The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 91 to 105.
34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Observers made the following statements on the agenda of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives on 3rd May 2017. </b>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://www.ifla.org/">International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): </a></strong><br />Thank you, Mr. Chair. We congratulate you
as leaders of body and looks forward to working with you to achieve the goals
of the in the interests of the national copyright system. We thank the Secretariat for
their hard work and IFLA is proud to have attended sessions of the SCCR
for many years and gratified that Member States understand and support the role
of libraries, archives and museums in promoting knowledge and the understanding
of diverse cultures.</p>
<p>As the U.S. states and its principles
document SCCR/26/8, exceptions and limitations facilitate the public service
role of libraries and are executives maintaining the balance between the rights
of authors and larger public interest, particularly education, research, and
access to information that is essential in today's society. But that balance
has eroded over time as rights holders have promoted fell ashes notion that
copyright is primarily or only about protection of rights not the public good.
In a world where information is increasingly borderless, as borderless as
broadcast signals, the idea that issues related to access to information are
local as one delegate astonishingly stated earlier this week is really
incomprehensible and misguided. This is not to say, however, that local or
national action is not needed as one element in the equation of access to
information. In this limited sense, we agree that the exchange of national
experiences in this body over the past several years has been helpful as have
been the studies commissioned by WIPO from Professor Kenneth Crews which
demonstrated the wide variation in exceptions and limitations existing in
SCCR's Member States, including their absence in numerous countries. We applaud
WIPO for commissioning these studies and urge that the Secretariat build on the
studies produced by professor cruise to develop a regularly updated searchable
database of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and museums to
be accessible across borders so that legislators and citizens who do not attend
these sessions can easily learn from other's experience on an ongoing basis. We
further recommend that SCCR capitalize on the past sharing of Member States'
national experiences and the suggested approaches in the Chair's chart of
SCCR/33 by creating a draft law on exceptions and limitations for libraries,
archives and museums in collaboration with all stakeholders so that there will
be practical outcomes for recent discussions in this body. Such a draft law
would draw on the committee's past discussions on the subject but not be
binding or prejudice in any way the outcome of the committee's own work. IFLA stands ready to work with its colleagues in the archival and museum communities
as well as with rights holders delegates to SCCR and the Secretariat to achieve
this objective. As for our recommendations or reactions to the Chair's final
chart from SCCR/33, IFLA supports this and we urge the Chair's chart be upped as a working document and certainly to the qua as an outcome of SCCR35. Finally
in response to the proposal by the Delegation of Argentina, SCCR/33/4, we hope
that the committee will request the Secretariat to prepare a study on issues
related to limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives and museums and a
cross-border context including digital uses. We are grateful to the Member
States that have placed and maintained limitations and exceptions for libraries
and archives on the SCCR agenda and look forward to continuing these
discussions. These outcomes will affect access to information and knowledge for
people throughout the world. Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www2.archivists.org/">Society of American Archivists:</a> <br /></strong>Thank you, Mr. Chair, I will try to be
brief. The Society of American Archivists, North America's largest professional
archival organisation looks forward to working with you and your Vice Chairs.
Our members manage billions of primary source works from across the global. SAA
believes in the importance of WIPO's work because copyright is central to the
mission of archivists. Archivists collect and preserve all types of creative
works for one reason only, use. Most archived works, however, have never been
in commerce, but people globally need them to maintain their culture, identity,
protect Human Rights and support innovation through new creative works. If such
works cannot be made available digitally, however, and across borders, they
might as well not exist. Archivists and librarians are conscientious about
copyright, but sometimes strict adherence to the law conflicts with our
collections and our mission. For example, a 1970's collection of over 120
interviews of legendary jazz musicians are available for on site study in the
archives of the U.S. research library, but, their general usefulness has been
hobbled by unbalanced copyright law because the original copyright assignment
mentioned neither derivative works nor the yet to be invented Internet. As a
result, risk averse librarians and lawyers were unwilling to allow zing tall
accessibility of the interviews. Although jazz cannot thrive without taking
risks, an archivist's obligation to the future requires that we minimize risk.
That's why we need reasonable exceptions to deal with the streams ambiguity
inherent in our collections. Copyright is already perceived to be under attack.
Can WIPO afford to torn away allies such as archivists? We have a very positive
public approval rating from the very people that you need to reach. To keep
archivists on board the development of exceptions for archives must remain on
SCCR's agenda. To this end the committee's work should continue based on the
previous Chair's chart and that chart should become a working document for the
committee. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong>Centre for Internet and Society</strong>: <br />Thank you, Mr. Chair. CIS works on issues of access to knowledge and other digital
rights in India. I would like to share with you my experience which highlights
the difficulty of building digital archives in India. Mr. Chair, earlier last
year the government of India embarked upon the important project of digitizing
the cultural audiovisual material stored in government and private collections to store material for preservation purposes,
and set up a virtual network of these repositories to offer online access. My
organization has been assisting them in this crucial public service mission. These works are oral traditions, dance,
music, theatrical practices, cultural practices – all of which lie largely
inaccessible and languishing in several small and large collections in India.
Since, the Indian copyright Act does not contain an exception for the purposes
of preservation by an archive; the entire project has suffered high costs in
terms of money and time. Money, because the project had to get expensive legal
assistance to set up processes to obtain rights clearance from all the
performers who were a part of the works and copyright holders- some of which
are orphan works, thereby compounding the problem. Further, partnering
organizations also expressed legitimate fears of supplying their works, in case
of a potential copyright and related rights violation that could implicate them
with civil/criminal liability.</p>
<p>In such a scenario, for the benefit of other states to
update their standards corresponding to this international legal instrument as
well, it would indeed be useful to adopt the proposals mentioned in the document <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_3.pdf">SCCR/26/3</a> that
address these issues, and others. Thank you.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ica.org/en"><strong>International Council of Archives</strong>:</a><br />Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And the ICA congratulates you on your election and that of your Vice Chairs and we look forward to working with you. Archival institutions exist throughout the world. Governments, organisations and individuals create records to provide evidence of their actions to document their rights and obligations and to preserve their heritage. Archives acquire and preserve these documents and make them available for all to use as the raw materials for cultural, academic, social and scientific research. The nature of archival material presents a particular problem. Archives hold billions of copyright works that were not created or intended for commercial purposes. Because they were never published, the rights holders for such works cannot be located. For these reasons, collective licensing is not a workable solution. The archival mission to make their holdings available for research is ham strung by a web of inconsistent copyright laws that have failed to keep up with social and technological development. In this body systemic discussion of the eleven topics, archivists provided a rich array of real life examples that clearly demonstrate the need for exceptions, for mutual recognition by Member States of exceptions and limitations to copyright that would permit archives everywhere to serve an international audience. The results of that excellent work was summarized in the Chair's informal chart on limitations, exceptions for libraries and archives. Every creator benefits from the work of his or her predecessors. Knowledge of that earlier work comes largely from libraries and archives. Many of the rights holders represented in this room could not have created their works without us. Why would creators not wholeheartedly support exceptions for archives and libraries that would only benefit their work. Regrettably, we continue to hear assertions from some groups that national solutions are suffer. It should be abundantly clear by now that national solutions are far from sufficient. We need solutions that apply in a global network environment. And in that regard, Mr. Chair, the Chair's informal chart on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives prepared at the end of SCCR33 refined and clarified the topics to be addressed and provides a practical approach to continue to move this initiative forward. We would support our IFLA colleagues called to have it adopted as a working document of the committee, and we would also support IFLA's call for a study of cross-border issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.</p>
<p><strong>German Library Association: </strong><br />I congratulate you on your election as a
Chair and I speak on behalf of German Library Association representing 10,000
libraries in Germany. Libraries and archives face a problem. There is a high
level of the international copyright protection, on the other hand, there is no
such uniformity in limitations. Limitations like the ones fixed in the already
mentioned Chair's informal chart, for example, for preservation, lending,
document delivery, are the basis of library services. But limitations and
exceptions are like a patchwork of different national legislations. For every
library service crossing borders that means to act legally library staff has to
know about the limitations and exceptions not only in their own country,
country of origin but also in the country of destination of that service.
Respective to the German library index and university libraries in 2016 around
60% of the acquisitions were electronic in technical universities the portion
of electronic acquisitions is even much higher. These numbers in international
comparison are even low. We can assert that research libraries are digital more
than they are paper based. In the electronic world, the problem is resources
usually are only available after agreement on license stipulations formulated
by the rights holders mostly. That means contracts are concluded. Contracts
eventually can override the limitations and exceptions. This committee might
agree on in one form or the other. The objective of facilitating cross-border
library teaching and research services could be achieved by introducing an
international mandatory instrument on limitations and exceptions. Another track
to facilitate cross-border use could be the introduction of principles of
harmonizations combined with a rule of mutual recognitions like proposed in the
document of the Delegation of Argentina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifj.org/"><strong>International Federation of Journalists: </strong></a><br />The International Federation of Journalists congratulates, again, the Chair and Vice Chairs on their election and the members of the Secretariat for their diligent work. We represent about 600,000 journalists in 140 countries worldwide north and south. The International Federation of Journalists, of course, understands ts essential role of libraries and archives specifically we fully support them having the freedom to have copies for preservation. The International Federation of Journalists has repeatedly called for libraries and archives to have proper direct funding to do this themselves and not to be forced to subcontract digital archiving to commercial operations. The honorable representative of Brazil referred earlier this morning to the potential to extend the outreach of libraries and archives in unprecedents ways.. Of course, this, the making of works available on the Internet, for example, and on its successes is an important supplement to the vital role of libraries and archives in the education and training of many including journalists. But when it comes to libraries and are executives making copies of works available off the premises, that is is it not, a publishing operation? The International Federation of Journalists believes that the solution to this issue is collective licensing and necessarily capacity building to insure that efficient Democratically controlled collective licensing is available in all Member States and can deal with cross-border issues as the collective licenses that already exist already do. Many of those 600,000 journalists particularly those who focus on international reporting are poorly paid. Where there is such collective licensing it makes important contribution to their economic survival as independent professionals with their own essential contribution to make to the recording and preservation of our culture from within our cultures and not relying on foreign reporting. Thank you.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/"><strong>Knowledge Ecology International</strong></a>: <br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman and congratulations
for your election. And for your Co-Chairs'. One thing I just wanted to mention
as related to libraries is in addition to the excellent studies that have been
done by Kenneth Crews and other people that have looked at library exceptions,
I thought it might be interesting to have the chief economist or other people
involved, but certainly the chief economist to look at the economics of the
library industry. I think that we look at libraries as part of the research and
development infrastructure for a country, not only as places people go to read
novels, but an essential part of the competitiveness and ability for a country
to have a strong high tech sector but also play an important role in the
development. And it would be interesting to know what the assessment is because
we hear it from other industries all of the time. They talk about the number of
jobs in the film industry or the number of jobs. It would be interesting to
know how many people are employed in different countries in the library sector,
but also what contributions the library sector makes to the economic
development of the country, and what challenges they face on pricing. The last
point I wanted to make is that clearly there is a set of issues that it's
really hard to reach on census on, and there is other areas where it's easier,
I would think, to reach consensus on. This discussion of the archiving and the
preservation of documents is a pretty good case. Certainly the making available
of what's put into, what's archived and preserved in terms of documents, it's
more challenging to reach consensus on that than it is to insure that people
have adequate exceptions to merely do archiving and preservations. And I think
that it would be unfortunate if in looking at their wide range of issues that
are facing libraries, recognizing that there is a very inadequate set of
exceptions in many countries according to the studies that have already been
done, that people don't move forward in areas where consensus could be reached
such as preservation and archiving because there are other areas that are more
controversial. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/www.eifl.net/" class="external-link">Electronic Information for Libraries</a></strong>: <br />Thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf
of the Electronic Information for Libraries and I would like to thank you for
giving me the floor and congratulate you upon your election to Chair this
committee. I would also like to congratulate your Vice Chairs. We would like to
thank the African Group, GRULAC, Asia-Pacific Group and the other delegates for
having spoken of the interrelationship between the Sustainable Development
Goals and the establishment of access to libraries and archives because emphasis
is placed on access to information. Ladies and gentlemen, the Internet is
global, but legislation on copyright stops at borders and that is why we are
here today. Digital technology has changed the world, which people have access
to information. Today the way we study and learn in fact means that people do
not have full access. We believe that copyright is important, and that
limitations and exceptions are crucial for a modern information infrastructure
as well as for open access and other licensin wills. We are very pleased that
other countries have modified proposals on copyright.. We are pleased that some
countries have expanded their exceptions or introduced new ones. However, some
countries who are updating their law are not enough to resolve a broader
problem, the demand for cross-border access to information for research
and culture. And the need to insure that nobody is left behind in access to
knowledge means that there is say need for this aspect to be taken into
account. There are specific issues which were compiled in a document and
submitted to this committee and I would like to invite you to read it. There
are printed copies available, but it can also be found on line. It begins with
the Internet is global. We also support IFLA's and ICAS interventions and we
hope that progress will be made swiftly in the SCCR in this issue. We thank you
very much for your attention.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/icom.museum/" class="external-link">International Council of museums (ICOM)</a>:</strong><br />Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity
to address this important agenda item.. The international Council of museums
represents important 36,000 museum professionals world wide. We are here, Mr.
Chair, to give our voice to museum professionals for this important agenda
item. After consultation with the international museum community and in keeping
with the results of the WIPO study on exceptions and limitations on copyright
for museums ICOM joined forces with our library and archive colleagues to
pursue exceptions to copyright for the benefit of libraries, archives and
museums as enumerated in the Chair's informal chart that provide for exceptions
for all three. This pursuit is not intended to disrupt markets, but instead is
targeted to instances where museums and indeed libraries and archives are
unable to carry out their often shared mission. ICOM was very pleased that the
Canadian delegation called for a museum study in 2013 while at the 26th session
of the Standing Committee on copyright and related rights. The study
on exceptions first draft was distributed and presented at the 30th session of
the SCCR in 2015. The study distributed business WIPO provides a broad basis of
understanding of the status of exceptions for museums within WIPO Member States
and provides for the basis for ICOM's continued advocacy of exceptions for
museums. The purpose of our intervention today is to signal that ICOM is
committed to the belief that a harmonized approach towards libraries, archives
and museums is both possible and necessary to achieve the overall objective of
obtaining operational exceptions for materials and cultural heritage
collections at the international level. [..] there are many instances where
museums, libraries and archives cross mandates given the nature of distinctive
collections. Libraries hold collections that include artifacts more
traditionally aligned with museum collections or have accessioned collections
that include unpublished materials often found in archives. Museums hold archival
collections, have libraries within museums, and include study collections as
part of their overall collections. Museums like archives nay oftentimes include
a vast array of artifacts in their collections and include materials that have
often been published and unpublished. At the same time, libraries, archives and
museums face the same obstacles created by copyright law in trying to fulfill
their respective missions being education, public interest, access to
collections and communication of scholarship. This is particularly true when
museums are examined not simply as stewards of art collections but as stewards
of historic scientific and natural collections as well. The similarities are in fact magnified when we examine the collections we face with our 20th century collections. Museums, libraries and archives face similar challenges in preserving, exhibiting and providing access and communicating about art collections. Thank you, Mr. Chair for the opportunity to address this important issue.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/httpwww.eblida.org/" class="external-link">European Bureau of library, information and documentation associations</a></strong>: <br />Mr. Chair, we congratulate you and the Vice
Chairs on your elections to office, and thank you for inviting the European
Bureau of library information and documentation associations which is the voice
of libraries in Europe to take the floor. The consolidated libraries and
archives studies in the SCCR30 and the museum study both from 2015 reveal that
the national frontier-based approach to copyright with regard to libraries,
archives and museums now in disarray, too disparate and stuck in the pre-Internet era. In the E.U. this has been the justification of proposal of
mandatory cross-border exceptions to copyright. Yet in face of the ever
expanding world wide web. National copyright laws are in need of constant
modernization to allow institutions to function optimally in an international
cross-border online environment. Now that the detailed discussion of the topic
has been summarized by the previous Chair's SCCR/33 document. We offer
practical suggestions for moving forward. First, we suggest that this committee
establishes the principles to inclusion in the note for overarching
international copyright framework for copyright exceptions and limitations
affecting libraries, archives and museums. The proposals made by the US
delegation in 26/8 offer useful guidance that can shape the content of the
committee's work. A comprehensive and effective solution for libraries should
set standard for and protect national copyright exceptions that impact on the
functions of these institutions, including preservation of materials and
content, copying for document delivery in any format including cross-borders.
Lending of works including remotely. Protecting limitations and exceptions for
override by contract terms and by holding partially inaccessible can due to
legal protections of TPMs. Making orphan works available on line to the public,
text and data mining of legally accessed coven tent. Acquiring work including
by importation and protecting libraries, archives and museums and staff
accounting for them in good faith for criminal or civil liability for
unintended copyright infringement. There are various ways in which the
committee can support work. And could be usefully adopted by this committee.
Secondly, in line with the EU's call for guidance to Member States, we would
welcome efforts from the Secretariat to further inform our discussions. In line
with the Poe proposal from Argentina which correctly addresses the need for
minimum set of exceptions and limitations nationally and the solution for
cross-border issues this what the E.U. itself is seeking to do domestically. We
would welcome a study on cross-border issue as a basis for further discussion.
In order to provide further guidance to Member States, this committee could
request the Secretariat to convene an expert group first and foremost of
library archive and museum copyright experts as well as copyright academics,
lawyers and relevant stakeholders to support the commissioning and tasking of
an agreed expert to develop modern WIPO draft law for libraries, archives and
museums. Finally this committee might wish to request that the Secretariat
provides a useful tool to assist its work by creating online publicly
accessible database of copyright exceptions and limitations. Additionally since
the pace of change in copyright law affecting the library, archive and museum
sector is to fast moving the committee might request an annual report from the
Secretariat of changes to nationals and practices in copyright and related
rights. Thank you for your attention.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/">Innovarte Corporacion:</a></strong> <br />Thank you very much, Chairman. We would
like to congratulate you upon your election. We would like to thank the excellent work on studies on libraries and archives.
The proposal to work with the aim of a treaty on exceptions and limitations to
copyright to protect the balance and legitimacy of the system for copyright and
related rights with regard to libraries and people with disabilities is
something we have been discussing in this committee since 2004 starting from a proposal which came from Chile. As discussions of the Marrakesh Treaty has
shown that provisions on copyright to protect categories of people who are
threatened or under mined by a lack of exceptions is not only possible but good
and it shows a means to protect libraries, archives and possibly also museums.
In this regard, we would like to request the members of the committee in good
faith to consolidate all of the work done based on the text which has already
been considered, the informal summary of the Chair of the committee as we have
seen it's based on textual proposals either for treaty or another form of
instrument which was proposed by various delegations including Brazil, India,
the United States and many others. We propose that the committee would adopt
this text without any prejudice to what form the work might take in the future.
We believe on another point that the proposal from Argentina is particularly
useful since it seeks to come up with a solution to the obstacle, namely, the
lack of harmonization of rules on libraries and archives at international
level. We believe it is a compliment to what has already been worked on by the
committee with regard to principles and topics which are necessary for
exceptions other than a national level. It should be subject to greater
analysis by this committee, thank you very much.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="https://eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation: </a></strong><br />Thank you Mr. Chair. The EFF work supports the work of libraries and archives which have become more relevant in the digital age and which are more challenging now. The updating of exceptions and limitations are an important way to insure that libraries and archives are equipped to meet these two challenges of fulfilling missions in the digital age. In an ideal world EFF sees norm setting as the only way to ensure that WIPO members provide a basic level of modernized limitations and exceptions for libraries, however, we recognize that members do not have the appetite for norm setting in this area at this point in time for various reasons. In that light, we do support the proposal IFLA has made for a draft law and searchable database on library limitations and exceptions. This strikes us as a workable compromise that does not commit members to hard norm setting but which would be a useful interim step towards the harmonization of limitations and exceptions for libraries worldwide. Finally and on a different topic, I would like to express EFF's hope that in the next SCCR session time will also be made available for NGOs to make statements about the broadcast treaty. Thank you very much.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightLibrariesArchivesWIPO2017-05-30T05:55:43ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Observers made the following statements on discussion around limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions on 3rd May 2017. </b>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.communia-association.org/">Communia: <br /></a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity
to address for the limitations and exceptions for educational purposes. I would
like to give a brief statement that by saying Professor Seng's studies,
national countries had exceptions narrowly in various ways the copyright works
of educational activities. These narrow exceptions prevent certain educational
practices such as the quotation of entire image in a school presentation. When
it comes to modern educational practices, namely those that occur in digital
and online teaching environments, the legal standing is even more problematic.
Indeed, certain acts which teachers are allowed to perform in face-to-face
teaching may not be permitted in digital and online contexts. For instance, in
the Netherlands, the law is clear that a teacher can show a movie from a DVD in
class, but if the same teacher wants to show a video from a free publicly
accessible website, it seems that you'll need to be -- you will not be able to
do it. This is due either to inappropriate legislative techniques or to
domestic policy decisions. In any case, what is certain is cross-border
educational uses are compromised at the outset due to the current national
copyright laws, including within regions that enjoy a high level of
harmonization, such as the European Union. Therefore, continue to discuss this
issue in the forum which we will lead toward from an internationally binding
instrument as mandated by the General Assembly 2017 seems essential. Thank you.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.ifj.org/">International Federation of Journalists:</a></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Good afternoon. We've already introduced
ourselves. All these works are and remain one of the key raw materials for
education. The international federation of journalists deeply regrets the
educational and research institutions underfunded. No one is proposing,
however, as far as I'm aware, that schools and colleges should get free
electricity or free phone calls. Here, most clearly of all, the solution is
collective licensing through collective management organizations that are
democratically controlled by the rights holders they represent. There is a
wealth of misunderstanding of the issues. I take as one example the very first
statement on a pro education site and the magic of Internet indexing may enable
you to identify it, are which demonstrates how ill thought out the costs of
education can be, not withstanding the previous. This is addressed to the
European Union. It says, quotes, we want you to have the freedom to teach
without breaking the law. Good. Quotes, before teaching her students about how
representations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet have changed through the
ages, a teacher may have to ask permission from the rights holders of every
movie she wants to screen in class, unquote. It says, this is -- we want to
relieve educators from this impossible task, but I'm aware of nowhere in the
European Union and few countries in the -- what we're pleased to call the more
advanced economies where this is an impossible task. The school just pays for a
license from a collecting society and goes ahead with no further
administration. In my home country, United Kingdom, the collecting societies
are working successfully on streamlining the system of licensing and making it
more efficient in time and cash. Personally, I do recognize that some
categories of textbooks are overpriced...(Speaker went over time and was asked to stop).</p>
<p><strong>International Authors Federation:</strong></p>
<p>Thank you very much. As this is the first
time the International Office Forum has taken the floor this session, we'd like
to congratulate you, Chair, and your vice chairs on your election and thank the
Secretariat on their work. The international authors forum represents authors
from the text, screenwriting, and visual arts sectors and their interests in
copyright, as members of 60 organizations representing well over 600,000
authors worldwide. In ran increasingly homogenized world, cultural diversity is
important, authors maintain that in digital arts, literatures, language, and
music. It is the authors works being considered in the proposals being discussed
at WIPO. There are individual authors whose rights are involved in all
countries. Those rights must be given primary consideration. They need fair
remuneration if they are to continue the work everybody wants access to.
