or misappropriation of original signals. Another option is to create a broad, 50-year long, sui generis intellectual property right in signals. This second option poses substantial risks, and should not be implemented without further study. New rights confer benefits, but they also impose costs on third parties. An empirical analysis of the net economic effect of such rights would broaden the debate of this distinguished committee on these subjects.
CCIA is willing to assist the Committee’s efforts. Absent empirical studies, however, the scope of signal theft and the costs of proposed solutions will remain unquantified. The scarcity of empirical data undermines efforts to enlist the broad range of stakeholders needed to successfully implement this treaty. Specifically, we recommend that the Committee analyze these questions:
(1) whether creating new intellectual property rights would inadvertently impose liability for infringing the right on innocent third parties such as Internet service providers and intermediaries, device manufacturers, and software developers;
(2) whether creating new intellectual property rights would inadvertently empower broadcasters to control and restrict the private use of signals within the digital home;
(3) whether protection for technological measures as proposed in Article 14 would inadvertently lead to government mandated technology or anticompetitive behavior.
To the extent it proves necessary, the treaty should not manufacture new rights, but instead:
(1) be limited to intentional theft or misappropriation of original signals;
(2) provide explicit limitations and exceptions to protect intermediaries and manufacturers;
(3) exclude mere retransmission within the home; and
(4) exclude any reference to technological protection measures.
Technological protection measures have created security risks, restrict lawful uses, and lend themselves to anti-competitive abuse. Having learned these lessons, CCIA considers it inadvisable to import or export statutory protection for technological measures in any international legal instrument without further study of the effect of such measures.
To proceed without resolving the concerns noted above could inadvertently burden innovation and communications. We remain at the disposal of the Committee in its continuing efforts.”
Same story from CNet http://news.com.com/Copyright+treaty+draws+tech+industry+criticism/2100-1028_3-6112532.html?tag=sas.email
STATEMENTS FROM INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
UNESCO: Impact on broadcasted public domain material:
"If this approach is followed, future States parties to the treaty will be under no obligation to grant legal anti-circumvention protection against acts of circumvention that a user undertakes with regard to public domain material, or to make use of imitations and exceptions with regard to a work that has been broadcast.
From the point of view of freedom of expression and access to information, the legal anti-circumvention protection for broadcasts should be synchronized with and to copyright policy regarding the contents broadcast, similarly to the case of exceptions and limitations (see p.3 above). In this regard, it must be made sure that the legal anti-circumvention protection for the broadcast as such can not be used in order to block access to, and use of, material included in the broadcast, in cases where the use of this material is not subject to the broadcasters’ authorization."
Joint statement from NGO's including EFF and CPTECH:
Assuming that signal theft is a pressing concern, the manner in which the Committee remedies that issue is equally important. One option is to prohibit intentional theft or misappropriation of original signals. Another option is to create a broad, 50-year long, sui generis intellectual property right in signals. This second option poses substantial risks, and should not be implemented without further study. New rights confer benefits, but they also impose costs on third parties. An empirical analysis of the net economic effect of such rights would broaden the debate of this distinguished committee on these subjects.
CCIA is willing to assist the Committee’s efforts. Absent empirical studies, however, the scope of signal theft and the costs of proposed solutions will remain unquantified. The scarcity of empirical data undermines efforts to enlist the broad range of stakeholders needed to successfully implement this treaty. Specifically, we recommend that the Committee analyze these questions:
(1) whether creating new intellectual property rights would inadvertently impose liability for infringing the right on innocent third parties such as Internet service providers and intermediaries, device manufacturers, and software developers;
(2) whether creating new intellectual property rights would inadvertently empower broadcasters to control and restrict the private use of signals within the digital home;
(3) whether protection for technological measures as proposed in Article 14 would inadvertently lead to government mandated technology or anticompetitive behavior.
To the extent it proves necessary, the treaty should not manufacture new rights, but instead:
(1) be limited to intentional theft or misappropriation of original signals;
(2) provide explicit limitations and exceptions to protect intermediaries and manufacturers;
(3) exclude mere retransmission within the home; and
(4) exclude any reference to technological protection measures.
Technological protection measures have created security risks, restrict lawful uses, and lend themselves to anti-competitive abuse. Having learned these lessons, CCIA considers it inadvisable to import or export statutory protection for technological measures in any international legal instrument without further study of the effect of such measures.
To proceed without resolving the concerns noted above could inadvertently burden innovation and communications. We remain at the disposal of the Committee in its continuing efforts.”
Same story from CNet http://news.com.com/Copyright+treaty+draws+tech+industry+criticism/2100-1028_3-6112532.html?tag=sas.email
October 3 Day against DRM
"If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed" - Disney Executive.
http://defectivebydesign.org/en/blog/announce_day_against_drm
Defeating DRM is all about awareness. The direct actions that we have taken are all about this. Whether it means protesting outside Apple Stores in Hazmat suits or getting HUGE press coverage for announcing the Bono petition (sign it now). Action gets attention, and creates space
for debate. And as our friends at Disney recognize, if there is a debate, we will have won.
