The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 13.
WIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 3
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3
<b></b>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Working towards a binding international L&E instrument</b><br /> Iran, Pakistan and Kenya highlighted their support toward the African proposal as well emphasized the need for an internationally binding treaty on L&E. Saudi Arabia mentioned the need for Limitations and Exceptions to benefit the preservation and sharing of cultural heritage, as well as for persons with disabilities. Iran emphasied on the need for adequate balance and copyright protection and a balance between different national legislations. Iran stated that there was a need to have an international legal instrument in order to harmonise national legislations, in the absence of which there would not be a free flow of information. Iran also emphasised on the need to look at the priorities of developing countries with respect to the Development Agenda. Pakistan also highlighted the issues that came to light during the pandemic, especially with regard to cross border use of information by educational institutions. In addition to this Pakistan stated that it looked forward to a binding instrument that was not too prescriptive. Kenya shed light on the concerns around the increasing knowledge gap between the developed and the developing countries, and the migration from analogue to digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 4 <br /> <br /> Limitations and Exceptions and Cross Border Flow of Data <br /> </b>Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Uganda and Algeria extended their support to the Work Programme on L&E by the African Group. Nigeria in their statement expressed how L&E were essential for research, cultural exchange, and how it had the potential to help people around the world who still lack access to educational and research materials. Nigeria also highlighted that a legally binding international treaty would help harmonise and balance the copyright system with other instruments such as the TRIPS agreement and the WIPO internet treaties, and facilitate smooth transborder trade in both online and traditional media. Iran stated that the creation of L&E for online and crossborder use of data is imperative, especially for the benefit of online teaching and research as well as bridge the digital divide by facilitating access to knowledge and technology. <br /> <br /> The European Union (EU) and France however were not in support of a legally binding instrument.The EU stated that they would prefer a non-binding instrument such as a toolkit, while France stated that the current international framework of copyright is sufficiently flexible to allow members to implement L&E in their national legislations, as well as to find appropriate tools to meet the needs of education, research and preservation. France expressed their reservation in moving towards a normative framework and stated that the states could look at the exchange of best practice at national level and support in drafting national legislations. The United States stated that topics such as text and data mining and contract override were not issues that were fully discussed yet at the committee level.</p>
<p><b>Observations by the Chair </b></p>
<ol>
<li>The Chair noted that there continued to be a disagreement on whether to pursue international instruments for Limitations and Exceptions.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair also noted that while there was a lot of support for the proposal, there still was no consensus on the proposal. The Chair suggested that the African Group work with the member states that highlighted their reservations and work together with the Chair to see if the proposal could be revised, or to look at portions of the proposal that enjoyed the support to be advanced.</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-3</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T13:03:42ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 1
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1)The need for balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers 2) Questions around fixation and signal piracy 3) Need for consensus and towards a diplomatic conference </b>
<h3>Opening Statements by Group Coordinators</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay on behalf of the GRULAC spoke about the Marrakesh treaty and highlighted how this was the first treaty that looked at human rights and copyright. Uruguay also mentioned the need to look at exclusion and the need for dissemination of knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Baltic states, Poland expressed their interest in discussing the Limitations and Exceptions (L&E) agenda, with focus on persons with other disabilities, as well as conveyed their interest in examining the <a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_43/sccr_43_4.pdf">T</a><a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_43/sccr_43_4.pdf">oolkit</a><a href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_43/sccr_43_4.pdf"> on Preservation</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The African group coordinator Ghana, highlighted the need to look at the contribution to Sustainable Development Goals<b>, </b>they also showed support for Senegal and Congo on their work on artist copyright and resale rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singapore made the statements on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group (APG) group coordinator Indonesia, they commented on the need to work towards a fair and balanced broadcast treaty, and to narrow existing gaps which would require a delicate balance. They also stated that the treaty needs to be comprehensive and inclusive, with limitations and expectations for Libraries, Archives and Museums and areas of cultural importance, as well as access to broadcast content for education and research.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Agenda Item 5: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations</h3>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The need for Balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b>China, Ghana, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, in their statements highlighted the need for balance between the rights of the broadcasters with suitable limitations and exceptions. Iran in their statements also highlighted the work of libraries, archives and museums in education. Iran also highlighted that different parameters for Limitations and Exceptions in member states' national legislations has the potential to cause barriers in the free flow of data for researchers and educators.