The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
WIPO Broadcast Treaty and Webcasting
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting
<b>On Friday, 8 May 2009, at Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting held a stakeholders' briefing meeting on the Broadcast Treaty that has been on the table at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The purpose of that meeting was to inform the relevant stakeholders of the developments in Geneva, as well as to garner input from them regarding the stance to be adopted by India at the WIPO. Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society participated and made a presentation on webcasting, highlighting the differences between webcasting and broadcasting, and arguing that webcasting should not be part of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty.</b>
<p>First, we wish to applaud the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for holding this stakeholders' meeting, which is a definite step towards greater transparency, and are grateful for having been invited to provide our input. The meeting was attended by representatives from various government offices and ministries, including the Ministry of Human Resource Development (which administers the Indian Copyright Act), broadcasters, broadcast associations, law firms, and civil society organisations. The Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting inaugurated the session by talking of how the Broadcast Treaty involved the assessment and balancing of various interests while keeping 'public interest' foremost. This was followed by Mr. N. P. Nawani, Secretary General of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibf-india.com/about_home.htm">Indian Broadcasting Foundation</a> (IBF), presenting on the concerns of the broadcasting industry. After this Prof. N. S. Gopalakrishnan, head of the School of Law, Cochin University of Science and Technology, spoke.<br /><br />Prof. Gopalakrishnan covered many areas of relevance: the concept of broadcasting and the legal rights involved; the scheme of legal protection over broadcast signals and over the content of the signals, and the difference between the two; gaps in the international law covering broadcasting; details of the proposed broadcast treaty; the implications of the broadcast treaty and concerns of the Indian government; and unresolved issues.<br /><br />Amongst the unresolved issues mentioned by Prof. Gopalakrishnan was that of webcasting and the problems related to that. The discussion below aims to shed some light on some of the problems created by the inclusion of webcasting in the broadcast treaty.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Legal regimes for broadcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>At the national level, the law governing broadcasting is the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Broadcasting is covered by many sections of the Indian Copyright Act, including: ss. 2(dd) (definition of "broadcast"), 2(ff) (definition of "communication to the public"), 37 (the section granting a special "broadcast reproduction right"), and 39A (containing exceptions to s.37). At the international level, broadcasting is covered by the Rome Convention, 1960 (which India has signed, but hasn't ratified); the Brussels Convention, 1974 (only pre-broadcast satellite signals); the TRIPS Agreement, 1994 per Article 14 (which doesn't mandate that broadcasting rights be granted directly to the broadcasters); the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 (WPPT) in Articles 2(f) and 15; and the proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations ("Broadcast Treaty"). In May 2006, provisions for webcasting were brought back into the Broadcast Treaty as part of the non-mandatory Appendix after having been excised in 2004 owing to protests by many countries on their inclusion. The current draft (SCCR/15/2 rev.) was prepared in September 2006 as an attempt to put together an all-inclusive document (with alternative versions of proposed provisions present in the document), and a diplomatic conference was planned to push the treaty through. In August 2007, WIPO released a 'non-paper' (SCCR/S2/Paper1) and dropped plans for the diplomatic conference, as there was still significant disagreement about the treaty. In November 2008, the WIPO chair released an informal paper (SCCR/17/INF/1), which advocated technological neutrality, and hence, presumably, that webcasting to be covered by the treaty.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Meaning of broadcasting and netcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Broadcasting is generally taken to be a point-to-multipoint transmission of audio-visual content. Hence, cable transmissions and Internet/Web transmissions (which are point-to-point) are usually not included when one uses the term "broadcasting". But there is no one common definition of "broadcasting". As things stand in the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, the definition of broadcasting (Art. 5(a)) does not cover cablecasting, which is separately defined in Art. 5(b), neither does it cover webcasting. However, the definition of "retransmission" as provided in the draft treaty is broad enough to cover Internet-based transmission, and hence could provide a backdoor via which webcasting is included. The rights covered by the all-inclusive draft WIPO Broadcast Treaty include the rights of and over: retransmission; communication to the public; fixation; reproduction; distribution; transmission following fixation; making available of fixed broadcasts; and pre-broadcast signals. The treaty also mandates legislative protection to systems of digital rights management (DRM) and technological protection measures (TPMs). This, coupled with post-fixation rights, grants broadcasters the rights to dictate what one can and cannot do with a broadcast, thus negating all fair dealing rights and possibly restricting the public domain as well. It may be noted that even content creators are not provided such rights in the vast majority of the world, and that fair dealing rights are much better safeguarded by copyright law. The latest proposal by the U.S. on the term "netcasting" is to be found in an <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_15/sccr_15_inf_2.doc">informal paper presented at SCCR 15</a> [MS Word document], and has been <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/2006/09/how-restrictive-is-usptoloc-proposed.html">criticised as overly expansive</a> by civil society organisations such as Consumer Project on Technology (now Knowledge Ecology International).<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Non-justifications for webcasting's inclusion</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Webcasting is sought to be included within the Broadcast Treaty for a number of reasons, all of which are problematic. Firstly, there is the argument of technology neutrality, which advocates say is to ensure that the treaty is relevant into the future as well. However, adopting technology neutrality as the basis for doing so amounts to wilful blindness to technological advancements, and the benefits that such advancement provides, including lowered costs of infrastructure. Secondly, advocates argue that thanks to media convergence, the same content (which is usually digital) can be delivered through various communication networks. This disregards the need to establish the requirement for a new right to be created, and simply assumes that just because the function that the two (broadcasters and webcasters) perform are similar means that they operate in similar economic and social environments. In fact, webcasters work in a very different environment from broadcasters. <br /><br />This is an environment where intense innovation and competition already exist, and don't need to be artificially created by means of a new property right in an international treaty. Furthermore, the United States, a country with extremely large and hugely profitable broadcasting networks, does not have a specific