The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt
<b>This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which was live-streamed and made available by WIPO.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:34:00ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt
<b>This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which was live-streamed and made available by WIPO.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:13:25ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:34:22ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:33:29ZFileWIPO 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 ItemWIPO 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 reaches agreement on treaty for blind
https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind
<b>Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organisation have reached an agreement to provide wider access to books for the visually impaired in different countries, a long-pending demand of the World Blind Union and activist groups. </b>
<hr />
<p>The article by Pankaj Mishra was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/zirXp3IC1rTtAFOd2O4fYL/WIPO-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind.html">published in Livemint</a> on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If officially approved, the treaty will help distribution of specially formatted books for the blind and visually impaired in different countries by removing copyright law hurdles. For instance, US-based Bookshare, which is an online library for people with sight disabilities, has about 200,000 books in its collection, but only about 75,000 of them can be distributed in the UK because of copyright restrictions.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the Intellectual Property Watch website that track international policy on the subject, the agreement was reached over the weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, where a conference to facilitate access to published books for people with sight disabilities is being held.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as ‘the Berne gap’, which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty,” the website said in a report on 24 June.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Experts such as <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham </a></span>of the Centre for Internet and Society said Indian negotiators played a crucial role in pushing for these amendments.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“India’s copyright law after the latest amendment has a very robust exception for the disabled. It is disability neutral and works neutral. We must applaud the Indian negotiators for exporting Indian best practice to global copyright policy. India continues to be a leader in WIPO when it comes to protecting the public interest and facilitating access to knowledge,” said Abraham.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The treaty, which promotes sharing the books in any format for the blind or visually impaired, is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world, Intellectual Property Watch said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">“The treaty however is both disability specific, i.e. the visually impaired, and works specific, mostly targeted at ending the book famine,” Abraham said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind'>https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-07-01T09:59:29ZNews ItemWIPO General Assemblies Approve Road Map on Treaty for the Visually Impaired
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-approves-road-map-on-tv
<b>In a significant development the 50th session of Assemblies of WIPO member states reached a breakthrough decision on how to complete negotiations on a pact to improve access to copyrighted works for the many visually impaired or print disabled people around the world. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The meeting of the General Assembly which concluded on October 9, 2012 approved a <a href="http://wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=213442" title="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=213442">road map</a> that could lead in 2013 to a historic diplomatic conference for an international treaty focused on improving access to published works for persons who are visually impaired or print disabled. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will hold <a href="http://wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=27382">inter-sessional meetings from October 17-19, 2012</a> to work on the text of the instrument. The <a href="http://wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25024">SCCR will meet from November 19-23, 2012</a> and will continue discussions on the text with the objective of concluding or substantially advancing the text-based work on this topic. Member states agreed to convene an extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly in December 2012 to assess progress on the text and decide whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013. Some 300 million blind or visually impaired people around the world stand to benefit from a more flexible copyright regime adapted to current technological realities. Individuals with reading impairment often need to convert information into Braille, large print, audio, electronic and other formats using assistive technologies. Only a very small percentage of published books around the world are available in formats accessible to the visually impaired.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the closing of the Assemblies, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry welcomed the "extremely constructive engagement of member states" in the work of the Organization as demonstrated in the decisions taken by the Assemblies. He underlined the progress made by member states in setting timetables for concluding negotiations on international instruments on access to copyrighted work by the visually impaired, design law and intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. The Chair of the WIPO General Assembly, Serbia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Uglješa Zvekić, also welcomed the positive outcome of the Assemblies which took stock of the work of the Organization and set timetables to conclude normative work in several areas. Representatives of regional groups, and individual member states, also welcomed the outcome of the Assemblies and the positive spirit among member states. Regional groups specifically underlined decisions to move forward in discussions on a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by the visually impaired or print disabled.</p>
<p>For more details see <a href="http://wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0022.html">http://wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0022.html</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-approves-road-map-on-tv'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-approves-road-map-on-tv</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityWIPO2012-10-11T10:34:37ZBlog EntryWIPO Delegates Hear Concerns of NGOs on Exceptions for Libraries
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-19-2014-wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries
