IP Debate Said to be Hindered by Lack of Agreement on Terms
GENEVA -- Participants in the copyright debate are “talking past each other” by using terms -- such as “intellectual property (IP)” and “public interest” -- that mean different things to different people, said Time Warner Vp-Assoc. Gen. Counsel-IP Shira Perlmutter Tues. Copyright used to be a fairly esoteric subject, particularly at the international level, she said, but digital developments and globalization have led to an “explosion” of the debate, as well as the number and types of participants. Their mutual misunderstanding is hampering their ability to move forward, Perlmutter said. Her comments came at the Transatlantic Consumer Dialog on the future of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) here.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Contrary to some claims, the IP community has traditionally focused on balance, users’ interests, access to information and other issues at the center of the IP debate, Perlmutter said. While one can disagree on the policy decisions made on those issues, she said, people must recognize what WIPO and others have tried to do, and understand the decisions before trying to change them. She also stressed that WIPO isn’t the arbiter of international IP policy, but the voice of govt. consensus where it exists. WIPO, Perlmutter said, can’t be blamed for every problem in the IP system. She said WIPO should help bridge the communications gap between IP debate participants.
WIPO’s mission purportedly is to protect “works of the spirit,” said Rishab Ghosh, a founder of First Monday, an Internet journal. However, he said, protecting IP may limit that spirit by reducing the incentive to create based on earlier works. WIPO should foster “dynamic innovation” by lowering barriers to collaboration on such things as free software and Internet journals, he said. The “worth of collaboration is not counted” in the copyright debate, but it’s very high, Ghosh said.
Chile’s copyright adviser to the Education Ministry urged WIPO to consider it a priority to harmonize the exceptions and limitations to copyright infringement laws. Chile agrees that creators must have incentive to create, but the public must also have access to works for new creations, said Luis Villarroel. And, he said, users’ rights must be as clearly defined as authors’ rights. WIPO’s 1996 Internet treaties fail to provide needed clarity, he said. The lack of harmonized exceptions is more problematic now because of the heightened emphasis on IP enforcement, Villarroel said. Govts. can’t persuade citizens to obey copyright laws if they can’t explain the system and if user rights are lacking.
Like it or not, for now copyright is a property right, said Richard Owens, WIPO dir.-copyright, e- commerce, technology & management div. Much of the current discussion revolves not around what IP rights are but about how they are and will be exploited in peer-based collaborative systems, he said. WIPO may want to consider the issue of exploitation to see whether there are flexible ways of exercising IP rights, he said.
Owens warned that harmonizing copyright exceptions won’t be easy in today’s political climate. Nations are already deeply divided over the proposed broadcasting treaty, he said, and active consensus is “extremely difficult” everywhere in the world. The idea of harmonizing exceptions and limitations -- particularly concerning digital rights management and the Internet -- is a valid one, he said, but “if you want to be talking about this in 20 years, this is a good way to start it.”