statute to protect broadcasters’ rights. Even it only has laws protecting the conditional-access regime. Second, much less investment is required to reach a set number of people through webcasting than through broadcasting -- and these people can be spread throughout the globe. Typically, a computer with a fast internet connection is all that is required. Given this, anyone can become a 'broadcasting organisation'. Additionally, IP addresses (in IPv6) are not limited, unless one considers 340 undecillion addresses to be 'limited'. This is a big difference from terrestrial broadcasting, where Hertzian frequencies are limited, and hence one has to pay a premium for them. Lastly, signal appropriation does not happen for sake of the signal, but for the content. Protection, thus has to be given to the content (and already is given, in the form of copyright law). Copyright owners who object to such appropriation, and who are often large multinational corporations, have proven more than willing to pursue those who appropriate their works – broadcasters are not necessarily in a better position to do so. This situation is aggravated with webcasting. Indeed, on the Web, something akin signal appropriation is not only not frowned upon, but often encouraged: embedding of audio and video from other servers on your own website is prevalent.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Problems if webcasting is included</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Apart from the lack of justifications for going ahead with the treaty, especially when it seeks to create a separate property right over signals instead of merely providing for signal protection and includes webcasting (at least upon 'retransmission'), there are many problems that the treaty creates. Firstly, transaction costs will increase vastly, leading to a tragedy of the anticommons where no one ends up using the content because clearing all the surrounding rights is too difficult. On top of clearing and making payment for rights from the copyright holders, a person wishing to use parts of any content that has been broadcast/webcast would have to get the rights cleared from the first broadcaster/webcaster as well. This is inevitable if property-like rights are bestowed upon the act of distributing signal in the form of a broadcast or hosting audio and visual content for webcasting.<br /><br />Secondly, materials in the public domain and openly-licensed content will become more difficult to gain access to, and the exercise of fair dealings with copyrighted content will be hampered. Since rights over signal are independent of rights over content, a copy of the public-domain work will have to be procured from an archive, which negates the very purpose of broadcasting and webcasting, which is to make content more easily accessible to a large number of people located over great distances. Additionally, limitations and exceptions are extremely difficult to negotiate and are of the 'ceiling' kind, limiting the limitations and exceptions that national legislatures can prescribe. Thus, the fair dealing rights over the signal will probably end up being more limited than the fair dealing rights over content. This makes the situation akin to anti-circumvention measures, which (in countries where they are legally recognised) have fewer limitations and exceptions than the content they protect.<br /><br />Thirdly, public benefit and access will seriously be harmed. It is conceivable that this treaty might hamper the Indian legislature's ability to pass statutes such as the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, which mandate sharing of certain kinds of signals. Lawyers will claim that such statutes go against India's international obligations.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Differences between webcasting and broadcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>To sum up, there are a large number of differences between broadcasting and webcasting.<br /><strong>Infrastructure</strong>: The expenditure required to establish the infrastructure for a webcasting unit is much less than that required for an equivalent (in terms of reach in terms of listeners). Even traditional broadcasting is not that expensive: fixed-frequency radio transmission kits have been known to cost as little as Rs. 50 (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4735642.stm>. Thus, one of the biggest arguments for protection ('to recover investment') is taken away. The content producers' 'investment' is protected by copyright law.<br /><strong>Competition</strong>: Providing incentives to increase competition and hence public benefit is often a reason cited as a reason for introduction of a new property-like right. However, such incentives seem utterly redundant in the online market where becoming a webcasting organisation is trivial, and immense competition already exists.<br /><strong>Broadcasting vs. Uni- and Multicasting</strong>: The notion of 'broadcasting' does not exist in IPv6. The closest that a webcaster can come to broadcasting is 'multicasting' to a specific range of IP addresses. What one sees on the Web today is "unicasting", which is initiated by a request from the recipient and not by the webcaster.<br /><strong>Temporal limitations</strong>: Unlike traditional broadcasting (which does not include cable), content on demand is possible over the Web. By this, the temporal limitations faced by traditional broadcasting, which is ephemeral, are overcome. This opens up many possibilities that should not be hampered by creating an excessive legal regime (and that too a property regime) over webcasting.<br /><strong>Geographic limitations</strong>: While terrestrial broadcasting is limited in geographic scope (which satellite and cable-casting are less susceptible to), webcasting knows no geographic limitations. As long as an Internet connection is present, the content can be viewed anywhere. Additionally, granting a separate webcasting right will open up a jurisdicational can of worms.<br /><strong>Marginal costs of subscribers</strong>: While in terrestrial broadcasting, adding an additional receiver does not cost the broadcaster anything, in satellite television (direct-to-home), cable television and webcasting, each additional receiver means either additional infrastructure (cables and set-top boxes) or additional server load. In the case of webcasting, this marginal cost is small enough to ignore, especially given all the other reasons mentioned previously.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>There are still a number of uncertainties surrounding the inclusion of webcasting in the Broadcast Treaty. Michael Nelson of the Internet Society points out that questions such as who the broadcaster is in a download grid, in distributed gaming, for webcasts of surveillance videos, etc., are unanswered. As the example of the download grid (a situation where the 'casting' is multipoint-to-point) shows, many Internet-specific scenarios have not been contemplated by the treaty negotiators. Situations which might soon be reality, such as peer-to-peer relaying of webcasts are also not contemplated, and the treaty would become a policy document preventing such technological innovations. Whether IPTV would be included within webcasting is also unclear. The WIPO chair in his informal paper noted, 'Finally, if after consideration of the options above (A/B) and possible other options, it will not in the present situation be possible to decide on the establishment of a new treaty, the SCCR should end these discussions through an express decision in order to avoid further spending of time, energy and resources to no avail. Such a decision could include a timetable for later revisiting and reconsidering the matter.' (SCCR/15/2 rev) SCCR should end these discussions which have gone on for more than a decade without any progress.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-08-04T04:42:10ZBlog EntryViews on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international
<b>On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6).
Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage.
Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.</b>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon, everyone.</p>
<p>My presentation will be in reference to the revised
consolidated text <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_36/sccr_36_6.pdf">SCCR 36/6</a> and the US proposal <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">SCCR 37/7</a>.</p>
<p>In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of
rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional –
satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter
signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related
rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.</p>
<p>The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their
programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create
an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities.
This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet
streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail
protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting
organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the
treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by
acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the
current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start
up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step.
And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in
other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m
trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of
broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.</p>
<p>My
co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building
of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an
affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we
urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and
exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept
that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for
countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the
Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an
expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look
who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El
Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international
standard.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">US delegation’s proposal</a>, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of
limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting
organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against
piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does
not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the
proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights
for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations –
organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our
times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.</p>
<p>At a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29025">seminar</a> on this very
treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the
problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this
neighbouring right. He said that the
justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of
disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for
gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had
gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not
account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the
proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing
between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been
raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it
cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil
society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another
practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations
from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it
technically possible to do that?</p>
<p>To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms
need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared
across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and
exceptions is urgently needed. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29234">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingWIPO2018-11-29T10:48:40ZBlog EntryUS and EU blocking treaty to give blind people access to books
https://cis-india.org/news/us-and-eu-blocking-treaty
<b>Copyright fears stall talks on books being translated into braille for blind and visually impaired people in the global south.</b>
<hr />
<p>This article by Paige McClanahan was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/30/us-eu-blocking-treaty-blind-books">published</a> in the Guardian on July 30, 2012. Rahul Cherian, a Fellow at CIS is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US and the EU are blocking a treaty that would give the world's blind and visually impaired people – 90% of whom live in the developing world – easier access to published works in formats they can use.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A "treaty for blind people" has been under discussion at the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en">World Intellectual Property Organisation</a> (Wipo) since 2008, but negotiations have made little progress. In the latest round of talks in Geneva, which ended on Wednesday 25 July, negotiators deferred a decision on the issue once again, to the dismay of activists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This is not just a legal issue – for us, this is a moral issue. It's about human rights," said Teresa Hackett, programme manager at Electronic Information for Libraries, a non-profit group based in the Netherlands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are about 256 million visually impaired people in the developing world, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/">according to an estimate by the World Health Organisation.</a> In many rich countries, blind people have ready access to works that have been translated into braille and other accessible formats such as audio and large-print books, although, according to the EU, only 5% of books are accessible to blind people in wealthy states.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, under existing copyright law, poorer countries can't access those translations without getting the express permission of the copyright holder. Few developing country governments have managed to do that, meaning that their blind and visually impaired populations are left with barely anything to read. The EU estimates that less than 1% of books are accessible to blind people in poorer countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The Spanish organisation Once has well over 100,000 [translated] books that they would like to send to Latin American countries, but they can't simply because of this copyright barrier," said Dan Pescod of the<a href="http://www.rnib.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx">Royal National Institute of Blind People</a>. Libraries in five Latin American countries – Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Uruguay and Chile – have fewer than 9,000 accessible books between them, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A treaty at WIPO could change that. A binding agreement would mean people in the global south could get immediate access to books that have already been translated into accessible formats in other countries. A treaty would also lead to enormous cost savings, as expensive translation has to be replicated in every country that wants to produce an accessible form of a given book.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European parliament <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120216IPR38346/html/Binding-rules-to-ensure-blind-people%27s-access-to-books">passed a resolution in February</a> calling on the EU to support a binding treaty for the blind, but it does not appear to be having much impact. "The EU and the Americans are blocking the treaty – that's what's going on," said James Love, director of <a href="http://keionline.org/">Knowledge Ecology International</a> (KEI). "It's shameful what they're doing." He added that the administration of President Barack Obama has changed its position on the treaty over the past few years. In 2008 Obama's transition team were making positive noises, but since then the administration has become less enthusiastic.<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/europe-news" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Europe"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/europe-news" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Europe">Europe</a> and the US are home to some of the world's biggest publishing companies, many of which don't like the idea of an international treaty that would restrict their intellectual property rights. Observers speculate that the Obama administration may be loth to upset the publishing industry, a major campaign supporter, this late in an election year. "What we can see in the [negotiating] room is that primarily it's the business interests that dominate," said Hackett.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Activists are hoping for a legally binding treaty, but US and European delegates have been pushing for a softer "instrument" that would offer only guidelines and recommendations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We really don't want to establish a precedent of developing a series of treaties that specifically focus on … limitations and exceptions to the rights of copyright owners," said Alan Adler of the Association of American Publishers, in an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxVcmOwBAsY">online interview with KEI</a>. Discussions are due to begin again in November, after the US election.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite the setback, activists insist they will keep lobbying for a binding treaty. "We in developing countries have found our voice and we are not going to back down," said Rahul Cherian, of <a href="http://www.inclusiveplanet.com/en/login?destination=node%2F241416%27">Inclusive Planet,</a> an Indian nonprofit, in a statement to Wipo delegates last week. "When people are demanding their basic rights, no power in the world is strong enough to stop them getting what they want."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/us-and-eu-blocking-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/news/us-and-eu-blocking-treaty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-08-02T13:56:36ZNews ItemTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 25
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 25th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from November 19, 2012 to November 23, 2012.
</b>
<p>This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 25 which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player/carttranscript?Event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player/carttranscript?Event=WIPO</a> and <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-1-november-19-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 1, November 19, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-2-november-20-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 2, November 20, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-3-november-21-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 3, November 21, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-4-november-22-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 4, November 22, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-5-november-23-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 5, November 23, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishersmitaLive BlogCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:58:55ZBlog EntryTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24
https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 23, 2012)</li>
<li>(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012) </li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:35:43ZBlog EntryTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 27
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note: This is an unedited transcript of the discussions at SCCR 27. We are hosting the text for archival purposes:</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ul>
</ul>
<p>Day 1: April 28, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-1-april-28-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 2: April 29, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-day-2-april-29-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 3: April 30, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-3.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussion-transcripts-day-3.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 4: May 1, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-may-1-2014.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-4-may-1-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 5: May 2, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-05-02-sccr-27.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-5.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Click for <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty" class="internal-link">WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty</a></p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-25T04:50:59ZBlog EntryThe Hathitrust Judgment and its impact on TVI negotiations at WIPO
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/hathitrust-judgment-and-its-impact-on-tvi-negotiations-at-wipo
<b>Those of you who have been following my earlier posts on the WIPO negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired will remember that one of the biggest concerns of the World Blind Union on the draft wording of the Treaty was with the definition of an “authorized entity” that can undertake conversion and distribution of accessible format copies.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Before the WIPO intersessionals began on October 17, 2012, the definition of “authorized entity” in the draft Treaty prescribed that only authorized entities that address the needs of beneficiary persons as one of their <b><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">primary</span></i></b> (in brackets) activities or institutional obligations can undertake conversion and distribution of books in accessible formats. This requirement is unacceptable since it will exclude many legitimate organisations and institutions that undertake these activities but who do not address the needs of beneficiary persons as a “primary” activity or institutional obligation. Some examples of such organisations/institutions are mainstream education institutions and mainstream libraries. Delhi University which has a large number of blind students will be excluded and this is unacceptable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The main proponents pushing for the word "primary" was the United States and the European Union while India and other developing countries wanted the word to be deleted for obvious reasons. There was a virtual deadlock in the negotiations on this particular point.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States was pushing for the word “primary” because under <a href="http://goo.gl/E5jlr" target="_blank">US Copyright law</a>, an authorized entity means a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a <b><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">primary mission</span></i></b> to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities. Under US law there was uncertainty as to whether educational institutions and libraries would be covered under the definition of “authorized entity”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Enter the HathiTrust Judgment <a href="http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nasims/HathivAG10_10_12.pdf">http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nasims/HathivAG10_10_12.pdf</a>. The judgment, which was pronounced a few days before the October WIPO intersessionals by the New York Southern District Court, held that libraries and educational institutions fall under the definition of “authorized entities” under US law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US delegation to WIPO was instantly alerted about this judgment and was requested to negotiate broader wording for authorized entities under the Treaty as was now the position under US law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the intersessionals that concluded on October 19, as observers, we were not allowed into the room and the discussions were happening between the Member States but at the end of the intersessionals this is the proposed wording of authorized entity:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Authorized entity means an entity that is authorized or recognized by the government to provide education, instructional training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiary persons on a non-profit basis. It also includes a government institution or non-profit organization that provides the same services to beneficiary persons as one of its primary activities or institutional obligations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As can be seen from above, this definition is broader than the previous definition since the word primary has been deleted from the main definition and it explicitly covers educational institutions and libraries. It is also interesting to note that even for profit entities that provide the above services on a non-profit basis to beneficiaries are covered.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It remains to be seen what form the definition of authorized entities will take but the HathiTrust judgment has definitely helped in the negotiation process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights takes place in Geneva between November 19 and November 23, 2012.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Watch this space for updates. See my <a class="external-link" href="http://goo.gl/JpPkO">earlier posts on the WIPO negotiations</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/hathitrust-judgment-and-its-impact-on-tvi-negotiations-at-wipo'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/hathitrust-judgment-and-its-impact-on-tvi-negotiations-at-wipo</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-10-30T04:28:24ZBlog EntryThe Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari was one of the speakers at this side event held on December 10, 2014.</b>
<div class="content" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>See the <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2135">details on Knowledge Ecology International website</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>On Wednesday, 10 December 2014, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) will convene a side event entitled, "The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?"; the event will take place in Room B of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) from 13:30 to 15:00. Speakers include: Nehaa Chaudhari, (Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi/Banglaore), Jeremy Malcolm, (Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation), James Love, (Director, KEI) and Viviana Munoz Kieffer, (Coordinator, Innovation and Access to Knowledge Programme, South Centre).</p>
<p><b>Background</b></p>
<p>Since its first SCCR (Nov 2-10, 1998) WIPO and member states have been asked to resolve the requests for new legal protections for broadcasting organizations. All participants to the SCCR were asked then "to submit, by the end of March 1999, proposals and/or views in treaty language or in other form."</p>
<p>Since then the rights of broadcasting organizations have been on the agenda. While the committee is still trying to identify precisely the problems Broadcasters' rights (or right?)to be solved (piracy in its broadest definition?), the proposal for a new international norm setting may create a new layer of post fixation rights in content that broadcasters do not create, license nor own.</p>
<p>The demandeurs i.e. some of the broadcasting organizations representatives and some member states are listing endless rights such as transmission, retransmission or deferred transmission whether simultaneous or near simultaneous on demand of a broadcast signal to the public, as well as transmission over the internet. Most of these rights exist in some form or another in most WIPO member states. However, for many SCCR participants, if the committee truly wants to move forward on this new norm setting exercise it must focus on a narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the core need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.</p>
<p>After 15 years of negotiations, formal and informal, text based or not, it is time to answer some of the following questions:</p>
<p>Would adding a new layer of rights over content on the internet be consistent with the committee's mandate to limit protection to the broadcaster's signal?</p>
<p>Would the new international right (or rights) have an impact on consumers and creative communities globally?</p>
<p>Would the new instrument have the necessary exceptions for quotations or news of the day?</p>
<p>Would the extension of the rights under discussion to cable television (and services which already require subscriber fees) create a redundant layer of protection to services already protected under other legal regimes and thus be anticompetitive?</p>
<p>Would the protection of over the air broadcast signal be sufficient for broadcasters? If not why not?</p>
</div>
<hr />
<p><b>Download the transcript <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/kei-side-talk-events.pdf" class="external-link">here</a></b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2015-01-09T02:31:55ZNews ItemStatement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at WIPO SCCR 28
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari, attending the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 30 June, 2014 to 04 July, 2014, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 02 July, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mister Chair, there are two things that I would like to talk about, on behalf of CIS- <i>first</i>, on justifications for this Treaty; <i>second</i> on the scope and the rights sought to be granted under this Treaty, which I will speak of together, if I may.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On justifying the need for this Treaty, Mr. Chair, we would reiterate what we have said in past sessions of this Committee – there has been no conclusive demonstration on the need for this Treaty and on why existing mechanisms in international legal instruments, including, among others TRIPS and the Rome Convention are not sufficient to address the concerns of the broadcasters. We have heard that these are insufficient, but no justifications as to why- something that KEI also pointed out in their statement before us. Further, Mr. Chair, we’re concerned by the fact that the latest study on the unauthorised use of signals presented to this Committee is the one from 2010 at the 20<sup>th</sup> Session of this Committee. We strongly support the proposal made by India, TWN, CCIA and TACD to update this study and include an impact assessment of ALL the stakeholders, something that the earlier study does not address; in order to more comprehensively assess not just the need, but also the impact of this proposed treaty, and address some of the questions and concerns raised by TACD and TWN in their statement earlier.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Without prejudice to this submission on the need for this treaty, Mr. Chair, we would also like to comment on the scope of, and the rights under this Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, we would continue to submit that this proposed treaty should be based on a signals based approach and not a rights based approach. We have heard submissions by broadcasters at this and at previous sessions of this Committee, where the basis of seeking additional protection for broadcaster is to protect the underlying investment. Mr. Chair, investments made in infrastructure for broadcasting in the traditional sense are very different from those required for an IP based transmission, even if the same broadcaster is engaging in both. Therefore, Mr. Chair, given that the rationale for seeking this additional layer of rights over and above existing copyright is the protection of investment for broadcasting in the traditional sense is the , IP based transmissions should not be covered in any way under this Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, Mr. Chair, fixation and post fixation rights envisaged under Article 9 of Working Document SCCR 27/2/ Rev. and indicated in the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/informal-discussion.pdf" class="internal-link">Informal Document</a> circulated today, are inconsistent with a signals based approach. We are strongly opposed to all of the rights indicated in the Third Row of this Informal Discussion Document. This Document, we believe, is moving the discussion towards a rights based approached and not a signals based approach, which we find deeply concerning. We also believe, Mr. Chair, that it is not logical to prescribe a term of protection (beyond the life of a signal), least of all 20 or 50 year term (as under Article 11 of this Working Document) for a signal that lasts milliseconds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Video</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align:justify; ">Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014 are </span><a href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp" style="text-align:justify; " target="_blank">available online</a><span style="text-align:justify; ">. To view CIS' Statement, select 'Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session- June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva, Switzerland)' from the drop-down list of videos. CIS' Statement is in the video </span><span style="text-align:justify; ">titled SCCR/28- Wed2 - English - Morning session. The length of the video is 44:51. The statement is available in this video from 24 minutes, 00 seconds- when the Chair recognizes CIS.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-07-14T05:40:27ZBlog EntryStatement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari, attending the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 30 June, 2014 to 04 July, 2014, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives on behalf of CIS on Day 4, 03 July, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We thank the delegation of the United States for putting forward their Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, presented to this Committee in <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_8.pdf">Document SCCR/ 26/8</a>. I would like to comment on two of the topics that we have discussed today- one; the adoption of national exceptions and two; limitations and exceptions in a digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>First</em>, Mr. Chair, on the adoption of national exceptions: We appreciate the recognition of the ‘public service’ role of libraries and the importance of limitations and exceptions for them to perform their role of facilitating access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, the goals of the copyright system. However, Mr. Chair, we do believe that the true and complete realization of these objectives would not be possible without an international legal instrument that lays out minimum international standards for countries to adopt and implement, that fosters a system for cross border exchange and creates an enabling environment to facilitate the implementation and adoption of limitations and exceptions at the national level.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Second, </em>Mr. Chair, on limitations and exceptions in a digital environment; we appreciate the objective set out in the proposal made by the United States and welcome the statements by the delegations of Kenya, Chile and South Africa, that international regulation will grant a solution to the problems facing libraries and archives in the digital environment. Mr. Chair, the digital environment presents huge opportunities for countries such as India and perhaps others in the Global South for the preservation and dissemination of knowledge and in turn benefit education and research; with libraries and archives playing a crucial role. The digital environment, Mr. Chair, also presents a fair share of challenges. These include as IFLA, CLA, EIFL, IAB, the Karisma Foundation and others have also stated- multiplicity and complexity of licenses to be negotiated with various rights holders, the mandated use of particular platforms by publishers, difficulties in obtaining copyright clearances and limitations on remote access to name a few. Additional challenges are placed by technological measures of protection, (something that we also spoke about in our submission at the previous session of this Committee; where technological measures of protection often placed on master copies of files obtained by libraries and archives prevent basic preservation activities such as file format migration and limit the ways in which end users can utilize the work in question, rendering redundant, fair use or fair dealing provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Therefore, Mr. Chair, we are of the opinion that an international legal instrument addressing the challenges faced by libraries and archives in the digital environment is necessary and the way forward for members of this Committee- and existing mechanisms in national laws of those nations that do have them are insufficient.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Video</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;">Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014 are </span><a style="text-align: justify;" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp" target="_blank">available online</a><span style="text-align: justify;">.
To view CIS' Statement, select 'Standing Committee on Copyright and
Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session- June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva,
Switzerland)' from the drop-down list of videos. CIS' Statement is in
the video </span><span style="text-align: justify;">titled SCCR/28-
Thurs3 - English - Afternoon session. The length of the video is
02:13:52. The statement is available in this video from 01:38:46</span></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-07-21T17:56:24ZBlog EntryStatement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement
<b>The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.
</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the South African and Mexican delegations for their hard work on this text before us.</p>
<p>We wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided last SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcasting Treaty, and would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by Public Knowledge, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Knowledge Ecology International, International Federation of Library Associations, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<h3>Broadcasters Already Protected Online<br /></h3>
<p>Broadcasters make two kinds of investments for which they are protected. They invest in infrastructure and they invest in licensing copyrighted works. The first investment is protected by 'broadcast rights', and the latter investment is protected by copyright law.</p>
<p>Broadcasters, being licensees of copyrighted works, generally already have rights of enforcement insofar as their licence is concerned. Therefore there is no need to provide for additional protections with regard to broadcasters in order to enable them to proceed against acts that violate existing copyright laws: they already have those rights by way of licence. This is often forgotten when talking about rights of broadcasters.</p>
<p>The investments to be made in infrastructure in traditional broadcast and in IP-based transmission are very different, even if it is the same 'traditional broadcasters' who are indulging in both. Given that this investment is the basis of additional protection for broadcaster over and above the rights provided to underlying copyright, IP-based transmissions should not be covered in any way even if it is traditional broadcast organizations that are engaged in them.</p>
<p>Providing new and separate rights to large broadcasters for their online transmission, as is currently being done via the provision on 'retransmission' while excluding small webcasters will create a hierarchy and a class distinction without any basis in either principle or existing laws.</p>
<h3>Support Countries' Concerns</h3>
<p>We also wish to support the amendments suggested by the Indian delegation. As we were reminded by the Indian delegation, the General Assembly mandate of 2007 only extends to traditional broadcasting and to a signal-based approach. In this regard, we also wish to support the question posed by the United States delegation between signal-based and rights-based approaches, as also the strong statement by the Brazilian delegation on the need to ensure that cultural diversity and competition are protected and promoted by any international instrument on broadcasting, and we would like to add 'preservation of a vibrant public domain' as provided by Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda.<br /><br />Thank you, Chair.<br /><br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-11-30T06:55:43ZBlog EntryStatement by the Centre for Internet and Society on the Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 30
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/statement-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-india-on-the-broadcast-treaty-at-sccr-30
<b>The 30th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's ("WIPO") Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ("SCCR") is underway in Geneva from 29 June, 2015 to 03 July, 2015. While CIS was unable to attend this meeting, we have the following statement to make on negotiations on the Proposed Treaty for Broadcasting Organizations.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This statement was prepared on behalf of CIS by Nehaa Chaudhari. Many thanks to Pranesh Prakash and Amulya Purushothama for their inputs.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mister Chair,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our intervention will speak to the presentations made by broadcasting organizations on Day 1 and Member and Group Statements on Days 1 and 2.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, Mr. Chair, generally on technical panels- If <i>this</i> is the manner in which this Committee will be appraised of new developments, without prejudice to our reservations about this ad-hoc manner itself, we <i>strongly</i> suggest that other interest groups and stakeholders be provided a similar opportunity to present their side of the story, in front of this Committee, for one entire day. Industry representatives, including those from telecommunications, information technology, consumers electronics, and performers- and not just various public interest NGOs have been expressing reservations and concerns about this Treaty from at least as far back as 2006, if not earlier. We appreciate Group B’s ask in their introductory statement to “continue to hear the voices of the real world” – We only ask that you award all stakeholders an equivalent, if not equal opportunity to be heard in the manner that you have the broadcasters; without privileging the interests of the broadcasters above the others. There must be a recognition of the rights of other stakeholders including content owners- not just in the Treaty as noted by India yesterday, but also in the discussions leading up to it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, Mr. Chair, on Technical Background Paper document SCCR 7/8 – which you had flagged off as relevant for this session in your summary of SCCR 29 – but, of course, I stand to be corrected if I have understood incorrectly. Mr. Chair, this document is more than a decade old – it seems to have seen no updates since 2002, and even in that form, it is wanting. The document excludes from its scope the rationale for the treaty as well as the scope for protection, which we find problematic, especially given as these have been among the most contentious topics in this Committee. Additionally in only dealing primarily with the Rome Convention with but a passing reference to other international instruments, if at all, it presents an incomplete overview of the legal framework already available to broadcasters. I also have other comments to this document, which I will send in writing. We’d strongly urge that an updated version of this document be presented to this Committee so that we can have a more accurate discussion, just like the one on market and technology trends has been updated as SCCR 30/5.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Third, Mr. Chair, on the presentations and statements themselves. A reason oft cited in this Committee, Mr. Chair, has been the need to protect the underlying investment and the purported loss of revenue. From their presentations on Day 1 Mr. Chair, it seems to us that the broadcasters are doing perfectly alright <i>without </i>a Broadcast Treaty. Mr. Knapp for IHS in fact said that <b>“</b><b>Despite digitization, TV homes, paid TV homes are growing globally”, </b>stating also, that there was a very high average revenue per user in North America and a <b>“double digit growth in the pay TV sector”</b> in other regions, which meant a <b>“fairly healthy industry despite all the digital disruption side”.</b> We have also heard from TV Globo who told us of the progress made in advertising and pay TV and smartphone penetration in Brazil, and from Zee Telefilms from India who spoke of a booming broadcasting industry. <b></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, Nothing we have heard so far addresses three important questions – why is there a need for a separate right? Why are protections under the Rome Convention inadequate? While piracy might well be an issue, why can’t it be covered under existing copyright law – all of which comes down to why we’re discussing the creation of a para copyright regime for broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the Caribbean Broadcasting Union, we heard about emerging technologies and the challenges due to piracy. There was also a mention of significant investment – but if that is to be the basis for this treaty, we would ask that detailed reports of these investments and losses also be placed before this Committee. Also, none of this addresses the lacunae in the Rome Convention or existing international copyright law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, we have repeatedly heard from Group B and the European Union on the ‘significant economic value of broadcasting’, but, this economic value has had international law recognition for a while now. While the CEBS group, Japan and Russia speak highly of technological advancements to justify the need for the Broadcast Treaty, there has still been no discussion on the inadequacy of existing international law to address these technological advancements. There needs to be something more that justifies this attempt to give broadcasters an additional layer of rights. It might be useful to conduct a comprehensive study on signal theft and piracy and the legal frameworks in every member state to deal with signal theft and piracy, and an updated study on the international legal framework as well. This Committee has precedent on such an exercise in Prof. Kenneth Crews’ study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives that has been tabled at this SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, this para copyright we’re trying to create, especially without all stakeholders being heard equally, would in effect severely limit any competition that broadcasting organizations would face from the Internet and other emerging technologies; which is undesirable for any market, besides access to free knowledge and information, as well put by the delegation of Iran.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/statement-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-india-on-the-broadcast-treaty-at-sccr-30'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/statement-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-india-on-the-broadcast-treaty-at-sccr-30</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2015-07-02T01:20:38ZBlog EntrySecond Meeting of the Expert Committee on WIPO
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-meeting-of-the-expert-committee-on-wipo
<b>The second meeting of the Expert Committee on WIPO was held in the Committee Room (6th floor) of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi on November 2, 2015. The meeting was held under the chairmanship of Special Secretary (I&B). Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha attended the meeting.</b>
<p>Download the minutes of the first meeting <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/minutes-of-the-first-meeting-of-expert-committee-of-wipo" class="internal-link"><b>here</b></a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-meeting-of-the-expert-committee-on-wipo'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-meeting-of-the-expert-committee-on-wipo</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2015-11-29T08:27:54ZNews ItemSCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews
<b>While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This blog entry was <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2147">published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International</a> on December 11, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net)</b>:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
<p>The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.</p>
<p>My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. <b>William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists</b>.</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?<br /> >> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another stakeholder, <b>Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society</b> questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
<p>I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.</p>
<p>My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>> KENNETH CREWS: Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out.</p>
<p>So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In<br /> a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word<br /> about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Finally, the <b>TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein</b> made the following political and philosophical intervention:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
<p>And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-27T16:54:58ZNews ItemRing Side View : Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view
<b>As a legal advisor of the World Blind Union and part of the World Blind Union delegation to the 24th meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) that concluded on July 25, 2012 I had a ring side seat to the negotiations that happened between Member States in relation to the Treaty. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On call almost 24 x 7 to answer questions and clarify positions to Member States on aspects relating to the Treaty and the ground reality faced by the print disabled community, those were possibly the most grueling 10 days of my life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Progress at the last 3 SCCRs was painfully slow. At the start of this SCCR on July 16 2012 the single biggest hurdle to progress on the Treaty was the stand that the African Group had taken at the earlier SCCRs with respect to a comprehensive text covering exceptions and limitations to copyright for education, libraries, archives and disabilities. See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzKnVkcW7LQ">my discussion with Jamie Love</a> from Knowledge Ecology International on this issue. It was evident that while a comprehensive text had its merits, it would be impossible to make progress on this comprehensive text because, other that for exceptions for disabilities, the issues relating to education, libraries and archives had not reached the level of maturity required to progress to a Treaty. So it was essential that exceptions for disabilities were de-linked from exceptions for education etc. This is exactly what the African Group did much to the excitement of the WBU team.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Much was left to be done over the next few days including discussion on the text of the working document which prepared by Chair after SCCR 23,<a class="external-link" href="http://wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=195021"> available here</a>. Normally, discussions on text happen at the plenary session attended by Member States as well as accredited organizations such as the World Blind Union, my organization Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy and others. This process, while adding to transparency and more participation is sometimes slow and the request of some Member States considering the urgency of the matter, discussions were taken out of plenary into a closed room round table discussion. All Member States could participate and many did. Unfortunately, accredited organizations were not invited to attend. Full credit to Member States in terms of effort put into this effort as they worked well beyond normal working hours on most days in an attempt to reach consensus on the text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another critical outcome we had hoped for was that there would be consensus between Member States that the instrument would be in the form of a Treaty. As the negotiations between Member States progressed it became clear that the United States and the European Union were blocking the Treaty while everybody else was pushing hard for the Treaty. The United States and the European Union were pushing for some form of non-binding instrument that would be more in the nature of a recommendation. Further coverage of this is at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/blind-treaty-2012_n_1706543.html">Huffington Post</a> and in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/30/us-eu-blocking-treaty-blind-books">Guardian</a>. The drawbacks of a soft law as opposed to a Treaty is obvious in that a soft law has no binding force as opposed to a Treaty. Rumor has it that the reason for the United States not supporting the Treaty is that the publishing lobby is apparently a huge contributor to President Obama’s re-election campaign and that he could ill afford to alienate this lobby by pushing for the Treaty. The European Union’s opposition to a binding Treaty was despite a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in February 2012 <a class="external-link" href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120216IPR38346/html/Binding-rules-to-ensure-blind-people%27s-access-to-books">calling on the European Union to support a binding Treaty</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We had hoped that SCCR 24 would close with agreement on the text, agreement that it would be a Treaty and finally that the SCCR referring the Treaty to the upcoming General Assembly in October 2012 to call for a Diplomatic Conference in 2013 to expressly agree on the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, this was not to be. Although much progress was made on the text, the text remains incomplete, with a lot of brackets in the text on undecided points. There was no consensus that the instrument should be a treaty. And lastly there was no decision on referring the issue to a diplomatic conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The next steps as outlined in the conclusions to SCCR 24 are the following:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">an inter-sessional meeting of the SCCR be held in Geneva between the 2012 General Assembly and the 25th session of the SCCR to continue work;</li>
<li>the 25th session of the SCCR will attempt to conclude or advance substantially the text of the document; and </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">that the General Assembly convene an extraordinary session to be held in December 2012 to evaluate the text from SCCR/25 and to make a decision on whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013. </li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">SCCR 24 made more progress on this issue that any of the previous SCCRs I have attended. We are very optimistic that the Treaty will become a reality of the next 18 to 24 months with the increased pressure being exerted on the US and the European Union by the blind groups in these jurisdictions respectively. Needless to say, the Treaty will benefit developing countries the most since the majority of persons with print disabilities are in these countries. India and other developing countries are mindful of this and are pushing as hard as possible to make it happen.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>My next post will be on the pros and cons of the text that was proposed at the end of SCCR 24</i>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-08-13T04:34:22ZBlog Entry