Without payment, they will not be able to continue to create. The diversity and
quality of content will suffer and the quantity of works produce produced will
be limited. We believe that there are already international copyright
provisions in place that work well to enable the development of licensing
frameworks, which enable access, including cross-border access provision
through educational institutions and ensure fair payment. Authors believe that
these existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility for countries
represented at WIPO to continue to work towards national solutions, such as
licensing frameworks, which can be developed according to local needs. Thank
you for your time.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://sitio.innovarte.cl/">Corporacion Innovarte:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair. The study of
exceptions for educational limitations in current legislation shows that there
is a fragmentation, that it's not appropriate to the countries, and very often
this is an insolvable problem for international and learning cooperation in the
area of communication. In order to overcome these, we think it's ins dispensable
to have an international agreement which will enable us to have a minimum of
common exceptions and limitations which will make it possible to have
compatible roles for cross-border use of educational resources. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.</p>
<p><strong><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pijip.org/">Programme on Information Justice and IP:</a></strong></p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. You and I are from countries that have educational exceptions that
are open to the use of any work, for any education related activity or
purpose, and by any user — subject to a fairness test that takes into
account the rights of authors and rights holders. This openness in the exceptions environment enables innovations that
promote access to learning materials, including through new technologies
and over the internet. Tomorrow at a side meeting over lunch, Communia and American
University will be presenting the outcomes of different research
projects that examine the operation of user rights in practice. That
research shows that wealthy countries are developing openness in these
factors much more quickly and thoroughly than poorer countries
currently. But the research also shows that this is not a developing
country problem alone. Many wealthy countries as well lack exceptions
that allow such basic practices as showing a movie, streaming a video or
performing a play in a classroom setting. These problems are compounded
when we deliver educational products across borders through distance
learning. A lack of harmonization on these issues will produce a race to the
bottom where teachers like myself are forced to not deliver the best
materials possible for our students because of the lack of rights to do
so in some countries.I would encourage the process going forward to focus on the value of educational exceptions that<br />
cover all:</p>
<ul><li>Works,</li><li>Apply to all users, and that</li><li>Extend to a full range of activities</li></ul>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p><em>Note: Source of the statement texts are WIPO's realtime transcription service. </em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaWIPOCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeLimitations & Exceptions2017-05-30T05:51:42ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 34th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 1 May, 2017 to 5 May, 2017, made this statement during the discussion on the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>On behalf of CIS, it is my submission that the study can
additionally focus on all the key actors along the entire supply and value
chain involved in content dissemination in the digital environment,
complementing the study of the legal environments. This would shed considerable
light on national legal frameworks and also provide us evidence of
transparency, or the lack thereof in the businesses involved and the extent of low proportions of copyright and
related rights payment to the creators and their unfair treatment.</p>
<p>Thank
you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-15T10:42:28ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Discussion on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 34th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 1 May, 2017 to 5 May, 2017, made this statement during the discussion on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>CIS works on issues of access to knowledge and other digital
rights in India.</p>
<p>I would like to share with you my experience which highlights
the difficulty of building digital archives in India. Mr. Chair, earlier last
year the government of India embarked upon the important project of digitizing
the cultural audiovisual material stored in government and private collections to store material for preservation purposes,
and set up a virtual network of these repositories to offer online access. My
organization has been assisting them in this crucial public service mission. These works are oral traditions, dance,
music, theatrical practices, cultural practices – all of which lie largely
inaccessible and languishing in several small and large collections in India.
Since, the Indian copyright Act does not contain an exception for the purposes
of preservation by an archive; the entire project has suffered high costs in
terms of money and time. Money, because the project had to get expensive legal
assistance to set up processes to obtain rights clearance from all the
performers who were a part of the works and copyright holders- some of which
are orphan works, thereby compounding the problem. Further, partnering
organizations also expressed legitimate fears of supplying their works, in case
of a potential copyright and related rights violation that could implicate them
with civil/criminal liability.</p>
<p>In such a scenario, for the benefit of other states to
update their standards corresponding to this international legal instrument as
well, it would indeed be useful to adopt the proposals mentioned in the document <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_3.pdf">SCCR/26/3</a> that
address these issues, and others.</p>
<p>
Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightArchivesAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-15T10:35:36ZBlog Entry34th SCCR: A Summary Report
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-a-summary-report
<b>The 34th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) was held from 1st- 5th May 2017 at Geneva, Switzerland. Anubha Sinha attended the session and provides an update on the status of discussions and noteworthy emerging/unsolved debates in the Committee. </b>
<p>Agenda items at this <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=42296">SCCR </a>included 1) Reaching consensus on text of Broadcasting Treaty 2) Discussion on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities 3) Discussion on artist's resale right 4) Discussion on proposal for analysis of copyright related to the digital environment. The Asia-Pacific group was represented by the Indonesian delegation - a break from Indian leadership. In comparison to previous SCCRs, the Indian delegation was less vocal, especially reflected in negotiations around the Broadcasting treaty.</p>
<h2>Broadcasting Treaty</h2>
<p>The delegations and secretariat (headed by newly appointed Chair, Darren Tang) began discussions in the earnest, keen on presenting a consensus to the UN General Assembly. Two days were spent in hammering out a feeble consensus on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_34/sccr_34_3.pdf">Consolidated text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues.</a> This was done entirely in the informals.[<strong>1</strong>] There was a high degree of divergence between positions, so much that the draft text ended up with additional language even on issues that had achieved a certain degree of stability. The most intractable issue emerged to be the definition (and inclusion) of deferred transmission.</p>
<p>Observers were not offered an opportunity to present statements, which was <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2768">alarmingly unfortunate</a>. Delegations are expected to mull over the fresh additions/modifications back home, and will again attempt to streamline the text at the next SCCR (November, 2017).</p>
<h2>Limitations and Exceptions on Libraries and Archives</h2>
<p>The Committee has been trying to come up with a legally binding instrument on this agenda. No draft text exists, only an <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_34/sccr_34_5.pdf">informal chart on limitations and exceptions</a> (prepared by the Chair) was used as a framework for discussions.</p>
<p>While African, Asia-Pacific, GRULAC, China and were keen on constructively moving towards a legally binding treaty, other groups/countries were less so.</p>
<p>The Central Europe and Baltic group (CEBS group) expressed that the agenda was best left for member states to legislate at the domestic level; they were willing to go only as far as "exchanging best practices" at this forum and adopting alternative approaches. Anything but a legally binding instrument, basically. EU, similarly positioned, suggested that the Committee should rather explore how <em>existing </em>limitations and exceptions under international treaties could function efficiently.</p>
<p>Argentina pointed out that issues such as cross-border works could not be addressed by the states themselves. Further, Russia said that existing treaties (Berne Convention, Rome Convention, WIPO Internet treaties) did not allow the introduction of the desired limitations and exceptions; and that it would be useful to merge limitations and exceptions on libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions.</p>
<p>Finally, Chile and Nigeria suggested that the Chair's informal chart could perhaps be adopted by the Committee as a working document, which was not met with much enthusiasm. Most states appreciated Dr. Crews' study and indicated that an update on the work would be useful for the Committee.</p>
<h2>Limitations and Exceptions on Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with other Disabilities</h2>
<p>Professor Blake Reid and Professor Caroline Ncube and team made a presentation on their scoping study on limitations and exceptions for persons with disabilities (Link <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2773">here</a>). On the issue of limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions the delegations looked forward to Prof. Daniel Seng's final study (in a future session). Rest of the discussion was split in a similar fashion as the previous session on libraries and archives.</p>
<p>Notably, the Indian delegation supported the discussions on limitations and exceptions with a view to produce an international instrument.</p>
<h2>Artists Resale Right</h2>
<p>The discussion around this agenda is in a preliminary stage and Dr. Graddy (Economist, Brandeis International Business School) presented an overview of the same basis a consultation with experts and stakeholders. Artists resale rights provide an artist with the right to receive a royalty based on the resale of an original work of art. Theoretically, resale rights may hurt market competition as they could potentially prompt buyers and sellers to transact in other countries which do not provision for resale royalties, to avoid bearing the cost. Further, buyers may potentially pay less as they may have to pay up when they sell next - as a result the resale right could hurt younger artists more than the older ones. However, a 2008 study of the UK market after the introduction of this resale right revealed no such adverse effects. Dr. Graddy attributed this to the fact that resale royalties were limited to 2% of the sales price or a ceiling of (~500 eur), and in comparison to the auctioneer's commission (15-20%) were not a major cost in the entire transaction.</p>