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Colombia spoke about their concerns regarding the fixation rights laid out in the treaty and the working of limitations and exceptions under Article 11. Colombia stated that the use of the term “may” in Article 11 could result in countries ignoring the limitations and exceptions provisions when they adopt this treaty into their national legislations. They suggested the changing of the wording in Article 11 from “may” to “shall” to reflect a balanced and progressive treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria in their statement highlighted the difficulties that were faced by students and educators during Covid 19, when schools and libraries were closed. They also shed light on how limitations and exceptions were not granted uniformly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan also emphasised on the need to look at the interests of educators, and supported the inclusion of mandatory limitations and exceptions while protecting the rights of the creators.</p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Questions around fixation and signal piracy</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) group, The United Kingdom (UK) , Canada, Tajikistan and The United States of America and Japan in their statements mentioned the need to protect broadcasters especially with respect to stopping piracy. The CEBS group stated that in the era of rapidly evolving technologies and changing digital environments there was a need to extend international protection against piracy to different types of transmissions of broadcasting organizations, including those over computer networks. Similarly, the United Kingdom also highlighted the rapid advancements in technology, which enables signal piracy through redirecting. The UK stated that Article 7 of the draft treaty did not provide sufficient protection, an issue that needed more deliberations.</p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Need for consensus and progress towards a diplomatic conference </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>P</b>akistan, China, Kingdom of Eswatini, The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) in their statements mentioned that they were looking forward to a diplomatic conference. Pakistan highlighted the need for open and inclusive negotiation in the diplomatic conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India expressed that the scope of protection in the revised draft is more comprehensive and in line with technological developments. The definition of the term broadcasting has also been made more comprehensive with the inclusion of the word “any means”. The definition provided for fixation has been provided along with the rights of fixation under Article 7, which may be the most relevant steps to prevent unauthorised exploitation by a third party to the values represented by the signal. India also stated that the treaty is capable of covering piracy in the digital environment and includes broadcasting of all types of broadcast. India also stated that they support the finalisation of the treaty, maintaining the interest of all member states on fundamental issues.</p>
<h3>Presentation by the Chair and Vice Chair</h3>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">On Article 11 the Chair stated that the list could be made clearer, and also clarified that the list is not a closed list. With respect to the works in the public domain the Chair clarified that the broadcasting and distributing of works in public domain, only the work carrying the signal will be under the treaty.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">With regard to the scope of fixation the Chair clarified that the scope of fixation is only for the entity emitting the signal. The focus of the treaty is to limit the rights to signal based rights. </li>
</ol>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T12:01:31ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Rights of broadcasters<br /></b>Iran wanted clarifications about whether the rights granted to broadcasters under the treaty would be a negative right (right to prohibit) or a positive right (right to authorise). Iran also highlighted that there was a need to clarify definitions in the treaty, particularly with respect to user generated contents shared on websites such as Youtube, in comparison with traditional broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that the treaty provides two sets of rights, positive rights under Article 6 and 7 and negative rights under Article 8 and 9. The Chair also clarified that the treaty aimed to bridge the various legal frameworks, based on copyright, under a rights based approach and a signal based approach. In the signal based approach, the positive right under Article 6 is based to protect only live signal and the protection ends at the point of fixation, hence there is no relation between the right of fixation Article 7 and the right to prohibit transmission and deferred transmission under article 8. The Chair further clarified that the positive right ends at fixation after which the right to prohibit comes into play. With respect to User Generated Content the Chair clarified that the current draft of the treaty focused protection to traditional broadcasters and not other service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Terms of the Right </b>The USA highlighted their concern over the possible perpetual term of fixation rights and requested that a revised text could have some explicit time limit. Singapore echoed USA’s concern over the absence of limitations on the duration of the rights of the broadcasters which could give broadcasters perpetual protection of a programme. Similarly Pakistan questioned the need for a right of fixation highlighting that piracy was an enforcement issue. With respect to the term of protection the Chair clarified that the treaty sought to provide practical protection to broadcasters of their live signal, and not the content of the broadcast. Further clarifying that one of the main aims of the treaty was the protection of simultaneous retransmission, and to provide protection in case there was a fixation of the signals. <b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Limitations and Exceptions<br /></b>Iran and Brazil highlighted issues about limitations and exceptions. While Iran stated that the inclusion of the three step test in the treaty would water down the limitations and exceptions provisions, Brazil highlighted that the Article 11 of the treaty did not follow the text of the Marakesh convention or the Beijing treaty regarding Limitations and Exceptions. Brazil highlighted that there was a need to clarify in the text of the treaty itself that the list provided under the Article is illustrative and not exhaustive. In addition to this they stated that the text of the treaty should also establish the presumption that all the examples listed have already fulfilled the three steps. Brazil also highlighted the question about the consequence of the proposal on works in the public domain that are not sufficiently clear. The draft should ensure that public domain content when broadcasted should not receive another layer of protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Communia, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Innovarte also highlighted issues that might come up with broadcasting works that are in the public domain. Communia provided examples where the broadcasters might have the only good copy of historic events and reporting that have now become a part of the public domain, however the broadcasters could reappropriate these which are in the public domain with new exclusive rights through this treaty. Communia hence suggested a need for exclusion of public domain works in the treaty. Innovarte highlighted Article 6 of the Berne convention which allows for exceptions related to public interest such as use of excerpts.</p>
