From Boing Boing

In the latest MAKE Weekend Projects video, Bre Pettis and Joe Grand show you how to use radio frequency modules to make wireless gizmos. Click here fro mp4 and mov files.

From Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired:

A federal bill that would reset music royalties at a more affordable rate for thousands of internet radio stations is losing steam in the House of Representatives, raising new fears for the future of webcasting.
First-time webcasting fees proposed by recording industry royalty-administration group SoundExchange took effect last month, setting off a wave of protests and last-minute negotiations aimed at reducing the hit for smaller webcasters and capping rates for sites that support hundreds of customized stations.
Negotiations are ongoing, but chances of broad legislative relief in the form of the Internet Radio Equality Act, or IREA, are fading fast, according to several people familiar with the effort. Rather, Congress appears resolved to let SoundExchange and the various strata of webcasters negotiate individual settlements.
"We met with members of the House and Senate judiciary committees this week, and while they all were supportive of small webcasters, time after time we heard the IREA was not going to pass," said Rusty Hodge, founder of webcaster SomaFM.
A legislative setback could make it harder to dislodge the new fees, which took effect last month after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the payment deadline. With the threat of congressional backlash fading, SoundExchange could find little incentive to budge from its current position.
The importance of legislative pressure in the negotiation process was underscored late Thursday. In a joint statement, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) said they were "troubled by the lack of negotiating progress" and promised to take action to push the IREA bill forward if agreements are not made by Sept. 3. Given the lack of support in the House, however, the chances of the bill becoming law currently look remote.
SoundExchange has already proposed changes that could relieve small and custom-streaming sites from charges they could not possibly afford to pay, at least in the short term. Many expect a small-webcaster deal to be done by early September, when Congress goes back into session. But the deal on the table hasn't changed since SoundExchange extended an offer in May to charge them 10 percent of gross revenue under $250,000, or 12 percent of gross revenues over $250,000, with a revenue cap at $1.25 million.
Webcasters say they are wary of the deal because of a provision that would shift webcasters from the percentage rate to the higher per-stream rate once they exceed certain usage caps.
"That's the sticking point," said SomaFM's Hodge. "In our optimistic projections, SomaFM won't hit the revenue cap for a couple years, (but) when we hit it, our royalties would go from $150,000 a year to over $2 million a year. "
For larger webcasters, such as custom-streaming site Pandora, coming to terms could take longer. Talks are ongoing over a proposal to cap per-station fees, but Tim Westergren, co-founder of Pandora, said there has been "no material change -- we're in a slow negotiation process now."
Reaching a settlement with SoundExchange could take even longer for the largest webcasters, which have been given no hint of a deal beyond the current Copyright Royalty Board rates. In the absence of any alternative, they will likely seek to strike deals directly with the major labels rather than accepting SoundExchange's mandatory license.

From Prometheus Radio Project:

Hello supporters of low power FM Radio, and Greetings from the Prometheus Radio Project! Read below to get your Congressmembers signed on to expand low power FM radio to America's cities, smaller communities, and your neck of the woods.

You last heard from us in late June, when community radio hopefuls and broadcasters alike announced a breakthrough in the fight to bring low power FM radio licenses to thousands more cities and towns. On June 21, Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) joined Congressman Lee Terry (R-NE), as well as Senator John McCain and Senator Maria Cantwell, to introduce the Local Community Radio Act of 2007. This bill -- H.R. 2802 in the House and S. 1675 in the Senate -- is what we have been fighting for for years -- a chance for community radio hopefuls from Omaha to Orlando to get new licenses to build their own low power FM radio stations. (Learn more about how Congress limited low power FM radio in most American cities here -- http://www.prometheusradio.org/take_action/lpfm_in_congress).


Please help us to continue this momentum and get more Congressmembers to support low power FM radio. If we are able to get more Congressmembers to cosponsor this bill over the next week before Congress goes on vacation -- we'll be in great shape for a vote to expand community radio in the fall. No one will do this work for you -- we need you to make this call, or write a letter, for community radio, today.

You can find your Congressmember's information at
http://www.congress.org, or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. You can also look them up at http://www.freepress.net/lpfm/.