<p>This proposal was moved by Senegal and Congo (in a previous session), and has been strongly supported by African nations. Most observers were in support as well. Further, resale rights already exist in the European Union and certain other states. USA was vocal about not endorsing a normative instrument on this topic. </p>
<h2>Discussion on Proposal for Analysis of Copyright related to the Digital Environment</h2>
<p>This proposal, tabled by GRULAC (at a previous session) stressed on the importance of transparency in remuneration for performers in the digital environment. Several delegations commented on the wide breadth of the proposal and suggested it be narrowed down. USA made a distinction between copyright policy, and marketplace issues such as remuneration of artists and performers and bargaining power - making it clear that the SCCR should touch upon the former only. A presentation of a study-in-progress followed. The study will examine the national copyright laws relating to digital technology including limitations and exceptions (passed in the last decade or so), and how they govern intermediaries. The final study will be presented in the next session.</p>
<h2>CIS' Participation</h2>
<p>I made statements on agenda item <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-discussion-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives">limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives</a>, and <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-related-to-the-digital-environment">GRULAC proposal for analysis of copyright related to the digital environment. <br /></a></p>
<p>In addition, I participated in a panel discussion on <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/sccr34"><strong>Fixing Copyright for Education</strong></a> alongside <strong>Chichi Umesi,</strong> First Secretary, Mission Of Nigeria to the United Nations in Geneva; <strong>Sean Flynn</strong>, PIJIP; <strong>Teresa Nobre</strong>, Communia; and <strong>Delia Browne</strong>,
Creative Commons Australia / Director, National Copyright Unit (Schools
and TAFEs) Australia. The panel covered obstacles to educational
uses of works in Europe and the need for opening up related user rights,
the ongoing Australian copyright reform debate and the recent interpretation by Indian courts of the reproduction exception for educational purposes in
the <a class="external-link" href="https://thewire.in/68151/delhi-hc-ruling-photocopying-du/">DU photocopying case</a> (Link to panel discussion material <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/sccr34">here</a>).</p>
<h2>Observer Statements:</h2>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives">Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities">Observer Statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions <br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-observer-statements-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities">Observer Statements on Proposal for Analysis of Copyright related to the Digital Environment</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p><em><strong>A summary by the Chair is available <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_34/sccr_34_ref_summary_by_the_chair.pdf">here</a>. </strong></em></p>
<p> <strong>[1]</strong> Informals are a different kind of negotiation-setting than the plenary and happen privately
between delegates and the chair. Observers are provided with an audio
feed of the discussion but cannot report anything that is said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-a-summary-report'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/34th-sccr-a-summary-report</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2017-05-30T13:55:22ZBlog Entry33rd SCCR: Opening Statement by India on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/33rd-sccr-opening-statement-by-india-on-behalf-of-the-asia-and-the-pacific-group
<b>Dr. Sumit Seth(Economic Affairs) of the Permanent Mission of India in Geneva delivered the Opening Statement on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group at 33rd Session of the of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on 14th November 2016.</b>
<p><strong></strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
India has the honor to deliver the Opening Statement on behalf of the
Asia and the Pacific Group in this 33rd Session of the Standing
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. <br />
Asia & the Pacific Group would like to express its confidence in
your experience and your leadership skills. We are confident that your
hard work and diligence will yield desired results and help this
committee reach a mutual understanding on all outstanding issues. Our
group would also like to thank the WIPO Secretariat for the preparation
of this meeting.</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
The SCCR is an important committee of WIPO dealing with three issues
of critical importance to member states, namely protection of
broadcasting organizations; limitations and exceptions for libraries
and archives; and limitations and exceptions for educational and
research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.<br />
These three issues are of great importance to our group. Going by the
discussions in this committee since its 27th session, it would not be
wrong to say that we are facing difficulty in finding agreement on how
to continue our work on each of the three important agenda items. We
believe, in order to further our work, we have to refer to the 2012
General Assembly guidance to the SCCR on the work plan on the three
issues.</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
Our group believes that these issues have not received the equal
level of commitment and understanding proportionate to their importance
based on the differential socio-economic development of the Member
States. <br />
In this spirit of multilateralism, Asia and the Pacific Group
reaffirms its commitment to engage constructively in negotiating a
mutually acceptable outcome on all three issues before the committee.
Our group would like to put on record its support for the proposed
program of work.</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
Determining whether and how intellectual property rights should apply
with respect to broadcasting is a developmental issue that requires
careful balancing. Members of the group would like to see the
finalization of a balanced treaty on the protection of broadcasting
organizations, based on the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly
to provide protection on the signal based approach for cablecasting and
broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense.</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
For our Group, exceptions and limitations are of critical importance.
Application of copyright system should be balanced, it should take
into account commercial interests in copyright and right holders, and
equally important, it should also take into account other competing
interests in copyright, including the public interest in scientific,
cultural, social progress and promoting competition. <br />
Exceptions and limitations have an important role to play in the
attainment of the right to education and the access to knowledge,
actualization of which in many developing countries is hampered due to
lack of access to relevant educational and research material.<br />
However, there is no denying the fact that some divergence on how
exceptions and limitations should be approached exists among member
states.<br />
It is unfortunate that absence of adequate will to discuss and
develop the two exceptions and limitations before this committee has
resulted in a stalemate on the work of this committee.<br />
We hope that all member states shall engage constructively in this
session on these two issues based on previous discussions and new
inputs so that we are able to develop a mature text to discuss and work
on</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
Asia and the Pacific Group has taken note of the proposal submitted
by the GRULAC in the 31st session to discuss the current digital
environment and copyright interface. Members of my group will make
interventions in their national capacity under this agenda item and will
proactively participate in the discussion on this contemporary topic.</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Chair,</strong><br />
This is the same committee which has given us the Beijing and the
Marrakesh Treaties. My group is optimistic that with the noble
intentions and the right will we can pave the path for the development
of appropriate international instruments on all three issues.<br />
We look forward to productive results and tangible progress in this session<br />
I thank you once again Mr. Chair for the opportunity.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/33rd-sccr-opening-statement-by-india-on-behalf-of-the-asia-and-the-pacific-group'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/33rd-sccr-opening-statement-by-india-on-behalf-of-the-asia-and-the-pacific-group</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-11-14T11:04:27ZBlog Entry33rd SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 33rd Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 14 November, 2016 to 19 November, 2016, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 16 November, 2016. </b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society
organisation from India. We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by
KEI and Karisma Foundation.</p>
<p>First, Mr. Chair, on SCCR/33/5 <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=40667&la=EN#docs">Note on the Draft Treaty to Protect
Broadcasting Organizations</a> which is a document presented by the
delegations of Argentina, Colombia and Mexico – which was flagged
off as relevant for <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=40667&la=EN#docshttp://">SCCR/33/3</a>. Mr. Chair, this document is
problematic as it in essence, tries to extend the scope of the treaty
to apply to internet-originated content, and thus by extension
internet transmissions. This manifested in the push for protection of
on-demand material and catch-up services as well in the discussions
over the past two days.</p>
<p>Mr. Chair, I’d like to reeiterate that the mandate of the
General Assembly was confined to broadcasting and cablecasting
organizations in the traditional sense; the definition of
broadcasting, protected by the scope of the Treaty, should as such be
limited to the type of transmission exploited by traditional
broadcasters – as stated by the delegation of Iran.</p>
<p>Further, Mr. Chair where as EU, China, Argentina, Colombia and
Mexico continue to speak of technological advancements to justify
expansion of rights under the treaty, there has still been no
discussion on the inadequacy of existing international legal
instruments to address these technological advancements, to justify
the broadcasters’ ask of an additional layer.</p>
<p>Finally, reiterating the Asia-pacific group, the canvassing of
this treaty should be balanced: it should take into account
commercial interests in copyright and right holders, and equally
important, it should also take into account other competing interests
in copyright, including the public interest in scientific, cultural,
social progress and promoting competition.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-11-16T13:37:41ZBlog Entry33rd SCCR: CIS Statement on the GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment
https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment
<b>Anubha Sinha, attending the 33rd Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 14 November, 2016 to 19 November, 2016, made this statement on the GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 18 November, 2016. </b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr.