<h3><b>Agenda Item 6 and 7 - Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, for Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other disabilities </b></h3>
<p><b> </b></p>
<ol> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Working towards a binding international L&E instrument</b><br />The beginning of the discussion on Limitations and Exceptions began with the CEBS Group, Group B, the European Union and the USA emphasising on the need to look at other avenues to implement L and E without going for a legally binding international instrument. Some of the solutions provided included strengthening existing national legislations, existing solutions within the framework of the existing international treaties, exchange of best practices, and capacity building for countries to implement L&E’s in their national legislations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ghana on behalf of the African Group stated that there was a need to provide mutual benefit between those who generate and those who use creative works. Ghana also highlighted the issues with cross border access and sharing of copyrighted materials which is becoming increasingly difficult for libraries, archives, museums and research institutions to access. Ghana highlighted the need for a strong support in development of a legal instrument on Limitations and Exceptions, for libraries, archives, museums and for persons with disabilities other than blindness. South Africa in their statement also highlighted the benefit L&E’s would provide to both creators and users, and the cross border transfer of data. And extended their support to the statement of Ghana and work towards an international instrument whether model law, joint recommendation or a treaty.<b> </b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishershwetaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2023-04-28T12:22:24ZBlog EntryComments on the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2021
<b>In this submission, we examine the constitutionality and legality of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which was released by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. </b>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">This submission presents comments by CIS on the Cinematograph (Amendement) Bill, 2021 (“the Bill”) which were released on 18 June 2021 for public comments. These comments examine whether the proposed amendments are compatible with established constitutional principles, precedents, previous policy positions and existing law. While we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments, we note that the time allotted for doing so was less than a month (the deadline for submission was 2 July 2021). Given the immense public import in the proposed changes, and the number of stakeholders involved, we highlight that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) should have provided more time in the final submission of comments. </p>
<p> </p>
<p dir="ltr">Read our full submission <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cinematograph-act-amendments-bill">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2021'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2021</a>
</p>
No publisherTanvi Apte, Anubha Sinha and Torsha SarkarBroadcastingConstitutional LawCopyrightCensorship2021-07-05T05:59:52ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 1
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1) transparency in SCCR work 2) limitations and exceptions 3) addressing the object of protection and overbroad scope of rights in the draft treaty text. </b>
<ul><li>
<h2>Agenda Item: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations</h2>
</li></ul>
<h3 id="docs-internal-guid-2d7fdecc-7fff-4eac-fbe0-71dde65e7c7e" dir="ltr">1. Opacity around informal work on the broadcasting treaty agenda</h3>
<p dir="ltr">Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, South Africa and Chile shared their disappointment on the lack of transparency of informal meetings on the treaty text, and urged for greater openness. The informal meetings were conducted between WIPO and an ad hoc group of countries known as ‘Friends of the (SCCR) Chair’. This group currently includes Argentina, Colombia, the European Union, Finland, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, and the United States of America. The group met in April and June 2021, but Indonesia questioned whether there was a mandate for it in the first place.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Indonesia and Pakistan requested for further updates on the status of the treaty text from the WIPO SCCR Chair and Vice-Chair, especially as an outcome of the informal work. The two delegations also noted the lack of diversity and imbalance in representation in the ‘Friends of the Chair’ group. Pakistan noted that this agenda item had always had a diversity of viewpoints, and that this new mechanism was reductive and not inclusive. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The WIPO SCCR Chair’s and Vice-Chair’s response was that the ‘Friends of the Chair’ mechanism was adopted to do inter-sessional work (work between two SCCRs), in a flexible and less-time consuming manner. The Chair added that the group was <a href="https://www.wipo.int/tad/en/activitydetails.jsp?id=19871">created</a> in 2019 (i.e in the previous Chair's term). However, it should be noted that the group was created only for an “exceptional informal intersessional meeting” with the objective to “brainstorm on possible ways to make progress on the draft treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations in view of the upcoming WIPO General Assembly and the 40th session of the SCCR which will be held in October.” Indonesia made a request to join this group, which was denied by the Chair. The Chair only assured that the concerns raised will be addressed.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">2. <span id="docs-internal-guid-645b82b3-7fff-f227-a130-9f6cbd693337">Support for adding better limitations and exceptions to the treaty text</span></h3>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-454df1d1-7fff-9cba-a70c-49e468c21149" dir="ltr">South Africa emphasised on the critical role of broadcasting organisations in transmitting information and knowledge, and cautioned that the treaty text should be balanced and not negatively impact access to information, culture and education. Iran (speaking on behalf of Asia-pacific group) highlighted the public interest stakes in the treaty and stated that the way forward was to ensure that no layer of rights is created which might affect the right to access information. Chile also was in favour of a more balanced approach that should include limitations and exceptions. Indonesia and Pakistan added that limitations and exceptions in the current text need to be addressed more properly, as they are essential provisions for digital preservation, online use and research.</p>
<h3 dir="ltr">3. A<span id="docs-internal-guid-c6bc905b-7fff-5da0-fd21-232c34ed0592">lternative legal solutions to address broadcast piracy </span></h3>
<p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c6bc905b-7fff-5da0-fd21-232c34ed0592"></span>Canada highlighted how in its national law it provides signal protection and combats piracy without granting exclusive rights to broadcasters on transmission.</p>
<ul><li>
<h2 dir="ltr">Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
</li></ul>
<h3 id="docs-internal-guid-307d14ca-7fff-cec0-6174-8c8b1db618ec" dir="ltr">1. Support for Limitations and Exceptions agenda item</h3>
<p dir="ltr">India noted the importance of the limitations and exceptions agenda for the benefit of the work of libraries, archives, museums, and educational and research institutions, and shared its support for the agenda item.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2021-06-29T13:40:49ZBlog EntryComments on the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 concerning Statutory Licensing
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-draft-copyright-amendment-rules-2019-concerning-statutory-licensing
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society gave its comments on the proposed rules 29,30,31 of the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The comments were made in response to Notification G.S.R 393(E) published in the Gazette of India on May 30, 2019. </b>
<p></p>
<h2><strong>Preliminary</strong></h2>
<p>1. This
submission presents comments to the Department for Promotion of Industry and
Internal Trade (“<strong>DPIIT</strong>”), Ministry
of Commerce and Industry pertaining to the notification G.S.R 393(E) containing
the <a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/pdfgazette.pdf">draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019</a> issued on 30<sup>th</sup> May 2019.</p>
<p>2. We
commend DPIIT on the release of the draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (“<strong>Draft Rules</strong>”) and are thankful for the
opportunity to put forth its views via this public consultation.</p>
<p>3.
This
submission is divided into three main parts. This part, ‘Preliminary’,
introduces the document; the second part provides an overview of the
organization and its research in the field of intellectual property rights; and
the third part contains CIS’ comments on the Draft Rules 29, 30, 31.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">4.<strong> </strong>The
third part contains two sections. In the first section, we discuss the legal
validity of the Draft Rules 29,30,31. In the second part we discuss the general
implications of extending the legal regime of broadcasting rights under the
Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“<strong>Act</strong>”)
to works on the Internet.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"> </p>
<h2><strong>About The Centre for
Internet and Society</strong></h2>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">5. The
Centre for Internet and Society (“<strong>CIS</strong>”)
is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on
internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The
areas of focus in respect of intellectual property rights include research on domestic
copyright and patent laws, international trade agreements and treaties
pertaining to these subjects, promotion of creators’ and users’ rights with a
view to furthering access to knowledge and openness in the public interest. CIS
has also been participating at WIPO-SCCR negotiations in the capacity of an
Observer since 2009.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">6. CIS
values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic
development. This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values
including the safeguarding of general public interest. Accordingly, the
comments in this submission aim to further these principles.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"> </p>
<h2><strong>Comments</strong></h2>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">7. Draft
Rules 29, 30 and 31 pertain to section 31D of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
The proposed change in Rule 29 seeks to expand the modes of broadcast for which
notice for invoking statutory license under section 31D may be issued - which
previously was restricted to only radio and TV modes of broadcasting; and the
change in Rule 31 will permit the Appellate Board to determine royalties for <em>all</em> modes of broadcast.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">8. In
view of current state of technological advancement, it is safe to deduce that
the <em>new</em> mode of broadcasting whose
inclusion is being contemplated in relation to s. 31D via the changes is
“internet broadcasting”. The changes will allow entities that operate over the
Internet medium to apply for a statutory license under s. 31D of the Act. In
the following part, we submit our specific comments in respect of Draft Rules
29,30,31.</p>
<h3><strong>a) Legal
validity of the Rules: Vires vis á vis the Parent Act</strong></h3>
<p>As
per s. 78(2)(cD), the power of the Central Government to make rules in respect
of s. 31D expressly exists in respect of “<em>the
manner in which prior notice may be given by a broadcasting organisation under
sub-section (2) of section 3ID.” </em>Apart from this clause, a general rule-making
power is conferred via s. 78(1) only for carrying out the <em>purposes of the Act</em>. We submit that this general power should be
exercised within limits of rule-making in the nature of administrative and
procedural detail, and should be in consonance with purposes of the Act. In
respect of s. 31D especially, the purpose can be inferred from the legislative
history of the provision. This was analysed by the Bombay High Court in <em>Tips Industries v. Wynk Music,<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong>[1]</strong></span></span></a>
</em>where the court noted that the concerns raised before the Rajya Sabha
Parliamentary Standing Committee (on the Copyright Amendment Bill (2010))
related to radio and television industries only, and in the court’s opinion
those two modes specifically were contemplated while introducing s. 31D.<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span></span></a> Primarily basis this
rationale, the court concluded that “internet broadcasters” offering on demand
streaming services cannot avail of s. 31D. Further, s.31D(3) expressly permits
the Appellate Board to fix royalty rates only in respect of radio broadcasting
and television broadcasting.</p>
<p>Hence,
we submit that there is no power under s.78 or any other provision in the Act afforded
to the Central Government to expand the scope of s.31D, directly or indirectly.
