Broadcast treaty unloved as ever

Posted by gerloff on 0

Being steeped in WIPO stuff for the moment (I think there’s IP on my shirt), it happened that the topic of the prospective Broadcasting Treaty came up in a number of conversations.

Coincidentally (I swear), BoingBoing has an interview with a US Copyright official. Until now, the US have generally shown themselves strongly in favour of the Broadcasting Treaty, which would add another layer of copyright-like rights for the act of broadcasting a work. This would instantly send podcasting and a lot of other “web 2.0” type down the tubes. The US were claiming that the creation of such rights was universally popular.

Now, BoingBoing.net quotes the official as saying:

…I think the most controversial piece is the scope of the right that’s being created. The position that the US took is well, if you’re going to give that type of a right to a broadcaster — theft of a signal — then you should look at all people who are similarily situated, including webcasters. Now, that has been totally rejected by the rest of the world.”

Coincidentally, I was chatting with a senior WIPO figure today. Apparently, there is very little actual support for such a treaty. That person was at a loss to say which countries were pushing for it. Supposedly, parts of the broadcasting industry are in favour – but then there are substantial parts of that industry which reject such a treaty.

They have probably realised that any revenue from such a new right would end up with their legal department anyway, as broadcasting anything would become horrifyingly complicated.

Sparks fly as Brazil rips apart US proposal

Posted by gerloff on 0

Now Brazil is taking apart the US proposal, and sparks are certainly flying. Where the proposal waxes lyrical about economic growth, the Brazilians remind the delegates that economic growth is not really within the mandate of WIPO. This is a nice twist on the well-established US tactic of claiming that development issues in copyright and patents are none of WIPO’s business.

Picking apart the proposal one by one, the bottom line is that the US have simply not understood what the Friends of Development are really onto. The US proposal

The US proposal also claims that illegal copying is "endemic" in developing countries. Brazil criticises this implication of general lawlessness, remarking that copyright and patent violations are not unheard of in developed countries either.

The US database suggestion is described as "a kind of match-making enterprise" and a shot at the "outsourcing of technical assistance". Member states want more say, not less, about the type and quality of technical assistance that WIPO provides to them.

WIPO’s role in development: While some have claimed that WIPO already has an extensive role in development, and it is claimed that this is borne out by the 300-page compilation of "computers that were bought and consultants that were hired" for developing country IP offices.

This kind of WIPO micro-management is not what the Friends of Development are looking for. They are not into the details of technical assistance, but rather seeking an adjustment of the gist of all of WIPO’s activities.

National surveys for economic growth: Where the proposal says that developing countries should review their IP rights system. The Friends of Development initiative is not about the problems of each national IP system, but rather about the deficiencies of the international IP system.

Transfer of technology: The IP system should promote transfer of technology. The proposal’s suggestion that the problems to technology transfer is merely rooted in the individual national systems is erroneous.

Where the US proposal calls for WIPO to participate in copyright and patent enforcement, it ignores some basic facts: "IP is still territorial in nature, and countries have national jurisdictions about the enforcement of rights"

Later, the proposal calls for WIPO to conduct economic surveys. This is outside the scope of WIPO’s mandate.

Even though this is a lot of criticism, Brazil is only half-way through the US proposal. We’ll hear more tomorrow.

We’ve been caught: IPI uncovers secret NGO plot

Posted by gerloff on 0

The PCDA procedure is pretty clear by now. They’re going through proposals one by one, with delegations and NGOs commenting only on the proposals they actually have something to say about, other than “we agree”. While the confusion is nowhere near the degree it reached during great parts of last year’s IIM series, discussing about ten to fifteen issues all at the same time does not make for quick results.

But the feeling is, increasingly and informally, that it will not be this meeting, or perhaps even this committee, that brings concrete results. The actual outcomes on the ground – as far as WIPO’s work is felt on the ground, that is – will come from other bodys in the organisation: For example, the copyright committee and the IT committee.

The core task of this, and probably the next, PCDA meeting will be to infuse the core points of the Development Agenda into WIPO’s committees other and the organisation’s structure. Just what those core points will be exactly is at the heart of these meetings.

So who’s putting the fun in WIPO meetings? That’s what the NGOs are for. One of the more lunatic statements came from the International Policy Network, which claimed that “most poor countries lack the rule of law”. I am not sure that this is the way to win the hearts and minds of the delegates from the countries in question.