Want more background? Read House Bill 2802 here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2802: -- and read Senate Bill 1675 here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1675:.
Or get summaries of low power FM facts at http://www.expandlpfm.org,
http://www.prometheusradio.org, or http://www.freepress.net/lpfm.

Check and see if your Congressmember has cosponsored the low power FM radio bill here -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02802:@@@P -- some Congressmembers have committed to signing on, like the ones mentioned above, but aren't listed yet!

PPS -- Read a few great stories about the low power FM bills at MyDD.com:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/21/13024/5742

At the Black Agenda Report:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=259&Itemid=39

And from the United Methodist Church:
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072531&ct=4027825

PPS -- Here's Mr. Doyle's question on low power FM radio today, at the Congressional Oversight Hearing for the FCC:

In 2004, the FCC issued a report to Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program after getting public comment on the engineering studies it commissioned. After reviewing all the facts, data and potential for interference, the FCC said in that report quote "Congress should re-address this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third-adjacent channel distant separation requirements for LPFM stations." Anyone disagree with that?

(silence) Good.

Let the record show that the silence was deafening. My friend, Lee Terry and I have a bill to allow the FCC to expand the benefits low power FM onto more places on the radio dial across the country. LPFM has been critical during emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, to religious groups trying to spread their message and to community groups interested in serving their community. It's my hope that the Commission will continue to support these stations until and after we get this bill
signed into law.

From Radio Ink:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has come out strongly against the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, saying in a letter to Rep. Mike Pence, "In my judgment, the events of the last two decades have confirmed the wisdom of the [FCC's] decision to abolish the Fairness Doctrine."

Martin's letter, dated July 23 and made public today, was written in response to a July 19 letter in which Pence asked Martin for his views on "the appropriateness of the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment."

Pence and Rep. Greg Walden on July 11 introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would take away the FCC's authority to reinstate the policy that until 1987 required broadcasters to present both sides of any controversial issue, and the bill now has more than 130 co-sponsors. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate last month.

In his letter, Martin states, "Discussion of controversial issues over the airwaves has flourished absent regulatory constraints, and the public now enjoys access to an ever-expanding range of views and opinions. Indeed, with the continued proliferation of additional sources of information and programming, including satellite broadcasting and the Internet, the need for the Fairness Doctrine has lessened even further since 1987."

Martin concludes, "In short, I see no compelling reason to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in today's broadcast environment and believe that such a step would inhibit the robust discussion of issues of public concern over the nation's airwaves."

From Daily Wireless:
In one of the largest studies into the short-term health effects of mobile phone technology, just completed in England (pdf), Essex University measured “heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance,” for reactions over three years. The research study all but debunkes the theory that cell phone towers, or electronic interference, is making people physically ill, reports the BBC.

Britain’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) said that they could find no scientific evidence that feelings of anxiety, nausea, and tiredness occur due to the presence of electronics, or GSM and 3G cell phone equipment or WiFi.

The Key Points in their finding:
There is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to RF signals from WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.
The signals from WiFi are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) in both the computer and the mast (or router) and resulting exposures should be well within internationally accepted guidelines.
The frequencies used are broadly the same as those from other RF applications such as FM radio, TV and mobile phones.
Based on current knowledge, RF exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.
On the basis of current scientific information, exposures from WiFi equipment satisfy international guidelines. There is no consistent evidence of health effects from RF exposures below guideline levels and no reason why schools and others should not use WiFi equipment.

Summary: On the basis of current evidence, the HPA does not consider there to be a problem with the safety of WLAN.

Artists are invited to submit proposals for the free103point9 Wave Farm Transmission Sculpture Garden. This is a three-part application process. The review panel will be comprised of members of free103point9’s staff and Advisory Board of distinguished artists, critics, and curators.
Submission Guidelines Phase I
Postmark Deadline September 30

Artists are encouraged to visit Wave Farm before submitting a proposal. See free103point9 Wave Farm for dates and details about upcoming events.

