Rescue Orphan Works

In the Know - February 28, 2006

Public Knowledge is a Washington DC based public interest group working to defend your rights in the emerging digital culture. More about PK »

a bimonthly Public Knowledge update

Contents

This issue is also available via podcast here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/151

Net Neutrality Enters Murky Legislative State

The Net Neutrality issue appears to be moving in the legislative process. No one at this point is sure, however, in which direction it’s moving. Net Neutrality, as we see it, is the principle that maintains the Internet will be open and accessible to all. Consumers have the ability to visit any web site, connect any equipment or upload content, while service providers all have the same ability to reach their customers without interference from network operators.

While PK considers Net Neutrality to be an important issue, it’s not clear how widespread that belief is on Capitol Hill. The telephone and cable companies, who provide broadband service, have been very forceful in their lobbying to minimize the issue, and key policymakers appear to be listening. The companies are telling key members of Congress and their staffs that 1) there is no problem that a Net Neutrality bill (or language in another bill) would need to solve and 2) that Net Neutrality is simply a fight between the telephone companies and some big Internet companies like Google and Yahoo.

Both of those arguments, of course, are flat wrong, as our paper on Net Neutrality aptly demonstrated. The telephone companies have a history of anti-competitive activity and there’s no guarantee they would not favor their own content online. We show some examples of this behavior in our report. In addition, the fight is over the future of the Internet, including whether the next Googles and Yahoos will have the same opportunity to grow and flourish as those companies did.

The House Commerce Committee appears to be where the momentum now is to move some sort of telecommunications bill. It’s not certain at this point whether the bill will be a relatively narrow one, which would allow Verizon and AT&T into the cable business on a national or state level, or a broader bill that would encompass other issues. The key members of the Committee and staff have been meeting over the past couple of weeks and will again soon to shape the debate. PK, of course, believes that a video franchising bill without Net Neutrality would be meaningless, as we told the Senate Commerce Committee.

If you still believe that the Internet should be open to all, let your member of Congress know.

On the Senate side, the Commerce Committee is still having a series of hearings that extend through March. No legislation is expected before then. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a former Committee member active on Internet issues, is expected to introduce a Net Neutrality bill soon.

Here’s our testimony:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/testimony/gbsohn-testimony-20060215

Our full NN report is here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Debated

A controversial treaty being debated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that is supposed to protect broadcasters and webcasters from signal theft could instead harm consumers and restrict the flow of information, according to Prof. Jennifer Urban of the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California.

Urban and others spoke last week at a seminar on the proposed treaty hosted by the National Academies on the webcasting part of the proposed broadcasting treaty. Urban argued that the proposed treaty would cause copyright holders to lose control over their works. Under the proposed treaty, broadcasters and webcasters could claim rights to content they have broadcast or webcast, regardless of whether they actually hold the copyright to the content in the first place. She added that webcasters and broadcasters haven’t shown any need for protection, noting that the industries are quite robust without the treaty protection.

She and Michael Nelson from IBM, who serves as Vice President for Policy of the Internet Society (ISOC), said that the complexities of defining webcasting could cause even more confusion. Nelson gave a presentation showing how the technology of webcasting creates difficulties in defining webcasting, which could include simple streaming video.

One of the main problems we see is that the proposed treaty, which was allegedly intended to protect broadcasters against signal theft, instead would give broadcasters a 50-year copyright-like right in the programs they transmit.

In defense of the proposed treaty, Seth Greenstein, representing the Digital Media Association (DiMA) and DiMA Executive Director Jonathan Potter said they need parity so that webcasters have the same protections as broadcasters.

Background on the treaty and presentations from the seminar are here:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/biso/Webcasting_Treaty_Symposium.html

Gigi was at the seminar and blogged it here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/149

Please support PK: Last year was a great year for you and PK. We won our broadcast flag case. We testified before Congress on crucial issues like the broadcast flag and fair use and continue to develop excellent relationships with Capitol Hill. This year, the flag, digital radio content controls, and closing the analog hole will be front and center on the content industry’s agenda — and on ours. We’re right in the middle of the next big issue — the telecom legislation that will start moving early this year. You can become a member here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/membership. Or simply donate: http://www.publicknowledge.org/donate. In either case, we thank you for your support.

Briefly: The House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property has scheduled a hearing for March 8 on the report on orphan works issued in late January by the U.S. Copyright Office. Scheduled to testify are: Jule Sigall, Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, Copyright Office; Allan Adler, Vice President for Legal and Government Affairs, American Association of Publishers; Maria Pallante-Hyun, Associate General Counsel, Guggenheim Museum; and David Trust, CEO, Professional Photographers of America. Our take is that it was a true contribution to the study of orphan works, but fell short with its recommendations. In particular, we took issue with how owners of the copyrights to orphan works who reappear would be compensated. You can read the report here:
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf
Our reaction is here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/releases/pressrelease.2006-02-01.9416187448

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) have each introduced bills that could provide new competition in the broadband world by making wireless spectrum available. More details, and our reaction, here:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/releases/pressrelease.2006-02-23.7173407789

Public Knowledge keeps you up to date with RSS. We have a number of different feeds to add to your favorite news aggregator:

To find out more about RSS and other feeds we offer, follow the link below:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/feeds