In <em>State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath</em><a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span></span></a> the Supreme Court held
that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the
conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making
authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or
which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”.</p>
<p>Thus,
the extent to which the Draft Rules 29,30,31 alter the intent and scope of s.31D
clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent Act. Rules that are ultra vires the
parent Act for exceeding the limits of subordinate executive power are void.<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span></span></a> Hence, the proposed Draft
Rules 29,30,31 are both ultra vires their parent Act and void.</p>
<h3><strong> </strong><strong>b) Implications
of extending legal regime of broadcasting rights to works on the public
Internet</strong></h3>
<p>The
release of the Draft Rules 29,30,31 is another attempt to extend the statutory
licensing to “internet broadcasters”. The first attempt was when the Central
Government released an Office Memorandum<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span></span></a> (dated 5<sup>th</sup>
September 2016) to extend statutory licensing under s.31D to “internet
broadcasting” companies. We submit that this was based on an incorrect
statutory construction by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“<strong>DIPP</strong>”) and was arbitrary in nature. Noted
academics and scholars have highlighted several constitutional infirmities in
respect of this memorandum.<a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span></span></a> Unfortunately, the current
Draft Rules (29,30,31) raise similar concerns.</p>
<p>Separately,
in the context of introducing a broadcasting right for works shared over the
Internet – we submit that if the line of argument taken by DIPP that s. 2(dd)
read with s. 2(ff) supports the inclusion of “internet broadcasting” is taken
to its logical conclusion, <em>any</em> person/
entity communicating to the general public via the public Internet can claim
protection of their broadcasters’ reproduction right under our Copyright Act. This
“broadcast” will happen via multiple platforms such as YouTube, Facebook Watch,
live-streaming platforms, on-demand platforms, etc., and such entities will be
entitled to enjoyment of this right. This will lead to a dangerous accumulation
of undeserved property rights in Internet giants; unlike traditional
broadcasters these companies never put up initial upfront economic investment
to distribute works to the public. They were launched on the public internet, and
currently thrive primarily off user-generated content. Even in respect of protecting
content that is actually created with their investment, copyright law will
suffice with its remedies for infringement. Hence, there is currently very little economic
and legal basis for extending the legal regime of broadcasting rights for works
on the Internet. Thus, we submit that in the domestic approach to modernising
our copyright legislation, we must refrain from considering distribution of born-digital/
digitised works over the public Internet equivalent to the function of broadcasting
works over cable/ satellite.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph">9.
We
are thankful to DPIIT and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for the
opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege
to discuss these submissions and recommendations in detail with members of
DPIIT if the opportunity presents itself.</p>
<p> </p>
<div><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[1]</span></span></a> See Bom (HC) judgment in Case No.