Artist Name:

Artist Contact Information:

Artist Resume / CV:

Artist Statement:
Please describe your artistic practice in a brief statement not exceeding 300 words.

Preliminary Project Description:
Please describe your proposed project in a brief statement not exceeding 500 words. Proposals selected by the review panel will be invited to submit a comprehensive proposal in order to assess feasibility based on installation schematics and program funding.

Past Project Work Samples:
Please include work samples relating to two or three past projects. Work samples should be submitted in electronic formats including jpegs, PDFs, QuickTime, MP3s, etc. Please do NOT submit slides.

Submission Address:
info@free103point9.org (subject: Transmission Sculpture Garden Proposal: Artist Name)
or
free103point9 Wave Farm
Transmission Sculpture Garden Proposals
5662 Route 23
Acra, NY 12405


Phase II
(Notification: October 31, 2007)

Up to five projects, selected in Phase I, will be invited to submit a second comprehensive proposal that includes detailed installation schematics and an itemized budget.

Phase III
(Notification: January 15, 2008)

Selected projects will either be scheduled for installation, funding permitting, or free103point9 will work with selected artists to secure project funding to enable installation at a future date.

The free103point9 Wave Farm Sculpture Garden is supported, in part, by The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Individual Artists and Electronic Media and Film Programs of the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency; and the Greene County Legislature through the County Initiative Program, administered in Greene County by the Greene County Council on the Arts.

For more information see:
http://www.free103point9.org/sculpturegarden.php

New York, New York, New York
So nice we named it thrice.
December 14, 2007 through January 2008
Deadline: October 1

This is an open call for artists working in all media to participate in Flux Factory’s Winter 2007 show, New York, New York, New York.

New York, New York, New York is an interactive, multimedia installation consisting of a large model of New York City inspired loosely by the Panorama at the Queens Museum. It will be located in five separate spaces (one in each borough). Instead of being an exact replica to scale of the city of New York, this project offers a mental map, a replica of an imaginary New York. The goal of the show is to explore the architectural and conceptual elements of everyday space. It is an investigation into the collective unconscious of the cultural capital of the planet.

Each artist will contribute a building, a landmark, a street, an avenue, a block, a park, a neighborhood, an expressway, a bridge, an island, an airport—one or several elements of the urban environment. All of these individual works will be combined to produce a cohesive yet chaotic installation, a multimedia, scale model version of the city.

We want artists not to think so much about New York as it actually is, but New York as a possible space. We encourage participants to explore the city's great myths and urban legends, grandiose unrealized projects, future visions from the past, as well as individual and personal experiences of the city.

Models will be installed on the gallery floor, keep in mind that each project needs to be integrated with the rest of the show. Think of your production as a single piece in a larger puzzle. Scales can vary between 1:200 and 1:2000.

Please send us a CV as well as a less than one page descriptive text and a couple of visuals. Please include specific dimensions and materials. Documentation of past relevant work will also be accepted. Also (and importantly), please be very specific about the location of your piece: specify the Borough and the exact neighborhood you want to work on.

Email all proposals to Jean@fluxfactory.org or mail (with S.A.S.E) to
Attn: NY-NY-NY
Flux Factory
38-38 43rd Street,
LIC, NY 11101 USA

From Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired:

In the US, television and terrestrial radio stations don't have to pay statutory royalties to artists and labels, the way net radio, satellite, and cable stations do.

Last Thursday, July 19th -- the same day SoundExchange and webcasters met with Congress to try to hash out fair royalty rates for webcasters -- President George W. Bush indicated to attendees of a speech at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, that he hadn't exactly been following those proceedings.

From an official press release from Bush's Press Secretary:

Question: Mr. President, music is one of our largest exports the country has. Currently, every country in the world -- except China, Iran, North Korea, Rwanda and the United States -- pay a statutory royalty to the performing artists for radio and television air play. Would your administration consider changing our laws to align it with the rest of the world?

The President: Help. (Laughter.) Maybe you've never had a President say this -- I have, like, no earthly idea what you're talking about. (Laughter and applause.) Sounds like we're keeping interesting company, you know? (Laughter.)

