Home page logo
/

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

Intel statement on WIPO Broadcasting/Webcasting Treaty
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:08:11 -0400



Begin forwarded message:

From: James Love <james.love () cptech org>
Date: April 29, 2006 4:50:27 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Intel statement on WIPO Broadcasting/Webcasting Treaty

Dave, on Monday May 1, WIPO begins 5 days of debate on a proposed treaty on Broadcasting/Webcasting. Last tuesday Intel issued a statement in opposition to the treaty.
  Jamie

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Biddle, Brad" <brad.biddle () intel com>
Date: April 25, 2006 12:14:17 PM EDT
To: "Biddle, Brad" <brad.biddle () intel com>
Subject: Intel statement on WIPO Broadcasting Treaty

All -- I've attached (and included as plain text below) a statement of
Intel Corporation concerning the proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty.  We
are interested in dialogue and feedback on our views.  In the interest
of facilitating this dialogue, you are welcome to forward this message
and/or post our statement.  Please note that this statement is a
discussion draft, and not necessarily a final, definitive statement of
Intel's views.

Thanks,
Brad

Brad Biddle <brad.biddle () intel com>
Senior Attorney, Systems Technology Lab
Intel Corporation
4500 S. Dobson Rd. OC2-157
Chandler, AZ 85328 USA
(480) 715-5399 phone
(480) 715-7738 fax


-----------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION DRAFT: APRIL 10, 2006

STATEMENT OF INTEL CORPORATION CONCERNING THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY ORGANIZATION'S PROPOSED TREATY ON THE PROTECTION OF
BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

CONTACT:

Jeff Lawrence, Director, Digital Home and Content Policy
<jeffrey.lawrence () intel com>
Brad Biddle, Senior Attorney, Systems Technology Lab
<brad.biddle () intel com>

BACKGROUND. The World Intellectual Property Organization is drafting a
proposed "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations." For
many countries (including the United States) the treaty, if adopted,
will create an entirely new type of intellectual property right. Under
the treaty, broadcasting organizations obtain new legal rights to
control uses of content that they broadcast-rights that are separate
from and in addition to any existing copyright rights in the content.
Adopting countries can choose to extend these new rights to "webcast"
content in addition to traditional broadcast content.

INTEL'S POSITION. Intel opposes the WIPO Broadcast Treaty. Proponents
have not demonstrated that the benefits of creating new exclusive rights
outweigh the burdens that these new rights impose. These burdens
include:

o Control of mobile device and digital home innovation. The treaty could
give broadcasting organizations the right to control uses of content
within the home-uses that are legitimate and non-infringing under
copyright law. For example, makers of digital video recorders could be
required to obtain licenses and agree to limitations imposed by
broadcasters in order to enable "time shifting" of broadcast content.
Similarly, mobile device designers could be required to get permission
from broadcasters (in addition to copyright owners) in order to enable
innovative uses of broadcast content. This regime will increase consumer
costs and reduce technical innovation.

o Technical Protection Measure (TPM) provisions will become regulatory
mandates that limit design freedom. The treaty requires that the new
broadcaster rights be protected by TPMs. Because broadcasting signals
are generally subject to government standards, TPMs will need to be
incorporated into these standards. Government-mandated TPMs will limit
design freedom and distort markets.

o Liability risk for software developers, device makers, and ISPs. Under
copyright law, in some circumstances one party can be liable for
infringement committed by an unrelated party. The treaty raises similar
questions of secondary liability for infringement of its new broadcaster
rights, but provides no guidance or safe harbors that limit risks for
those non-infringing parties that might inadvertently enable
infringement. These unquantifiable risks will inhibit innovation and
market development.

o Increased rights clearance complexity. Users of content already face a
nearly impenetrable thicket when trying to clear traditional copyright
rights. Adding more complexity to the clearance process will inhibit
innovative uses of content.

o Harm to copyright owner interests. Content users will pay licensee
fees to broadcasters in addition to copyright owners, likely resulting
in reduced revenues for copyright owners. Reduced incentives for
creators may result in less created content.

o Harm to public interests. The treaty could limit "fair uses" and other
publicly beneficial uses of content, and restrict content that is
otherwise in the public domain.

Intel believes that efforts to enact the WIPO Broadcast Treaty should be
abandoned. Alternatively, and less optimally, Intel believes that the
scope of the treaty should be dramatically narrowed, to focus
specifically on signal theft.

---------------------------------
James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love () cptech org / tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • Intel statement on WIPO Broadcasting/Webcasting Treaty David Farber (Apr 30)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault