[OT] Fwd: WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Survey -- call for volunteers
ward at pong.be
Tue May 4 15:52:58 CEST 2004
Dit is niet direct on topic, maar op deze lijst zitten waarschijnlijk wel
mensen die dit zal interesseren. Het is een probleem waar we steeds meer
mee te maken schijnen te krijgen - hoog boven onze hoofden (Europese
commissie, WIPO,...) wordt vanalles beslist, zonder enige democratisch
controle, en uiteraard enkel in het voordeel van big business...
----- Forwarded message from David Tannenbaum <davidt at public-domain.org> -----
Nearly 2 years ago Phil Kerr posted to this list about a treaty that
would give broadcasters new powers to control recording of broadcasts,
possibly including webcasts; extend the length of these powers from 20
to 50 years, and require countries to ban circumventions of
technological protection measures (eg, the US's broadcast flag). (see
of this even if the broadcast is of a public domain work.
Well, the treaty is here now. A chairman's draft has been released, and
will be negotiated in early June.
If you've heard about the proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty, then you
already know that the big broadcasting companies are ready to ram
through a treaty that gives them new powers over material already in the
Unfortunately this issue has been so far under the radar screen that no
one really knows where most governments stand on the treaty's provisions.
We want to change that by surveying our governments and posting the
results to the web (see the survey below). This effort is completely
volunteer driven, and we need as much help as we can get.
Can you help out in your country? So far we are very short on volunteers
from the UK and the EU more generally. Please contact me if you can help
out, at davidt at public-domain dot org.
And please spread this message far and wide--time is short and we need
as much help as we can get.
Coordinator, Union for the Public Domain
davidt at public-domain dot org
* For more information on the details of the treaty see Ernest Miller's
excellent report at
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002925.html, and Edward
Felten's sharp analysis at
* You can also download a copy of the survey from our website,
UNION FOR THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SURVEY OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE WIPO BROADCASTING TREATY
The free exchange of knowledge and information enabled by the public
domain is being threatened by proposals in many international forums,
including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). One of
the major difficulties of protecting the public domain against these
threats is that the positions of national representatives in these
international forums are unknown, even to citizens of the country they
represent. We want to change that.
This questionnaire is being used by volunteers to collect information
about national positions on the proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. The
results you collect will be posted on the Web so that citizens in your
country and around the world can act appropriately to protect the
The proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty expands and gives new privileges
to transmitters of information. Rights that are normally granted to
creators and performers would be given to organizations that merely
transmit works and performances--even if those works are in the public
domain, or if those works' creators wish to have the works distributed
without restriction. (For more information see Ernest Miller's excellent
analysis at http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002925.html.) It
is important that we find out how countries stand on this proposed
expansion of rights.
To find out where national government officials stand you can e-mail
this questionnaire to them for a written response, or you can interview
the officials over the phone and record their answers. There is not yet
an easy way to find out who is representing your country at WIPO. You
can start the search by scouring the web, and then by calling the
country's copyright or trade office. As volunteers collect contact
information we will make it available so that the process is easier the
next time around.
Time is of the essence, so if one method of getting answers isn't
working, try another. It may take some work to find someone who is
willing to answer the survey, but your persistence will pay off by
strengthening our efforts to protect the public domain and the free
exchange of knowledge and information.
If you are collecting information, please be sure to contact the
coordinator of the survey, survey at public-domain.org, so that we can keep
track of what countries we have covered. Also make sure you record the
contact information of the government officials with whom you interact,
and the results of your interaction, even if they were negative. This
way we can be more efficient next time we administer a survey.
And if you know anyone else who would be interested in helping out,
please ask them to download the survey at
http://www.public-domain.org/?q=node/view/30 and to contact
survey at public-domain.org.
Thank you for all of your help!
Information about person administering survey
Country of residence:
Record of Interactions with Government Officials
[please duplicate this section if you have more than one interaction]
Name of official:
Contact info (phone, fax, e-mail, postal address):
Description of interaction (for example, gave all answers; gave some
answers; helpful and friendly, but doesn't work on this issue, etc):
QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Consideration Process and Timing
Should WIPO schedule a diplomatic conference on the proposed WIPO
Length of Powers
Should the proposed Treaty grant 50 years of exclusive broadcasting
rights, as proposed by some, or retain the 20 year term in TRIPS and the
1961 Rome Convention covering broadcasters? rights, as proposed by
Scope of Powers
Should the Treaty apply only to traditional wireless broadcasting; or
should the Treaty be extended to transmissions over wired cable networks
as proposed in Article 2(c)?
Should the Treaty be extended to apply to ?webcasting?, meaning making
accessible images and/or sounds over computer networks, as proposed in
Alternative C, Article 2(g)?
If the Treaty includes a provision on webcasting, what is the
appropriate definition of webcasting? Would you support an alternative
definition to that proposed in Alternative C, Article 2(g)?
The current draft covers transmissions or the ?making accessible? of
?sounds or of images or of images and and sounds or of the
representations thereof? (Definitions, Article 2.) As currently
drafted, do you believe that the proposed Treaty will cover all types of
content that is broadcast, including text, and other data?
Would you support extending the Treaty only so far as to cover motion
pictures and or sounds, but excluding text and other data?
Nature of Broadcasters? Powers
Should the Treaty simply provide broadcasters with the right to prohibit
or authorize fixations of broadcasts (as provided in Article 13 of the
Rome Convention and Article 8 of the proposed Treaty), or go further, by
granting the following additional rights?
* the right to authorize or prohibit distribution to the public of
original and reproductions of fixations of a broadcast, as provided
under Article 10;
* the right to authorize deferred transmission of broadcasts after
fixation as provided under Article 11;
* the right to authorize or prohibit the making available of broadcasts
from fixations, as provided under Article 12 of the proposed Treaty?
Should the broadcast organization have the power to restrict the
fixation or redistribution of broadcasts of materials that are in the
Should the Treaty allow Contracting Parties to make explicit exceptions
for certain purposes, like the four purposes currently recognized under
Article 14 of the Rome Convention ((a) private use; (b) use of short
excerpts for reporting of current events: (c) ephemeral fixation by own
facilities for use in own broadcasts; and (d) sole purpose teaching and
What other legitimate exceptions should the Treaty permit to preserve
the existing balance between various types of holders of rights in
content and users and viewers of that content? Do you support the
exceptions as currently drafted in Article 15 of the proposed Treaty?
Legal Sanctions for circumventing technological protection on broadcasts
Do you support the inclusion of the provisions in Articles 16 and 17
which require Treaty parties to ban the circumvention of technological
protection measures added to signals by broadcasters, and protection for
technologically protected content?
Do you support a further ban on the importation, sale or making
available of devices capable of assisting to decrypt an encrypted
program-carrying signal, such as a satellite signal, as proposed in
Alternative V, Article 16(2) of the proposed Treaty? Or do you believe
existing copyright law as applied to the underlying work being broadcast
under Articles 11 ? 12 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Articles 18 - 19
of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty is sufficient.
Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list
Free-sklyarov-uk at xenoclast.org
----- End forwarded message -----
Pong.be -( "The Linux philosophy is 'Laugh in the face of )-
Virtual hosting -( danger'. Oops. Wrong One. 'Do it yourself'. Yes, )-
http://pong.be -( that's it." -- Linus )-
GnuPG public key: http://gpg.dtype.org
More information about the Openstandaarden