Look, I'll give you the old classic: contact my office, will you? (Laughter.) I really don't -- I'm totally out of my lane. I like listening to country music, if that helps. (Laughter.)

From Michael Arrington in Tech Crunch:

I was very pleased to see Google publicly wade into the upcoming FCC auctions for the 700MHz spectrum that will occur early next year. Should all go well, the new spectrum could be used to create a new open-access wireless broadband “pipe” into people’s homes and devices. If things go less well, the existing wireless giants would buy the spectrum and impose similar usage restrictions that exist on cellular networks in the U.S. today, putting us further behind Europe and Asia.

CEO Eric Schmidt sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stating that they would commit to bid at least $4.6 billion in the auctions if four key platform rules are adopted. These rules will define what types of services the winner could offer, and would require third party access to the bandwidth:

Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee’s wireless network.
Given the sorry state of the mobile landscape in the U.S., I’d expect the FCC to adopt these pro-consumer rules without any fuss. But the incumbent players, including AT&T and Verizon, are saying they are opposed to open access and may not participate if these rules are adopted. Google’s public move was made to let the FCC (and the public) know that there are companies very happy to bid in an open-access world.

AT&T’s response to Google’s letter was breathtaking in its audacity:

Not satisfied with a compromise proposal from Chairman Martin that meets most of its conditions, Google has now delivered an all or nothing ultimatum to the U.S. Government, insisting that every single one of their conditions “must” be met or they will not participate in the spectrum auction. Google is demanding the Government stack the deck in its favor, limit competing bids, and effectively force wireless carriers to alter their business models to Google’s liking. We would repeat that Google should put up or shut up— they can bid and enter the wireless market with any business model they prefer, then let consumers decide which model they like best.

For anyone who doesn’t look too closely at the issue, AT&T’s response seems very reasonable: keep government regulation out of the spectrum let the market decide which services win. But that isn’t really what would happen at all. If fewer government restrictions are placed on the bandwidth the auction winners will be able to extract more profits at the expense of competitors and consumers. So naturally they don’t want to see open access rules like those recommended by Google. The incumbents also don’t want to see Google play in their sandbox and bidding against them - so they have yet another reason to oppose their proposal.

The FCC has competing goals of maximizing revenue from the auction (suggesting less regulation) and protecting the public (suggesting more rules to force competition). Having open access requirements like those suggested by Google will spur competition and grow an economy around this spectrum. It will also put commercial pressure on mobile operators and broadband companies to reduce the restrictions they have on current broadband and mobile services.

Google isn’t always not evil, but in this case they are going to bat for all of us against some players with pretty bad history when it comes to offering consumer products. I’m behind them on this. And to the FCC: please learn from past mistakes, ignore the lobbyists this time, and do what is in the best interests of the public.

From David Pescovitz in BoingBoing:

Developed in the 1940s, Stratovision was a system to rebroadcast TV and FM radio signals via transmitters mounted on airplanes. Westinghouse radar engineer Charles E. Nobles invented the technology to bring media to "small town and farm homes" that he believed terrestrial transmitters atop city buildings couldn't reach. A 1948 demonstration fueled hype that Stratovision had the potential to transform media deliver. Two years later though, it was obsolete. From Air & Space Smithsonian:

(On June 23, 2948, a) B-29, orbiting 25,000 feet above Pittsburgh, rebroadcast the Republican convention directly from WMAR-TV in Baltimore, 9 to 10 p.m. EDT. The bomber was outfitted with an eight-foot mast on its vertical stabilizer to receive programs; the signal was sent from the antenna to the cabin, and on to the broadcast antenna. The antenna, stored horizontally in the bomb bay, projected 28 feet down when operating.

After the convention transmission, Martin and Westinghouse representatives trumpeted Stratovision’s future. They foresaw a nationwide Stratovision network, with programs beamed from one airplane to the next. Fourteen airplanes could bring TV and FM radio to 78 percent of the population; a comparable ground installation network would require more than 100 relay points, Westinghouse estimated. A fleet of 60 Martin 202 airliners would suffice...

