Below is a message that was posted on the ecup list (one of the EC
Telematics for Libraries Projects on Copyright) that I thought would be of
interest to elibbers.  It concerns the US Whitepaper on Copyright.

The ecup list has just begun and may be worth joining to keep abreast of
current debate on copyright issues.

Kelly


Return-path: <[log in to unmask]> 
>Resent-Message-ID:
<[log in to unmask]>
>Priority: Normal
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Resent-To: [log in to unmask]
>From: Emanuella Giavarra <[log in to unmask]>
>Resent-From: Emanuella Giavarra <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Protest Letter of 100+ Law Professors
>Date: Tue, 04 Jun 96 18:47:05 GMT
>Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 13:13:01 GMT
>
>Dear new subscribers,
>
>Welcome to the list. The message I have attached to this email was already 
>sent to the list on 4 June. I thought it would be useful to send it again
to make 
>the many new subscribers aware of this important subject.
>
>Kind regards,
>Emanuella Giavarra
>moderator
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The CNI discussion list reported on 3 June that more than 100 law 
>professors signed an Open Letter addressed to the USA 
>Administration to warn of the serious constitutional threats of the 
>USA "White Paper on Intellectual Property and the National 
>Information Infrastructure".
>
>See http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/boyle.htm for a fascinating 
>exchange between the Clinton Administration and one of the 
>professors. I have copied the Open Letter to this message.
>
>The discussions in the USA are very relevant for Europeans. Most 
>of the arguments we are using to fight for the "user rights" under 
>copyright are tested in the USA at the moment. Besides this the 
>USA Administration is trying very hard to get what they want via a 
>backdoor: the new Protocal to the Berne Convention. Since 
>February the discussions in the World Intellectual Property 
>Organization (WIPO) have been speeded up and this is certainly 
>due to the determination of the USA to get regulation in place before 
>the next election. The danger of it all is that the Berne Convention 
>sets minimum standards for implementation in the national laws of its 
>members. The Berne Convention counts over 80 members of which 
>all EU countries. This means that the USA legislation will effect also 
>your own situation.
>
>I am very interested to know if anybody of this list already follows 
>the discussions in the USA and what their views are. I know that in 
>Finland there is a broad discussion on the implications of the 
>Information Society. Could anybody report on that?
>
>Thank you!
>
>Emanuella Giavarra
>ecup-list moderator
>
>
>Dear Sirs: 
>
>We are a group of over 100 law professors, concerned about the 
>Administration's "White Paper"
>on "Intellectual Property and the National Information 
>Infrastructure." Some of us are teachers or
>scholars of intellectual property, but many of us are not -- instead 
>focusing on constitutional law,
>the First Amendment, law and economics, private law, education 
>policy or some other area. All
>of us, however, are concerned about privacy, about free speech, 
>about access to information and
>about the structure of the information economy. We write to you as 
>the legislators and high
>executive officials most closely concerned with this area of the law. 
>As you know, Senators
>Hatch and Leahy have just introduced the legislative 
>recommendations of the White Paper as
>Senate Bill 1284 and an identical Bill has been introduced in the 
>House. We urge that these Bills
>be withdrawn for further study, that there be an open and public 
>debate of this important area of
>information policy, and that the Administration not take any action 
>on the international front which
>would effectively commit the country to a set of rules without a real 
>domestic or legislative
>debate. 
>
>Discussion:
>
>The White Paper says it is just a "minor readjustment" of the law. In 
>fact, it is a radical measure
>which has negative implications for public, journalistic and scholarly 
>access to information, for free
>speech and for privacy. In economic terms, the Report's 
>recommendations seem to be designed
>around the imagined needs of the largest current right holders, with a 
>corresponding negative
>effect on future innovation and competition. Finally, the Report's 
>inversion of fair use doctrine and
>its maximalist stance toward intellectual property rights seem to 
>presage a country divided among
>information "haves" and "have-nots" in which the Clinton 
>Administration's promise of universal
>access would be lost. The radical quality of the White Paper's 
>suggestions and interpretations of
>current law can be seen from the fact that they; 
>
>      Through a far-fetched and formalistic interpretation of copying, 
>would make reading a
>     document on the screen of your Web browser a copyright 
>violation. 
>      Privatize much of the public domain by overturning the current 
>presumption of
>     "fair use" in non-commercial copying. Instead, wherever the same 
>material could instead
>     be licensed by the user, the use would be presumed to be an 
>infringement. Fair use is a
>     crucial part of copyright law, providing as it does the raw 
