The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
CIS Statement in WIPO SCCR 43
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-in-wipo-sccr-43
<b>Shweta Mohandas delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 1 of the 43rd WIPO SCCR session on the Broadcast Treaty. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br />Thank you, Mr. Chair.<br /><br />I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second revised draft text for the WIPO Broadcasting Organisations Treaty presents certain concerns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The absence of a provision on term allows perpetual rights to both traditional broadcasters and streamers. Further, the provision on limitations and exceptions is narrow, and not mandatory. It undermines the existence of open-licensing models on the internet. In the absence of a strong mandatory limitations and exceptions provision, the text gives broadcasters rights over openly-licensed content and works in the public domain.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-in-wipo-sccr-43'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-in-wipo-sccr-43</a>
</p>
No publisherShweta Mohandas and Anubha SinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2023-03-28T14:12:21ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program
on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the
domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that
there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic,
which will endure in the long term as well.</p>
<p>In India, researchers at public and private institutions in
both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021,
submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing
research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open
Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research
collaborations.</p>
<p>At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action
plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised
limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that
could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.</p>
<p>We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a
Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these
actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the
limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states
making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward
laid in the Proposal.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2022-05-12T08:41:01ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 3 and Day 4
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1
<b>Day 3 and 4 saw the presentation of four studies conducted by external experts on music markets in various regions in the world and one study on rights of stage directors of theatrical productions. Day 4 saw member states sharing their positions on a proposal for creation of two rights 1) rights of stage directors of stage productions and 2) public lending right.
The Chair also presented the draft summary of the session upon its conclusion, on Day 4. This blog post shares the specific text under the broadcasting and limitations and exceptions agenda items, relevant from an access to knowledge perspective.</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">1. On the issue of transparency and inclusivity in informal work on the 'protection of broadcasting organisations' agenda item, that emerged on <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1">Day 1</a>, the Chair summarised:</span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">" </span><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c9f5266b-7fff-0158-ea0e-f92bc8fc953c">The chair and vice chair and will take the views expressed during the session on the modalities of the informal work into consideration, including the need to uphold the principles of transparency and inclusivity."</span></span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">2. An 'information session' on impact of COVID was proposed by the Asia-pacific group on <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2">Day 2</a>, the Chair summarised:<br /></span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29"></span><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">" The Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session, footnote 1, the text of the footnote is as follows. The reference to half day is based on a meeting day with two three-hour sessions, in case SCCR/42 has truncated meeting days with single daily meeting sessions of up to three hours, the information session could take place during one entire day. </span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">So, back to the sentence after the footnote. I will repeat, the Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session on the topic of the impact of COVID-19 on the <strong>cultural, creative and educational ecosystem including copyright, related rights and limitations and exceptions</strong> during the week of the 42nd session of the Committee. During the session following presentations from experts, member states will have the opportunity to exchange views and experiences. This process will be guided by a holistic and balanced approach. The information session will be separated from the rest of the agenda during the 42nd session."</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:51:23ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the scope, direction, and progress of work on the limitations and exceptions agenda. This blog post summarises positions and contentions around: 1) Information Session on impact COVID 2) Creating a binding limitations and exceptions international instrument 3) Work Plan under the L&E agenda 4) Conducting regional consultations as per the report on regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>There was a strong consensus on the fact that COVID had adversely affected actors and beneficiaries involved with the copyright system, but there was less consensus on which stakeholders and beneficiaries to focus on as a priority, and which next steps and remedies should be considered. The gamut of stakeholders under the limitations and exceptions agenda item includes authors, publishers, creative cultural industries, educational and research institutions, persons with disabilities, libraries, museums, and archives, licensing societies, and users’ rights advocates.</p>
<h2>Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
<h3>1. Conducting an Information Session on impact of COVID <br /></h3>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) proposed an information session on the copyright framework in the format of presentations from experts and relevant stakeholders as well as exchange of views among them at the next SCCR (SCCR42) to understand the impact on COVID-19, especially as developing countries, with a view of rights, related rights and exceptions and limitations. It noted the lack of international settings that could have enabled a collaborative approach during COVID-19 to handling the impact on education, research, culture and knowledge.</p>
<p>Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iran supported the proposal. South Africa backed both the proposal and the regional consultations along with a preference for completing them in a time bound manner by the next SCCR. Belarus was in support as well.</p>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) was in favour of an information session for evaluating an all-round impact of the pandemic which was not only from a limitations and exceptions viewpoint. In a similar vein, USA suggested that the information session be holistic in its framing – all parts of the copyright system should be taken into consideration. UK (on behalf of Group B) stated that it would prefer to examine a formal proposal document on such a session first, that should adopt a ‘holistic approach’.</p>
<p>Towards the end, Indonesia questioned whether the idea of a ‘holistic’ information session equally focused on rights and related rights could even be counted or considered as a next step in the limitations and exceptions (“<strong>L&E</strong>”) agenda item.</p>
<h3>2. Working towards a binding international L&E instrument <br /></h3>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) stuck to its position of 1) taking an evidence-based approach on the way forward for the L&E agenda and preference to 2) exchanging national best practices instead of creating a binding treaty. Ecuador was also in favour of exchanging best practices. UK (on behalf of group B) was in favour of providing technical assistance to countries, and the EU and USA maintained their position against an international instrument.</p>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) stated that COVID had forced a rethink of role of copyright in ensuring access to educational and resource materials as well as protecting the rights of the creators of the copyrighted works, in situations such as the pandemic. The absence of an international instrument on limitations and exceptions has been widely felt in this context.</p>
<p>Pakistan stated that a baseline international instrument was necessary and would be useful for looking at one’s own national law. South Africa (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) Indonesia reminded everyone that work under this agenda item should proceed under the 2012 mandate of developing a legal instrument on limitations and exceptions. Iran also expressed its support for a norm-setting instrument.</p>
<h3>3. Work Plan under the L&E agenda <br /></h3>
<p>South Africa said that a clear way forward for limitations and exceptions was necessary, and that way forward should not be limited to the views and steps mentioned in the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report on the regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions ("<strong>report</strong>")</a>. It also supported the 2012 mandate on developing an international instrument on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of group B) stated that access to knowledge should not inhibit the remunerative rights to authors and performers. Ecuador said that it supported narrow limitations and exceptions that comply with the Berne three-step test.</p>
<p>Russia suggested the creation of a set of “general principles” underpinning this agenda item, to set a base standard agreed by everyone and begin work from that point. It noted that it was crucial to resolve the issues of cross-border sharing, legal uncertainty between countries, and digital preservation. It added that the principles could become the guiding principles for national legislation as well. <br />Pakistan, noting the COVID impact, stated that cross-border cooperation or international norm-setting could be useful. Brazil stated that there was a consensus on preservation and cross-border issues, and room for further discussions on limitations and exceptions for ‘persons with other disabilities’ under this agenda item. Chile added that international guidelines were desirable at least in the area of education, libraries, and archives.</p>
<p>In the end, Indonesia in its statement reminded everyone that there was still no concrete work plan (under this agenda) on the table. This despite the draft report indicating issues such as preservation, online uses, cross-border uses, and safe harbour as feasible for discussion on next steps. The report had also recommended formation of expert groups to study these issues further (para 400 of the report (SCCR42/2)) It added that while it was aligned to the 2012 mandate (of producing a legal instrument), the work plan could include a joint recommendation.</p>
<h3>4. Regional Consultations (as per <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report's recommendation</a>) <br /></h3>
<p>China endorsed the regional consultation. EU supported regional consultations, noting that COVID had impacted creative cultural industries as well. Pakistan stated that it was important for the consultations to include beneficiaries of this agenda item.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of Group B) questioned whether holding regional consultations were necessary during a pandemic, and later added that the regional consultations and information session exercises should not be executed together.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:55:30ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session, on the limitations and exceptions agenda item.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair. </p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India. </p>
<p>The pandemic has hit the world hard, and developing countries even harder. The committee should urgently lead the way on developing concrete solutions in the domain of limitations and exceptions that are timely and meaningful. Useful suggestions have already been offered by member states in the nature of tools that could enhance cross-border cooperation and international norm setting. This could take the form of guidelines, model laws, and the like. </p>
<p>Further, the regional consultations should have proper representation and give proper weightage to views of beneficiaries of this agenda item. WIPO should also plan to institute measures to enable proper participation, in view of the digital divide</p>
<p dir="ltr">It should further be borne in mind that there exists wide socio-economic disparity in the region, and there has traditionally been a strong reliance by students and researchers on knowledge generated in foreign countries. Thus a lack of international harmonisation of limitations and exceptions disproportionately affects developing countries. These limitations and exceptions need to urgently address cross-border uses, online uses, and digital preservation to create the maximum developmental impact.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-06-29T13:20:59ZBlog EntryWIPO Regional Seminar on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-1
<b>Anubha Sinha participated in the WIPO “Regional Seminar for the Asia Pacific Group on Libraries, Archives, Museums and Educational & Research Institutions in the Field of Copyright”, which was held on April 29 and 30, 2019, in Singapore.