In 1949, AT&T set up a coaxial cable network to connect the East Coast with the Midwest, largely through underground wiring. Westinghouse dropped Stratovision in 1950.

From Farhad Manjoo in Salon:

Late last week SoundExchange, the recording-industry group that collects royalties from Internet radio stations, agreed to limit one key part of the new fees that threatened to shut down a great many webcasters. But now it seems that SoundExchange's benevolence came at a price: in exchange for reducing fees, the recording industry wants webcasters to prevent listeners from copying the music they get through Internet radio -- despite the fact that such copying may be perfectly legal.

SoundExchange had previously asked radio stations for $500 for each channel of music that they send out to listeners, a fee that would have added up to more than a billion dollars for the industry. On Friday, the royalty group agreed to cap the amount at $50,000 per webcaster. The fee cap all but saved Internet radio from certain death.

As Ars Technica points out, though, SoundExchange says in a press release that it will only extend the deal to webcasters who "work to stop users from engaging in 'stream ripping' -- turning Internet radio performances into a digital music library."

Stream ripping refers to the practice of recording songs from an Internet feed. Several programs -- StationRipper, RadioLover, Streamripper, among others -- make this a pretty easy process. Once your record a song from an Internet radio channel, you can play it like any other MP3, in any order you choose, without logging back in to the webcaster's stream. Considering how easy that sounds, some industry observers have speculated that people who were scared off by file sharing may be moving to stream ripping as an alternative source of free music online.

But there isn't much firm data about the practice. The recording industry has trouble estimating how many music files are traded illegally online, but recording a Web radio stream, like recording a show on TiVo, occurs off the network, in the privacy of your own computer. And even if stream ripping is widespread, it's not clear what radio stations can do to stop it. Stream rippers work by capturing the music going straight to your PC's speakers, in much the same way that your TiVo or your VCR copies video as it flies between your cable box and your TV. Copy-protection programs simply can't stop this sort of copying.

And though legal opinion is unsettled on the question, many copyright experts argue that stream ripping, like recording TV shows on your VCR, is legal. All you're doing is "time shifting" -- recording something at Time A to play back (for yourself) at Time B.

Like the music industry, Web radio stations aren't big fans of stream ripping. They'd rather have you come back to their site each time you want to listen to music. But many also stay away from the main methods to combat ripping -- webcasting at a lower bitrate, mixing promos and jingles over the music, crossfading songs so they don't start and end cleanly.

You have to wonder if the recording the industry -- now that it's got webcasters locked in negotiations for their future -- will have any trouble imposing such reduced-quality streams.

From a press release from Nydia M. VelÃzquez:

Last night, Chairwoman of the Committee on Small Business, Nydia M. VelÃzquez and Ranking Member Steve Chabot came together to introduce bi-partisan legislation in a final attempt to postpone the implementation of new royalty rates for webcasters and allow additional time to find a solution. The new rates put into place by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), are scheduled to go into effect this Sunday, July 15 and many caution that their implementation will mean the end of the industry for Internet radio. Efforts to reach a compromise have not yet been successful, and this legislation, HR 3015, would delay implementation of the rate increase by 60 days, allowing continued negotiation so a satisfactory arrangement can be reached.

"We are coming down to the wire on this issue, and as the royalty rates currently stand, I am concerned that webcasters and musicians alike will be harmed, perhaps even irreparably," said Chairwoman Velázquez. "There has not yet been an agreement reached that provides fair compensation to artists while allowing broadcasters to stay on the air without excessive fees. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to allow an opportunity for that compromise to be reached."

H.R. 3015 would postpone the implementation of the CRB decision for two months, allowing internet broadcasters and the music industry more time to come to a suitable compromise. Under the current fee structure, firms pay a percentage of their revenue, a system beneficial to small companies with lower profit margins. The new regulations would designate a flat fee that must be paid each time a song is played. For many small broadcasters, this would drastically increase their costs and some industry insiders have projected that royalty payments will more than double. The new fee system will also cover all broadcasts since January 1, 2006, leaving webcasters open to high back payments and possible legal action for unauthorized public performance. H.R. 3015 would maintain the current revenue based system for 60 days past the July 15 deadline, during which time, a more equitable system can be agreed upon. VelÃzquez and Chabot sent letters to the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, urging them to adopt this legislation. A letter was also sent to Sound Exchange and the Digital Media Association advising the groups to use the 60 days to make earnest negotiations.

