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.

Quantitative Analysis Of Contributions To NETMundial Meeting

A quantitative analysis of the 187 submissions to the April NETmundial conference on the future of internet governance shows broad support for improving security, ensuring respect for privacy, ensuring freedom of expression, and globalizing the IANA function, analyst Richard Hill writes.


Latest Comments
  • Why should anyone care what James Anaya thinks? In... »
  • If this goes ahead, as the EU will "speak" for all... »

  • 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 >

    Pallante, Goodlatte Lay Framework For US Copyright Review

    Published on 6 June 2013 @ 4:46 pm

    By for Intellectual Property Watch

    Washington, DC – United States Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante, US House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), and US House Representative Anna Eshoo (D-California) this week outlined the priorities and challenges of an anticipated comprehensive review of US copyright law at the World Creators Summit (WSC).

    The two-day summit, held on 4-5 June in Washington, DC, was hosted by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC).

    Pallante laid the framework for a discussion of the US copyright agenda by identifying three broad themes that she viewed as essential for approaching the review: (1) access to creative is essential to our culture, commerce, and progress as a people; (2) rule of law must provide creators with incentives, protections, and remedies that are correspondingly meaningful; and (3) creators have certain responsibilities to participate in the larger copyright system.

    “At the center of the equation of a new copyright regime is the wellbeing of authors and the health of the creative industries that support them,” Pallante said. “Authors matter.”

    She also specifically identified eight “pressing” priorities for copyright law reform:

    1. To clarify the scope of exclusive rights, particularly in the digital arena

    2. To provide a full public performance right for sound recordings

    3. More exceptions and limitations from the analog context to digital

    4. Address the problem of orphan works

    5. The efficacy of the DMCA notice and takedown process

    6. Provide guidance to the courts on statutory damages

    7. Encourage new licensing regimes

    8. Ensure that there are 21st century enforcement provisions to deal with 21st century infringers.

    [The DMCA is the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act]

    “Comprehensive review, rather than piece meal legislation, is more appealing,” to the US Copyright Office, Pallante said.

    Pallante ended her speech with a polite jab in reference to the discussion surrounding the proposed copyright review: “It’s critical for the parties involved to maintain a respectful dialogue,” she said, and promised that she would do her part “to set that tone.”

    Creators vs. Rights Holders

    That advice set the stage for the two panels that followed, highlighting reactions from creators, advocacy groups, and rights holders.

    Rights holders, advocacy groups, and unions were generally weary of Pallante’s “wholistic” approach to copyright review, with Public Knowledge President and CEO Gigi Sohn saying, “We have to be realistic about comprehensive copyright review. It would be better to look at particular issues where we can all come to agreement.” She specifically pointed to issues like orphan works where there appears to be an overall consensus (Sohn was later hissed by the audience after saying that Public Knowledge “does not like gatekeepers of any kind.”).

    Lee Knife, interim executive director and general counsel for the Digital Media Association, agreed that a “top down reform is necessary,” but that it would be difficult to achieve in the short term.

    Mitch Glazier, senior executive vice president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), suggested that US Congress step back from a comprehensive review and hold a simple hearing to determine what it is trying to protect.

    “The most important place for Congress to start at any review is at the beginning – the actual constitution,” Glazier said. “Review has to address behavior and respect to author, not just technology.”

    Chiming in from Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), Chief Administrative Officer & General Counsel Duncan Crabtree-Ireland shared that he was “inherently optimistic” about a US copyright overhaul, and “excited about it.”

    On the creators’ side, representatives from the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), Writers Guild of America (WGA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), and the Authors Guild voiced major concerns about the lack of enforcement, transparency and representation moving forward.

    “When we have no representation at the table when policy decisions are being made that affect our rights, so often we end up with a law that is well intended but misses its target,” SGA President Rick Carnes said. “Creators are not going to survive under the current regime.”

    Scott Turow, bestselling writer and the president of the Author’s Guild, along with other panellists, pointed to large search engines, like Google, as a large part of the problem, which he believes is still not doing its part in handling takedown notices (IPW, US Policy, 21 February 2013).

    “It’s pointless to have rights if anyone can go to a search engine and pirate your work,” Turow said.

    Marjorie David, producer and screenwriter of the Writers Guild of America, highlighted an interest in tackling larger distribution networks, rather than individuals, to solve the piracy problem.

    “Content needs to be provided at reasonable price,” David said. “There must be a reasonable way to pay for content so there will be no reason for piracy.”

    Future of Copyright, Technical Innovation

    The day culminated in a conversation about protecting copyright and supporting technological innovation with US House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), and US House Representative Anna Eshoo (D-California), moderated by CBS News Senior Correspondent Bob Schieffer.

    When asked what copyright issues need the most attention, Goodlatte, who will lead the congressional discussion on copyright review, mentioned a few issues including: illegal downloading of music and harmonising royalties paid to musicians; redefining fair use; and the first sale doctrine applied in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons (IPW, US Policy, 19 March 2013).

    “The law is old and doesn’t speak to where we are now,” Eshoo added. “While some people think marriage is outdated, [marriage] between technology and content is an absolute necessity.”

    Both Eshoo and Goodlatte believe that the first thing to accomplish in preparing for the review is to get “all the disparate interests in a dialogue about greatest way to promote creativity and innovation.”

    The review will keep in mind what Eshoo called a “lesson learned” from the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in which a grassroots effort by online groups urged Congress to step back from any anti-piracy legislation movement (IPW, US Policy, 18 January 2012).

    There was no word on how long a review of this nature would take but Eshoo defended the process, saying “it takes time to build sound legislation” but was confident that “[Goodlatte] will do it the right way.”

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

     

    Comments

    1. Pallante, Goodlatte Lay Framework For US Copyright Review – Intellectual Property Watch | Legal Planet says:

      [...] Continue reading here: CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE [...]

    2. IP: “Pallante, Goodlatte Lay Framework For US Copyright Review” | LJ INFOdocket says:

      [...] From Intellectual Property Watch: [...]

    3. theresa phan says:

      I foolishly thought that the “progress of the sciences and the arts” was the central concern of our copyright system, not the well-being of authors. Pallante really needs to go.


    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 94.23.180.240