NMCD/72/2019</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[2]</span></span></a> See 227<sup>th</sup> Report of the Rajya Sabha
Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Copyright Amendment Bill (2010)
available at <a href="http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20HRD/227.pdf">http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20HRD/227.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[3]</span></span></a> (1983) 2 SCC 40</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[4]</span></span></a> See <em>Supreme Court Welfare
Association</em> (1989) 4 SCC 187 and <em>State of Karnataka</em> (1983) 2 SCC
402.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[5]</span></span></a> See ‘Office Memorandum’ available at <a href="https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/OM_CopyrightAct_05September2016.pdf">https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/OM_CopyrightAct_05September2016.pdf</a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference">[6]</span></span></a> See <em>Letter to Government on Internet Broadcasts</em> (2016) by Shamnad
Basheer available at <a href="https://spicyip.com/2016/09/letter-to-government-on-internet-broadcasts.html">https://spicyip.com/2016/09/letter-to-government-on-internet-broadcasts.html</a> ; and <em>Licensing of Internet Broadcasts under the Copyright Act: Key
Constitutional Issues</em> (2019) available at <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/guest-post-licensing-of-internet-broadcasts-under-the-copyright-act-key-constitutional-issues/">https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/guest-post-licensing-of-internet-broadcasts-under-the-copyright-act-key-constitutional-issues/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-draft-copyright-amendment-rules-2019-concerning-statutory-licensing'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-draft-copyright-amendment-rules-2019-concerning-statutory-licensing</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLicenseBroadcastingCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2019-07-11T07:04:35ZBlog 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 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 of CIS, India, on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22nd SCCR
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement
<b>The twenty-second session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from June 15 to June 24, 2011. Nirmita Narasimhan and Pranesh Prakash are attending the conference. CIS delivered its statement, on the Broadcast Treaty, and made it available in print form as well.</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to associate itself with the comprehensive statement made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We are one of the signatories of the joint statement, which EFF referred to, of the many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing an intellectual property rights based Broadcasting Treaty.</p>
<p>We believe that the protection that may be afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including <a class="external-link" href="http://www.worldtradelaw.net/uragreements/tripsagreement.pdf">Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement</a>, are sufficient to safeguard the interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been under discussion for more than a decade without any progress is, as the WIPO Chair observed in the conclusion to the informal summary prepared after the 16th SCCR (SCCR/17/1/inf), an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no avail". Without prejudice to that position, we would like to make a few points on the content of the treaty as well.</p>
<p>There has been talk of ensuring a technology-neutral approach. While a technology-neutral approach is useful since technology keeps changing, we believe that that necessarily means the differences between different technologies should be recognized. The capital costs and investments of traditional broadcasters, which are—as has been highlighted in the many statements here today—the basis on which broadcasters' rights are demanded, are not in the least comparable with the capital costs and investments of webcasting.</p>
<p>These differences have not come out adequately in the various regional seminars that WIPO helped organize, since those were mostly with traditional broadcasters and did not cover webcasters.</p>
<p>"Communication to the public", while that is a technologically neutral formulation, is an element of copyright, and is not the same of broadcast rights, which is a related right.</p>
<p>Any departure from a signal-based approach would require the assent of the WIPO General Assembly, which has in 2007 specifically requested for signal-based approach for the treaty.</p>
<p>Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda, which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying content of the transmission.</p>
<p>In this regard, we strongly support the delegations of South Africa and India, in their strong pronunciation of public interests while looking at such a treaty. We further support the delegation of Canada, for strongly emphasizing the need to allow countries the flexibility to opt-out of the provisions of the treaty for certain forms of broadcasting.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingTechnological Protection Measures2011-08-04T04:41:12ZBlog EntryComments to the Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty (March 2011)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-comments-march-2011
<b>As a follow up to a stakeholder meeting called by the MHRD on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, CIS provided written comments on the April 2007 Non-Paper of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, emphasising the need for a signal-based approach to be taken on the Broadcast Treaty, and making it clear that India should continue to oppose the creation of new rights for webcasters.</b>
<p>On February 22, 2011, the Ministry of Human Resource Development held a meeting to decide on the Indian position on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty. The Ministry asked the participants at the meeting to send in written submissions on four matters. We sent in submissions on those four issues, as well as a few others.</p>
<h2>Comments on the non-paper for the WIPO Broadcast Treaty by the Centre for Internet and Society</h2>
<p>On February 23, 2011, the Ministry of HRD had asked for comments on four matters:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Article 3 of the Non-paper which was circulated earlier</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Term of protection for signal</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Nature of limitations and exceptions</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Protection of signal and retransmission</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>We have made submissions on those and a few other matters as well. Unless noted otherwise, all comments made in this note pertain to the final non-paper (April 2007) and not the draft non-paper (March 2007).</p>
<h2>Article 3</h2>
<p>Article 3 of the draft non-paper that was circulated (March 2007) for comments from country delegates stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>3. Scope of Application</p>
<p>The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection in respect of</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(i) mere retransmissions;</p>
<p>(ii) any transmissions where the time of the transmission and the place of its reception may be individually chosen by members of the public (on-demand transmissions); or</p>
<p>(iii) any transmissions over computer networks (transmissions using the Internet</p>
