SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Fair Use, Broadcast Protections Global Copyright Priorities This Year

    Published on 25 January 2007 @ 5:09 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch.

    While antipiracy initiatives and updated broadcasting protections remain dominant themes for government and industry this year, 2007 also could usher in an expansion of user rights as well, according to sources.

    In the United States and perhaps worldwide, the focus appears to be on fair use or fair dealing, said DowLohnes intellectual property attorney James Burger. Outside the US, it is taking the form of legislation clarifying or expanding private use of copyrighted material, he said, while internally, “the personal use issue is more likely to find its challenge in the judicial system.”

    Private Copying

    Last year, several countries either enacted copyright reform or began the process of considering it. These efforts often involved lengthy – and noisy – debates on issues such as time- or space-shifting of audiovisual and musical works, digital rights management (DRM) systems, and other matters related to users’ rights.

    Despite opposition from copyright groups seeking to tie time- and format-shifting to levies on DVDs, CDs and other media, Australia late last year approved legislation that, among other things, legitimises consumer use of iPods and other devices (IPW, Copyright Policy, 17 November 2006). Implementation of the measure, which aligns national law with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, could be difficult due to its complexity, experts said.

    In December, an independent study of Britain’s intellectual property framework called for creation of a private copyright exception to allow consumers to move content to different platforms (IPW, Copyright Policy, 8 December 2006). The government’s reaction to the report’s recommendations remains to be seen.

    Canada also is eyeing changes to its copyright regime this year. In December, Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, said that introduction of a copyright reform bill appears imminent. In Canada as elsewhere, he wrote, there is a “growing awareness of the limits of fair dealing/fair use, particularly with respect to time/place/device shifting.” Consumers take for granted their right to record a television show or copy a CD for their iPod, he said, but under current Canadian law, such activities “are at least in a legal grey zone.”

    France last year adopted the European Union Copyright Directive into national law (IPW, European Policy, 16 May 2006). The measure on the rights of authors and related rights in the information society is unique in requiring owners of devices covered by proprietary DRM systems to provide access to information essential to enable interoperability. The law creates a government body, not yet established, tasked with resolving DRM disclosure requests.

    The EU Copyright Directive harmonising certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society allows member states to set rules for private copying if they deem it necessary, and sets three conditions any private copying exception must meet.

    Even when such copying complies with the three-step test, however, several “hot” issues remain unresolved, Francisco Javier Cabrera Blasquez wrote in a European Audiovisual Observatory report on recent developments in DRM [pdf]. These include the “right” number of copies consumers should be allowed to make of copyrighted material; what kind of personal copying should be allowed; and the relationship between DRM and the public domain.

    A particularly thorny question is the relationship between fair compensation for rightsholders and the application of technical protection measures, (intended to prevent acts prohibited by a copyright owner such as unauthorised copying) Blasquez said. A European Commission plan to reform copyright levies on hard media to take into account the increased use of DRM systems foundered last month; its future is uncertain (IPW, Subscribers, 16 January 2007).

    The Commission’s Internal Market Directorate is in the process of reviewing Community copyright and related rights law. In a report to the Commission last November, the Institute of Information Law, University of Amsterdam, offered provisional recommendations on copyright limitations and said it will address the issue further early this year in a study on the Information Society Directive [pdf].

    US: Digital Freedom and Orphan Works

    The adjournment of the 109th Congress in December killed, at least temporarily, a flurry of legislation described by Public Knowledge (PK) President Gigi Sohn as a “sustained assault on the freedom of consumers to legally enjoy, create and distribute music and video, and on the freedom of manufacturers to innovate in response to consumer demands.”

    It is not clear yet whether the new Congress now in session will undertake copyright reform. US lawmakers “have many more burning issues to deal with” than copyright, Burger said. However, a PK spokesman said the issue of “orphan works” – copyrighted content whose authors cannot be located – could be revisited.

    In addition, Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, on 12 January reintroduced the Platform Equity and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2007 which, according to PK, would require digital radio broadcasters to build in technology to prevent listeners from recording audio off the air. The so-called “audio flag” issue follows years of argument over the “broadcast flag,” which would have outlawed digital TV receivers lacking copy protection.

    In October, PK joined the Consumer Electronics Association, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the New America Foundation, the Media Access Project and others in a “Digital Freedom” campaign. It aims to defend “the rights of artists, innovators, creators and consumers to use technology without fear of unreasonable government restrictions or costly lawsuits.”

