miércoles, 25 de junio de 2008


Digital Audio Broadcasting Regulations

A new law focusing on digital television in Chile may signal a growing pressure to regulate the transmission of digital audio broadcasting in the near future. Audio broadcasting is the medium with the greatest reach in Chile. The nation is known for its prominent oral culture and has served as the continent’s pioneer in advancements in this field.

Digital Audio Broadcasting has three international norms, which has led Europe and the United States to adopt different technical norms. While the former conducted research with a focus on the Eureka 147 Project, North Americans conduct research via the iBiquity digital corporation, which developed the system known as In-band On-Channel (IBOC). The DRM developed a system for transmission below 30 MHz.

Much like television, digital radio requires a special receiver, which calls for an investment in the means of reception and a period of co-existence, wherein analog and digital signals are transmitted simultaneously (simulcast).

The radio-electric spectrum in Chile is highly saturated, which makes it almost impossible to designate a new band for the system. The idea is to make the most of the existing system and transform it into a digital system.

On hectometric bands, broadcasting occurs between 535 KHz and 1605 KHz. Each broadcasting station possesses a 10 KHz bandwidth and each station is separated by 10 KHz. This is known as the broadcasting of the amplitude modulation signal.

On metric bands, the frequency modulation transmissions occur between 88 MHz and 108 MHz. Here, each broadcasting station possesses a 180 KHz bandwidth and is separated by 200 KHz.

The quality of reception in the digital system is equivalent to that of a CD. This means that AM transmission stations benefit the most.

Chile has opted for the IBOC system.

As for the regulatory perspective, the Department of Transportation and Telecommunications’ Supreme Decree No. 127, of 2006, assigned the 1452 – 1492 MHz band to digital radio.

For the existing FM broadcasting stations in Chile, these changes present both threats and opportunities.

- Appearance of regional radio stations in the Metropolitan area.
- Period of Simulcasting with high electrical energy costs financed by the operator.
- Resurgence of the entire AM dial. Great loss in non-urban sectors. - AM, with fewer transmitters, covers the same territory.
- Appearance of regional radio stations in the Metropolitan area.
- Period of Simulcasting with high electrical energy costs financed by the operator.
- Resurgence of the entire AM dial. Great loss in non-urban sectors.
- AM, with fewer transmitters, covers the same territory.
- A single national frequency.
- Multiplexer broadcasting stations in areas with a single transmitter. Greater coverage at lower prices.
- Large vehicle reach.
- Central Music Server with a common use.

Along this line, in Chile, the audio broadcasters in frequency modulation have proven to have a more successful business model than the audio broadcasters in amplitude modulation, as they have been able to promote these services at unforeseen levels and have virtually captured all radio listeners. This brings with it, as is evident today, the existence of a large number of radio broadcasting stations in amplitude modulation that practically do not transmit or use their broadcasting stations for alternative purposes, which must be taken into consideration in the future.

Juan Cristóbal Guzmán
Albagli Zaliasnik
Attorneys at Law
Si desean leer este artículo en español, visiten el siguiente link: Chile: Normativa sobre Radiodifusión Sonora.

jueves, 19 de junio de 2008

Compartimos con ustedes un interesante artículo sobre como Virgin esta lidiando con la piratería en Internet y los proveedores (ISPs)

Virgin-BPI Alliance Against File-Sharers Seen As Not Synced With UK Policy

By Bruce Gain for Intellectual Property Watch

The decision by Virgin recording company to send warning letters to alleged music pirates earlier this month appears out of sync with the approach internet service providers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe might take as a means to thwart piracy.

ISPs have implemented the warning letter approach in the United States, and French service providers are likely to follow suit, but the role of ISPs in the illegal file-sharing battle remains a subject of negotiation in the UK. Parties in the UK with a vested interest in protecting their intellectual property rights, ranging from music interests to the software industry, continue to discuss possible solutions without agreement yet on a unified approach.

Virgin’s initiative, which is part of an alliance with the British Phonographic Institute (BPI), is but one of a number of possible measures the rest of the ISPs in the UK might take.

“I would not draw any conclusions about how this is going to shake out in the UK or in Europe. This is just one part of how a voluntary code might look between an ISP and a right holder,” Matt Phillips, director of communications for the BPI told Intellectual Property Watch. “This isn’t any acceptance of any ongoing policy between the BPI and Virgin, and this is not going to solve the problem about how people are able to download and upload music illegally. But it is a step in the right direction.”

Under the Virgin and BPI alliance, the BPI communicates the IP addresses used for what it says are illegal file sharing. Virgin then matches the IP addresses to its customers to whom separate “informative letters” are sent. The letters, available here (Doc 1, Doc 2) [pdf], inform the Virgin customer, among other things, about possible suspended service and legal claims relating to the customer’s alleged illegal file sharing if the activity were to continue.

The letters also communicate ways a user can uninstall and deactivate software used for illegal file-sharing (such as securing wireless access points so that a neighbour cannot upload and download files by using an unwitting customer’s IP address). Virgin Media distributes both letters without disclosing customer names and addresses to the BPI, the company said.

“If you look at it as a position to advise customers what is the best way to enjoy music online without the risks of unauthorised sources, then that is a responsible attitude instead of looking at it as a way to police the internet,” Asam Ahmad, head of media relations of the consumer division of Virgin Media, told Intellectual Property Watch.