</b>
<p>For more info about the event, <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=433213">click here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions-1</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2019-06-05T13:34:54ZNews ItemWIPO Regional Seminar on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions
<b>Anubha Sinha participated in the WIPO “Regional Seminar for the Asia Pacific Group on Libraries, Archives, Museums and Educational & Research Institutions in the Field of Copyright”, which was held on April 29 and 30, 2019, in Singapore. The event was co-organized by Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, Singapore Cooperation Programme and WIPO. </b>
<p>More info on the programme <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=433213">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2019-05-04T02:23:57ZNews ItemViews 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 Entry37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Agenda on Limitations and Exceptions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the agenda on limitations and exceptions on behalf of CIS on Day 3, November 28. </b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society
organisation based in India working on issues of openness and
access to knowledge, amongst others.</p>
<p>India is a diverse country with thriving communities working on
and promoting access to research, data, archival material,
educational material, and developing material to benefit persons
with other disabilities. As such, the regional seminars will be an
excellent opportunity for such communities to interact with
various stakeholders and government delegates; and help formulate
concrete principles that should inform the international legal
instrument that we hope is developed and discussed soon.</p>
<p>To enable comprehensive and substantive participation and
discussions, I urge member states and WIPO to undertake steps to
make the regional seminars as inclusive as possible. I request the
secretariat and member states to actively work with civil society
to identify and invite such community leaders.</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-11-29T10:20:13ZBlog Entry37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 1, November 26. </b>
<div>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There still remain concerns about the weak language on limitations and exceptions in the proposed treaty.</div>
<div>The proposed treaty is bound to have adverse effects on legally accepted existing practices of sharing and using online works. Libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, public interest organisations such as Creative Commons, organisations and efforts directed at making orphan works available online - all perform critical roles to advance the progress of society. There is a looming threat on the continuation of their ability to access and to provide the public subsequent access to their collections. Thus, there is a dire need to incorporate robust solutions into the treaty text to not have unintended consequences on the society.</div>
<div>We must also make note of developments such as Facebook acquiring rights to stream La Liga matches in the Indian subcontinent and acquisition of Pandora by a broadcaster (Sirius XM). In such an environment, it is becoming impossible to technically eliminate the role of computer networks insofar as creating the signal and transmitting it is concerned. The treaty still envisages to not benefit those transmissions that occur exclusively on computer networks. In light of new business and technological realities, the deficiencies in the Committee's discussions are already apparent. We urge the committee to work to ensure that the resultant treaty is balanced in letter and spirit, both.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-11-29T10:08:46ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 4, May 31. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>We have concerns about the plan’s focus on MOOCs and distance
learning initiatives. Although they are related to increasing access to education,
these initiatives are hardly a substitute for classroom learning – and the
primary objective of the treaty should be to improve such classroom teaching,
especially for developing countries where ICT penetration remains quite low.
Unless the plan also chooses to develop Open Educational Resources as a
priority in connection with MOOCs and distance learning initiatives, we suggest
that this item in the plan be re-examined in light of other more beneficial
action items.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46436">here</a> (SCCR/36/3).</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:46:45ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Draft Action Plan for Libraries, Archives and Museums
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-draft-action-plan-for-libraries-archives-and-museums
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Draft Action Plan on advancing limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives and Museums on behalf of CIS on Day 3, May 30. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>Very recently we concluded a qualitative study on archives in
India to examine how limitations and exceptions help them in achieving their
mission.</p>
<p>We found that the Indian Act goes to the extent of making an
exception for preservation for libraries.
