 |
 |
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Forwarded from the NINCH discussion list. Judy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: David Green, INTERNET:[log in to unmask] TO: Multiple recipients of list, INTERNET:[log in to unmask] DATE: 12/11/96 6:56 PM RE: COPYRIGHT MATTERS; TalkBack article now available Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:50:50 -0500 Reply-To: [log in to unmask] Sender: [log in to unmask] From: [log in to unmask] (David Green) To: Multiple recipients of list <[log in to unmask]> Subject: COPYRIGHT MATTERS; TalkBack article now available NINCH REPORT December 11, 1996 1. CONFU Material available on NINCH website 2. Forwarded Press Briefing on WIPO Meeting 3. TalkBack! Article now available on-line **************************************************************************** 1. CONFU MATERIAL NOW AVAILABLE ON NINCH WEBSITE As part of the construction of a Copyright and Fair Use Resources page on its website, NINCH announces the availability of the Proposed Guidelines for "Distance Learning" and "Digital Images" at <http://www-ninch.cni.org/NEWS/NEWS.HTML#ISSUES>. A link to Peter Fowler's "Interim Report" on the Conference on Fair Use, posted at the Patent and Trademarks office website <www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/>, is also included. **************************************************************************** 2. FORWARDED PRESS BRIEFING ON WIPO MEETING I thought this piece from James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, clearly expressed an opinion about the WIPO proceedings I wanted to share with members. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from [log in to unmask] ----------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATION POLICY NOTES December 5, 1996 >James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology >Center for Study of Responsive Law, Washington, DC > Intellectual Property is the "capital stock" of the next century, and >the rules are important -- too important to decide in a hastily convened >conference such as this WIPO meeting. The WIPO delegates are being asked >to ratify proposals for every country, which have never been tried in any >country. > > The U.S. Government, a major force pushing for the treaties, hasn't >moved the Internet copyright legislation out of a single Congressional >Committee yet, due to strong domestic opposition from a wide coalition of >data users and computer companies. The U.S. Congress has never held a >public hearing on the database proposal, and almost no one in the U.S. >government has a clue what it actually does. In Europe, no country has >yet found a way to implement the EU database directive, without causing a >meltdown in their domestic information industry. > > The three proposals being considered at the WIPO meetings would >severely restrict the public's traditional rights to use information. In >countless areas of controversy, they resolve thorny questions about user >rights against the users, and in favor of the new supercharged >"right-owners." > > The treaties are so poorly conceived as to raise questions about the >competence of the drafters. People are alarmed that the drafters do not >understand computers or the Internet. No one who used and understood the >Internet would propose strict rules making RAM and temporary cache copies >of documents a presumed infringement of copyright. No one who understands >the information industry would propose the sweeping new property rights on >facts and other public domain information (So broad that daily newspapers >would have to obtain a license to report the box scores from sporting >events). No one who considers privacy important would have proposed >strict liability for Internet Service Providers (which would predictably >lead to very intrusive surveillance of Internet transmissions). The early >"anti-circumvention" provisions of the treaty were so extreme that they >would have made general purpose personal computers illegal. Errors of >these magnitude reflect a lack of understanding about the very technology >the WIPO delegates are being asked to regulate. > > The Conference organizers are deliberately misleading the public >about the status of copyright law on the Internet. Some press briefings >imply that without the treaties, rampant infringements of copyrighted >works would be legal. This is patently false. Courts routinely hear >cases about the application of current copyright laws on the Internet. >New issues are raised, and these issues are resolved through normal court >processes. These treaties are not designed to bring copyright to the >Internet. They are designed to change copyright law, and to create very >restrictive rules for the use of information. > > Reports on the Internet about the WIPO proceeding illustrate the >hypocrisy of the meeting. Faxed copies of news stories about the >conference from the New York Times, the Los Angles Times, the Financial >Times and other newspapers are widely distributed at the same WIPO meeting >where delegates seek to make similar "fair use" transmissions on the >Internet illegal. Last month I asked a U.S. State Department official, >who was standing at a xerox machine, making a copy of an article on the >Treaty, how long the State Department could function if it didn't >routinely engage in endless coping and faxing of copyrighted materials >from U.S. and foreign sources. > > News reporters are typically surrounded by stacks of faxes and xerox >copies of copyrighted materials, which are circulated without permissions >from copyright owners. These are mostly considered "fair uses" of >copyrighted materials, and not infringements. A zero tolerance for >unauthorized use of copyrighted materials would be a disaster for news >reporting, and for most research and management activities. > > Do we really want to live in a world where governments from the U.S. >to Burma insist on precise paper trails of who receives, forwards and >shares information with whom? > > The existing frameworks for copyright law in most countries is >surprisingly robust to changes in technologies, and provides a much better >framework than the untested and unbalanced treaties considered at this >diplomatic conference. > > These and other issues will are being discussed. > > > APPENDIX A > Examples of groups opposing one or more of the WIPO Treaties > >Sun Computers >3Com >STATS, Inc. (Sports Statistics) >The American Committee for Interoperable Systems (ACIS) >Home Recording Rights Coalition (Consumer Electronics) >Ad Hoc Copyright Coalition (Telecom and Computer) >The U.S. National Academy of Sciences >The U.S. National Academy of Engineering >The U.S. Institute of Medicine >American Association for the Advance of Science (AAAS >American Library Association >Digital Futures Coalition >National Writers Union (U.S.A.) >Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) >Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility >Union for the Public Domain (UDC) >Consumer Project on Technology >Genealogists Against the WIPO Treaties (GAWT) > > > Appendix B - Unauthorized Copying > > It isn't that the Internet has led to large scale unauthorized >reproductions of copyrighted materials -- that happens every day off the >Internet. It is simply that the Internet makes it extremely easy to >detect unauthorized reproduction of works. For examples, thousands of >persons make unauthorized copies of cartoons with xerox machines or for >overhead slides, to decorate offices or assist in presentations. But when >a few individuals post unauthorized copies of Far Side Cartoons on their >personal Web pages, the New York Times reports this in a page one story as >evidence that the Internet needs to be regulated. It is only that the >Internet makes such unauthorized uses very transparent - and hence, easy >to police. The daily examples of unauthorized reproductions of >copyrighted works (much of this appropriate and legal under current fair >use doctrine) OFF the Internet exceed that occurring ON the Internet by >staggering margins. What is important to police are inappropriate uses of >copyrighted materials, and the current copyright law provides ample tools >to accomplish this task. > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored >by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on >Technology (CPT). Both groups are projects of the Center for >Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ **************************************************************************** 3. TALKBACK! ARTICLE NOW AVAILABLE ON-LINE My article "Beyond Data and Disney to a Networked Cultural Heritage" is now available as one of the feature articles in the anniversary issue #3 of the on-line journal TalkBack! at <http://math.lehman.cuny.edu/tb/>. The theme of the issue is community/virtual community in the arts and cultural community.