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.

Advertisement


Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

How Listing Ukraine As A Priority Foreign Country In Special 301 Violates WTO Agreements

Prof. Sean Flynn asks whether US sanctions of Ukraine under the US Special 301 program violates World Trade Organization rules. He also asks whether the operation of watch lists threatening sanctions for intellectual property matters could be challenged under the WTO even prior to any sanction going into effect.





Latest Comments
  • As it happens, I own and create "intellectual prop... »
  • So long term planning of the UN Development Decade... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >


    Flurry Of Copyright, Interoperability Policy Activity At European Union

    Published on 17 July 2008 @ 5:44 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch
    In a flurry of intellectual property-related activity, the European Commission this week ordered copyright collecting societies to loosen their stranglehold on cross-border music licensing, proposed extending the term of copyright protection to 95 years, and launched debate on copyright exceptions on the internet.

    The Commission also adopted a new strategy on industrial property rights and published draft revisions to the European Interoperability Framework (EIF).

    Landmark Competition Case

    In a case arising from complaints by broadcaster RTL and digital music provider Music Choice, the Commission said 24 collecting societies in the European Economic Area are violating antitrust law by forcing artists to sign on with their national collecting organisations, and/or by colluding to prevent commercial users from obtaining licences outside their respective domestic territories. It ordered the societies to remove the “membership” and “exclusivity” clauses from their agreements within 120 days.

    The decision will allow authors and composers to choose collecting societies, wherever located in the EU, on the basis of quality of service, level of management fees collected, efficiency of royalty collection and other factors rather than location, the Commission said. Removing the exclusivity clauses will make it easier for internet, cable and satellite broadcasters to obtain licences from a single collecting society instead of having to clear rights in many countries, it said.

    The decision will not bar agreements between collecting societies which allow each to licence the repertoire of the other, the Commission said. It will not prevent organisations from agreeing bilaterally to limit the territorial scope of their licences, but they cannot decide among themselves that they will all restrict the licences to the same basis, forcing commercial users to deal with a monopoly provider in each territory.

    Music Choice, which filed its complaint about territorial restrictions in reciprocal agreements in 2003, said the landmark decision is the first time competition law has been applied to collecting societies.

    Cable operators welcomed the ruling but said the industry wants a simpler, more streamlined system for clearing rights. The current copyright regime is outdated and inefficient, and the Commission ruling only addresses the territorial restrictions between collecting societies, Cable Europe said.

    The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers expressed disappointment with the ruling on territorial delineations in reciprocal representation agreements, saying it will fragment the music repertoire and create legal uncertainty for commercial users. The MCPS-PRS Alliance, the UK’s two royalty collecting societies, said multi-territorial licensing decisions are best left to the market. It is mulling an appeal.

    Longer Copyright Term Sought

    In a “forward-looking” package of actions, the Commission proposed lengthening the period of copyright protection for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years. The term will help ageing artists bridge the income gap they face when their early performances lose protection, it said. It will also generate more revenue for producers from the sale of recordings in shops and online, allowing them to adapt to the fast-changing music business environment.

    Term extension has been eagerly sought by the music industry and just as strongly opposed by digital rights activists and others. An independent study of Britain’s IP framework urged the Commission to reject the idea (IPW, Copyright Policy, 8 December 2006), but the Commission said this week that the report was based solely on economics and overlooked performers’ moral rights in their works.

    In June, Europe’s leading IP policy research organisations called the move a “spectacular kowtow to one single interest group, the multinational recording industry… hiding behind the rhetoric of ‘aging performing artists.’”

    The researchers told European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that term extension will only serve incumbent owners of large back-catalogues of sound recordings; reduce the supply of historically significant recorded music; hamper competition and hike consumer prices; and adversely affect the EU balance of trade.

    Long terms of protection are counter-productive because the higher licence fees will raise prices to consumers, said the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC). The proposal will help the Beatles but young music performers will not be guaranteed better remuneration, particularly for online services where unfair licence terms keep royalties low, it said.

    The second part of the package is a discussion paper [pdf] aimed at kick-starting debate on whether changes to copyright limitations and exceptions are needed to spur online dissemination of research, science and educational material. The green paper focuses on exceptions for the benefit of libraries and archives and for the disabled, the dissemination of works for teaching and research, and a possible new exception for user-generated content.

    Industrial Property Rights

    Industrial property rights include not only patents and trademarks but also industrial designs, geographical indications and plant variety rights, the Commission said in a Communication published on 16 July [pdf]. Talks are already underway on a Community patent and a patent litigation system, but the Commission said it wants a high-quality industrial property rights system that complements the patent regime. High quality rights support businesses, facilitate knowledge transfer and boost efforts to fight counterfeiting and piracy, it said.

    Among other actions, the Commission said it will launch a comprehensive study on patent quality to determine the risks of low quality rights, and study the extent of problems with unused patents. It will assess the overall functioning of EU and national trademark systems with a view toward a possible future review of the Community regime. It will publish a green paper this year on agricultural product quality policy that will cover geographical indications (product names derived from places).

    The strategy also includes a fact-finding study to analyse the interplay between IP rights and standards in fostering innovation, and a consultation on standardisation in information and communications technologies (ICTs). The Commission promised to consider how the EU patent fee structure could be designed for easier access by small and mid-sized firms, and to try to provide IPR support services for small companies in their countries.

    In the enforcement arena, the strategy includes ensuring that all EU states adopt its Enforcement Directive and seeking stronger global enforcement of IP rights, including an anti-counterfeiting treaty. The Commission said it will prepare the ground for Europe’s accession to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and work toward the harmonisation of international patent law. The strategy also calls for the Commission to participate actively in international talks aimed at helping the developing world realise the potential of their industrial property rights.

    The plan garnered praise from Association for Competitive Technology President Jonathan Zuck. Small business inventors, who drive growth and job creation in the EU, need high quality patents, he said.

    European Interoperability Framework

    Also this week, the Commission published for comment a draft of its revised EIF. The framework is intended to encourage governments to increase information-sharing by, among other things, adopting open standards and specifications (IPW, European Policy, 2 July 2008). The draft is a more balanced and practical effort to achieve interoperability between the information and communications technologies of European governments, according to Zuck. Instead of prescribing strict technology mandates, the draft heads in the direction of focussing on the goals of interoperability, he said.

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

     

    Comments

    1. EU publishes draft interop framework « News & Commentaries says:

      [...] http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1156 [...]

    2. Copyright, Interop Activity at EU « News & Commentaries says:

      [...] http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1156 [...]

    3. EU industrial property rights strategy « News & Commentaries says:

      [...] http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1156 [...]

    4. Music Law Updates - European Commissioners look at business practices and consumer rights says:

      [...] http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1156 [...]


    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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.234.67.55