November 17, 2005: Open Letter to WIPO from 20 Webcasters, presented to 12th session of the SCCR

The World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is undertaking a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations. This treaty will confer upon the transmitters of information a host of "related" or "pseudo" copyrights that have the potential to trump true copyright and restrict the flow of information on the Internet.

One proposal within the Treaty would extend these pseudo-copyrights to the Internet, by means of a controversial "Webcasting Provision." While there has been very little support from the national delegations for this proposal, the insistent voice of self-styled representatives of the technology industry has been loud enough to see to it that this proposal has persisted through draft after draft of the Treaty.

We, the undersigned representatives of technology businesses large and small, reject the idea that the Internet needs or will benefit from the extension of these pseudo-copyrights to so-called "Webcasters."

Briefly, we reject the Webcasting Provision for the following reasons:

  1. The Internet depends on permission-free access. This is reflected in the exemptions in many countries' copyright laws for online and internet service providers. When authors or rights-holders' permission has been required for fixation, copying, retransmission or decoding in other situations, the negotiation of licenses from creators and copyright rights-holders have provided ample protection for all parties. Adding a new layer of intermediaries, over and above copyright holders, for the re-use of information on the Internet benefits no one -- save those intermediaries. If an Internet company has the rights to a work, or need not secure the rights to a work due to a limitation in copyright, or because the work is in the public domain, there is no rational reason to require that the company also seek the permission of a further intermediary whose sole creative contribution to the work is in making it available.
  2. There is no demonstrable problem. Internet businesses are famously, legendarily well-capitalized from angels, venture capitalists, public markets, private investors, governments and every other source of capital imaginable. Proponents of webcasting rights have offered no credible evidence that the lack of legal protection for webcasting rights has precluded the establishment of any new Internet businesses. Indeed, the businesses most volubly calling for Webcasting protection are among the best-capitalized in the history of the world. There is no certainty of benefit here, but it *is* certain that the creation of a new psuedo-copyright will slow down adoption and innovation in Internet markets by requiring all content-related businesses to negotiate yet another layer of license agreements before they can offer new products or services to the public. The most likely result of introducing these new rights will be to skew the market; in practice it will provide financial assistance to incumbents who will be able to assure investors of their right to exclude their competitors and new entrants from the market. At the same time, it is likely to constrain, not increase, the creation of more information products for the public.

We do not desire the "protection" you offer us, nor do we believe it will benefit us.

Thank you,

Mark Cuban, HDNet, Dallas Mavericks NBA Team Owner

mark.cuban@dallasmavs.com

(Mr Cuban is also the owner of over US$500,000,000 in copyrighted video works)

Elliot Noss, TuCows, Inc.

enoss@tucows.com

Tim O'Reilly: O'Reilly and Associates

tim@oreilly.com

Scott Rosenberg, Salon Media Group/Salon.com

scottr@salon.com

Jeremy Hogan, Lulu, Inc

jhogan@lulu.com

Austin Wallender, pictothink

austin@pictothink.com

Jonathan M. Hollin, Digital-World, Ltd (UK)

urbanmainframe@gmail.com

Adam Rifkin, KnowNow, Inc.

ifindkarma@gmail.com

Rohit Khare, CommerceNet Coalition

Rohit@KnowNow.com

Michael J. Masin, M2 Group Corp.

mmasin@m2gc.com

David Daniels, Starfish Internet Services

daniels@starfishnet.com

John Burden, FuturesGuide, Inc

info@bwp.net

Leisa Fearing, Elf Systems Corporation

leisa@elf.net

Arthur van Dorp, Siteware Systems GmbH Switzerland

vandorp@siteware.ch

Matt Rudderham, DynamicHosting.Biz

matt_AT_norex.ca

Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies LLC

business@tigertech.net

Anil Gupte, ke.e.n., Inc.

anilgupte@keeninc.net

Kai Schaetzl, Conactive GmbH & Co KG

vertrieb@conactive.com

Marc Gadsdon, In-Tuition Networks Ltd

marc.gadsdon@in-tuition.co.uk

Joyce Thomas, Bizgrok, Inc.

jt@bizgrok.com

Stay in Touch

NSA Spying

EFF is leading the fight against the NSA's illegal mass surveillance program. Learn more about what the program is, how it works, and what you can do.

Follow EFF

The clock is ticking on Section 215 sunset, but the Senate is in stalemate on NSA spying powers: https://eff.org/r.tpwa

May 22 @ 10:58pm

BREAKING: At the behest of @SenateMajLdr, the Senate will meet Sunday, May 31st in the afternoon, mere hours before Section 215 expires.

May 22 @ 10:20pm

BREAKING: Senator Rand Paul objecting to even one more day of extending Section 215.

May 22 @ 10:08pm
JavaScript license information