Digital Rights Network

Manon Ress writes to the a2k list: In their answer to TACD re broadcasting treaty, the EC explains that the proposed treaty cannot depart from a previous treaty (Rome). This despite the fact that the US and many other countries have never signed!. Protection can only go up. Exceptions can only be narrow and optional.

QUOTE:
To that extent, the EU cannot agree with the TACD demands since it would not reflect the current level of protection that is already accorded to broadcasters in the Community copyright acquis and would have the effect of diluting that protection. Nor would it be feasible within the context of international negotiations for a new treaty updating the rights of broadcasting organisations in the intellectual property context under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisations to depart from the substantive norms of previous treaties [i.e. protection cannot go down]. This is what the Brazilian and Argentinean proposals envisage, namely the provision of mandatory rights for users. This would be contrary to all previous relevant Treaties in this area. The traditional approach in this area and the one which reflects EU law as well is to introduce optional exceptions for certain users such as the disabled or for teaching and research purposes. [emphasis added]
END OF QUOTE

The European Commission's DG Enterprise section as part of their 2006 work programme in the area of Technology for Innovation/INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES and E-business are looking at ICT Standardization: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/standards/ict_index_en.htm

Full details of the ICT Standardization Work progamme are in this pdf: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/standards/wp2006.pdf which contains the following section referencing to DRM (p.11):

7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND COUNTERFEITING

Action 31: Further to the standardisation work already initiated, additional efforts are required with regard to interoperability of different DRM systems. Although Directive 2001/29/EC limits itself, inter alias, to the legal framework applicable to technological protection measures, these provisions can only deliver their intended effect if user- friendly, reliable and interoperable DRM systems are available to the creative industries. In this context, a follow-up of already achieved standardisation work should be considered with a focus on particular markets such as current and next generation consumer electronics, including DVB-Content Protection & Copy Management (DVB-CPCM), as well as mobile handheld devices, including their interoperability with computer and consumer electronic devices. [emphasis added]

Michelle Childs of CPTech has posted a summary of a presentation by Leonardo Cervera Nava (LCN) an Administrator in the Copyright and Knowledge-based Economy section of DG Internal Market. Of specific interest was the following info about their scheduled review of the copyright and term directives:

"... First in relation to the Commission's review of the Copyright Directive, due this year. Originally it was to be a review only of implementation, but now it will be an evaluation review of the Directive i.e an evaluation of whether or not has it achieved its policy objectives. This is an important change. ....

Another item from December that has only just come on the radar is the Commission's release of its long-awaited study on the effect of the database right (see here).

Empirical evaluation consisted of simply counting the number of databases before (1998) and after (2004) the directive and comparing it with the US. This has obvious problems -- for example the merging of two database doesn't necessarily imply a reduction in the industry -- but is better than nothing and, given the data constraints, may be the best one could do.

Using this approach it was found that the introduction of this extra monopoly right had almost no effect (3092 dbs in 1998 and 3095 in 2004 with a high point of 4085 in 2001).

The recommendations of the Creative Economy were made public back in mid-December (readers may wish to check out previous posts on the subject of the conference). The purpose of producing the recommendations was summarized in the email sent to interested observers:

'The purpose of the Conference, to deliver policy recommendations to the European Commission on behalf of all stakeholders in the creative economy, was successfully achieved through the five Working Groups which met to discuss a range of issues and draw conclusions. The recommendations from each Working Group, along with related papers and photos from the event can be found at the website: www.creativeeconomyconference.org'

BEUC, an umbrella organization for consumer groups across Europe, launched a new consumer digital rights campaign yesterday based around a declaration of six principles:

• Right to choice, knowledge and cultural diversity
• Right to the principle of “technical neutrality” – defend and maintain consumer rights in the digital environment
• Right to benefit from technological innovations without abusive restrictions
• Right to interoperability of content and devices
• Right to the protection of privacy
• Right not to be criminalised

This initiative is great news and the site contains a wealth of other material, including an excellent FAQ.

The pan-European Creative Economy conference took place last week in London under the auspices of the UK's presidency of the EU. It was certainly tough to get a place there (I applied and was 'put on the waiting list') but fortunately some non-rights-holder groups did get a look in -- though it appears they were still heavily outnumbered. As a consequence we are fortunate enough to have two thorough summaries which have been posted up in the original Creative Economy thread here: http://drn.okfn.org/node/37. (Ms Gibson's summary contains some very interesting information on the database directive).

From these reports it appears that, sadly, the government continues to listen to only one side of the debate in these matters. This is bad not only for consumers but for creation and innovation in the UK (and EU) economy (creativity and innovation to flourish depend, not on protectionism, but on diversity and competition). Nevertheless it is a promising sign that people such as Ms Childs, Ms Gibson (and I believe Creative Commons) were able to attend -- even a couple of years ago it is doubtful whether such a conference would have contained anyone except the rights-holders.

The American content industry is feeling a bit chipper at the moment. With the recent judgements of Grokster and Kazaa having gone, to a significant extent, their way the MPAA and RIAA clearly hope that the demon spectre of unpaid file sharing can be brought under control, if not exactly *their* control. The Grokster case laid a potential for liability on a technology innovators. The Kazaa judgement in turn mandated that judicially enforceable anti-infringment technology be incorporated into Kazaa. They will hope that this sets a trend for any technology with a potential for infringement. Perhaps all these will, in time, become well controlled distribution channels, forcing consumers to pay their monopoly prices for a diet of the usual high quality boy bands and highly original Hollywood plots with Tom Cruise.

Link:
*****

http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/enforce05/

Deadline:
*********

2005-10-07

Who:
****

The consultations are open so anyone can respond.

Annex E lists those orgs formally sent a consultation document.

How To Respond
**************

Please send responses by Friday 7 October 2005 to:

Jeff Watson
Intellectual Property & Innovation Directorate
The Patent Office
Concept House
Cardiff Road
Newport