Chair.</p>
<p>The Centre for
Internet and Society is a non-profit organisation in India that
undertakes research on internet and digital technologies from an
academic and policy perspective.</p>
<p>In an environment of
monopolies controlling the distribution of software and digital
services, which connect users and developers, such a comprehensive
study assumes significant importance.</p>
<p>Such a study/or a
parallel study after the scoping exercise must encompass the methods
in which such digital corporations are enforcing their own IP rules
on creators worldwide, and if there are fair systems in place to
address violations, and restoration of works unfairly taken down from
their platforms. It must be noted that there is a serious lack of
transparency as far as the conduct of such corporations go, and often
actions are taken without appropriate justification/explanation. Back
in India, I have met several creators who have suffered as a result
of such unilateral actions. In this, regard it will be useful to know
how creators in developing countries are impacted by rules enforced
by platforms largely situated in developed countries, which can help
us build a framework for the benefit of all, equally.</p>
<p>I welcome the
proposal.</p>
<p>Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.</p>
<p class="discreet"> </p>
<p class="discreet">Access the proposal <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_31/sccr_31_4.pdfhttp://">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-11-18T15:28:21ZBlog Entry29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities
<b>At the 29th session of WIPO's SCCR, the Chair, Martin Moscoso, requested NGOs to send in their statements on limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research institutions and persons with disabilities in writing, to be placed on the record. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent in this written statement.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As we have always maintained in the past sessions of this Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society strongly believes that everyone, regardless of borders and barriers, either physical, or those created by time, distance and costs should have access to knowledge and education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To that end, we strongly support the proposal made by India, earlier, on continuing constructive work in this area. We also welcome the suggestion by the Indian delegation on a synthesis of these issues (facilitated by an expert, through the Chair), so that we can have a constructive discussion on these issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, we are very mindful of the fact that there exists a very real, very demonstrable need for limitations and exceptions for education, teaching and research institutions and also for the benefit of persons with disabilities. There is also an equally crucial need to ensure that these limitations and exceptions are open ended and are appropriate for the digital environment; a conversation we believe that is imperative for Member Nations to take forward, definitely more so than one around granting a 'para-copyright' for organizations that already enjoy a great deal of protection under existing treaties, and are far less vulnerable than beneficiaries of these limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We thank the United States of America for their document- SCCR/27/8 on the Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. We appreciate the recognition of the copyright system in the dissemination of works of authorship as well as the critical role that it plays in the promotion of educational, teaching and research objectives. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of a balance of rights and exceptions and limitations sustaining the role and activities of educational, teaching and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, we do believe that for a true balance to be achieved between rights and limitations and exceptions, the rights of the users of copyrighted works for the purposes of access to knowledge will have to be treated on par with those of the rights holders themselves. We believe that for this to be possible, measures will have to be taken to ensure international interoperability of limitations and exceptions and international standards suitable to address emerging and present issues of the digital environment will have to be developed. As we have submitted before this Committee earlier, it is our belief that the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. Mr. Chair, we reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area, that will facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As a first step towards this end, we urge Member States to collaborate on and engage in substantive discussions building on existing Working Documents presently before this Committee. We look forward to an engaging discussion and providing all our complete support as we move forward on this very important agenda item.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-20T13:40:19ZBlog Entry29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty
<b>On Day 3 (December 10, 2014), the SCCR briefly re-convened at the Plenary. The Chair, Martin Moscoso updated the Committee on the discussions and the developments that had taken place over the course of the past two days in the Informals. The Centre for Internet and Society made a brief pointed intervention on one of the documents being discussed in the Informals.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note: <i>The documents cannot be made public yet. They were shared with Observers and Member States (even those that did not participate in the Informals) on the condition of maintaining confidentiality</i>.</p>
<hr />
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:</p>
<p>Thank you, chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First on the making available these documents, we would like to echo what CCIA and KEI said- we would also like to see the informal papers made public, so that we can have a more informed discussion on these issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, very briefly, on some of the rights to be granted- in one of the Informal Discussion Papers laid out, in -- in the third column, which are essentially fixation and post fixation rights, just very briefly, that whatever is done in any case after the signal is fixed is already covered by copyright law and we find it frightening and we see little sense in providing two sets of incompatible, and overlapping rights- copyright, that is already existing, and a sort of a para-copyright (that this treaty seeks to create) for the same underlying content.</p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-12T11:56:14ZBlog Entry29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made its intervention on the proposed treaty in the ongoing WIPO session on December 9, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Thank you, Mister Chair.</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This intervention will be based on the chart detailing the ‘Concepts’ corresponding to the Definitions. We believe that certain elements of these concepts are inconsistent with a broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach; and over the course of the next few minutes, I will briefly discuss these.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>First,</i></b><b> </b>Mr. Chair in the first column- on broadcasting or cablecasting organizations (in the traditional sense); where communication of the signal has been listed under scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, ‘communication’ itself is an element of copyright and is distinct from broadcast rights that are related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, may be broadcast or transmitted. Accordingly, Mr. Chair under the element of Scope of Responsibility, we are of the opinion that it should read Broadcast or Transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal; and the focus should not be at regulating communication to the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>Second, </i></b>Mr. Chair, in the second column- on broadcasting and cablecasting transmission- we have three observations. First- under the means of transmission, we believe that transmission over computer networks encompasses IP based transmissions, and should be excluded, in order for the treaty to remain consistent with a signals based approach. Second- on the reception of the broadcast or cablecast transmission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase ‘general public’. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public (say family members) could possibly be covered by the term “public”, but would be excluded from “general public”; which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not- which also flows into the third column on the Signal- and whether it is encrypted or not; which then also relates to whether broadcasting organizations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Mr. Chair, we don’t think that there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Given that signal theft is already a crime, having a specific right to prevent unauthorized decryption might result in an absurdity, where it could even cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This provision might result in an absurdity, where it would cover decrypting an unauthroised retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter, where the retransmission in the first instance was illegal to begin with.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>Finally</i></b>, Mr. Chair, on the third column and the meaning of signal- we submit that our preferred definition would be where the definition of a signal is confined, and it understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or cablecast and NOT one which has the capability of such a transmission, as stated in the third column in your Chart on concepts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaBroadcast TreatyIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-12T11:55:51ZBlog Entry29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention : Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on December 11 during one of the sessions in WIPO asked two questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2008, WIPO commissioned <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=109192">a study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives</a>.This was prepared by Prof. Kenneth Crews. On December 10-11, 2014, at SCCR 29, Prof. Crews presented <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=109192">an updated (2014) version of this study</a> and addressed comments and questions from Member States and Observers.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Statement:<br /><br />Thank you, Madam Chair.<br /><br />Thank you very much, Professor Crews for your presentation yesterday, and for this comprehensive study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, very timely, and very important to us, from the perspective of access to knowledge and information.<br /><br />I have two questions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">My first question: Did you find, in your examination, that, in terms of/ or on the question of limitations and exceptions, did you find, that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that lever of change lies to ensure that fair dealing provisions are extended equitably to the digital environment as well?<br /><br />My second question, is on the interoperability of Limitations and Exceptions: Given that copyright is a very national thing, and, as your study has also well established, countries have a whole range of very diverse approaches and practices on Limitations and Exceptions; but also given that we live in an increasingly globalized world, we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the trans-boundary movement of works, with as little friction as possible, both- in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So, what did your examination show us of how interoperable- or not- the range of Limitations and Exceptions actually are?<br /><br />Those are my two questions.<br /><br />Thank you very much.