"The July 15 implementation date of the CRB's ruling is making on-going negotiations more challenging," said Congressman Chabot. "During last month's Small Business Committee hearing on this issue, there was a consensus among the Committee Members that it would be preferable to have this matter resolved between the parties. This legislation creates a positive environment to encourage continued dialogue and negotiation."

The Committee held a hearing on June 28 to hear testimony on the impact the CRB decision will have on internet broadcasters, musicians and record labels. Both sides of the issue came to the table and the consensus was that fair compensation to musicians was crucial, but that the royalties as they currently stand could be prohibitively expensive for small internet broadcasters. Additionally, independent musicians voiced there support for internet radio, citing its promotional value,
as most terrestrial radio stations limit their broadcasts to mainstream
artists.

"We must find a solution that will satisfy both sides of this issue, and a little more time may be all that is necessary," Chairwoman VelÃzquez said. "It is critical that we take steps to ensure that small internet webcasters continue to thrive."

Several reports on the New York Radio Message Board indicate there is a microcasting station calling itself "Lincoln 101.5 Radio" operating on 101.5-FM in New York City. Other reports have 88.9 Mhz (covering WSIA) & 90.5 Mhz, in Spring Valley Ney York and at 90.9 theres an orthodox Jewish pirate from Brooklyn. I can hear the station with a weak signal in my car all along the western bank of the Hudson in New jersey & into NYC. The two Creole operations at 88.9 & 90.5 are 24/7 stereo stations now.

From Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Negotiations on the proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty ended on Friday with some welcome news. WIPO Member States agreed to postpone the high-level intergovernmental Diplomatic Conference at which the draft treaty could have been adopted, and have moved discussions back to regular committee meetings, down a notch from the last two "Special Session" meetings.

The Diplomatic Conference had been scheduled to take place in November 2007. It has now been postponed indefinitely until Member States reach agreement on the objectives, specific scope and object of protection of the proposed treaty. Given the vast differences between Member States' positions that emerged this week on core parts of the treaty, agreement does not look likely in the near future. Although the treaty is still on WIPO's agenda and by no means dead, the practical effect of today's decision is that it is no longer on the fast track. That's good news indeed for the Internet Community, including the over 1500 podcasters who signed an Open Letter to WIPO expressing concern about the treaty, which EFF delivered to WIPO this week. Member States refused to set a date for a diplomatic conference. They rejected proposals from the WIPO Copyright Committee Chair, Mr. Jukka Liedes, to postpone the diplomatic conference to November/December 2008, to convene a further "Special Session" of the WIPO Copyright Committee focused on finalizing the treaty, and to create a "modern framework" for "webcasting organizations". Instead, it was agreed that the subject of protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations would stay on the agenda and be discussed in regular sessions of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. After the jump we have the full text of the conclusions of the meeting, together with notes from today's meeting.

Before a Diplomatic Conference can be convened, Member States must reach agreement on the core elements of a treaty - the objectives, specific scope and object of protection. While this week's informal session discussions may have helped clarify Member States' positions, it does not seem to have brought them closer. There is widespread agreement amongst many Member States, public interest NGOs. libraries and the tech industry that any treaty must focus on the issue of signal theft and not the creation of exclusive rights that will harm those communities. However, it's equally clear from this week that broadcasters will not settle for anything other than exclusive rights.

In the meantime, apart from pulling the plug on a diplomatic conference that seemed doomed for failure, as the delegate of India and Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International have both noted, today's decision also provides a much-needed opportunity for WIPO to start focusing on other initiatives, such as facilitating access to knowledge, evaluating the impact of legally-enforced technological protection measures on exceptions and limitations, and Chile's 2004 proposal for mandatory exceptions and limitations to copyright law for education, the disabled and libraries and archives. Now that would be good news indeed.
June 22, 2007.