Clear your schedule for a world wide day of action against DRM. On Tuesday October 3rd we will all be taking action to raise the stakes and attempt to increase awareness to the threats of DRM - in a very significant way.
--
Thanks to Romana Branden
Bilaterals.org invites participation on combatting unjust Free Trade Agreements
An update from bilaterals.org 1 September 2006
Governments across the world are now giving even greater emphasis to the pursuit of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). The Office of the US Trade Representative is trying to beat the clock by concluding as many deals as possible well before Bush's Trade Promotion Authority -- a special power given to the US president to negotiate and sign trade deals with
almost no involvement of Congress -- expires in July 2007.
Bilateral deals are fast becoming the centrepiece of foreign trade policy in countries as diverse as Chile, China, India, Japan, Pakistan and Switzerland. Regional integration projects between governments -- whether Mercosur in South America, ECOWAS in West Africa, the GCC in the Middle East or the ASEAN in Southeast Asia -- are struggling to 'keep up' and provide some kind of
'alternative' to both the failed WTO and the fractionalism of bilateral FTAs. Meanwhile, the world's most powerful governments are competing more and more to sign bilateral deals with the same countries in order to serve their distinct geopolitical and military agendas. As many people have learned, FTAs often have little to do with trade and much to do with securing spheres of political influence and control.
Bilateral agreements are a lot worse than the WTO -- deliberately so.
Negotiated in secret, through the direct hand of corporate lobby groups, they lock countries into far-reaching commitments on issues ranging from investors' rights, to the environment, to intellectual property. They open up agricultural markets in the South without touching subsidies to corporate agriculture in the North, condemning countless small farmers to bankruptcy. They guarantee extensive rights for TNCs to conduct business on their own terms, including the right
to sue governments if their mere expectation of a profit is not met. Bilateral deals are
privatising public services, trampling constitutions and forcing countries open to the wishes of TNCs. All in the name of some promised tiny market openings for local exporters, the gains from which have not been trickling down to workers or to producers.
There are now over 2,200 bilateral investment treaties in force. And the number of FTAs is rising by the month. Yet despite the speed of these secretive, far-reaching deals, there have also been victories where these agreements have been stalled or stopped by popular resistance.
Supporting the global anti-FTA movement
Bilaterals.org was set up as an open-publishing site where people fighting bilateral trade and investment agreements could exchange information and analysis and build cooperation. At the time, there was no single website for information about the whole range of bilateral FTAs and BITs and their interconnections. Those campaigning against bilateral deals had found it
hard to link up with others around the world to compare notes, share analysis and
develop broader and complementary strategies.
Two years down the line, the feedback is that bilaterals.org has become a useful resource for social movements, NGO researchers, journalists and the broader public as a clearinghouse for media stories, texts of agreements, critical analyses and education tools to understand, expose and mobilise against these agreements. It has also helped bring more visibility to bilateral deals as
powerful instruments of privatisation and neoliberalism. But the resistance movements
need more support and strengthening.
People's movements to stop FTAs on the ground are growing, particularly in the Third World. Yet movements are often isolated from each other, a direct reflection of the 'divide and conquer' strategy that bilateralism thrives on. For this reason, FTA Watch, a broad coalition in Thailand, invited bilaterals.org, GRAIN and Médecins Sans Frontières to help co-organise a global strategy meeting of anti-FTA movements. Dubbed 'Fighting FTAs', the three-day workshop was held at the end of July 2006 in Bangkok. It brought together 60 social movement activists from 20 countries of Africa, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific to share experiences in grassroots struggles against FTAs and to build international strategies and cooperation.
In the coming weeks and months, various documents, audio-visual materials and followup plans coming out of the workshop will be finalised and shared. A number of proposals point to a broader role for bilaterals.org, and this note is to inform you about and invite you participate in these new developments.
Going further
• The Bangkok Post published two reports from the 'Fighting FTAs' workshop, one on 2 August 2006 (http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5386) and another on 13 August 2006
(http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5521).
• Bilaterals.org has recently been featured in a BBC report on the crisis of the WTO and how it may boost bilateral free trade negotiations (Evan Davis, BBC Economics Editor, 'The Death of the WTO's Doha Talks', BBC News, London, 25 July 2006, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5215318.stm) as well as an International Herald Tribune report looking at the pros and cons of FTAs (Daniel Altman, 'Managing Globalization: A new trade bandwagon - Are rich-poor pacts fair?', International Herald Tribune, Paris, 8 August 2006,
http://www.iht.com//articles/2006/08/08/business/glob09.php).
