UN Wants Multi-Stakeholder Discussions On 'Rethinking Copyright' -- Ignores That The Only Stakeholder That Matters Is The Public

from the and-they've-already-decided dept

The UN's Internet Governance Forum had a gathering to discuss rethinking copyright, in which WIPO made the case that it should lead "multi-stakeholder" discussions on how to reform copyright. WIPO, of course, has a history of having a rather one-sided view of copyright and who the "stakeholders" are. But now, it insists that it can hear all voices:

Trevor Clarke, assistant director general for the Culture and Creative Industries Sector of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), said during a workshop on “Rethinking Copyright” today that the multi-stakeholder environment is “the best and and most appropriate” when it comes to the debate on copyright in the digital age. WIPO is preparing for such multi-stakeholder discussions, Clarke told Intellectual Property Watch.

Clarke said the WIPO director general and secretariat has added their voices to the call for a reexamination of the copyright system and have not shied away from the fact that some aspects of the law need to be revisited. Not only law, but also culture and infrastructure of the system, have to be considered, he underlined. Member state positions vary considerably on the issues, and it would make sense to include the private sector and also civil society into the talks, he said, adding, “We need that dialogue.”

While it's nice to "include the private sector and also civil society," that's really ignoring the larger point. The only real "stakeholder" in copyright is the public. The private sector may be beneficiaries, but the system is supposed to benefit the public. And while "civil society" may represent the public in some areas, which is helpful, it seems that any real discussion on reforming copyright should be very, very open to the public.

Yet that never seems to be suggested by anyone.

And, really, when you look at what's happening in reality vs. what's happening in these discussions, you realize that the public has already made its position pretty clear. People are more than willing to pay for a certain amount of content if it's convenient and not hindered/locked down. They're willing to pay for content when they know they're directly supporting artists they love. They're willing to pay. But, if things are annoying and limited, expensive or inconvenient, they certainly might take matters into their own hands. On top of that, certain aspects of copyright law seem quaint or simply so unrealistic that they're consistently ignored (such as with people making mashups and videos and the like). Yet, no one seems to want to address how the public is actually dealing with all of this, preferring to try to make up new rules based on artificial claims about copyright.

There's no need for "multistakeholder" debates when the public has already said "here's the deal: offer us what we want and we'll pay and everyone's happy." The job of any governing organization right now should be to stop ignoring the public and start paying attention.

Filed Under: copyright, internet governance, public, reality, stakeholders, un, wipo

US Steadfast In Its Stand For Publishers Against The Disabled

from the bad-news dept

We've talked a few times about how the US seems to be leading the charge to block a treaty that would increase the ability of blind and other disabled people to get around copyright restrictions to access certain works. The treaty has been in negotiations for ages -- and the US position has, at times, flip-flopped. However, now it seems firmly aligned with copyright maximalist lobbyists. The latest report from the negotiations is that publishers and the movie studios have convinced US negotiators to push back on this treaty:

The United State is playing a big major role, and led by David Kappos' USPTO, generally is aligned with the publishers in efforts to narrow the agreement and limit its benefits to persons with disabilities, and is increasingly isolated in its opposition to a decision that the nature of the "instrument" will be a treaty rather than a softer non-blinding recommendation or model law. One major objective of the US delegation is to exclude persons who are deaf. Another is to limit the exceptions to text, and exclude any audiovisual content or related rights. Both of these negotiating objectives are designed to keep the U.S. movie and television industry happy. The U.S. has also been seeking ways to support other publisher friendly provisions, even when they run counter to the robust exceptions found in U.S. law.

Siding with big studios and publishers over the best interests of the blind and the deaf? How nice...

Filed Under: blind, copyright, deaf, disabled, publishers, us, wipo

US Wants WIPO To Host IP Maximalist Agenda Day; Public Interest Groups Not Invited [Updated]

from the isn't-this-for-the-public-interest dept

See the update at the end

We've already written about how WIPO caved to US pressure (along with a few other countries) in delaying a decision on whether or not the Pirate Parties International group can act as an observer at WIPO meetings. However, in the KEI report that revealed that decision, there was also a separate story worth highlighting as well: the news that the US is pushing for WIPO to hold an intellectual property maximalist day, but has no interest in hearing what public interest groups have to say.

In another development, the US said it is asked that WIPO set aside a regular day for corporate right holder groups. One member of the US delegate said they wanted a "Davos type" format, with CEOs of leading companies interacting with government delegates and WIPO officials. When asked, have you proposed similar event for consumer, public health and development groups, the answer was no. The US said its proposal at WIPO for the right-holders day had a lot of support. It also comes at the same time that the pharmaceutical and processed food industries are seeking more direct roles in the governance of the World Health Organization (WHO), under a "WIPO Reform" negotiation.