The Virgin and BPI alliance follows the release earlier this year of the UK government’s “Creative Britain” report, which offered a tentative look at anti-piracy policy there. The main purpose of “Creative Britain” is to establish a voluntary framework agreement to thwart illegal file-sharing before more heavy handed legislative mandates are written into UK law by April 2009. Those involved in the negotiations, beside government officials, include internet service providers, media groups, software industry representatives, and other interested parties.

The UK government also said in “Creative Britain” that ISPs, which control the so-called Internet pipes to and from customers’ PCs, should play a major role in mitigating illegal file sharing.

Divided We Fall

Yet, despite a major role that ISPs are expected to play in the war against illegal file-sharing in the UK, the Virgin-BPI initiative reflects a unilateral approach that does not reflect an industry consensus, according to some parties, including associations with the mission to protect their members’ IP policies.

“I have said ‘Guys, as long as we are not cohesive, then I don’t think [a viable solution] is ever going to happen,’” John Lovelock, chief executive officer of the Federation Against Software Theft, told Intellectual Property Watch. “It’s the old adage, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’”

In Europe, ISPs have traditionally voiced a reluctance to monitor and filter their customers’ connections to thwart piracy. However, Virgin is not seen as necessarily representative of pure-play service providers since its Virgin Megastore outlets sell music through both brick-and-mortar and online retail outlets. Pure player ISPs, for example, have maintained that it is not feasible for them to monitor and filter the Internet usage of their customers for illegal activity while they face pressures from the government and industry interests in Europe to support their efforts to crack down on illegal file-sharing (IPW, Internet and Communications Technology, 7 December 2007).

But in the long term, it is in the ISPs interest to mitigate illegal file-sharing along with IP rights holders, Lovelock said.

“All digital content will eventually be bought online, including music, films, games, and books. Everything will be available so that you will be able to download it to your device,” Lovelock said. “So the initiative should be [for the ISPs], ‘Let’s secure our revenue stream of the future, in particular the digital content section of the creative industries, and let’s see if there is a compromise that can be worked out.’”

Not coming up with a voluntary solution advocated by all interested parties in the UK will likely turn into a lose-lose situation if the government attempts to solve the problem through legislation, Lovelock said.

“What the Federation Against Software Theft has been advocating is we, the creative industries, should sit down with you, the ISPs, before the government comes up with a legislation that doesn’t work, gets contested; and no settlements ever get taken out or made,” Lovelock said.

Instead, the UK government might broker formal discussions between so-called creative industries with IP protection concerns and the ISPs before resorting to forced mandates that might force ISPs to play a role in protecting IP rights, Lovelock said.

“If there isn’t someone who represents the ISP, then we as an alliance should go to the government and say we would like you to call a meeting with the ISPs and ourselves, and they can maybe even facilitate that meeting,” Lovelock said. “That way, we can have roundtable discussions to come up with some solutions so that the government does not have to legislate and we don’t end up in a battle.”

This article is used under the terms of a Creative Commons License.
Este artículo es reproducido bajo los términos de una licencia Creative Commons.

martes, 10 de junio de 2008

AZ en el Mostrador

Compartimos con ustedes un artículo escrito por Juan Cristóbal Guzmán en el Mostrador.

Convergencia digital y protección a la Propiedad Intelectual

Está en el Congreso un proyecto de Ley para mejorar la regulación sobre Propiedad Intelectual (PI). Expertos han manifestado que el aumento de las sanciones civiles y penales no tendría mayor efecto en los infractores de los derechos de sus propietarios. Según los datos proporcionados durante el 2.007 por la Internacional Federation of the Phonographic Industry, el 35% de las personas que intercambian archivos ilegalmente han recortado su actividad o la han abandonado totalmente, como consecuencia de acciones legales y sanciones en su contra.

Hay importantes avances y también vacíos legales pendientes en el proyecto. El mayor avance radica en el incremento sustantivo de las penas. La revolución digital y la piratería han sido las causantes del desastroso resultado obtenido por las compañías de esta dinámica industria. Es destacable también la distinción entre la persona que comercializa copias ilícitas de aquel que, con ánimo de lucro, fabrique, importe o distribuye las mismas.

Es vaga y poco exhaustiva la reforma en cuanto a las normas que regulan las entidades llamadas de “gestión colectiva”, como la Sociedad Chilena del Derecho de Autor. Se omite “la gestión de tipo tecnológico”, vale decir tecnología disponible y en uso, cuyo propósito es controlar y medir el acceso y uso de la PI. En la mayoría de los países existe la gestión de derechos digitales, o DRM, que son un conjunto de tecnologías orientadas a ejercer restricciones y mediciones sobre los usuarios de un sistema digital, desde la música hasta las películas, juegos y televisión.

Poco satisfactoria es la forma en que se aborda la responsabilidad de los prestadores de servicios de Internet. Ellos son los minoristas y distribuidores del mercado digital y por ello obtienen ingresos; pero no asumen su responsabilidad de proteger estos derechos. En el mundo tradicional ninguna tienda de música o de libros que se precie albergaría productos piratas en sus estanterías, ni permitiría que la piratería estuviera en una esquina de su local o almacén.

Esta ley es un buen avance, pero la normativa deberá ser dinámica y compatible con las nuevas tecnologías, que seguirán convergiendo, lo que se hará mas patente con cuando Chile tenga regulada la TV digital.