To make up for unintended gaps in this clause, Indian archives and
museums owing to overlapping functions with libraries use this exception within
limits – which counts as an ‘implied’ application of the exception, as reported
by the ex- registar of the Indian Copyright Office in 2010 to WIPO. Undeniably,
an institutional approach has created unintended barriers for other
institutions performing the exact same function.</p>
<p>The draft action plan adopts a similar institutional
approach in its three different tracks for libraries, archives and museums. As
many of the core functions of these institutions overlap, and indeed they may
be an archive housed in a library or vice-a-versa, we must change our approach
to focus on the functions and not the formal identification of such
institutions.</p>
<p>Hence, I submit that the draft action plan be suitably
amended to reflect a purposive approach to drafting this treaty, and not create
artificial distinctions between institutions that do not reflect reality.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46436">here</a> (SCCR/36/3).</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-draft-action-plan-for-libraries-archives-and-museums'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-draft-action-plan-for-libraries-archives-and-museums</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:47:15ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions agenda on behalf of CIS on Day 3, May 30. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>As we move forward on this agenda, we believe that for a
true balance to be realised, the rights of all users of copyrighted works will
have to be treated on par with those of the rightholders for purposes of
access to knowledge. We are disappointed
with the state of the limitations and exceptions in the broadcast treaty, that
made some progress yesterday (in terms of increasing rights).</p>
<p>Further, as we have submitted earlier, it is our belief that
the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the
opportunities presented by new information and communication technologies. We
reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area - which
should also facilitate smooth cross border exchange of knowledge.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-31T09:43:08ZBlog EntryNGOs circulate letter at WIPO SCCR/36 raising serious concerns about draft Broadcasting Treaty
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngos-circulate-letter-at-wipo-sccr-36-raising-serious-concerns-about-draft-broadcasting-treaty
<b>At the 36th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty continue - this time with a sense of urgency to present results of the 20 year negotiations to the UN General Assembly, scheduled in September this year. There remain long-pending issues within the Treaty, which have largely been ignored or weakly acknowledged by the Committee. In view of the threats that this Treaty poses to Access to Knowledge and the mission of educators, archivists, researchers, libraries and creators, NGOs at WIPO (including CIS) have circulated the letter below.</b>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-b692a7cf-ab74-2919-9ac4-cb7e7b7a79ea" style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr"><strong>Joint NGO letter on the proposed WIPO treaty on broadcasting</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">May 28, 2018</p>
<p dir="ltr">Dear Delegates to WIPO SCCR 36</p>
<p dir="ltr">We are concerned that negotiations on a broadcasting treaty have not clarified a number of important issues, nor addressed core concerns from civil society and copyright holders.</p>
<p dir="ltr">At the outset, we are supportive of measures to address the legitimate concerns of broadcasters as regards piracy of broadcast signals. We are looking forward to seeing appropriate measures to address such challenges, provided they are well defined and limited to solving those problems, and avoid unintended consequences to impede access to and use of works, or harm copyright holders.</p>
<p> Our primary concerns are the following:</p>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Term of protection/post fixation.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Limitations and Exceptions.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Public Domain works or works freely licensed by creators.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Confusion over an ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Streaming on demand.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Works originated on the Internet.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr">Role of large Internet companies in streaming video.</p>
</li><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p>Non-discriminatory and reasonable licensing terms</p>
</li></ol>
<ol><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr"><strong>Term of protection/post fixation</strong>
</li></ol>
<p dir="ltr">Chairman Daren Tang’s text (SCCR/35/12) proposes a 50 year term of protection for the rights, which is a proposal backed by some broadcast groups and countries supporting the broadcasters. [1] Clearly, this implies the broadcasters will obtain post fixation rights in works they did not create nor license. A 50 year term of protection makes a mockery of the notion that this is a signal based treaty or is only concerned with signal piracy, as it effectively extends the protection beyond the term of copyright, and is a recipe for disaster as regards orphan works (just as individual countries are in the process of trying to solve the orphan works problem). To protect against signal piracy, a short term of 24 hours would make more sense than 5 decades from the date of every broadcast. </p>