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Response by Prof. Kenneth Crews:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out. So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-14T02:56:46ZBlog Entry28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“the Committee” / "SCCR") took place in Geneva from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014. In this article, Nehaa Chaudhari, who attended this meeting on behalf of CIS, discusses the developments that took place with reference to the proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”).</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At its 28<sup>th</sup> Session, the WIPO SCCR devoted two and a half days to a discussion on the Broadcast Treaty. For the majority of this period informal discussions <b>(“Informals”</b>) were held between member states and there was no plenary. While Non- Government Organizations ( <b>“NGOs”</b>) and those member states who were not participating in the Informals were able to listen to the discussions taking place, we were requested to not report about them in any form whatsoever. Consequently, this article does not mention, cite or discuss the conversations in the Informals in any manner whatsoever, and is confined to deliberations at the plenary sessions.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Preliminary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Proceedings on Day 1 (June 30, 2014) began with a speech by the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry. Commending the “exceptional progress” made by the Committee over the past few years, Mr. Gurry cited the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/">Marrakesh</a> and <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/beijing/">Beijing</a> Treaties as success stories. In talking about the Broadcast Treaty, Mr. Gurry said that the then ongoing FIFA World Cup, 2014 was “the perfect example” for member states on the economic and social importance of broadcasting. He went on to add that the Broadcast Treaty was the last component of the international legal framework which had not been “updated for the digital environment”. Identifying the challenge as developing a shared understanding of what and how to protect, Mr. Gurry was of the opinion that the Committee would make progress on the development of an instrument that was narrow in scope to combat cross border digital piracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his statement following that of the Director General, the Chairperson, Edgar Martin Moscoso Villacorta (<b>“the Chair”</b>) explained that he had held consultations with the regional coordinators and three other nations from each group on June 27, 2014 to figure out how best to proceed at the upcoming 28<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee; before opening the floor to Regional Coordinators for their Opening Statements.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Group Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators : Reflections of a North-South Divide</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Opening statements by Regional Coordinators on behalf of their groups reflected sentiments similar to those witnessed at the 26<sup>th</sup> and 27 <sup>th</sup> Sessions of this Committee<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a>. While there was broad consensus on having a well-balanced work plan that addressed the different issues of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research and persons with disabilities, statements also reflected the disagreements between various groups on the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the various items on the agenda, largely along the fault-lines of the classic <i>Global North</i> v. the <i>Global South.</i> For instance, statements by the European Union (<b>“the EU”</b>) and Group B, the group of developed countries emphasised the convening of a diplomatic conference for the Broadcast Treaty, but on the other hand, statements by the groups of developing countries highlighted the importance of limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Regional Coordinator (presently, Paraguay) for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (<b>“GRULAC”</b>) placed emphasis on a “well balanced work plan which envisages the different issues” but also stated that for their group, “the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions (is) of the utmost importance.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The representative of Bangladesh, in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Group said that their group considered all issues to be equally important, notwithstanding the fact that they might enjoy different levels of discussion at the SCCR; and on the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations said that the group was “willing to work constructively” and hoped to continue “meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organizations and to advance further to a balanced international instrument of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organizations.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The statement of the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) Group, presently represented by the Czech Republic categorically stated that the CEBS Group was “striving for the successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organizations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the Diplomatic Conference to take place, as soon as possible, preferably in 2015.” (sic)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, in their statement recognised the “tradition…to allocate more time to discussion on more mature subject matters”, referring to the Broadcast Treaty and, like the CEBS Group, also touched upon the issue of convening a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union (<b>“the EU”</b>) has perhaps been one of the most vocal proponents of the Broadcast Treaty at past sessions of the Committee, and carried forward this tradition into the 28<sup>th</sup> session as well, labelling negotiations on the Broadcast Treaty “a high priority” for Member States. The EU also echoed the statements made by the CEBS Group as well as Group B on the need to call for a diplomatic conference “as soon as possible.” In order to achieve this, said the EU, there was a need to build a “broad consensus” on the problems that needed to be addressed as well as on the extent of protection envisaged.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Technical Assistance from Broadcasters</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States of America placed an emphasis on a treaty that would address challenges posed by new technologies, indicated in their request to the Secretariat to inform the member states about different sizes and types of broadcasters using new technologies by conducting a survey, recognising that a lot had changed over the course of the past 12 years, when a report on this issue was last prepared; a proposal which was supported by the delegation of India as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following these comments by the United States of America (but in an unrelated move), the Chair suggested technical assistance be sought from broadcasters. Surprisingly, he identified three NGOs (in this case associations of broadcasters), namely Asian Broadcasters Union, International Association of Broadcasters and National Association of Broadcasters, who could provide technical assistance if required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This stance was supported strongly by the delegations of Egypt and the Russian Federation. While it also found support from the Japanese delegation, it also pointed out that a mere presentation might bring about some confusion, and instead thought that it might be a better idea to update the studies commissioned by WIPO in 2002.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Resistance to this proposition was offered by the delegation of Venezuela who questioned the “expertize of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue” and “the selection criteria” among others. Exclaiming in surprise at the manner on which this proposal had been accepted, the delegate sough further clarifications on the issue, demanding to know “who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.” (sic.) The concern on the absence of transparency was also echoed by the delegate of Uruguay, who expressed his great “astonishment” at “three technical experts” at the session, saying that it was “most inappropriate” to be informed about the presence of technical experts after regional coordinators had earlier expressed their refusal to have such an exercise. In response, the Chair said that this was a decision that he had taken in response to a request for technical consultations made at the earlier session of the Committee. He went on to add that the Committee could do without the technical assistance if perceived to be unnecessary and the process not transparent.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Scope of Protection: Article 6</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Scope of Protection under the Broadcast Treaty is laid out under Article 6 of Working<a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_28/sccr_28_ref_sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Document 27/2/Rev.</a> (<b>“Working Document”</b>). <b> </b>This document lays out the text which forms the basis of the negotiations at the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Confining the Broadcast Treaty to a <i>signal based approach</i> versus broadening the scope of the treaty to a more technologically neutral <i>rights based approach</i> was the chief point of conflict between the developed and the developing nations, reflect in their statements discussed below.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Opening the proceedings, the United States of America (<b>“the US”/ “USA”</b>) placed complete support on the statement of Group B; but also added that the way forward “to finding consensus” was to “focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.” The US proceeded to outline its proposal of “a single right to authorise the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium.” Highlighting the key advantages to this proposal the US said that its proposal was “modern”, recognizing the importance of “new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy and avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions”. However, the US was also quick to clarify that the “right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast” and would also “avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast” as well as “avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India reiterated its serious concerns regarding webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks. Japan, on the other hand, while most other nations chose to reserve their comments for discussions in the Informals alone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the third day of this meeting, the Chair presented the progress that had been made over the course of the discussions taking place in the Informals. He said that webcasting had been removed from the scope of application. The concern, said the Chair, was that webcasting was also carried out by other actors- not just broadcasting organizations, and that having different rules for different actors carrying out the same activity would not be “a good message” (sic.)</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Rights of Broadcasters: Article 9</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Rights of Broadcasters under the Broadcast Treaty are laid out under Article 9 of the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_28/sccr_28_ref_sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Working Document</a>.<b> </b>The US said that it “remained convinced” that a narrow scope of rights would make it possible for the SCCR to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. The Russian Federation on the other spoke of the need to take into account the “appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, and the unauthorized use of the signal.