Also high in entertainment value was the contribution from IPN’s cousin IPI.

Is this a sign of a new stratagem by the free culture movement? To cloak themselves in Shakespeare, and Beethoven, and to say that the public domain is under threat from an expansion of IP rights and DRM? Yes, I think so.

Yes. Definitely. Tom, you’ve beaten us. How did you come upon the closely guarded information that there are public interest NGOs which consider Digital Restrictions Management to be a serious problem, for a number of reasons? Who leaked this confidential information?

Or did you simply look it up with your favourite search engine, which gave you about 30.000 results?

I am stricken by your keen observation. You win, hands down. I’m putting on my Beethoven cloak and walking away into the sunset.

Copyright, libraries and Creative Commons: WIPO side event

Posted by gerloff on 0

In a lunchtime side-event (with some snacks provided, thankfully), there was an interesting and (by WIPO’s standards) substantive discussion about Copyright and Access to Knowledge. There were four presentations: One by the head of the International Publisher’s Association, who mainly referred to the problems the publishing industry has with the Google Books project.

These boiled down to two: That Google is making money without giving some to the publishers (who would of course gladly pass it on to the authors, right, chaps?); and that copyrighted texts, once present in electronic format, could leak out into the network and – God forbid – be actually read by people.

After that, it was Teresa Hackett’s turn. She represents EIFL, a group of librarians concerned with Access to Knowledge. The group seeks to bring together libraries in developing countries to give them greater weight in negotiations with publishers and rightsholders to databases of scientific texts.

Teresa named three areas of concern. First, it is a burden for libraries that copyright limitations from the analog domain often aren’t transferred into the digital realm. This means less possibilities for libraries and those who use them.

Her second point was that, as ever more resources are digital, libraries switch from buying a work to licensing it. The problem is that libraries usually have very little bargaining power, thus ending up with restrictive license terms for their users. She demanded that licenses should not be allowed to override traditional limitations and exceptions.

The third point was that so-called Technological Protection Measures (TPM) – of which Digital Restrictions Management is one example – often make it hard or impossible for libraries to provide their users with access to the knowledge covered with such measures. On top of that, most TPMs have a lifespan of three to five years. After that, the covered work is often rendered unuseable.

The director of Creative Commons Brazil gave a very good introduction to the CC model. Many of the traditional copyright crowd that dominated the room were surprised to here that the Creative Commons model actually builds upon copyright, instead of constituting a completely different universe.

A music industry rep then gave a lengthy overview of the benefits of DRM. The benefits for the industry, that is. Nothing new here.

All in all, a halfways substantive discussion. Nothing like the main session.

The Brazilian also pointed out some interesting links: OpenBusiness for business models based on alternative licenses, and Uncycloperia for thorough comic relief.

Proposal fudge at WIPO

Posted by gerloff on 0

Chile’s proposal was the topic of the morning, and will most likely be that of the afternoon. Country statements were usually not really substantial beyond offering their support for the statement – in most cases. No surprises here.

But a number of comments contained a mistake. The Chilean proposal stresses the importance of complementary licensing systems, such as Free Software and Creative Commons. Those responding to the statements sometimes seemed to think that such alternative licensing systems are somehow “out of” the “IP system”.

This is simply not the case. Both Creative Commons and Free Software licensing are based on copyright, not beside it or alternative to it. They are an integral part of the copyright system.

A similar point has been made – wronly – about the public domain, one of the core points of Chile’s proposal. Some delegations apparently were suffering from the perception that the public domain is somehow “outside” the copyright and patent system.

This claim, most glaringly coughed up here, is complete nonsense. My guess is that anti-reform parties are using it to claim that the protection of the public domain does not fall into WIPO’s mandate. (According to those people, nothing of interest to developing countries ever falls within WIPO’s mandate. Now that’s a consistent position.

The discussion is meandering quite a bit. This is due to suboptimal procedure. Instead of making a list of topics for discussion and then working on them one after the other, the Chairman (who is otherwise doing a good job – he’s the Paraguayan rep, the same as during the IIMs) is going through one proposal after another. As Chile’s is the first, we might well get stuck on it forever.

Correspondingly, some country delegates have more or less given up on this meeting already.They don’t think that much will come from it this time.

But maybe, just maybe someone or something might break out of the fudge.

Speaking of fudge, the EU also made a statement. It was reasonable, inclusive and totally blunt. But at least it was not utter nonsense, which is what some others tend to come up with.

