[A2k] WIPO Broadcasting Treaty – Paving the way for a right for on-demand streaming services?

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Wed May 1 03:16:51 PDT 2019


On 5/1/19, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/19, Thiru Balasubramaniam <thiru at keionline.org> wrote:
>> https://www.keionline.org/30551
>
>
> See this exchange with Shira Perlmutter from 2014 (pasted below),
> stating the connection of the xcasters treaty with retransmission
> consent domestically.

Shira's comment is further below as a forward at the bottom of this email:

<SKIP THIS>

> I sent the following (turgid but now in present context much more
> lucid) query as followup in February 2015:
>
> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2015/02/25/on-the-broadcast-treaty-in-the-information-society-context/
>
> "Your comments are stated in general terms regarding the CSTD/ECOSOC
> WSIS+10 and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) proceedings, and they are
> not responsive to the concerns I raised with Shira, which have to do
> specifically with the broadcasters treaty, and international
> copyright-related policymaking as it affects the Internet in general,
> particularly in relation to the WSIS+10 Review and the
> intergovernmental framework for the Information Society being
> deliberated at the United Nations this year.
>
> "Will we have the opportunity to engage on the topic of the
> broadcasters treaty and retransmission consent, by an open and
> participatory process, before the UN General Assembly’s
> intergovernmental negotiations addressing the status and future of the
> Information Society project in the latter half of this year?
>
> "To my recollection, Shira’s note to me of December 10 is the first
> mention I have seen of the US using retransmission consent as a
> regulatory “national implementing legislation” basis for the
> broadcaster’s treaty.  Has this specific notion, of applying
> retransmission consent under the Communications Act to the Internet
> and using that as the implementing legislation for the broadcaster’s
> treaty, been subject to any kind of appropriate public disclosure and
> discussion?  I believe there would have been far more concern
> expressed if this had been the case, and the connection had been
> explicitly understood."


</SKIP THIS>


> —–Original Message—–
> From: Seth Johnson [mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:56 AM
> To: Perlmutter, Shira
> Cc: Jamie Love; Manon Anne Ress; Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva);
> Reves, Todd; Shapiro, Michael
> Subject: Re: Question for today’s debrief on the SCCR
>
> Thank you Shira, I will await further word.
>
> Seth
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Perlmutter, Shira
> <Shira.Perlmutter at uspto.gov> wrote:
>> Thanks Seth.  Within the USG, the State Dept has the lead on this.  I’m
>> copying Kristine, who can give you more information on this.  But please
>> be assured that the positions we are taking at WIPO, including on the
>> proposed broadcast treaty, are the product of extensive interagency
>> discussion, including the State Dept.  And our single-right approach is
>> intended to be consistent with existing US law, primarily through the
>> retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act.   In our
>> view, it would not require any new form of government regulation.
>>
>> Best,
>> Shira
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:47 PM
>> To: Perlmutter, Shira
>> Cc: James Love; Manon Ress
>> Subject: Question for today’s debrief on the SCCR
>>
>> Dear Ms. Perlmutter:
>>
>> You are doubtless aware of the activities presently underway taking up
>> numerous policy areas related to the Internet and developing of some
>> form of “Internet Governance” in relation to the Information Society
>> project, represented most prominently by the outcomes of the 2003 and
>> 2005 Geneva and Tunis World Summits for the Information Society
>> (WSIS).
>>
>> The US has generally promoted a multistakeholder approach and avoided
>> a predominantly intergovernmental approach to Internet-related policy
>> areas in these processes.
>>
>> The US has also generally asserted an opposition to expanding the
>> ITU’s scope to the Internet through proposals that would amount to
>> regulating of content, rather than telecommunications as such.  We
>> might see this distinction reflected in the Information Society
>> project’s performance measures, which are based on ISIC (International
>> Standard Industrial Classification) categories which distinguish
>> content-related industries from telecommunications.
>>
>> However, while the project’s performance measures do not include
>> content creation, policies that the US is pursuing related to
>> copyright, including the broadcasters right, are intergovernmental
>> policies related to content that can easily affect the nature of the
>> Internet platform.
>>
>> The Information Society project will be completing a 10-year
>> assessment of its progress in 2015, beginning with a review by the
>> Commission on Science and Technology in Development in the first half
>> of the year, followed by an intergovernmental process conducted by the
>> President of the General Assembly to determine the project’s status
>> and how it will proceed after 2015.  This period of review of
>> implementation and followup represents the last opportunity before the
>> UN GA’s intergovernmental negotiations to address how well the project
>> is addressing the relationship between the project and the Internet.
>> The Internet Governance Forum will also provide a forum for
>> multistakeholder engagement in Internet-related policy.
>>
>> Will the US be taking part in these forums to provide the opportunity
>> for broader multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US’s
>> activities on copyright and other related exclusive rights policies,
>> prior to the conclusion of the Information Society project’s 10-year
>> review?
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Seth Johnson
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thiru Balasubramaniam
>> Geneva Representative
>> Knowledge Ecology International
>> 41 22 791 6727
>> thiru at keionline.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> A2k mailing list
>> A2k at lists.keionline.org
>> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>>
>



More information about the A2k mailing list