<b>As World Intellectual Property Organization member states launched into discussions on exceptions and limitations to copyright for the benefit of libraries and archives this week, non-governmental organisations were given the opportunity to present their views on the issue. They delivered vibrant, sometimes contradictory, statements on the opportunity for a treaty to preserve exceptions in the international copyright system. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 26th session of the WIPO Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is taking place from 16-20 December. After two days devoted to the protection of broadcasting organisations, the focus of the next two days has been on a potential international instrument providing exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In their general statements, countries remained faithful to their known positions. Developing countries generally underlined the necessity of achieving a balanced international copyright system and their wish to establish a legally binding instrument, and developed countries were of the view that the existing international copyright system already provides exceptions which could be used by libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The African Group said the countries in the group: find it difficult to set up and understand the existing limitations and exceptions; believe an international legally binding instrument would enable them to understand better how they can provide exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives; and consider that it would provide a mechanism for cross-border exchange for such entities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union clearly stated that its member countries were not willing to consider a legally binding instrument, and said that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives did not require the same kind of action that was taken in favour of visually impaired people, referring to the recently adopted <a href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245323">Marrakesh Treaty</a> to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Developed countries, in particular those in the European Union, did not always stand in favour of a treaty providing exceptions and limitations to copyright for visually impaired people. In the discussion on libraries and archives, developed countries are in favour of sharing national experiences rather than establishing binding new norms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States said it was not in support of norm-setting through treaty provisions. The delegate also said exceptions and limitations should be consistent with other member state obligations, including the so-called three step test.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The notion of three-step test haunted the discussions leading to the Marrakesh Treaty. It stems originally from <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P140_25350">Article 9(2)</a> of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (<a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/06/14/test-of-political-flexibility-in-final-lap-for-wipo-treaty-for-the-blind/"><i>IPW</i>, WIPO, 14 June 2013</a>) and provides conditions for reproduction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A large number of non-governmental organisations took the floor on 18 December, with stark differences in the approach of the issue of exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Industry, Creators: International Instrument Superfluous</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The industry, such as the International Federation of Film Producers, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), The International Association of Editors (IPA), the International Video Federation (IVF), the Ibero-Latin-American Federation of Performers (FILAIE), and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), said that the existing international copyright framework already provides exceptions and limitations, and national legislations can be develop to address issues met by libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">FILAIE said that it was in support of the Marrakesh Treaty but that a balance between society and the rights holders should be maintained. The IPA said there is no need for change in the international law, and suggested active legislative assistance to WIPO member states by the secretariat.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IVF concurred and said effective technical assistance in implementing the existing international copyright framework should be a focus of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisation (IFRRO), in <a href="http://www.ifrro.org/content/ifrro-statement-wipo-sccr-26-18-december-2013">its statement</a>, also said the current international conventions adequately provide for the establishment of relevant library exceptions in national legislation, such as reproduction for preservation proposals. The sharing of experiences ” both in the wording of library and archive exceptions and practical solutions seems to IFRRO to be the most appropriate way to enhance the performance of library and archive services,” the representative said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Exceptions and limitations are already part of the toolkit of existing treaties,” the representative for the International Federation of Actors and the International Federations of Musicians said. The international normative framework is providing “a coherent and flexible structure with just recognition of the contribution of creators to the information society and knowledge society, and the establishment of exceptions and other mechanisms providing access for the public to creative content,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Authors Forum concurred with the idea that existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility and asked that WIPO member states “will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the WIPO texts for adequate remuneration for the authors in accordance with the three-step test.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries, Archive Underline Inadequacies, Support Treaty</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries and archivists have a different view of the issue and reported on problems as they experience them on the ground.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The German Library Association cited a new study published by the European Commission (<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/131216_study_en.pdf">Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society</a> [pdf]), and said it “paints a dire picture of the adequacy of the Directive for exceptions for libraries in the European Union in the digital environment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In particular, the representative said, it “identifies a lack of cross-border application of exceptions for libraries and a patchwork of national laws as preventing libraries from fulfilling their functions,” in particular presenting cross-border issues, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There is a high level of international copyright protection,” he said, but “there is no such uniformity of limitations.” To act legally, he said, “library staff has to know about the limitations and exception, not only in their own country, the country of origin, but also in the country of destination of its service.