Subject: Re: WIPO proposals can be harmful (fwd)
From: Frode Bakken, TbgBib (frode )
Date: ke 31 heinä 1996 - 16:27:16 EEST
Frode Bakken, TbgBib skriver:
>From frode Wed Jul 31 15:22:38 1996
Message-Id: <m0ulbES-0004UdC@tbgbib.bibsyst.no>
From: frode (Frode Bakken, TbgBib)
Subject: Re: WIPO proposals can be harmful (fwd)
To: frode@TbgBib.bibsyst.no (Frode Bakken, TbgBib)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:22:36 +0200 (WEST)
Cc: ecup-list@kaapeli.fi
In-Reply-To: <m0ulbC0-0003H2C@tbgbib.bibsyst.no> from "Frode Bakken, TbgBib" at Jul 31, 96 03:20:04 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 9758
>
> Frode Bakken and Kristine Abelsnes :
> >
> > > From frode Wed Jul 31 09:35:32 1996
> > > Subject: WIPO proposals can be harmful
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WIPO proposals can be harmful.
> > > Sandy Norman comments on 25th of july on the WIPO proposals
> > > and comments especially on Emanuella Giavarras message saying that the
> > > US/EU-proposals are harmful to libraries and users.
> > > Sandy says:"The EC proposal that the existing treaty language in art.
> > > 9(of the Berne convention) not be modified does not harm
> > > the user community as it will still allow exceptions under national laws."
> > >
> > > There can be many very problematic elements in the EU and US proposals.
> > > During these days the chairman of the WIPO expert committee on a
> > > possible protocol will present the basic proposal which
> > > will be the basis for the discussions at the diplomat conference
> > > in Geneva in december 1996.
> > >
> > > We must hope that Jukka Liedes, the chairman of the expert committee
> > > will present a proposal which adopts the wide-spread skepticism and criticism
> > > presented by many governments and NGOs to parts of the EU/US
> > > proposals.
> > > If this is not the case and the EU/US proposals will be presented
> > > as basis for discussions in december, the global library community has a lot
> > > of work to do.
> > >
> > > First of all the EU/US proposals are very premature because
> > > nobody at the moment know exactly the realities and
> > > consequences of the proposals. The formulations are very general
> > > and already there are discussions and diagreement concerning
> > > their real content.
> > > If the proposals end up as the text - a protocol to the Berne
> > > convention in dec. 96 and with ratification in the different
> > > member states in 1997-98, we can at least see some very problematic
> > > elements.
> > >
> > > 1. Browsing
> > > The proposal of EU is the following:
> > > "Contracting parties confirm that the permanent or temporary storage
> > > of a protected work in any electronic medium constitutes a
> > > reporduction within the meaning of article 9(1) of the
> > > Berne convention. This includes acts such as uploading and
> > > downloading of a work to or from the memory of a computer."
> > >
> > > As an example we can refer to the comments of the norwegian
> > > government delegation at the meeting in Geneva 22.-24.may 96
> > > The delegation said:
> > > "The delegation of Norway expressed its support for the
> > > proposals of the EU and its member states, but raised a question
> > > relative to the temporary storage of works as an act of
> > > repreduction. It pointed out that browsing the Internet, and
> > > thereby downloading works to see what is there, that is,
> > > ascertain what content is actually there, is an act involving
> > > temporary storage in the RAM of the computer. It felt that
> > > this should not require copyright clearance of the works,
> > > in that it would be a necessary act to inquire as to
> > > further uses etc., but rather should be something
> > > permitted by exceptions or limitations."
> > > Even if it is impossible to have a real analysis of the
> > > consequences of the wording of the EU proposal, it seems
> > > evident that the wording is not so clear that all governments
> > > believe that the proposal implies that "the exceptions of
> > > article 9 (2) would continue to apply" as Sandy says in her mail.
> > > Similar wordings have been presented by the US government and
> > > the Digital future coalition which also has American library
> > > association as one of its members presented the new US
> > > government cyberspace copyright bill (NII copyright protection
> > > act of 1995 - HR 2441) as having the following
> > > elements:
> > > The law proposal (which has not yet been accepted by the Congress)
> > > would
> > > "make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a
> > > license from copyright owners
> > > subject computer system operators - such as on-line services
> > > and networks at schools and libraries - to potentially crippling e
> > > liability for the copyright violations of their users,
> > > even if the operators has no knowledge of such violations
> > > thwart "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities
> > > and the disabled
> > > make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software
> > > needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted
> > > encrypted information by overruling long-standing Supreme court
> > > precedent".