This is, of course, not particularly surprising, though it is troubling. Considering, again, that we're told that the purpose of these laws is to benefit the public, even as these companies often pretend it's really just about benefiting them, it would seem that any such event should have a very high level of participation by the public itself, including various public interest groups.

Update: Some good additional info from Nick Ashton-Hart who was in the room when this was proposed, and who says that it's not as bad as the original report suggested. Instead, he points out that the request did not come from industry sources, and isn't about big rightsholders, but about actually getting real innovators and inventors to come and tell WIPO officials what they do -- which could actually be useful. I'm still concerned about how this would be set up in reality, but perhaps it's not as bad as it sounded from the original report.

Filed Under: copyright, crony capitalism, maximalists, public interest, wipo

WIPO Scared Of The Pirate Party; Won't Give It Observer Status Due To Objections Despite Meeting Criteria

from the but-of-course dept

There was a report a few weeks back noting that WIPO had been in favor (pdf) of allowing the Pirate Party International to be designated as an accredited "observer" to WIPO meetings (which would allow them to participate as an non-governmental organization, but without voting powers). However, it appears that the official decision on this has now been delayed because of objections from Swiss, French and US (who else?) officials:

This morning, under agenda item 6, the WIPO General Assemblies decided to defer a decision until 2013 on the application for accreditation by Pirate Parties International. I was told that the US, Switzerland the France raised objections in the informal consultations, and that some other European countries wanted to raise objections, but found it awkward given the recent success of domestic Pirate Parties in national elections. The USA said it asked for a hold on the decision until WIPO could decide if it wanted to accept political parties as WIPO observers. One delegate said European countries were concerned that the Pirate Parties would take "political action" back home when they disagreed with positions taken by the official delegates at the WIPO meetings.

While it is a legitimate question as to whether or not political parties should count as NGOs, the whole thing still feels pretty questionable. As Jamie Love notes, it just makes WIPO look like it's afraid of the Pirate Party.

KEI's view is that the decision to block the Pirate Parties International application made WIPO look even more captured by right holders than it actually is. To the extent that intellectual property rights issues become seen as political rather than simply technical matters, it may be possible to have broader, deeper and more useful debates on the purpose and performance of the intellectual property rights system. Why? Because many of the technical staff at the government levels are caught up in a system where responsiveness to right-holder interests is key to promotions or job retention, and the robust revolving door with industry creates incentives to be anti-consumer.

In other words, another blown opportunity to try to move things forward, rather than staring longingly at the past.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that the Pirate Parties International appears to meet all the criteria, and thus it is completely ridiculous to delay their observer status:

“If the NGO’s application falls within a plain wording of the rules and regulations defining what NGOs may be accredited, then the application should be granted,” he said. “From our perspective, what harm can there be for the secretariat of a political party to be an observer at WIPO? If anything, it seems to us this will lead to a better understanding by that secretariat of the international dimension of IP public policy, which is no bad thing.”

The whole thing seems like a typical negative reaction to the party simply because of its name, without any recognition of what it actually stands for, driven by pressure from the US. WIPO looking like a US stooge yet again? Not a huge surprise.

Filed Under: delays, france, ngos, observers, pirates party international, switzerland, us, wipo

Obama Administration Stalls Treaty To Help The Blind In An Effort To Appease Big Publishers (AKA Campaign Donors)

from the money-first-politics dept

Last week, we wrote about how the US was holding up a treaty to help visually impaired people be able to access more works, in large part because publishers are somehow offended that the public might want to take back some of their fair use rights (which the publishers unfortunately claim is "taking away" something from them). As more and more details come out, it's become clear that while most of the countries involved in the negotiations really want this treaty -- which has been in discussion for nearly 20 years -- to be put in place, there are two major stumbling blocks: the EU Commission and the US. Not surprisingly, these were the two biggest supporters of ACTA as well. As with ACTA, the EU Parliament is at odds with the EU Commission on this and is in support of a treaty, but the Commission is trying to put all sorts of "unreasonable restrictions" on the agreement, and the US is still fighting against the idea of calling this a "treaty."

The end result is that, rather than finalizing things at the WIPO gathering, the US's ability to drag the whole process out means that nothing will be decided until after the Presidential election. And that's by design:

This is really kicking the can down the road -- in this case, past Obama's first term in office. After four years, Obama can't overcome opposition from a handful of mostly foreign owned publishers to support a treaty for blind people. In many respects, this is a money in politics story. If blind people were financing his campaign, they would have had a treaty a year ago. The Obama administration wants the decision on the treaty delayed until the election so it will not interfere with its campaign fundraising from publishers, and so it will not suffer bad publicity for opposing the treaty, before the election.