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Canadian Library Association said it came to WIPO “to ensure a basic copyright framework is made available to libraries everywhere, and not just in Canada to deliver essential information services, and so that other communities can benefit from the same societal and economic impacts as we have in Canada.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even in Canada, the representative said, libraries’ activities are under threat, “as increased restrictions such as technology group protection measures and licensing terms and conditions degrade the environment in which we work, leaving libraries changing our role to simple market access intermediaries for publishers.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For Electronic Information for Libraries, an international framework establishing basic standards is necessary to avoid increasing inequalities in public knowledge. “We recognise the theory that the international copyright framework provides legal space to ensure meaningful limitations and exceptions,” the representative said, “But when the reality is different, and the gap between countries is widening, intervention is required to ensure the integration of key public interest concepts into the international framework.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions also underlined the disparity in national exceptions and limitations making it impossible for libraries to “competently fulfil our role as intermediaries between rights holders and users.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Archives</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Council of Archives (CIA) said a legally binding instrument will enable cross-border for non-commercial research purposes. The Societies of American Archivists said “current law prevents us from using the barrier-breaking technology to reach the shared goals of archives and copyright law, that is, expanding knowledge and creating new works.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The United States, for instance, has some library and archives exceptions, but they are inadequate and woefully out of date,” the representative said, listing a number of actions that are not permitted, such as preserving backup copies of digitised materials. “As for fair use, it is often subject to costly litigation leaving too many archives hesitant to put material online,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International underlined the increasing role of contracts in eroding exceptions in countries which have statutory exceptions. “We notice,” the representative said, “that the groups that oppose the library treaty are strong supporters of treaties for broadcast organisations.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Center for Internet and Society (India) supported an international instrument, in particular from the perspective of developing and least-developed countries. It would serve two main purposes, the representative said. On the one hand, it would protect copyrighted works, and on the other, it would provide greater access to these materials, and allow the dissemination of knowledge, culture and information, in accordance with the WIPO Development Agenda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The SCCR Chair, Martin Moscoso, director of the Peru Copyright Office, encouraged member states to take the NGOs statements into account.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-19-2014-wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-19-2014-wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-27T14:40:05ZNews ItemWIPO Broadcast Treaty- SCCR 26 : Proposals Introduced
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-sccr-proposals-introduced
<b>India and the United States introduced proposals for discussion at the ongoing session of the SCCR.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the ongoing session of the 26th SCCR, India and the United States have introduced proposals for discussion:</p>
<ol>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indias-proposal.zip" class="internal-link">this proposal</a> for Article 5 (Definitions)</li>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/article-6" class="internal-link">this proposal</a> for Article 6 (Scope of Application)</li>
<li>Japan introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/explanatory-note-on-article-6-bis" class="internal-link">this proposal</a> as Article 6 bis</li>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/beneficiaries-of-protection.pdf" class="internal-link">this proposal </a>for Article 7 (Beneficiaries of Protection)</li>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-rights.pdf" class="internal-link">this proposal </a>for Article 9 (Protection for Broadcasting Organizations)</li>
<li>The United States introduced a <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/proposal-for-discussion.pdf" class="internal-link">Proposal for Discussion</a> for Article 9 (Protection for Broadcasting Organizations). The delegation was keen to clarify that this was <i>not</i> a “US Proposal”; but merely a “Proposal for Discussion”</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-sccr-proposals-introduced'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-sccr-proposals-introduced</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-12-30T15:48:59ZBlog 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 EntryViews on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international
<b>On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6).
Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage.
Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.</b>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon, everyone.</p>
<p>My presentation will be in reference to the revised
consolidated text <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_36/sccr_36_6.pdf">SCCR 36/6</a> and the US proposal <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">SCCR 37/7</a>.</p>
<p>In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of
rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional –
satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter
signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related
rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.</p>
<p>The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their
programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create
an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities.
This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet
streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail
protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting
organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the
treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by
acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the
current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start
up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step.
