For those who think that Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest was just possible in the USA, think again. The "Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001" simply brings DMCA-like laws to all the EU space. This directive must be made law by all countries by 22 December 2002. The complete text can be found at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc...
For me the most important (and dangerous) is article 7:
Article 7 Obligations concerning rights-management information 1. Member States shall provide for adequate legal protection against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts: (a) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights-management information; (b) the distribution, importation for distribution, broadcasting, communication or making available to the public of works or other subject-matter protected under this Directive or under Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC from which electronic rights-management information has been removed or altered without authority, if such person knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of any copyright or any rights related to copyright as provided by law, or of the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. 2. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "rights-management information" means any information provided by rightholders which identifies the work or other subject-matter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, the author or any other rightholder, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work or other subject-matter, and any numbers or codes that represent such information. The first subparagraph shall apply when any of these items of information is associated with a copy of, or appears in connection with the communication to the public of, a work or other subjectmatter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.
What should we do ? Anyone experienced in political lobbying ?
-- Joao Miguel Neves
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 09:58:50PM +0100, João Miguel Neves wrote:
For me the most important (and dangerous) is article 7:
What about article 6.2? My understanding is that the DeCSS and Sklyarov cases are allegedly violating the DMCA equivalent of this article.
See also my previous post on this mailing-list: http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2001-June/001143.html
The complete text can be found at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc...
Or http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/news/index.htm (I'm said).
An interesting comment by Philippe Aigrain (speaking only for himself) was sent to freesw@conecta.it some time ago; I think the archives are public, you can search for:
From: Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int Message-ID: 8944D19B724BD4119F22009027CA2F920270FBDA@EX2LUJMOMBX03 To: freesw@conecta.it Subject: RE: [Freesw] DMCA is now a European Directive Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:04:36 +0200
(if the archives are not public, then I don't think I'm allowed to repost here, I don't know as I'm in email-only mode).
What should we do ? Anyone experienced in political lobbying ?
All restrictions are compusory, all exceptions for fair use are optional. So we definitely should lobby in each member state to at least accept all the options in the local implementation of the directive
/alessandro, very concerned about this "intellectual property" fuss
The complete text can be found at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc...
Or http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/news/index.htm (I'm said).
An interesting comment by Philippe Aigrain (speaking only for himself) was sent to freesw@conecta.it some time ago; I think the archives are public, you can search for:
From: Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int Message-ID: 8944D19B724BD4119F22009027CA2F920270FBDA@EX2LUJMOMBX03 To: freesw@conecta.it Subject: RE: [Freesw] DMCA is now a European Directive Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:04:36 +0200
(if the archives are not public, then I don't think I'm allowed to repost here, I don't know as I'm in email-only mode).
What should we do ? Anyone experienced in political lobbying ?
All restrictions are compusory, all exceptions for fair use are optional. So we definitely should lobby in each member state to at least accept all the options in the local implementation of the directive
/alessandro, very concerned about this "intellectual property" fuss
On 29 Jul 2001 23:24:02 +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
An interesting comment by Philippe Aigrain (speaking only for himself) was sent to freesw@conecta.it some time ago; I think the archives are public, you can search for:
From: Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int To: freesw@conecta.it Subject: RE: [Freesw] DMCA is now a European Directive
If anyone else is interested, the url is: http://mail.conecta.it/pipermail/freesw/2001-June/000951.html
-- Joao Miguel Neves
I didn't get the chance to download the links given yet. Does this directive restrict the use of copyleft, or does it just make non-free more draconian?
If it just makes non-free nastier than it already is, then it may ironically help freesoftware. If people no longer dare to ignore copyright, then they will value copyleft more.
Software patent promotion would be a serious threat to freesoftware.
Nick Hockings.
On 30 Jul 2001 01:33:40 +0000, Nick Hockings wrote:
I didn't get the chance to download the links given yet. Does this directive restrict the use of copyleft, or does it just make non-free more draconian?
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime. I'm sure you understand how dangerous that is for free software - the inability to interact with proprietary systems and/or replace them would hurt free software development. -- Joao Miguel Neves
João Miguel Neves wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001 01:33:40 +0000, Nick Hockings wrote:
I didn't get the chance to download the links given yet. Does this directive restrict the use of copyleft, or does it just make non-free more draconian?
