FARNET's Washington Update

[Jeff Ogden]

FYI
  -Jeff

>Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:47:26 -0500
>To: legup@farnet.org, policy@educom.edu, taskforce@educom.edu
>From: Heather Boyles <heather@farnet.org>
>Subject: FARNET's Washington Update
>
>FARNET's Washington Update --- December 6, 1996
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>
>o  International intellectual property issues up for grabs in Geneva:
>sticky questions remain on Internet-related copyright issues
>
>o  Next skirmish in cryptography export battle initiated by administration:
>some in industry 'defect' to administration's position
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES UP FOR GRABS IN GENEVA:  STICKY
>QUESTIONS REMAIN ON INTERNET-RELATED COPYRIGHT ISSUES
>
>In Geneva this week, some 120 countries are meeting to discuss the same
>controversial issues concerning copyright and new electronic media as were
>hotly debated in the U.S. Congress last year.  The organization hosting the
>meeting, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is a United
>Nations agency and on its agenda are three draft treaties for review and
>negotiation by participating countries.
>
>The three multilateral treaties cover literary and artistic rights,
>performance rights, record-producers' rights and databases.  All three
>treaties touch on the issue of the liability of Internet or on-line
>providers for infringing uses by subscribers.  This is the exact same issue
>over which an 'NII copyright' bill (HR2441/S1284) stalled in Congress last
>session.  The issue became so heated that House Representative Bob
>Goodlatte (R-VA) was put in charge of almost daily negotiations between the
>warring factions.  Those negotiations did achieve some compromise language
>to limit the liability of providers, but it was too little, too late for
>passage of the bill in that congressional session.
>
>Those same factions are evidently well represented in Geneva this week.
>They essentially break down into two groups:  the copyright holders
>(publishers, music and film producers) versus the access providers (ISPs,
>the computer industry and some telephone companies).  Other interest
>groups, including the library community are also aligned with the providers
>although their criticisms also include concerns over the restriction of
>fair use by the provisions of the treaties.
>
>Besides the fact that opponents see potentially uncertain and unlimited
>liability for providers in the language of the treaties, they also have
>objected to the way in which the Clinton administration has pushed this
>issue in the international arena - potentially preempting (if the treaties
>are signed) any domestic legislation on the issue.
>
>In particular, the database protection treaty is being seen by most
>observers as under heavy pressure for passage by the United States.  A
>domestic database protection bill (HR 3531) was only introduced late last
>session in the US Congress and saw little, if any, public debate.  On the
>other hand, the European Union has already passed a directive protecting
>databases which ends up apparently putting US databases at risk.
>
>Predictions are that the two treaties artists' and performance rights will
>be signed, but that the database treaty will prove too controversial for
>consensus this time around.
>
>
>NEXT SKIRMISH IN CRYPTOGRAPHY EXPORT BATTLE INITIATED BY ADMINISTRATION:
>SOME IN INDUSTRY 'DEFECT' TO ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION
>
>The seemingly endless debate over US cryptography export policy took
>perhaps a miniature step forward a couple of weeks ago as the President
>released an Executive Order to begin to implement its latest plans.  The
>latest plans were released in October of this year.  The Executive Order
>essentially does two things: 1) move licensing authority for exports of
>cryptography from the State Department to the Commerce Department and 2)
>allow the export of up to 56 bit DES under the condition that exporting
>companies commit to "explicit benchmarks and milestones" for implementing
>"key recovery" (earlier known as "key escrow") technology in their products.
>
>The Commerce Department will begin drafting regulations to implement the
>Executive Order this month.
>
>The executive order was not unexpected by industry.  Numerous companies
>including the Business Software Alliance decried the move as the wrong
>direction for US encryption export policy.  At the same time, however, a
>coalition of companies, lead by Hewlett-Packard, held a press conference to
>announce that they would begin to develop a platform to support key
>recovery in encryption products for export.
>
>The release of the Executive Order does not mean that the issue will
>ultimately escape legislative attention.  Congressional supporters of last
>session's anti-key escrow legislation have pledged to bring the bills back
>up for consideration in the new Congress.  The House Science subcommitte on
>Technology also held a briefing on November 26 about the issue.
>
>>From the order:  "it will constitute an export of encryption source code
>  or object code software for a person to make such software
>  available for transfer outside the United States, over radio,
>  electromagnetic, photooptical, or photoelectric communications
>  facilities accessible to persons outside the United States,
>  including transfer from electronic bulletin boards and Internet
>  file transfer protocol sites, unless the party making the
>  software available takes precautions adequate to prevent the
>  unauthorized transfer of such code outside the United States."
>
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is a
>service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers.  We gratefully
>acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked Information for
>additional support.  If you would like more information about the Update or
>would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact Heather Boyles
>at heather@farnet.org.
>
>
>
>Heather Boyles
>Director, Policy and Special Projects
>The Federation of American Research Networks
>1112 16th Street, NW Suite 600
>Washington, DC 20036
>v:  202.331.5342
>f:  202.872.4318
>e:  heather@farnet.org
>


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -