« WIPO - Notes from Day One |
Main
| BlogOn »
June 8, 2004
WIPO - Notes from Day Two
Posted by
The trio that yesterday brought us notes from behind the closed doors of the ongoing WIPO meetings are up at bat again today, this time over @ EFF's Deep Links.
Below, a representative snippet of Cory Doctorow's backchannel commentary, in this instance responding to the idea that we need to give additional rights to broadcasters of sporting events:
[ed - yesterday, the issue of sporting events was raised privately by the Canadian delegation in conversation; the Canadians claimed that in some nations, retransmission of sporting events is not covered by copyright and so when people across the border retransmit without permission no remedies are available. He didn't seem to be interested in the argument that those "works" excluded from copyright are deliberately thus: we have decided as a society to exclude them from copyright for policy reasons, and putting them *back* into copyright through a broadcast right seems like a bad way to deliberate the appropriate scope of copyright -cd]
[ed - This morning I thought about this more and realized that even if you buy his argument, it's still pretty weird: why should the guy who *aims a camera* get the copyright monopoly? Why not teams? Venues? Players? -cd]
More meaty material, including transcribed floor testimony on the proposed
Broadcasting Treaty by Cory for
EFF, Robin Gross for
IP Justice, and Jamie Love for the Civil Society Coalition,
here.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse
- RELATED ENTRIES
- MSFT to Region-Lock Xbox One on Launch
- Myriad Genetics, One Opinion
- Analyzing Netflix's Economics Misses Netflix's Long Game
- Oh, Yeah, DOJ is Still Suing Apple over E-Books
- Why CNN Makes Lots of Money Despite Sucking
- Microsoft Turns Xbox One into DRM Nanny
- NFB Settles with Free Library of Phila
- The White House vs Patent Trolls - So What?
1. Matt Brubeck on June 8, 2004 2:42 PM writes...
"why should the guy who *aims a camera* get the copyright monopoly?"
Doesn't the same argument apply to almost all photographic works? Can a photojournalist claim copyright on her pictures? Should we grant the rights to the subjects of the photos instead?
Permalink to Comment2. Cory Doctorow on June 9, 2004 3:14 AM writes...
It's not analogous -- if you photograph a painting the painter has a right to exclude that trumps yours. If we accept the dubious idea that sport-matches are creative and deserve copyright or para-copyright, we still need to determine whether the more creative act in a sporting event the sports, or the transmission. There's only one Beckham but there are a million camerapeople who can follow him down the pitch: whose incentives are more important.
Permalink to Comment3. cypherpunk on June 9, 2004 1:24 PM writes...
So let millions of people broadcast the games, each with his own copyright in the broadcast. As long as there's no monopoly, the broadcast copyright will be effectively worthless due to competition. This copyright would be in addition to any copyrights in the works being photographed.
Permalink to Comment