<p>Under no circumstances should post fixation rights apply to every mere re-transmission of a broadcast signal -- a policy that would in practice result in perpetual protection of the signal, and give broadcasters more durable protections than copyright holders.</p>
<ol start="2"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p><strong>Limitations and Exceptions</strong></p>
</li></ol>
<p dir="ltr">There have been a number of proposals as regard limitations and exceptions, but almost no debate in the SCCR has ensued on this crucial issue. The proposals for exceptions in the Chairman’s text are narrow, and give broadcasters more robust rights than copyright owners or performers themselves. </p>
<p>If the broadcasters’ right does not extend to post fixation rights, or has an extremely short term, the exceptions language may be less important. But since broadcasters are seeking rights that last for half a century, i.e. post fixation rights, the exceptions become extremely important.</p>
<p>For any treaty involving post fixation rights, the exceptions in the broadcast treaty should include both mandatory and permissive exceptions. Mandatory exceptions should include those in Berne (news of the day and quotation), as well as for education and training purposes, personal use and preservation and archiving. The agreement should also permit non-mandatory exceptions that address both specific uses and more general frameworks such as fair dealing or fair use. Compulsory licenses should not be prohibited. If the treaty creates a layer of rights for entities that do not create, own or license the underlying works, this layer should not be used to prevent legitimate reuses of the copyrighted works.</p>
<p> In no event should the exceptions for broadcasting rights be less enabling for users than the exceptions that apply to copyright.</p>
<ol start="3"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Public Domain works or works freely licensed by creators</strong></p>
</li></ol>
<p> In no cases should the treaty give broadcasters post fixation rights in works that are in the public domain, or openly licensed.</p>
<ol start="4"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p><strong>Confusion over an ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries</strong></p>
</li></ol>
<p>There is confusion over who will be the beneficiaries of the treaty. The General Assembly mandate is to limit the treaty to broadcasting in the traditional sense (see page 57 of WIPO/GA/34/16), yet during the SCCR negotiations, BBC and several Spanish language broadcasters have pressed to include Internet streaming services, under the theory that WIPO would create special rights that television broadcasters would have, even when the context was delivered over the Internet, that other entities using the Internet would not have. This assumption needs to be examined critically, to ensure it is not a naive and unrealistic assumption that a right can be given to one set of businesses and denied to another doing the same thing. And, if the right ends up being given to everyone streaming anything on the Internet, how does this change the evaluation of the costs of managing the rights, and unintended consequences?</p>
<ol start="5"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Streamed on demand</strong></p>
</li></ol>
<p> The BBC, the Spanish language broadcasters and some others have asked that the right extend not only to live broadcasts, but also to material later streamed on demand to individuals. If the treaty extends to materials streamed on demand to individuals, there is no longer a special case for broadcasters. Millions of entities and persons stream content on demand, without a special broadcaster right, often over platforms like YouTube. It’s absurd to create a special right for streaming works on demand over the Internet, just because the company doing the streaming is a broadcast company and the work was once broadcast.</p>
<ol start="6"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Works originally streamed on the Internet</strong></p>
</li></ol>
<p>Even more expansive are the proposals by the same broadcasters to extend the broadcasters’ right to works originally streamed on the Internet, thereby eliminating any distinction between broadcasters and every other Internet user.</p>
<ol start="7"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Role of large Internet companies in streaming video</strong></p>
</li></ol>
<p>While many delegates see this as a treaty that will benefit local broadcasters, that is likely only to be true in the short term. And even in the short term, the more ambitious versions of the treaty are also designed to create economics rights for large foreign corporations that “schedule the content” for cable and satellite channels, such as Disney, Vivendi, and Grupo Globo. In the longer run, the treaty appears to be creating a new legal regime that will create rights for the giant technology firms largely based in the United States, that are creating global platforms for video and sound recording content, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Google/YouTube Tv (https://tv.youTube.com/), <a class="external-link" href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/01/hulu-scores-deal-with-nbcu-for-its-live-tv-service-will-now-carry-all-four-major-broadcast-networks/">Hulu tv</a> (https://www.hulu.com/live-tv), Yahoo, <a class="external-link" href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/twitter-inked-slew-sports-entertainment-live-streaming-deals-2017-7">Twitter</a>, Sling TV, Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/moviestv/), Spotify (<span id="docs-internal-guid-bafae292-ab77-378b-e014-58f4d5764c26">Based in Sweden)</span>, Apple Music, Google Play Music, and Pandora, all companies that could qualify as broadcasters by owning a single broadcast station.[2]</p>