The whole thing is pretty shameful, and yet another display of how money corrupts politics... and how copyright helps in that process.

Filed Under: blind, campaigns, copyright, obama administration, publishers, treaties, visually impaired, wipo

WIPO: Giving Computers For 'Patents' To North Korea And Iran Didn't Violate UN Sanctions... But We'll Stop Doing It

from the you-know,-just-because dept

I still think that one of the craziest stories of the year was the news that the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, was caught defying UN sanctions (despite being a part of the UN) and giving computer systems to both North Korea and Iran -- officially to help both set up a database of international patents. Of course, none of this makes any sense, considering that neither country has shown much, if any, interest in respecting foreign patents. However, both have shown quite a lot of interest in building nuclear bombs... for which they need computing power.

The whole thing should be seen as a massive scandal that calls into question the judgment of those at the top of WIPO -- but it doesn't seem to be fazing too many people. WIPO recently released a statement trying to play down the whole thing, while at the same time admitting that it was changing its policies and likely would stop handing computers over to such regimes based on promises that they'd be used to setup patent databases. In other words, while it won't do it again, leadership there doesn't seem particularly apologetic for its actions.

The provision of standard IT equipment to the IP offices of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Islamic Republic of Iran that occurred in the preceding years, within the context of the Organization’s business modernization program for IP Offices in developing countries, is being referred to the relevant UN Sanctions Committees for their information and guidance.

The initial steps are being undertaken for a full external and independent review of the technical assistance provided to countries subject to UN sanctions.

A new internal instruction has been issued ending any provision of IT hardware in any of WIPO’s technical assistance programs.

It still amazes me that anyone at WIPO thought this was a good idea. The fact that they still refuse to admit doing anything wrong suggests they don't even realize how badly they were played by those governments.

Either way, WIPO boss Francis Gurry did an interview with IP-Watch where he continues to downplay the seriousness of the issue, and also says he doesn't feel any compulsion to respond to the US's stated concerns about the program. He says that they stopped sending the program because of some "ambiguity."

“There’s a relatively small number of countries who benefit from hardware as opposed to our complete software package,” Gurry said. “And since certain member states perceive that there is some ambiguity in the use of standard IT equipment – printers, cartridges, PCs and servers – we think the only complete answer we can give because of their perception of ambiguity is to say, we no longer do that.”

“We can argue for hours and hours and hours about the legal interpretation, that it’s only a few PCs, and so on,” he said. “But if there’s lingering doubt, let's eliminate it.”

Something about that statement reminds me of a particular Monty Python quote. Either way, it still seems like WIPO still doesn't understand why its actions are being questioned here.

Filed Under: computers, francis gurry, iran, north korea, un sanctions, wipo

Shameful: US Secrecy Holding Up Treaty To Help Blind Access Copyrighted Works

from the more-of-the-same dept

We've been talking about ACTA and TPP and the ridiculous levels of secrecy around them for a while now, but the US's overly secret policies are showing up in other treaty issues as well. For years, we've been talking about negotiations at WIPO to create a treaty that would provide specific exceptions to copyright law to help the blind get access to works in formats they could read (basically, it would make it so the blind could more easily import braille and other versions that are readable for the visually impaired from other countries). This issue has been out there forever. And while we always hear how important it is that US negotiators rush to get deals like ACTA and TPP done, they've dragged their heels on the treaty for the blind for ages. At the urging of copyright holders, the Obama administration came out against such a treaty a few years ago. And the EU Commission has been against such a treaty for a while as well, claiming that it's just too hard to put in place. Yeah, rush through things like ACTA and TPP... but helping the blind get access to works? That's just too hard...

Over at WIPO, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) conference is ongoing, and one of the agenda items is this treaty for the blind. One of the key points that have held up negotiations is whether or not this should really be a "treaty." As I understand it, copyright maximalists are scared silly of creating an actual treaty that is focused on "exceptions and limitations," because that might make people realize that exceptions and limitations are a thing they can create whole treaties around... and thus we'd start seeing a lot more of that.