<p>Protocol, “webcasting”, or “netcasting”).</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>A number of people present at the recent MHRD-organized meeting noted that “mere retransmissions” is a confusing term. In the revised non-paper (April 2007), it has been clarified that protection is not granted to third parties for merely retransmitting another’s signal (Art. 3(4)(i)).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>3. Specific Scope and Object of Protection</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(4) The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(i) to retransmitting third parties in respect of their mere retransmissions by any means of broadcasts by broadcasting organizations;</p>
<p>(ii) to any person for transmissions where the time of the transmission and the place of its reception may be individually chosen by members of the public (on-demand transmissions); or</p>
<p>(iii) to any person for transmissions over computer networks</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, Art. 3(4)(iii) is currently ambiguous since it is not clear whether “retransmissions” are subsumed under the word transmission. By allowing for separate rights for retransmission over computer networks, the Treaty allows for the creation of two classes: traditional broadcasters who will have rights over retransmissions over computer networks, and all other persons who will have no rights over transmissions. Thus, if “retransmission” is not subsumed under the word “transmission”, it would be advisable to alter that clause to read “<i>to any person for transmissions or retransmissions over computer networks</i>”.</p>
<p>Lastly, Art. 3(4) should additional prevent protection for persons broadcasting materials for which they have not acquired copyright, or for broadcasting materials in the public domain.</p>
<h2>Term of Protection of Signals</h2>
<p>No term of protection should be provided. As was noted by the US government in its response to the draft non-paper, it is questionable “whether a 20-year term of protection is consistent with a signal-based approach”. The Brazilian delegation also states: “Article 13 should be deleted. A twenty-year term of protection is unnecessary. The agreed “signal-based” approach to the Treaty implies that the objected of protection is the signal, and therefore duration of protection must be linked with the ephemeral life of the signal itself.” Thus, a term is only needed if we stray away from a signal-based approach. As we do not wish to do so, there should be no term of protection.</p>
<h2>Limitations and Exceptions</h2>
<p>The limitations and exceptions (L&E) currently provided for allow for mirroring of copyright L&E limited by a Berne-like three-step test.</p>
<p>However, reasons for providing protection over broadcasting are not the same as those for copyright. For instance, a country may wish to make exceptions to signal protection for cases such as broadcast of a national sport, as India has done with the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act.</p>
<p>This might well afoul of the three-step test proposed in Article 10(2). Furthermore, a country may wish to limit the application of broadcasters rights for national broadcasters (whose programming is paid for by taxpayers, and thus should be available to them), but may not be able to do so under the provisions of Article 10(2). Thus, Article 10(2) should be deleted, and Article 10(1) should be expanded to include issues of national interest and for free-to-air broadcast signals.</p>
<h2>Protection of Signal and Retransmission</h2>
<p>It should be a sine qua non condition of India’s that that this be a purely signal-based treaty with no fixation or post-fixation rights. Thus, it should restrict itself to protection of signals, and simultaneous retransmission.</p>
<p>As a result, no separate right to prevent unauthorized “decryption” should be granted, since signal-theft is already a crime. For instance, this provision would also cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter. This provides the unauthorized retransmitter rights, even though s/he has no right to retransmit. This leads to an absurd situation.</p>
<p>As stated by the Brazilian government:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“[Article 10 of the draft non-paper and Article 9 of the non-paper] is inconsistent with a “signal-based approach”. It creates unwarranted obstacles to technological development, to access to legitimate uses, flexibilities and exceptions and to access to the public domain. It does not focus on securing effective protection against an illicit act, but rather creates new exclusive rights so that they cover areas unrelated with the objective of the treaty, such as control by holder of industrial production of goods, the development and use of encryption technologies, and private uses. The prohibition of mere decryption of encrypted signals, without there having been unauthorized broadcasting activity, is abusive.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Other comments</h2>
<h3>Article 7</h3>
<p>Article 7 of the non-paper provides broadcasters rights post-fixation (“Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing … the deferred transmission by any means to the public of their fixed broadcasts. ”). This is contrary to a signal-based approach. A signal-based approach would necessarily mean that it is only signal theft (which happens only via unauthorized simultaneous retransmission) that should be protected. Deferred transmission should implicate the rights of the owner of copyright, but not of the broadcasting organization.</p>
<h3>Article 4</h3>
<p>As suggested by the Brazilian government, Article 4(1) which proposes a non-prejudice clause should be amended to add the words “and access to the public domain” at its end. This is consistent with the WIPO Development Agenda.</p>
<h3>Article 5</h3>
<p>India should re-iterate its suggestion to add the following to the definition of “broadcast” under Art. 5(a): “‘broadcast’ shall not be understood as including transmission of such a set of signals over computer networks. ”</p>
<p>Further, the phrase “general public ” should be retained in Art.5 (as was present in the draft non-paper), and should not be made into “public”. The danger is that a limited public (say family members) could possibly be covered by the term “public”, while they will be excluded from “general public”, which in any case is the target audience of all broadcast.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-comments-march-2011'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-comments-march-2011</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingSubmissionsTechnological Protection Measures2012-12-14T10:29:20ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis
<b>CIS analyses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.</b>
<p>
The full submission that CIS and 21 other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is <a title="Copyright Bill Analysis" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission">available here</a>. Given below is the summary of our submissions:</p>
<h2 class="western">Existing Copyright Act</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Copyright
Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing
country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of
interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of
creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest
served by wide availability and usability of that material. For
instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for: </p>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">compulsory and
statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works
available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">cover versions:
recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY">widely-worded
right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual
use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY">These provisions of
our Act <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist/report/india">have been lauded</a>,<sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="#sdfootnote1sym"></a></sup>
and India has been rated as <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/summary-report-2010">the most balanced copyright system in a
global survey</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="#sdfootnote2sym"></a></sup>