And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in
other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m
trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of
broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.</p>
<p>My
co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building
of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an
affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we
urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and
exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept
that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for
countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the
Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an
expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look
who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El
Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international
standard.</p>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_7.pdf">US delegation’s proposal</a>, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of
limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting
organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against
piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does
not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the
proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights
for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations –
organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our
times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.</p>
<p>At a <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29025">seminar</a> on this very
treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the
problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this
neighbouring right. He said that the
justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of
disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for
gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had
gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not
account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the
proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing
between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been
raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it
cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil
society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another
practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations
from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it
technically possible to do that?</p>
<p>To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms
need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared
across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and
exceptions is urgently needed. </p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click <a class="external-link" href="https://www.keionline.org/29234">here</a>. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeBroadcast TreatyBroadcastingWIPO2018-11-29T10:48:40ZBlog EntryUS and EU blocking treaty to give blind people access to books
https://cis-india.org/news/us-and-eu-blocking-treaty
<b>Copyright fears stall talks on books being translated into braille for blind and visually impaired people in the global south.</b>
<hr />
<p>This article by Paige McClanahan was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/30/us-eu-blocking-treaty-blind-books">published</a> in the Guardian on July 30, 2012. Rahul Cherian, a Fellow at CIS is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US and the EU are blocking a treaty that would give the world's blind and visually impaired people – 90% of whom live in the developing world – easier access to published works in formats they can use.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A "treaty for blind people" has been under discussion at the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en">World Intellectual Property Organisation</a> (Wipo) since 2008, but negotiations have made little progress. In the latest round of talks in Geneva, which ended on Wednesday 25 July, negotiators deferred a decision on the issue once again, to the dismay of activists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This is not just a legal issue – for us, this is a moral issue. It's about human rights," said Teresa Hackett, programme manager at Electronic Information for Libraries, a non-profit group based in the Netherlands.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are about 256 million visually impaired people in the developing world, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/">according to an estimate by the World Health Organisation.</a> In many rich countries, blind people have ready access to works that have been translated into braille and other accessible formats such as audio and large-print books, although, according to the EU, only 5% of books are accessible to blind people in wealthy states.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, under existing copyright law, poorer countries can't access those translations without getting the express permission of the copyright holder. Few developing country governments have managed to do that, meaning that their blind and visually impaired populations are left with barely anything to read. The EU estimates that less than 1% of books are accessible to blind people in poorer countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The Spanish organisation Once has well over 100,000 [translated] books that they would like to send to Latin American countries, but they can't simply because of this copyright barrier," said Dan Pescod of the<a href="http://www.rnib.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx">Royal National Institute of Blind People</a>. Libraries in five Latin American countries – Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, Uruguay and Chile – have fewer than 9,000 accessible books between them, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A treaty at WIPO could change that. A binding agreement would mean people in the global south could get immediate access to books that have already been translated into accessible formats in other countries. A treaty would also lead to enormous cost savings, as expensive translation has to be replicated in every country that wants to produce an accessible form of a given book.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European parliament <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120216IPR38346/html/Binding-rules-to-ensure-blind-people%27s-access-to-books">passed a resolution in February</a> calling on the EU to support a binding treaty for the blind, but it does not appear to be having much impact. "The EU and the Americans are blocking the treaty – that's what's going on," said James Love, director of <a href="http://keionline.org/">Knowledge Ecology International</a> (KEI). "It's shameful what they're doing." He added that the administration of President Barack Obama has changed its position on the treaty over the past few years. In 2008 Obama's transition team were making positive noises, but since then the administration has become less enthusiastic.<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/europe-news" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Europe"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/europe-news" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Europe">Europe</a> and the US are home to some of the world's biggest publishing companies, many of which don't like the idea of an international treaty that would restrict their intellectual property rights. Observers speculate that the Obama administration may be loth to upset the publishing industry, a major campaign supporter, this late in an election year. "What we can see in the [negotiating] room is that primarily it's the business interests that dominate," said Hackett.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Activists are hoping for a legally binding treaty, but US and European delegates have been pushing for a softer "instrument" that would offer only guidelines and recommendations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"We really don't want to establish a precedent of developing a series of treaties that specifically focus on … limitations and exceptions to the rights of copyright owners," said Alan Adler of the Association of American Publishers, in an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxVcmOwBAsY">online interview with KEI</a>. Discussions are due to begin again in November, after the US election.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite the setback, activists insist they will keep lobbying for a binding treaty. "We in developing countries have found our voice and we are not going to back down," said Rahul Cherian, of <a href="http://www.inclusiveplanet.com/en/login?destination=node%2F241416%27">Inclusive Planet,</a> an Indian nonprofit, in a statement to Wipo delegates last week. "When people are demanding their basic rights, no power in the world is strong enough to stop them getting what they want."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/us-and-eu-blocking-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/news/us-and-eu-blocking-treaty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-08-02T13:56:36ZNews ItemTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 25
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 25th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from November 19, 2012 to November 23, 2012.
</b>
<p>This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 25 which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player/carttranscript?Event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player/carttranscript?Event=WIPO</a> and <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-1-november-19-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 1, November 19, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-2-november-20-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 2, November 20, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-3-november-21-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 3, November 21, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-4-november-22-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 4, November 22, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-5-november-23-2012.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 25 Day 5, November 23, 2012</a> (Full Text)</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr25-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishersmitaLive BlogCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:58:55ZBlog EntryTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24
https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 23, 2012)</li>
<li>(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012) </li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:35:43ZBlog Entry