The Bush administration on Wednesday announced new plans to expand its crackdown on intellectual-property infringement overseas. During California visits with high-tech and movie industry representatives, Commerce Department secretary Carlos Gutierrez described two new programmes aimed at eroding intellectual property infringement, which the department claims costs US businesses $250bn (£138bn) and 750,000 jobs per year. "The protection of intellectual property is vital to our economic growth and global competitiveness, and it has major consequences in our ongoing effort to promote security and stability around the world," he said. One programme would place intellectual property experts on the ground in regions where infringement is considered a concern. There they would work with overseas US businesses and native government officials to advocate improved intellectual-property rights protection, according to a department fact sheet. Experts will be sent to Brazil, India, Russia, Thailand, China and the Middle East and serve a five-year tour of duty, the fact sheet said. One such expert is already on the job in Beijing, but it was unclear when the others would be dispatched or who they would be. Another programme, called the Global Intellectual Property Rights Academy, would train foreign judges, enforcement officials and other stakeholders in international intellectual property "obligations" and best practices. The academy, overseen by the US Patent and Trademark Office, plans to convene in 24 sessions in 2006, paying all travel expenses for the foreign participants, who will come from many of the same areas where experts will be working. The Commerce Department has recently taken other actions intended to combat international intellectual-property infringement. In July, President Bush created within the department a senior-level position — the coordinator for international intellectual-property enforcement. The department also plans to continue holding small-business outreach seminars nationwide. The Business Software Alliance was quick to applaud the announcement. In a press release, the organization cited survey results that pegged rates of usage of unlicensed software at 90 percent in China, 87 percent in Russia, 74 percent in India, 70 percent in Thailand, 64 percent in Brazil and 58 percent in the Middle East. "In all those countries, there's a long history of bilateral discussions on IPR issues," said Robert Holleyman, chief executive of BSA. "So I think they will be very receptive to getting on-the-ground systems to help with this effort." Holleyman said he hoped the programmes would ultimately raise revenue for US companies and resellers selling in foreign markets and for companies native to those markets.
Government delegates are meeting this week at the  (WIPO) general assembly in Geneva to discuss the .  The meeting will determine how developing countries must implement existing controversial intellectual property rights laws including , , and . They will also consider the disputed proposal for a global .

The Broadcastings/Webcasting Treaty proposal, pushed by traditional broadcast organizations, and lobbyists for a handful of Internet publishers, including  Yahoo, is being pushed hardest by the United States government, which ironically, has never considered such legislation domestically.  The treaty would create a new layer of intellectual monopoly rights for broadcasters, potentially including 'webcasters'.  Broadcasters would then be able to claim rights over material they broadcast–even material that was in the  or licensed under creative commons or  licenses.

Many developing countries including Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Chile, and Venezuela are asking for time to evaluate and study the proposals, and opposition to the treaty has been registered by numerous  and public interest advocates.  Fearing a repeat of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), when US copyright law was made more strict to conform to WIPO standards, a coalition of U.S. NGOs is currently circulating a sign on letter calling for public hearings on the implications of the Broadcaster Treaty.

In a recent Financial Times article Professor James Boyle (Law, Duke University)  raised objections to the Broadcasting/Webcasting Treaty, saying "intellectual property laws are created without any empirical evidence that they are necessary, or that they will help rather than hurt".  He elaborated that such laws are made "as though it were just a deal brokered between industry groups," and that concerns for "public interest in competition, access, free speech, and vigorous technological markets takes a back seat."  Professor Boyle fears that "communications networks are increasingly built around intellectual property rules" with harmful effects.