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime. I'm sure you understand how dangerous that is for free software - the inability to interact with proprietary systems and/or replace them would hurt free software development.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime? I will like a clear answer to this question, because as a Samba developer it may treat my ability to continue to work on the project as it is heavily based on decoding the rpc used by Microsoft on the SMB protocol.
thank you.
On 30 Jul 2001 20:14:31 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime?
First, the standard disclaimer, IANAL. For SMB, as is, I think there's no problem. Now if MS extends the authentication protocol to make sure you're connecting from workstation with a valid license, reverse engineering that might put you in jail, because your work could be considered as "facilitating ... an infringement of any copyright". -- Joao Miguel Neves
João Miguel Neves writes:
On 30 Jul 2001 20:14:31 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime?
First, the standard disclaimer, IANAL. For SMB, as is, I think there's no problem. Now if MS extends the authentication protocol to make sure you're connecting from workstation with a valid license, reverse engineering that might put you in jail, because your work could be considered as "facilitating ... an infringement of any copyright".
And what about ICQ? Most clients have been obtained by rev engeineering, I believe.
Klaus Schilling
On 30 Jul 2001 21:54:33 +0200, Klaus Schilling wrote:
João Miguel Neves writes:
On 30 Jul 2001 20:14:31 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime?
First, the standard disclaimer, IANAL. For SMB, as is, I think there's no problem. Now if MS extends the authentication protocol to make sure you're connecting from workstation with a valid license, reverse engineering that might put you in jail, because your work could be considered as "facilitating ... an infringement of any copyright".
And what about ICQ? Most clients have been obtained by rev engeineering, I believe.
The same reasoning applies: right now you have no problem, but if they change the authentication system and turn it into an "electronic rights-management" system it would be illegal to reverse engineer it. The risk is that the company may make this change at any time... -- Joao Miguel Neves
Hi,
As far as reverse engineering and so on goes, this directive puts far too much power in the hands of companies since all they really have to do (from previous behaviour, at least) is to add some kind of encryption, as ridiculously easy to break as it may be, and then claim their system to be 'secure'... then of course anybody using that system would know it was intended to be 'secure' and then would be in violation of the law if they actually attempted to decrypt this.
Here's one of my odd little nightmares:
An Unspecified Company(TM) alters their standard filesystem by including Rot-13 encryption of the FAT, thus making it secure and unreadable (no, really).
Since everybody and their dog use this filesystem within a year (the Unspecified Company happens to have a virtual monopoly on the desktop) the Linux/BSD/*nix communities add a little code to their kernel to allow them to read and write this ROT-13'd FAT. After all, why not?
Following which, the U.C. and all their corporate friends drop the full weight of the law upon the poor unfortunate kernel hacker who happened to recognise the encoding. And the distributors. And the users. Since they're all breaking the law- after all, they all knew it was SUPPOSED to be encrypted, and they just darn well went and decrypted it anyway.
The problem here is that to your average human being, encryption is a scary word and hacker is scarier. Therefore, their reaction when told that a hacker broke a code to read some data can be summed up as, "They shouldn't have done that, when they knew they weren't supposed to".
Of course, I base this interpretation on the more recent acts of Adobe and the ever-charming US government. Maybe it really wouldn't work that way in Europe. Maybe it shouldn't work that way in the US. So far, however, we have CSS and Rot-13'd PDF as good examples of this kind of behaviour.
Em
// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde
/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse. - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary
On 30 Jul 2001, João Miguel Neves wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001 21:54:33 +0200, Klaus Schilling wrote:
João Miguel Neves writes:
On 30 Jul 2001 20:14:31 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime?
First, the standard disclaimer, IANAL. For SMB, as is, I think there's no problem. Now if MS extends the authentication protocol to make sure you're connecting from workstation with a valid license, reverse engineering that might put you in jail, because your work could be considered as "facilitating ... an infringement of any copyright".
And what about ICQ? Most clients have been obtained by rev engeineering, I believe.
The same reasoning applies: right now you have no problem, but if they change the authentication system and turn it into an "electronic rights-management" system it would be illegal to reverse engineer it. The risk is that the company may make this change at any time... -- Joao Miguel Neves
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Quoting E L Tonkin py7elt@bath.ac.uk:
Hi,
As far as reverse engineering and so on goes, this directive puts far too much power in the hands of companies since all they really have to do (from previous behaviour, at least) is to add some kind of encryption, as ridiculously easy to break as it may be, and then claim their system to be 'secure'... then of course anybody using that system would know it was intended to be 'secure' and then would be in violation of the law if they actually attempted to decrypt this.
