Podcast Audio | Posted by Phil Leigh on July 13, 2007
As we get more familiar with home networking we’re likely to start buying appliances that will display Digital Media stored on our computers in other rooms of the house. As consumers, we are likely to regard such uses as entirely legitimate and consistent with the personal use application under the Fair Use exemption of the Copyright Act.
But, as Will Rogers put it, “If I don’t see things your way, why should I?” In short, broadcasters and content rights holders may consider that the distribution of media across home networks is not an implicit right of the acquired media. Our guest today is an intellectual property attorney who discusses how this issue came up at last month’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) meeting.
Last month talks of updating the WIPO treaty failed to result in a new agreement. The treaty fell victim to disagreements over issues such as whether protection against piracy should cover only traditional broadcast methods – meaning cable, antenna, and satellite signals – or whether it should include retransmission over the Internet or LANs, like home networks.
European countries wanted to give broadcasters rights over any content they merely transmit – even if they did not originally produce it. To illustrate, such a right would mean that a broadcaster of “Lost” could sue a consumer who posted the program to YouTube even though that same consumer could also be sued by the creator of the program. It appears that the broadcaster wants to monopolize distribution and it is not clear whether the requested provision would apply to home networks as well as the Internet.
Subject: Our guest today is Jim Burger who is an attorney with Dow, Lohnes in Washington, D.C. He discusses the issues that caused the failure of recent WIPO meetings to come to a new treaty on intellectual property.
Length: This audio interview is about 16 minutes long.