    One such case involves May 2006 litigation by the recording industry against XM Satellite Radio. Labels claim XM’s digital distribution service makes music available without proper authorisation. On 19 January, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected XM’s request to dismiss the suit, which now continues.

    The personal use issue could see court action following the US Copyright Office’s decision to deny an exemption from Digital Millennium Copyright Act provisions barring circumvention of technical protections to permit space-shifting of copyrighted content, Burger said.

    The ruling found that “reproduction of content onto new devices is an infringement of the exclusive reproduction rights unless some exemption of defence is available,” and in the “absence of any persuasive legal authority for the proposition that making copies of a work onto any device of the user’s choosing is a non-infringing use, there is no basis for recommending an exemption to the prohibition on circumvention.”

    The decision “may give encouragement to content owners to pursue equipment manufacturers that permit space-shifting for personal use,” Burger said.

    WIPO Broadcasting Treaty

    On the international front, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) hopes this year to continue its studies of various copyright areas, including exceptions and limitations, Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger told Intellectual Property Watch.

    Negotiations will continue this year on a WIPO proposal to update broadcasters’ and cablecasters’ rights. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights met from 17 to 19 January but failed to resolve key remaining issues including what exclusive rights to give broadcasters, how to protect their use of technical protection measures, and what to do about signals transmitted over the Internet (IPW, WIPO, 23 January 2007).

    Other WIPO treaty initiatives related to copyright are unlikely this year because the broadcast treaty remains in play, Keplinger said. The committee will meet once more for five days in June to try to reach agreement before the September WIPO General Assembly decides whether to allow a diplomatic conference on the treaty in November 2007. A new chair’s draft on the treaty is due by 1 May.

    Enforcement

    WIPO will host the Third Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy on 30-31 January, which Keplinger said is aimed at helping developing countries and others tackle the problems.

    A controversial European Commission proposal to require member states to criminalize all intentional infringements on a commercial scale is moving through the European Parliament but appears to be languishing in the Council (IPW, Subscribers, 16 January 2007). The IP Rights Enforcement Directive 2 (IPRED2) has garnered strong opposition from some nations and well as from consumer and digital rights groups (IPW, European Policy, 11 July 2006).

    The International Federation for the Phonographic Industry announced in January that it will not only expand its assault against alleged digital piracy but will pressure “gatekeeper” Internet services providers to take greater responsibility for what occurs on their networks.

    Movie studios also are focussed on ISPs. “Our principal priority for 2007 is to work to secure closer co-operation with ISPs to promote legal offers on the Internet to provide film fans with the greatest possible choice,” said a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America.

    Internet piracy is the biggest copyright issue Asian industry faces this year, according to Alban Kang, managing partner of Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva, Singapore. “The Internet is such a vast and growing medium in Asia” that it is sparking “major concerns” about illegal downloading and software piracy. New technologies related to digital music are having an impact in Asia as well. For instance, Asia’s music industry is battling ringtone copying, Kang said.

    Other Issues

    WIPO has several other copyright-related items on its plate this year, according to Keplinger. Under discussion is the possible establishment of collective management organisations to help artists in developing nations and emerging economies profit from their works. In particular, he said, WIPO will be examining whether the Caribbean model already in existence can work in Africa. Keplinger also hopes to continue working with regional bureaus on training for development goals, particularly those related to implementation of WIPO Internet treaties.

    Other EU copyright activities in the pipeline this year include a proposal on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services, now under scrutiny in the European Parliament, and an expected communication on how to foster cross-border delivery of digital content. The latter is due mid-year or in the third quarter, a Commission spokesman said.

    Britain’s recording industry began lobbying last year to extend EU copyright protection to 95 years. The proposal met with a cool reception from the Gowers review [pdf], which urged the European Commission to retain the existing 50-year term of protection for sound recordings and performers’ rights. It is unclear whether the Commission, which is said to be mulling revisions to its copyright duration directive, will act this year.

    Driven in part by France’s new copyright measure and consumer unrest over incompatible devices and music tracks, interoperability of devices, platforms and DRM systems has come under increasing government scrutiny in Europe, James Bouras, special counsel to Victor Co. of Japan, said last month at the Digital Hollywood Europe conference in London. In response, content companies are scrambling to craft interoperability standards to avoid regulation. He predicted “persistent consumer insurgency” if the issues go unresolved.

    Dugie Standeford may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.