That depends who holds copyright on the information that is encrypted. Generally this is the author or the author's employer. Thus nobody's personal correspondence or business data could become copyright to a non-free software company. The only things that could be "protected" by lousy encryption would be things released as non-free software or data.
If the same protocol used for ebooks were used anywhere for privately owned data, then you could write a decryption/format converter for that private data. So long as you posted a warning not to use the program to circumvent copyright you'd safe. (Just don't promote the use of the app to cirumvent copyright, 'cos they'd get you then!) Writing to your favourite news-media to complain about the inadequacy of "proprietary encryption format, used by ebooks" and telling them why, is a different matter.
Remember we are not here to promote the use of non-free ebooks or software. If non-free stuff is nasty to use, that's good for freesoftware. What we need to do is make free apps, ebooks etc to fill the needs of all potential users. This is a recruiting oportunity. All those people offended or locked out by non-free software are potential converts.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Nick Hockings wrote:
Quoting E L Tonkin py7elt@bath.ac.uk:
As far as reverse engineering and so on goes, this directive puts far too much power in the hands of companies since all they really have to do (from previous behaviour, at least) is to add some kind of encryption,
That depends who holds copyright on the information that is encrypted. Generally this is the author or the author's employer. Thus nobody's personal correspondence or business data could become copyright to a non-free software company. The only things that could be "protected" by lousy encryption would be things released as non-free software or data.
Ah, but in my example, the information that would be copyright to you would be held in the files on the disk. But who has copyright to the file allocation table? Granted that it details where to find your information, the table itself really isn't yours at all... it's data, built up by the company that makes your OS, using an algorithm they copyrighted. Can you read your information without decrypting the FAT? Would it be legal to decrypt? Remember, you aren't decrypting your files at all... you're playing with the encoding that the OS designer used, which isn't really far from reverse engineering it...
As I mentioned, if the OS designer had a plausible reason for claiming that the FAT should be encrypted ('it's a secure OS') then you've moved from accessing your own files to attempting access to information that was intended to be encrypted, which furthermore doesn't really belong to you, even if it IS holding information about files which do. Which, as my dear father would say, is another kettle of kippers entirely.
And if you decided to publish your FAT decrypter, you'd really be breaking the law. Remember, it's supposed to be encrypted. They wanted it to be secure. It's a copyrighted, patent, secret, and just about anything else you can imagine system for secure storage of data, and you (naughty person) are attempting to crack their system ;-)
If they wanted to prosecute that one, I suspect they could.
Remember we are not here to promote the use of non-free ebooks or software. If non-free stuff is nasty to use, that's good for freesoftware. What we need to do is make free apps, ebooks etc to fill the needs of all potential users. This is a recruiting oportunity.
This is true. Hands up for volunteers to staff the first Free ebook publishing house. On the other hand, my experience in the industry is enough to persuade me that to get into ebooks, the first people you'd need to recruit would be heavily into marketing - you need to start by explaining to the distributors why free ebooks are a good idea. They'll automatically assume you're trying to undermine their sterling work (which you are) and make it even harder.
Don't misunderstand; I'm no fan of proprietary software. I don't intend to use it when I can avoid it. However, content is another matter. Our culture is increasingly dependent on digital media. Inaction will simply permit the companies producing audio, data, and video content to make deals and tie up the digital distribution in encrypted, copyrighted form. If you wish to walk away from the entire future of all copyrighted distribution because you don't need it, you're ignoring the fact that many people don't have that choice.
Even basic literacy and general knowledge depend on books, video, and audio content. Is it right that the DMCA constrains them to pay their "Microsoft tax" before accessing them?
Em
// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde
/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse. - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary
E L Tonkin py7elt@bath.ac.uk schrieb/wrote:
As I mentioned, if the OS designer had a plausible reason for claiming that the FAT should be encrypted ('it's a secure OS') then you've moved from accessing your own files to attempting access to information that was intended to be encrypted,...
But "encrypted" does not mean "copyrighted". Only breaking an encryption (or any other rights management system) for copyrighted material is forbidden.