> > >
> > > It is as we said premature for WIPO to produce a protocol on the
> > > question of temporary storage "within the meaning of article 9(1)"
> > > when there is no consensus of the meaning of this wording.
> > >
> > > These proposals can be very harmful to libraries.
> > >
> > > 2. Access to non-copyright material
> > > We believe that a very important aspect of public access in
> > > the information society has not been discussed at all in the
> > > WIPO documents.
> > > That is the question of the traditional balance between
> > > the exclusive rights of the rights owners (which ofcourse
> > > should be there) and the question of access for the public.
> > >
> > > We can see 3 important groups of documents/works in the
> > > electronic age which will not be liable to copyright
> > > clearance:
> > > 1. works where duration time has been exceeded
> > > in the coming years vast amounts of works electronically
> > > stored will fall into the free because the duration time
> > > of copyright of 70 years is out
> > > This kind of material can then be copied without
> > > copyright clearance
> > > 2. Government documents
> > > In many countries government documents will be out of
> > > copyright and can already be copied electronically without
> > > copyright clearance. To a large extent this is very
> > > valuable material
> > > 3. works where the rights owner has donated his/her material
> > > the public domain
> > > According to for example the norwegian copyright law,
> > > the rights owner can donate the economic part of the
> > > copyright to the world public domain.
> > > In a process where WIPO and governments enforce very
> > > strict copyright rules for electronic material it is
> > > very likely to expect that a lot of people in all
> > > countries will be interested in donating their material.
> > > They will be more interested in having their material
> > > read by many people than receiving some remuneration.
> > >
> > >
> > > At present we have to see the planned protocol in WIPO
> > > in connection with the planned electronic copyright management
> > > systems and at the moment nobody has told how these systems
> > > will handle the question of material which is out of
> > > copyright but which is still on the net.
> > >
> > > There are many other aspects of the WIPO proposals. At
> > > the moment we have concentrated on these two aspects.
> > >
> > > We believe that a lot more discussion is needed and the
> > > general public must be aware of the proposals.
> > > In US a lot of public discussion has come thanks
> > > to the American library association, Digital future
> > > coalition and other organizations.
> > > In Europe at the moment few are aware of the possible
> > > consequences of the proposals and we hope that a public
> > > debate can come now.
> > >
> > > In addition to material from the Digital future coalition
> > > on http://www.ari.net/dfc
> > > there is an excellent article by the US law counsellor
> > > Thomas Vinje called "A brave new world of technical protection
> > > systems: Will there still be room for copyright?".
> > >
> > > In a few days EBLIDA/ECUP will be informed about the
> > > WIPO proposal from Jukka Liedes.
> > > Then the debate can start.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Frode Bakken Kristine Abelsnes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Frode Bakken Email: frode@tonsberg.folkebibl.no
> > > T|nsberg Public Library Tlf. : +47-33 31 94 85
> > > Storgt. 16, N-3110 T|nsberg, Norway Fax : +47-33 31 64 75
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Frode Bakken Email: frode@tonsberg.folkebibl.no
> > T|nsberg Public Library Tlf. : +47-33 31 94 85
> > Storgt. 16, N-3110 T|nsberg, Norway Fax : +47-33 31 64 75
> >
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frode Bakken Email: frode@tonsberg.folkebibl.no
> T|nsberg Public Library Tlf. : +47-33 31 94 85
> Storgt. 16, N-3110 T|nsberg, Norway Fax : +47-33 31 64 75
>
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frode Bakken Email: frode@tonsberg.folkebibl.no T|nsberg Public Library Tlf. : +47-33 31 94 85 Storgt. 16, N-3110 T|nsberg, Norway Fax : +47-33 31 64 75-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frode Bakken Email: frode@tonsberg.folkebibl.no T|nsberg Public Library Tlf. : +47-33 31 94 85 Storgt. 16, N-3110 T|nsberg, Norway Fax : +47-33 31 64 75
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frode Bakken Email: frode@tonsberg.folkebibl.no T|nsberg Public Library Tlf. : +47-33 31 94 85 Storgt. 16, N-3110 T|nsberg, Norway Fax : +47-33 31 64 75
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : pe 19 huhti 2024 - 01:20:19 EEST