We've just wrapped up the second day of Broadcast Treaty negotations at the UN in Geneva, and once again, two colleagues and I took really extensive notes on the proceeding. Brazil and India gave amazing testimony today, and I was able to address the UN on DRM — it was screamingly cool. We did a lot more editorializing today — it's still hard to follow, but damn this is important. If we lose here, it's a disaster for the Internet and the PC.
* Brazil
– Article 5: National Treatment. We favor alternative J,
irrespective of whether we agree on some kind of redefinition of
the term "national." We reserve the right to come back —
possible at a future meeting — to the issue of the rights
conferred to the beneficiaries under the treaty.[ed: note Brazilian implication that this business shouldn't be
concluded at this session]– Concentrate on Article 16, Technical Protection Measures [ed: AKA DRM]. Brazil is concerned with
proposed inclusion of TPMs in proposed new treaty. Aware that
similar provisions are in WCT and WPPT, but it's important to
recall that those treaties were negotiated and adopted when there
was little awareness regarding potential implications of use of
TPMs. Since then, some years have gone by, and there's a growing
widespread awareness that use of such measures can be quite
detrimental to rights of consumers and public at large.
Significant concern that anticircumvention has significant
negative for exercise of rights exceptions and limitations in
national laws. Important obstacle to access of public to public
domain materia.Inconsistent with necessary free flow of info so important to
encourage innovation and creativity in the digital environment.
All of Art 16 counters stated objectives of new treaty as
referred to in preamble. Para recognizes need to maintain
balance between rights of broadcasters and larger public
interest.This entire article should believe this entire article should be
deleted from the text. Other delegates argue that e fact that we
have these provisions in WCT and WPPTY mean that we should
include them in this treaty. We disagree. Not pertinent to rights
of broadcasting organizations.[ed. Brazil is very courageous. -dt]
[ed. See EFF's Unintended Consequences report for some of the
specific harms from adopting anticircumvention to which Brazil
alludes. Brazil recognizes that previous treaties offer
opportunity to learn from mistakes, not just blindly follow
existing language. -ws][ed This is the best statement I've ever heard at a WIPO session.
-cd]Chairman: Access to information is near to my heart as well. This
is not intended to cover DRM that locks up public domain
material. If an industry or entity does this, then TPM protection
shouldn't be available and circumvention should be lawful.[ed. Since broadcasting isn't copyright, though, there's a wide
range of new material locked up by new rights for broadcasters.
Otherwise, there's no need for a treaty at all, since copyright
and licensing of copyrights can cover the field. -ws][ed. It's a nice theory, but the DMCA enthusiastically covers the
uncopyrightable, the public domain, and things that really
shouldn't be thought of as copyright, like the way that garage
door owners work or the secret of refilling a printer cart -cd]