Claus
Quoting E L Tonkin:
Ah, but in my example, the information that would be copyright to you would be held in the files on the disk. But who has copyright to the fileallocation table? Granted that it details where to find your information,the table itself really isn't yours at all... it's data,
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the law:- (If anyone knows better, please correct me :)
This data (in the file-allocation table) is created by the user. It is a product of him collecting files on his hard drive. It is impossible for the company to say they wrote it. If they had written it, they would be able to tell you what they wrote, without first checking the users's computer. Therefore the data is copyright to the user.
built up by the company that makes your OS, using an algorithm they copyrighted.
You can't copyright algorithms, they are the wrong type of concept to come under copyright. If a proprietary algorithm were protected by copyright that would be easy to circumvent: just paraphrase it. Then you have not copied the author's words/musical notes/programming code.
What companies sometimes manage is to patent algorithms. This is against the statute of patent law in most of europe, but unfortunately companies, courts and most of all patent offices have disregarded this restriction. (see links on FSFE site wrt patents)
Patents are a very serious threat to freesoftware and to ecconomic development generally. A patent is a government granted monopoly making it illegal to offer the same type of service or product. What is even worse is that international trade treaties often bundle the right to trade with extension of these monopolies into other countries. eg US gov issues monopoly to US company, now all countries wishing to sell anything at all in the US must grant the same monoploy to the same US company. This applies not only to their exports to the US, but to their domestic market as well. (Like the East India company without the steam trains!)
Can you read your information without decrypting the FAT? Would it be legal to decrypt? Remember, you aren't decrypting your files at all... you're playing with the encoding that the OS designer used, which isn't really far from reverse engineering it...
So long as you can show that this is necessary to retrieve the infromation created by the user you should have a good defence. But either way it makes a good argument for businesses not to use a non-free O/S. Non-free = weak encryption, that locks the user in, while failing to protect him.
Generally I agree with you though: non-free software copmpanies will use every means they can contrive to lock in their clients, and destroy anyone who tries to break their racket.
This is true. Hands up for volunteers to staff the first Free ebook publishing house. On the other hand, my experience in the industry is enough to persuade me that to get into ebooks, the first people you'd need to recruit would be heavily into marketing - you need to start by explaining to the distributors why free ebooks are a good idea.
I doubt any existingpublishing houses will convert, that would mean throwing away their invested capital before it had lost all its value. Here it is a case of if you can't join them, beat them. www.nupedia.com is here and its part of the GNU project.
I'm no fan of proprietary software. However, content is another matter. Our culture is increasingly dependent on digital media. Inaction will simply permit the companies producing audio, data, and video content to make deals and tie up the digital distribution in encrypted, copyrighted form. If you wish to walk away from the entire future of all copyrighted distribution because you don't need it, you're ignoring the fact that many people don't have that choice.
This is the same material that was in paper books and video-cassettes. It was never free. It comes from the time when copying was expensive, so copyright was a practical way to pay for publication as well as printing. Most of itis still sold at less per hard copy, than per e-book user license.
The digital format of choice for free content is XML, and it is better than any proprietary format I know of.
Even basic literacy and general knowledge depend on books, video, and audio content. Is it right that the DMCA constrains them to pay their "Microsoft tax" before accessing them?
There is a very large amount of material produced by teachers and lecturers for their students that is not published. These authors have nothing to loose in contributing to free e-books. Indeed they stand to reduce their current duplication of effort and get a much better product. The means is available to a significant number of them to collaborate with one another and programmers by email. It would take a modest effort by a small fraction of educators to rapidly produce the ebooks they need.
What we need to do is take the concept to them, and provide the technical support. Such a high profile "good-work" should not be hard to raise funds for. Nupedia is there, but at the moment it is a fledgling. What is lacking at present is a recruiting drive to persuade educators everywhere to contribute what they already produce.
Nick Hockings
Hello. Please forgive my huge delay but I'm currently offline.
I'm not a lawyer nor anything similar, I only spent a fair amount of time studying those "intellectual property" issues.
E L Tonkin:
As far as reverse engineering and so on goes, this directive puts far too much power in the hands of companies since all they really have to do (from previous behaviour, at least) is to add some kind of encryption, as ridiculously easy to break as it may be [...]
True. Let's for example look at a program my wife is using. It relies in the Ethernet MAC address to authenticate the license. They even go as far as giving you a (binary-only) program to retrieve this "magic" number from the ethernet card. Obviously, it spits (after two fat lines of copyright notice) the same value as "ifconfig" spits.
