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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

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.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • 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 >

    Copyright Summit: Collaboration And Protection: Digital Management For The 21st Century

    Published on 6 June 2013 @ 7:18 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Washington, DC – Collaboration, protection, and data were keywords during the second and final day of this week’s World Creators Summit (WCS) as discussions about innovative solutions to online infringement and improving collection rights management dominated the day.

    Collective Management

    Eric Baptiste, chief executive officer of the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), opened a morning of collective management discussions with a keynote address in which he defended collecting societies’ efforts to adapt their businesses models for the 21st century.

    “To sceptics and politicians around the world, I say we’ve been very diligent and, unlike other industries, we’ve been confronting our issues,” Baptiste said. “Before imposing binding rules on us, look at what CISAC is already doing.”

    The pressure on collecting societies’ that Baptiste referenced was the jumping off point for a discussion about the need for cooperation within individual collective rights management organisations and with each other.

    “The way this industry has to work is together, not just societies and publishers but also managers, record companies, concert promoters – we all need to find a way forward,” said Andrew Jenkins, chairman of the International Confederation of Music Publisher and executive vice president for Asia Pacific Region and Industry Affairs at Universal Music Publishing International.

    So what about best practices for governance? Perhaps, Jenkins said, but it would need to ensure that collecting societies don’t discriminate in terms of membership. A handful of panellists pointed to the European Commission Collective Rights Management (CRM) directive as a good piece of legislation to aid in governance.

    Gathering and managing data generated daily by performance and media platforms across the globe was a hot topic, too.

    “The good news is that the identifiers are all there and what needs to happen is that we need to start linking them all,” said Michael Battison, chair of the International Standard Musical Work Code, an identification system developed by CISAC. “We need to pull all those numbers together, but it’s easier said than done.”

    The sentiment was generally shared by others, pointing to big data as a problem for everyone, particularly collecting societies. However, Michael Whalen, a composer who works for the audio fingerprinting company TuneSat that tracks TV, radio and internet performances in 14 countries, seemed baffled by collecting societies’ data difficulties.

    “I’m living in the future, a world that I would call post-data. The post-data future,” he said. “I live in a world where I don’t struggle with my data. I take it and use it to the benefit of my clients.”

    Digital Initiatives

    Continued calls for IP enforcement online have resulted in a variety of initiatives all around the world. Focusing on Japan, France, and the US, speakers outlined about the various programs implemented in their regions. The discussion was moderated by Helienne Lindvall, songwriter, musician, and media columnist for the UK Guardian newspaper.

    Centre for Copyright Information Director Jill Lesser spoke about a recently developed internet service provider (ISP)-based Copyright Alert System (CAS) to handle online copyright infringement (IPW, US Perspectives, 14 March 2013). Lesser highlighted the educational nature of CAS, which has an emphasis on “directing people to legal choices.” She also applauded the ISPs, saying their involvement is a “significant move forward in the IP protection movement.

    Sarah Jacquier, director of legal affairs at the French authority for the diffusion of works and the protection of rights on the internet (French acronym HADOPI), reported on the HADOPI experience. She made mention of a recent report prepared for the French government recommending a softening of the HADOPI three-strikes system (IPW, Access to Knowledge, 23 February 2009) that can remove internet access for anyone found with infringing content three times. The report most significantly recommends that in the event of illegal file-sharing, rather than termination of internet access and having to pay up to €1,500, the offender would retain access and fines would be topped at €60. Jacquier told Intellectual Property Watch that it is “just a report.” It will be analysed by the French government but it is unclear when that will be done, she said.

    Satoshi Watanabe, deputy general manager of the General Affairs Bureau for the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC), mentioned Japan’s lack of a graduated response system when compared to the US and France. However, he stressed that since passing new legislation last year, sales from lawful sources have increased for the first time after 30 years.

    Protecting IP Online

    John Morton, director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), pandered to the crowd of creators during his keynote speech, saying: “I’m here for two reasons: first I value what you do. Second, I think your work deserves to be protected from theft and misuse.”

    ICE is the principal investigative arm of the US Department of Homeland Security designated to “promote the investigation of criminal violations of intellectual property” and handles about 2,500 criminal cases per year, according to Morton.

    Morton showed a brief slideshow of legitimate and counterfeit websites, demonstrating how difficult it is for federal officials and consumers to identify online infringement. “When the line between lawful and criminal is invisible, that’s when you need to watch out,” he said.

    Calling for continued creative voluntary solutions, international cooperation, and stronger domestic laws, Morton explained the difficulties ICE faces in dealing with online criminals, both domestic and foreign. “What computer am I going to seize?” he propositioned. “Who am I going to handcuff?”

    He was one of several speakers at the event to point to the US Constitution as evidence that creators’ rights should be protected with the utmost fervour.

    “Our Constitution creates a federal responsibility, and I quote, ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,’” he said.

    He hinted that current laws treat entertainment and creative industries differently and more unfairly than software and pharmaceutical industries when it comes to IP protection, but gave no indication how this could be rectified or if ICE would be a part of that discussion.

    Takeaways

    Lindvall of the Guardian told Intellectual Property Watch that after attending the last biennial WCS in 2011, it was encouraging to see discussions shift away from the general topic of piracy to actions that creators can take to begin making money on the legal side. The work, however, is far from done.

    “More creators need to be vocal,” Lindvall said. “There is still a disconnect between creators’ reality and the perceived reality from consumers.”

    Lindvall pointed to the consistent theme of consumer education as a step forward, saying, “the veil has been pulled away from big companies like Google but these issues need to be in the public space and mainstream media more often.”

    Kelly Burke may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Not Impressed says:

      Before my book got pirated, I was making $300 – 400 a month on it.

      After my book got pirated, I was only making $300 – $400 a month on it.

      See the difference?

    2. Copyright cooperation leads World Creators Summit discussions | Innovation Asset Group News says:

      [...] delegates were also keen on promoting cooperation among industry associates to display a more united front to consumers, devoid of confusing mixed [...]


    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 54.237.153.141