And, in fact, on the agenda at SCCR are two other potential agreements (which are much newer) discussing the possibility of exceptions and limitations in two other areas: education and libraries. As this video, shot by Jamie Love at KEI of Alan Adler, the VP of the Association of American Publishers, shows, he's against these kinds of treaties because the publishers believe that exceptions and limitations are an attack on their rights, and they don't want to support that kind of thing. What's really disturbing, however, is that despite years and years of work on a treaty for exceptions for the blind, and despite the public's reaction to secret negotiations in the likes of SOPA, ACTA and TPP... the US so far has been keeping the text of what's being discussed a secret. Jamie Love has been explaining that this is creating huge problems at SCCR, because very few people know exactly what's in the text, and they feel that they're wasting time. There had been some hope that a basic agreement might finally have been worked out at this session. But, instead, while lobbyists have been briefed, actual advocates for the blind and the public have been left out in the cold and don't even know what's in the latest draft.

There's no way to describe this other than absolutely shameful on the part of the US government and the Obama administration. It's dragged its feet for years on helping the blind over this issue, even while trying to rush through all sorts of copyright treaties that favor Hollywood. And now, despite all of that, having the US (once again) keep the text a secret... it's just shameful.

Filed Under: blind, copyright, treaty, us, wipo

WIPO Defied UN Sanctions To Give Computers To Iran... For Its Patent System (Wink, Wink)

from the wow dept

Way to go WIPO. You may recall back in April we wrote about how the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a part of the UN, flat out ignored UN sanctions and gave computers to North Korea, claiming that they were to help North Korea allow for better searching of international patents. This is, of course, ridiculous, because North Korea clearly could not care any less about anyone's patents -- but does want computing power for its nuclear program. Given that, I guess it should come as little surprise that WIPO is now being accused of the exact same thing with Iran (found via Ars Technica). Yup, WIPO apparently supplied computers to Iran to "modernize" its patent office, because we all know how much Iran cares about respecting the patents of others.

Geneva-based WIPO has a mandate from members to help developing countries modernize their patent offices. Iran and North Korea, both subjects of international trade embargoes including Security Council resolutions, were both beneficiaries of “standard information-technology equipment” after meeting WIPO’s needs-assessment and validation procedures, according to Edward Kwakwa, legal counsel at the organization.

This would be the very same Edward Kwakwa, who in a private email that was revealed when the North Korea story broke, told a very different story:

I would suggest we go ahead ONLY if you think this arrangement is of crucial importance to WIPO. But given the sensitivities and the broad sweep of the sanctions language, I would prefer that WIPO simply desist from entering into any such arrangement, as it does not seem to be of any consequence or benefit to WIPO, and can bring more trouble than benefit ultimately.

We noted in the story about North Korea that WIPO officials admitted that they had done these kinds of operations before. I had, at the time, assumed they just meant with North Korea. I didn't realize they also meant with other countries seeking to be nuclear powers and under UN sanctions. It makes you wonder who else WIPO is helping to "modernize its patent office."

Filed Under: edward kwakwa, iran, north korea, sanctions, united nations, wipo

US Copyright Office, MPAA Celebrate Handing Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Copyright Monopoly Powers

from the oh,-phew,-the-mpaa-was-on-hand-to-help dept

So remember how we were just talking about WIPO passing a totally unnecessary new form of monopoly protection for Hollywood movie stars? The negotiations concluded with everyone -- including the US -- already "signing" the agreement, and now countries just need to ratify it. In a rather sickening display of cluelessness, the US Copyright Office put out an announcement about just how awesome it was that they were able to lock down some more culture to make a few Hollywood stars happy and able to block anyone from creating mashups or remixes of their work.

Copyright Office boss, Maria Pallante, who incorrectly believes that copyright is "for the author first and the nation second," was overjoyed at being able to give Hollywood actors more power to lock up content they performed in, over which they have no copyright interest:

“The Beijing Treaty is an important step forward in protecting the performances of television and film actors throughout the world," said Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante.

But, um, why do they need this? No one ever answers that question, because the answer is they don't need this. At all. It's just a way to lock up culture some more. It's sickening.

Not surprisingly, the Copyright Office's announcement plays up the fact that the MPAA was in Beijing to help the US negotiate. And, of course, Chris Dodd is just thrilled at how awesome this treaty is, and how it shows how "substantive" treaties can be created. Yeah, there's no regulatory capture going on here... none at all. And, um, who was there to represent the public's interest? Who was there to make sure that our culture wasn't locked up and that free speech and technology weren't stifled? No one. Pallante then says that:

"There was a renewed atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration among all of the delegations in attendance...."

Well, you know, that's what happens when you only invite your friends, and leave the public and the public interest out in the cold. She might as well have just been more honest and said what the truth is: "For the Hollywood stars first, and screw the nation."

And I thought after the SOPA/PIPA and ACTA debacles, Hollywood and the US government has promised no more backroom deals signed just to support Hollywood...

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright office, hollywood, maria pallante, performer's rights, wipo
Companies: mpaa