 |
 |
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- TO: ARLIS/NA Membership FROM: Katy Poole & Hinda Sklar, Co-Chairs, ARLIS/NA Public Policy Committee Below is a copy of a message sent today by the Public Policy Committee to a representative of the Patents and Trademarks Office indicating our agreement with other organizations and opinions who object to the draft "Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Databases," supported by the U.S. delegation to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and to related efforts to advance the adoption of such a proposal. The deadline is November 22 to send your own response to the proposal, as we said in our earlier "ALERT." Please take a moment to send your thoughts to the PTO on this important issue. Katy Poole ([log in to unmask]) Hinda Sklar ([log in to unmask]) Co-Chairs, ARLIS/NA Public Policy Committee -------------------------------------- Date: 11/21/96 3:16 PM From: Hinda Sklar 21 November 1996 Mr. Keith Kupferschmid Patents and Trademarks Office Washington, DC 20231 [log in to unmask] Dear Mr. Kupferschmid: We are writing on behalf of the members of ARLIS/NA (Art Libraries Society of North America) to concur with the letter signed by some of the nations' major library associations (Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association) objecting to the draft "Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Databases," supported by the U.S. delegation to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and to related efforts to advance the adoption of such a proposal. The Digital Future Coalition and many others in industry, academia and the private sector have worked intensively for the past year to take a fresh look at what the United States' official position should be in international copyright treaty negotiations to convene in Geneva early this December. The DFC and other organizations believe that the draft treaty as it stands would severely undermine the ability of Congress to preserve Fair Use, hinder efforts to use digital technology for library preservation efforts, cripple "distance education" (also called "asynchronous learning"), and bar the manufacture of devices that facilitate these critical activities. Other new international proposals would, if adopted, require Congress to enact an entirely new legal regime, separate from and in addition to copyright protection, for databases now outside the scope of copyright. Moreover, under this database proposal never scrutinized by Congress, government information and other public domain material could be placed practically or financially off limits to entrepreneurs, researchers, scholars, students and the public at large. Although many may view the U.S. posture vis-a-vis international treaty negotiations as a strictly legal issue, this should be considered in the context of what constitutes appropriate public policy in support of all interests concerning access to information. We therefore strongly urge you to consider moving forward on the draft treaty only after a full and thorough review of the costs and benefits to all communities. There are both substantive and process issues regarding the database proposal. The changes to intellectual property law which such a proposal would facilitate are so sweeping that the U.S. delegation's support for the Draft Treaty should be withdrawn until a complete and thorough national discussion of the merits and/or drawbacks of any related intellectual property proposal are carefully debated and considered. There have been no opportunities to comment on the original U.S. proposal before it was formally presented to WIPO in May, nor were there any hearings. The lack of consultation with affected constituencies in the public and private sectors is a serious concern. If consensus is not obtained, the United States should not endorse proposals which could adversely affect U.S. law and should urge WIPO to defer action on items with no consensus. Sincerely, ARLIS/NA Public Policy Committee Katherine Poole, Co-Chair Hinda Sklar, Co-Chair