Obviously, by changing the MAC address I can run the program on the laptop with a pcmcia ethernet card. Any tool that can change the MAC can be used to circumvent copy protection. Thus "ifconfig" is illegal according to new rules (disclaimer: I still have to check the details of the law).
ostro.root# ifconfig | grep HWadd eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:4B:F0:6E:2B ostro.root# ifconfig eth0 down hw ether 00:10:10:10:10:10 up ostro.root# ifconfig | grep HWadd eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:10:10:10:10
Here's one of my odd little nightmares:
What about mine? Probably it doesn't apply because ifconfig has other (useful) features besides circumventing protection. But I can become a criminal by writing and distributing a 10-line program (which I currently have no time to write).
/alessandro
Klaus Schilling wrote:
João Miguel Neves writes:
On 30 Jul 2001 20:14:31 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime?
First, the standard disclaimer, IANAL. For SMB, as is, I think there's no problem. Now if MS extends the authentication protocol to make sure you're connecting from workstation with a valid license, reverse engineering that might put you in jail, because your work could be considered as "facilitating ... an infringement of any copyright".
And what about ICQ? Most clients have been obtained by rev engeineering, I believe.
That form of reverse engineering does not 'facilitate the infringement of copyright.'
The license one would depend, but it's certainly a potential problem.
-- Alistair Davidson
On Seg, 2002-01-21 at 01:25, Alistair Davidson wrote:
Klaus Schilling wrote:
And what about ICQ? Most clients have been obtained by rev engeineering, I believe.
That form of reverse engineering does not 'facilitate the infringement of copyright.'
You're right on that one. The only things that changes, in term of reverse engineering, with the EUCD is the inability to reverse engineer a "Digital Rights Management" product.
The "Software Directive" (1991)[1] already prohibited reverse-engineering fr other purposes other than interoperability with a "independently created computer program". The strange part to me is that the obtained information is not permitted "to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright."
I wonder if a OS driver for Linux classifies as a "substabtially similar" program of a Windows device driver.
[1] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1991/en_391L0250.html
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:53:28PM +0100, João Miguel Neves wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001 20:14:31 +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
Will this imply that decoding protocols that flows over a network will be also a crime?
First, the standard disclaimer, IANAL. For SMB, as is, I think there's no problem. Now if MS extends the authentication protocol to make sure you're connecting from workstation with a valid license, reverse engineering that might put you in jail, because your work could be considered as "facilitating ... an infringement of any copyright".
In your example the copyright infringement would be the unlawful use of a computer program. Article 1 of this directive explicitly excludes computer programs, so you can reverse engineer SMB without fear of violating this law. The directive is intended to protect audio, visual and audio-visual material.
Note: IANAL also.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 10:16:03AM +0100, João Miguel Neves wrote:
The problem is that, in practive it makes reverse engineering a crime.
The directive doesn't mention anything about reverse engineering, so it should still be legal. The way I see it you can reverse engineer, for instance, the Adobe e-book format and write your own program that _creates_ copy protected e-books (*). What you cannot do is write a program to remove the copy protection.
(*) You could be violating other laws, like patent law, when doing this.
Joao Miguel Neves joao@silvaneves.org schrieb/wrote:
For those who think that Dmitry Sklyarov's arrest was just possible in the USA, think again. The "Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001" simply brings DMCA-like laws to all the EU space.
Actually, we have to expect the coming of such laws in much more countries than just the US and EU members:
The WIPO Copyright Treaty, signed in 1996 in Geneva, includes the following:
| Article 11 | | Obligations concerning Technological Measures | | Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and | effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective | technological measures that are used by authors in connection | with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne | Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, | which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted | by law. | | Article 12 | | Obligations concerning Rights Management Information | | (1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective | legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of | the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies | having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, | facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by | this Treaty or the Berne Convention: | (i) to remove or alter any electronic rights management | information without authority; | (ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or | communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of | works knowing that electronic rights management information has | been removed or altered without authority. | (2) As used in this Article, "rights management information" | means information which identifies the work, the author of the | work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about | the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or | codes that represent such information, when any of these items | of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in | connection with the communication of a work to the public. [See | the agreed statement concerning Article 12]
This treaty was signed by (altough not yet ratified by all of them): Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, European Communities (51).
More Info: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/copyright/index.html
Claus