WIPO: Home, sweet home

Posted by gerloff on 0

Arrived in Geneva after trip that wasn’t too long (roughly nine hours door to door), but somehow exhausting. I found the City Hostel Geneva much like I left it last July. At least, this time I got the bed beside the window, which means that I’m in control of the fresh air supply and the heating. Good.

Though I missed the first day of the WIPO meeting I’m here for – the Provisional Committee on a Development Agenda for WIPO, or PCDA for short – I suppose I haven’t deprived myself of too many exciting things. Probably just discussions about the agenda again, like every first day of every first meeting. (I bet the German mission sent their intern again to sit through the boredom.)

So what’s the situation there? There are three new proposals I know of, and some recycled from the Intersessional Intergovernmental Meetings in 2005. Chile has one on the importance of the public domain, which is much in line with the Friends of Development – the group that wants to reform WIPO.

Another one is from Colombia. It limits itself to proposing that patent offices in developing countries should get access to commercial patent databases, so as to more easily identify prior art. Not really revolutionary.

Rather counter-revolutionary is how the US proposal comes across, and this is no surprise. They are presenting a more elaborate version of their website database proposal from the last round of IIMs. It basically recommends setting up a website where countries in need of licenses can go looking for private sector donors. I don’t like to call this institutionalised begging, but no other term comes to mind.

Oh, and for good measure they suggested conducting a study to prove the benefits of strict copyright protection for developing countries. Some study that will turn out to be.

Now, on Tuesday morning, we are waiting for the meeting to begin. It seems that the EU has come up with a common position. But, as EU positions go, it probably won’t be too fascinating.

I’m curious to see if there will be substantive discussion, after yesterday the country delegates almost killed themselves looking for a chairman.

Restrictions management hurts libraries, blind

Posted by gerloff on 0

ZDNet has a story about some negative consequences of DRM. Libraries and the blind suffer especially from digital restrictions management.

"DRM limits the ability to enjoy legally purchased material, and
punishes behaviour widely seen as normal. It will simply criminalise
more people, but do nothing to change behaviour, because people will
still think it’s fair and reasonable," Charman said.

Book, magazine publishers shun gratis advertising

Posted by gerloff on 0

Steadfastly determined to shoot themselves in the foot once more, a group of publishers of books, magazines and newspapers has announced the following:

The newspaper, magazine and book publishing industries have come
together to explore ways to challenge the exploitation of content by
search engines without fair compensation to copyright owners.

The publishers are putting together a task force that will look into ways to use "copyright enforcement and brand infringement" against the "Napsterisation" of "content" by search engines.

Ok, so they see Google’s pie growing and growing, and they want a slice. Fair enough. But they could handle this with a bit more style:

It’s one thing to lack knowledge about the way a search engine works. Hey, who really does? It’s a second thing to want to profit from a new line of business. Fine with me, let them negotiate.

But it’s another deal entirely to consciously, publicly and loudly ignore the basic effect of what a search engine does for that beloved "content" of yours: It makes it popular.

Get a life, guys and gals. It’s called "gratis advertising."

OECD conference on digital economy: summary

Posted by gerloff on 0

Michael Geist has a summary of the OECD’s Future of the Digital Economy conference, which took place in Rome last week. Here, Michael found out what this year’s two big battles are going to be: Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), and user-generated content.

From my perspective, the news is that there is at least some acknowledgement
of the problems involving DRM.  The privacy, security, innovation, etc.
issues are still largely ignored, however, there is a tacit (and
sometimes explicit) recognition that DRM has created consumer concerns.

Book on wireless networks in developing countries

Posted by gerloff on 0

There’s a new book out that looks sympathetic even to a non-techie like me: Wireless Networking in the Developing World

The massive popularity of wireless networking has caused equipment costs to continually plummet, while equipment capabilities continue to increase. By applying this technology in areas that are badly in need of critical communications infrastructure, more people can be brought online than ever before, in less time, for very little cost. We hope to not only convince you that this is possible, but also show how we have made such networks work, and to give you the information and tools you need to start a network project in your local community.

The whole thing is available under a Creative Commons – Share Alike License. So go ahead, test it and improve it.

It somewhat reminds me of Cory Doctorow’s Someone Comes To Town, Someone leaves Town”, which partly talks about setting up a free wireless network in Toronto.