• bilaterals.org offers customised RSS feeds so that you can monitor new postings on specific topics of your choice (e.g. 'South Africa', 'US-Korea', 'intellectual property rights', 'actions') and in your preferred language.
Find out more at http://www.bilaterals.org/plan.php3.
• Visit the site at www.bilaterals.org or contact webteam@bilaterals.org
Governments across the world are now giving even greater emphasis to the pursuit of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). The Office of the US Trade Representative is trying to beat the clock by concluding as many deals as possible well before Bush's Trade Promotion Authority -- a special power given to the US president to negotiate and sign trade deals with
almost no involvement of Congress -- expires in July 2007.
Bilateral deals are fast becoming the centrepiece of foreign trade policy in countries as diverse as Chile, China, India, Japan, Pakistan and Switzerland. Regional integration projects between governments -- whether Mercosur in South America, ECOWAS in West Africa, the GCC in the Middle East or the ASEAN in Southeast Asia -- are struggling to 'keep up' and provide some kind of
'alternative' to both the failed WTO and the fractionalism of bilateral FTAs. Meanwhile, the world's most powerful governments are competing more and more to sign bilateral deals with the same countries in order to serve their distinct geopolitical and military agendas. As many people have learned, FTAs often have little to do with trade and much to do with securing spheres of political influence and control.
Bilateral agreements are a lot worse than the WTO -- deliberately so.
Negotiated in secret, through the direct hand of corporate lobby groups, they lock countries into far-reaching commitments on issues ranging from investors' rights, to the environment, to intellectual property. They open up agricultural markets in the South without touching subsidies to corporate agriculture in the North, condemning countless small farmers to bankruptcy. They guarantee extensive rights for TNCs to conduct business on their own terms, including the right
to sue governments if their mere expectation of a profit is not met. Bilateral deals are
privatising public services, trampling constitutions and forcing countries open to the wishes of TNCs. All in the name of some promised tiny market openings for local exporters, the gains from which have not been trickling down to workers or to producers.
There are now over 2,200 bilateral investment treaties in force. And the number of FTAs is rising by the month. Yet despite the speed of these secretive, far-reaching deals, there have also been victories where these agreements have been stalled or stopped by popular resistance.
Supporting the global anti-FTA movement
Bilaterals.org was set up as an open-publishing site where people fighting bilateral trade and investment agreements could exchange information and analysis and build cooperation. At the time, there was no single website for information about the whole range of bilateral FTAs and BITs and their interconnections. Those campaigning against bilateral deals had found it
hard to link up with others around the world to compare notes, share analysis and
develop broader and complementary strategies.
Two years down the line, the feedback is that bilaterals.org has become a useful resource for social movements, NGO researchers, journalists and the broader public as a clearinghouse for media stories, texts of agreements, critical analyses and education tools to understand, expose and mobilise against these agreements. It has also helped bring more visibility to bilateral deals as
powerful instruments of privatisation and neoliberalism. But the resistance movements
need more support and strengthening.
People's movements to stop FTAs on the ground are growing, particularly in the Third World. Yet movements are often isolated from each other, a direct reflection of the 'divide and conquer' strategy that bilateralism thrives on. For this reason, FTA Watch, a broad coalition in Thailand, invited bilaterals.org, GRAIN and Médecins Sans Frontières to help co-organise a global strategy meeting of anti-FTA movements. Dubbed 'Fighting FTAs', the three-day workshop was held at the end of July 2006 in Bangkok. It brought together 60 social movement activists from 20 countries of Africa, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific to share experiences in grassroots struggles against FTAs and to build international strategies and cooperation.
In the coming weeks and months, various documents, audio-visual materials and followup plans coming out of the workshop will be finalised and shared. A number of proposals point to a broader role for bilaterals.org, and this note is to inform you about and invite you participate in these new developments.
Going further
• The Bangkok Post published two reports from the 'Fighting FTAs' workshop, one on 2 August 2006 (http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5386) and another on 13 August 2006
(http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5521).
• Bilaterals.org has recently been featured in a BBC report on the crisis of the WTO and how it may boost bilateral free trade negotiations (Evan Davis, BBC Economics Editor, 'The Death of the WTO's Doha Talks', BBC News, London, 25 July 2006, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5215318.stm) as well as an International Herald Tribune report looking at the pros and cons of FTAs (Daniel Altman, 'Managing Globalization: A new trade bandwagon - Are rich-poor pacts fair?', International Herald Tribune, Paris, 8 August 2006,
http://www.iht.com//articles/2006/08/08/business/glob09.php).
• bilaterals.org offers customised RSS feeds so that you can monitor new postings on specific topics of your choice (e.g. 'South Africa', 'US-Korea', 'intellectual property rights', 'actions') and in your preferred language.
Find out more at http://www.bilaterals.org/plan.php3.
• Visit the site at www.bilaterals.org or contact webteam@bilaterals.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