conducted of over 34 countries by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/">Consumers International</a><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="#sdfootnote3sym"></a></sup>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The Indian Parliament
has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying
heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of
the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded,
and importantly, needs to be maintained.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p>
<h2 class="western">Proposed Amendments</h2>
<h3 class="western">Some positive amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair
Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental</strong>: All works
(including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered
the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few
other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and
non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Persons with
disabilities</strong>: There is finally an attempt at addressing the
concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are
completely useless the way they are currently worded.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Public
Libraries</strong>: They can now make electronic copies of works they
own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Education</strong>:
Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of
works, & scope of use).</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Statutory and
compulsory licensing</strong>: Some new statutory licensing provisions
(including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing
compulsory licensing provisions.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
societies</strong>: These are now responsible to authors and not owners
of works.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Open
licences</strong>: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content
licensing is now simpler.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Partial
exemption of online intermediaries</strong>:
Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has
been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Performer’s
rights</strong>: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that
performers had to communicate their performance to the public has
been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate
sound/video recordings remains.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Enforcement</strong>:
Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone
to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Some negative amendments</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>WCT and WPPT
compliance</strong>: India has not signed either of these two treaties,
which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any
corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Increase in
duration of copyright</strong>: This will significantly reduce the public
domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Technological
Protection Measures</strong>: TPMs, which have been shown to be
anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced,
are sought to be brought into Indian law.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Version
recordings</strong>: The amendments make cover version much more
difficult to produce.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Moral rights</strong>:
Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s
moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without
requisite safeguards.</p>
</li></ul>
<h3 class="western"><br /></h3>
<h3 class="western">Missed opportunities</h3>
<ul><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Government-funded
works</strong>: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid
for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected
to march towards with the Right to Information Act.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Copyright
terms</strong>: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum
required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the
public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural
progress.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Criminal
provisions</strong>: Our law still criminalises individual,
non-commercial copyright infringement.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Libraries and
archives</strong>: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still
too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Educational
exceptions</strong>: The exceptions for education still do not fully
embrace distance and digital education.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Communication
to the public</strong>: No clear definition is given of what constitute a
‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and
non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Internet
intermediaries</strong>: More protections are required to be granted to
Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based
peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of
social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.</p>
</li><li>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Fair dealing
and fair use</strong>: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the
specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines
were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This
would not take away from the existing exceptions.</p>
</li></ul>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeConsumer RightsCopyrightFair DealingsPublic AccountabilityIntellectual Property RightsRTIFeaturedBroadcastingPublicationsSubmissionsTechnological Protection Measures2011-09-21T06:01:54ZBlog EntryCIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty
<b>This statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty was delivered on December 17, 2010 at the 19th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights by Nirmita Narasimhan on behalf of CIS.</b>
<h2>CIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19<br /></h2>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society believes that the protection that may be
afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including
Article 14 of the TRIPS Convention, are sufficient to safeguard the
interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been
under discussion for more than a decade without any progress, is, as the
WIPO Chair observed, an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no
avail" (SCCR/15/2/rev).</p>
<p>We believe that at any rate webcasting/netcasting should be kept out of the
ambit of the broadcast treaty, even if only restricted to "retransmission"
of broadcasts as in the current draft, since by its very nature webcasting
is very different from broadcasting. Webcasting is currently quite vibrant,
with a recent report by Arbor Networks estimating that around ten per cent
of all Web traffic is streaming video, making webcasting the fastest growing
application on the Internet. Given this situation, a strong case has to be
made to show that an international treaty is required to protect and promote
webcasting, which has not been done.</p>
<p>Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda,
which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered
by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying
content of the transmission.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Statements by other organizations on WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19<br /></h3>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005195.html">Electronic Frontier Foundation<br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005192.html">Public Knowledge</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005193.html">International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, and Library Copyright Alliance (Joint Statement)<br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005199.html">Computer and Communications Industry Association</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2012-02-01T09:07:41ZBlog EntryWIPO 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 Entry