WIPO re-broadcasting treaty to steal your IP ? - probably not.
A few people seem to be wound up or reporting that a proposed WIPO treaty will result in big business re-broadcasting individuals content to gain a new copy right over that re-broadcast material.
See :
http://lucychili.blogspot.com/ ( Broadcasters and netcasters aim to claim the internet.)
and http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/
I think this unlikely in Australia for a few reasons :
1. Under existing Australian copyright law, you don't "lose" your copyright just because someone has re-broadcast your work. If you have permitted re-broadcasting by either
- placing the work in the public domain
- using a CC licence
then a new copy right is not created by someone re-broadcasting the work. The reason for this is that a re-broadcast is not a new "performance".
2. Even if this particular treaty gets up (and that looks to be in doubt - , International Treaties are not binding under domestic Australian Law unless the treaty has been ratified in Australia by the parliament, and then incorporated in domestic Australian law (otherwise the executive arm of government could sign treaties at will without being accountable to the people)
In this case there would surely be an inquiry as many groups would characterise the proposed function of the treaty as an acquisistion. The recent standing commitee inquiry into the changes required for implementing the copyright aspects of the FTA is a good example of this.
3. Australia has not yet ratified, much less carried into domestic legislation this similar treaty :
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/brussels/index.html
Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite
4. I think even if all the above did come to pass (unlikely in the short term)), then I think the way the treaty worked would be seen as an acquisition of property, and under the Australian Constitution acquisitions by the Commonwealth can only be on "just terms"
5. Protection is already given to original authors as a result of both the operation of the Berne Convention Article 11bis
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P156_28886
and the treaties that WILL be ratified and domestically incorporated as a result of the Aus-US FTA in January 2007 , namely :
WIPO Copyright Treaty : http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty : http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/index.html
See http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/final-text/chapter_17.html
The WIPO treaty provides :
Article 8
Right of Communication to the Public
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.9
Thus, the proposed "re-broadcast" treaty would have to either overturn or substantially re-write both Berne and WIPO. Not likely anytime soon.
6. Finally (!) there is no real need to do this the hard way by treaty when people (well, mostly people under 30 or so) seem quite happy to freely give up their rights voluntarily when they sign up to services like Youtube, Myspace etc..
See here : http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/20/youtubes_new_policy_.html
and
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060727.html
See :
http://lucychili.blogspot.com/ ( Broadcasters and netcasters aim to claim the internet.)
and http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/
I think this unlikely in Australia for a few reasons :
1. Under existing Australian copyright law, you don't "lose" your copyright just because someone has re-broadcast your work. If you have permitted re-broadcasting by either
- placing the work in the public domain
- using a CC licence
then a new copy right is not created by someone re-broadcasting the work. The reason for this is that a re-broadcast is not a new "performance".
2. Even if this particular treaty gets up (and that looks to be in doubt - , International Treaties are not binding under domestic Australian Law unless the treaty has been ratified in Australia by the parliament, and then incorporated in domestic Australian law (otherwise the executive arm of government could sign treaties at will without being accountable to the people)
In this case there would surely be an inquiry as many groups would characterise the proposed function of the treaty as an acquisistion. The recent standing commitee inquiry into the changes required for implementing the copyright aspects of the FTA is a good example of this.
3. Australia has not yet ratified, much less carried into domestic legislation this similar treaty :
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/brussels/index.html
Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite
4. I think even if all the above did come to pass (unlikely in the short term)), then I think the way the treaty worked would be seen as an acquisition of property, and under the Australian Constitution acquisitions by the Commonwealth can only be on "just terms"
5. Protection is already given to original authors as a result of both the operation of the Berne Convention Article 11bis
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P156_28886
and the treaties that WILL be ratified and domestically incorporated as a result of the Aus-US FTA in January 2007 , namely :
WIPO Copyright Treaty : http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty : http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/index.html
See http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/final-text/chapter_17.html
The WIPO treaty provides :
Article 8
Right of Communication to the Public
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing any communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.9
Thus, the proposed "re-broadcast" treaty would have to either overturn or substantially re-write both Berne and WIPO. Not likely anytime soon.
6. Finally (!) there is no real need to do this the hard way by treaty when people (well, mostly people under 30 or so) seem quite happy to freely give up their rights voluntarily when they sign up to services like Youtube, Myspace etc..
See here : http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/20/youtubes_new_policy_.html
and
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060727.html
posted by darren at Saturday, August 19, 2006
2 comments