>material for much of scholarly
>     research, news reporting, and public debate. This provision, 
>coupled with others in the
>     White Paper, has the potential to cut those who cannot afford to 
>"license" information off
>     from the information highway, in dramatic contrast to the Clinton 
>Administration's
>     expressed commitment to "universal access." 
>      Make on-line providers -- America On-line, for example -- 
>strictly liable for
>     violations of copyright by their members, making it necessary for 
>them to monitor
>     what their users are doing, with obvious negative effects on 
>privacy and on
>     affordable access to on-line services. 
>      Make you civilly liable for attempting to attempt to tamper with 
>any copyright
>     protection device or system (such as encryption of programs and 
>other digital
>     products or the on-line equivalents of caller I.D. ) even if you do 
>so, not with the
>     intention of illegitimately copying the product but for entirely 
>legitimate purposes, such as
>     protecting your own privacy. This provision would also allow 
>software companies to
>     circumvent the current law on decompilation; by locking up their 
>programs they could deny
>     other companies the right they hold under current law to 
>"decompile" those programs so as
>     to achieve "interoperability." In doing so it would confer an 
>enormous advantage on the
>     current large players, increase the monopolistic tendencies in this 
>market and undermine
>     innovation and competition. 
>      Make it a Federal crime to remove, for whatever reason, any of 
>the copyright
>     management information embedded in any document,. 
>
>There is more, but we think that this makes the point that the issues 
>here go beyond the purview
>of "intellectual property" narrowly defined. The White Paper has 
>effects on privacy, on the
>potential for informed democracy, on public education, on scholarly 
>research, on future
>innovation, on market power; on the very structure of the 
>information economy. Though these
>points were made during the Hearings, they are nowhere seriously 
>discussed in the Report itself.
>We need a more inclusive and deliberative legislative process to 
>decide such issues -- in which
>the voices of those who wish to protect the public domain, or who 
>simply believe that there has
>been a rush to judgment, can be heard. The idea that "emergency" 
>action is necessary to save the
>Net or to save the "digital" high tech economy generally, hardly fits 
>with the astounding growth of
>both over the last three years.
>
>To all of these substantive concerns we would add a concern with 
>the process. The
>Administration has pursued a "dual track" strategy with the White 
>Paper, lobbying for it both as
>the basis for both domestic legislation and international agreement. 
>Intellectual property treaties
>generally only allow the citizens and corporations of a state to claim 
>particular intellectual property
>protections abroad if their own State recognizes those same 
>protections at home. Thus, an
>Administration which proposes expansive intellectual property 
>protection abroad can, by getting
>other countries to accept these protections, put overwhelming 
>pressure on the Congress. Only by
>voting for restrictive rules at home, the argument will go, can we 
>assure that our companies can
>compete on a level playing field abroad. This "bootstrapping" 
>technique obviously has disturbing
>consequences, both for the separation of powers and for citizens' 
>ability to participate in
>democratic decision making.
>
>For all of these reasons we would ask that;
>
>      Senate Bill 1284 and House Bill 2441 be withdrawn for further 
>study. 
>      Hearings be held in which there are representatives of all views, 
>and not merely those of
>     the largest rights-holders. 
>      An open, public deliberative process can be conducted in which 
>participation is not
>     effectively limited to the copyright bar; 
>      We also ask Secretary Brown and Vice President Gore that, 
>consistent with the principle
>     of the separation of powers, the administration not take any 
>action on the international
>     arena which would effectively commit the United States to a 
>particular set of intellectual
>     property rules without domestic debate. 
>
>Whatever happens, the addressees of this letter will be remembered 
>for drawing attention to the
>need for new ground rules for the information society. It would be a 
>tragedy if those ground rules
>smothered the economic, political, educational and cultural potential 
>of the information highway
>under a regulatory apparatus set forth with unnecessary haste. The 
>digital environment is currently
>a thriving area of both economy and culture; emergency action 
>intended to "save" this flourishing
>environment might actually harm it. We would respectfully ask you 
>to slow the process down --
>and open it up -- before that harm comes to pass. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
******

Kelly L. Russell
Assistant Co-ordinator, Electronic Libraries Programme
The Library, The University of Warwick
Coventry,
CV4 7AL
phone:  (01203)524552
fax:    (01203)524981
email: [log in to unmask]                   



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%