<p>The existing content on the YouTube platform is enormous and Google is hardly a struggling company, so it seems odd that WIPO is rushing to create a legal regime that appears to give Google even greater rights over works they never created or licensed that it already has.</p>
<ol start="8"><li style="list-style-type: decimal;" dir="ltr">
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Non-discriminatory and reasonable licensing terms</strong></p>
<strong>
</strong></li></ol>
<strong>
</strong>
<p>To the extent that a broadcast treaty creates rights of any kind that impact users outside of the robust limitations and exceptions we favor, member states should have the flexibility to require licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, or remuneration rights regimes, as an alternative to exclusive rights,</p>
<p> <strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr">The 2007 GA mandate asked the SCCR to consider “convening of a Diplomatic Conference only after agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection has been achieved.” The WIPO GA has asked the SCCR to “update the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.” At the SCCR, the definition of “in the traditional sense” is now used less and less, and “future proofing” the protection more and more, without any real understanding of how a new WIPO treaty will upset the existing arranges and rights that copyright holders and users now enjoy. In particular, WIPO needs to discuss the role of giant largely U.S. based Internet platforms now delivering video or audio content, and how any new rights for companies that deliver third party owned content will redistribute income between right holders and platforms and between countries, and impede access to works.</p>
<p> Sincerely,</p>
<p dir="ltr"> Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS-India)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Civil Society Coalition (CSC)</p>
<p dir="ltr">COMMUNIA International Association on the Digital Public Domain</p>
<p dir="ltr">Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Fundación Karisma</p>
<p dir="ltr">Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights</p>
<p dir="ltr">Innovarte</p>
<p dir="ltr">Instituto Proprietas</p>
<p dir="ltr">International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Le Conseil international des Archives (CIA)/ International Council on Archives (ICA)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Public Knowledge (PK)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Third World Network (TWN)</p>
<div> </div>
<div>[1] <span id="docs-internal-guid-0d6ec579-ab75-5322-572a-8b8be6a69706">“The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting [or cablecasting] organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the programme-carrying signal was transmitted.”</span></div>
<div><span id="docs-internal-guid-0d6ec579-ab75-5322-572a-8b8be6a69706">[2] </span><span id="docs-internal-guid-0d6ec579-ab75-5322-572a-8b8be6a69706"><span id="docs-internal-guid-852f776e-ab77-7ca1-be3a-02fe5a82e016">Christopher Harrison, Why Pandora bought an FM radio station, the Hill. June 11, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/304763-why-pandora-bought-an-fm-radio-station. Or be acquired by or merge with a broadcast or cable organization, such as Yahoo’s pending acquisition by Verizon. </span></span></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngos-circulate-letter-at-wipo-sccr-36-raising-serious-concerns-about-draft-broadcasting-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngos-circulate-letter-at-wipo-sccr-36-raising-serious-concerns-about-draft-broadcasting-treaty</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-29T10:42:48ZBlog Entry36th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 1, May 28. </b>
<div>Thank you Mr. Chair</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We would like to highlight that some of the existing alternatives to the text of the Broadcasting treaty have serious issues.</div>
<div> </div>
<p>Some of the points that bear re-emphasizing are problems with watering down of limitations and exceptions, and the contemplation of a fifty year term of protection without any rationale or justifications.</p>
<div>If you look at the history of the Committee’s deliberations, the limitations and exceptions have been significantly diluted over the years. On the other hand, the ask for increased protections in terms of number of rights, scope and term has only increased. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Further, if the protection extends only to the signal and not to the programmes contained therein, it is not clear as to why a 50 year protection is needed for an ephemeral signal.</div>
<div> </div>
<p>Reiterating the words of the Asia-Pacific Group - this matter requires proper balancing from a developmental perspective. I submit that in my opinion, it does not appear that we are anywhere close to achieving that.</p>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you.</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2018-05-28T14:04:53ZBlog Entry