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As in the case of the Scope of Application, in the case of Rights of Broadcasters as well, the Chair updated the plenary on the discussions in the Informals. The discussions were informed by two informal documents listing out the rights as well as the scope. While discussing the rights, said the Chair, it was decided to merge simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission since they were closely related. The rights sought to be granted to the broadcasters include those of fixation, reproduction of fixations, distribution of fixations and performance of the broadcast among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to the Chair’s invitation for suggestions, the delegate of Sri Lanka suggested that one of the sentences be rephrased as follows: “Transmission or retransmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium whether simultaneous, near simultaneous or deferred including on demand transmission on a broadcast signal.” She also added fixation rights should be granted only to that extent of a file being copied for the purpose of transmission, before it has been transmitted. A few other delegations either echoed similar sentiments, or chose to remain silent until the Informals.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Comments by NGOs</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the third (and the final for the Broadcast Treaty), day of discussions, the Chair opened the floor to interventions, observations and comments by NGOs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">AIR, representing broadcasting organizations spoke of the “great need” to update the Rome Convention because of the prevalence of piracy, especially transmissions over the internet. The National Association of Broadcasters cited instances of television piracy as examples of the harm to broadcasters and need for such a treaty. The Japanese Commercial Broadcasters Association expressed its support for post fixation rights and said that they were important to broadcasters, “especially the right of making available a fixed broadcast is crucial in order to fight online piracy which we said a number of times before…” (sic.). Also recognising the need to be flexible, the Japanese Commercial Broadcasters expressed their support to the proposal made by the Japanese delegation in making some rights optional.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A different set of concerns was articulated by other NGOs, who were not associations of broadcasters. Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue ( <b>“TACD”</b>) spoke of the possible “collateral damange to public access and culture” and the addition of “new layers of complications barriers and costs added” to access to information and knowledge by consumers. Further, highlighting the irony of the SCCR with the strong push towards a binding Broadcast Treaty “with a wide scope”, the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue said that this was in “stark contrast on the part of some other Member States to discussing new global norms” to facilitating the role played by libraries and archives. Additionally, TACD also said that there was the danger of “opening up an endless and incomprehensive Pandora box of overlapping rights on content between non creators of broadcasts and the real creators” (sic.), and also expressed grave concern over the negative impact of post fixation rights on the use of news, culture and information by consumers ad users. “In consideration of a new international norm for broadcasters, we must not forget the common food for the free flow of information for citizens,” said TACD. It also said that the focus of the work should not be to satisfy the interests of one special group while ignoring the possible negative unintentional consequences on “normal users”, and asked for a social impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International (<b>“KEI”</b>) in their statement stated that the broadcasters had failed to meet their burden of proving the need for “exclusive rights to fight piracy.” In order for the Committee to make progress, KEI suggested that the focus be on a “narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the key need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.” KEI also questioned and opposed the extension of broadcasters’ rights to cable television and other services which were not only subscription based, but were also protected under theft of service laws. Further confining the scope of the Broadcast Treaty, KEI suggested that the treaty only deal with over the air broadcasts which were free to the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A powerful statement by CCIA referred to fixed signals as “fiction” and said that the existing model in the Brussels Satellite Convention was adequate to protect piracy of signals. Echoing the sentiments of various other organisations as well (including CIS as discussed below), CCIA stated that while broadcasters had stated that the present approach was not adequate to protect their interests, no reasons had been offered fir the same. In agreement with other nations as well as TACD before it, CCIA also sought information from WIPO on the “real world impact of the obligations” it intended to create.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also joining the call for impact assessment was the Third World Network (<b>“TWN”</b>). TWN also spoke of restricting the scope of the Broadcast Treaty to the mandate accorded to the SCCR in line with the 2007 General Assembly decision, the need to base discussing on WIPO’s Development Agenda, and the “negative implications on the free flow of information over the Internet and the negative impact on the public domain and access to knowledge.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society (<b>“CIS”</b>), in agreement with CCIA pointed out that the broadcasters had not discharged their burden of justifying the need for the Broadcast Treaty and why “international instruments including, among others, the TRIPS and the Rome Convention” were insufficient to address the concerns of broadcasters. Joining other organizations including CCIA, TACD and TWN in a call for a further study, CIS requested an impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty on all stakeholders. Further, CIS pointed out that if the rationale for seeking this protection was the protection of the underlying investment, IP based transmissions should be out of the scope of this treaty, since the investments involved in IP based transmissions and those in broadcasting in a traditional sense were very different. CIS also strongly opposed the inclusion of fixation and post fixation rights since they were inconsistent with a <i>signals based approach</i> and pointed out the irony in protecting a signal for twenty years, when the signal itself lasted milliseconds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IFTA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance placed emphasis on the separation of the content and well as the broadcast signal as well maintaining a balance by also safeguarding public interest.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Chair’s Conclusions</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After five days of deliberations, the 28<sup>th</sup> Session of the SCCR, just like the 27<sup>th</sup> Session, ended with no conclusions being adopted by the Committee, as a result of which the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_28/sccr_28_ref_conclusions.pdf">Chair’s Conclusions</a> were prepared by the Chair, Martin Moscoso.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clarifying that this item would be maintained on the agenda for the 29<sup>th</sup> Session of the SCCR and that there had been no agreement on recommendations to the WIPO General Assembly, the Chair’s Conclusions state that the Committee conducted discussions on issues relating to “categories of platforms and activities to be included under the object and scope of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, and initiated discussions on definitions.” The Chair’s Conclusions also clarify that “the Secretariat was requested by some Members to provide an update of the 2010 study on “Current Market and Technology Trends in the Broadcasting Sector” (Document SCCR 19/12), focusing on the use of digital technology by cablecasting and broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense whether public or commercial, including in developing countries, with the aim of presenting the results of the study and providing opportunities for technical discussion at the 29th session of the SCCR.”</p>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> <i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1 (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ report on the 26<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
<p><i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for transcripts of the discussions at the 27 <sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
<p><i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 26<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
<p><i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 27<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-08-07T10:44:05ZBlog Entry25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Future work
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/25th-session-of-the-wipo-scp-statement-on-future-work
<b>Rohini Lakshané, attending the 25th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) held in Geneva from December 12, 2016 to December 15, 2016, made this statement on Agenda Item #12, "Future Work".</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, madam Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of my organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, India, I urge future SCPs to include the topics of standards as well as patents in the hardware and software domains. In many developed countries, the mobile phone is the only means of access to the Internet, and in turn, of access to knowledge and information. In a study published this year by CIS, we found that all mobile phone patents in India are owned by non-Indian entities. Like in the case of pharmaceuticals, we believe that a rise in prices should not drive affordable hardware out of the reach of the people. To that effect, I would like to reiterate that the SCP consider including this topic in future meetings.<br /><br />Thank you, madam Chair.</p>
<hr />
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/25-wipo-sccr-agenda.pdf">See the agenda</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/25th-session-of-the-wipo-scp-statement-on-future-work'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/25th-session-of-the-wipo-scp-statement-on-future-work</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-12-16T23:01:40ZBlog Entry25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Assessment of Inventive Step
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/twenty-fifth-session-of-wipo-scp-statement-on-assessment-of-inventive-step
<b>Statement emailed by Rohini Lakshané on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society to the Secretariat for the WIPO Standing Committee for the Law of Patents, Twenty Fifth Session, with reference to agenda item 7, "Sharing session on examples and cases relating to assessment of inventive step including, but not limited to, the topics suggested in document SCP/24/3, paragraph 8.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Based on submissions by various stakeholders, the Indian Patent Office released a new set of guidelines for patent examiners to examine Computer Related Inventions or CRIs, in February 2016. The guidelines, inter alia, introduced a new three-step test, which The Centre for Internet and Society, India, had proposed to the IPO in its submissions. The test determines the applicability of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, which excludes as inventions "a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The three-step test places a restriction on the patenting of software. An invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme per se. Only if the contribution of the claim lies in both the computer programme as well as hardware, it would be considered for other steps of patentability. All in all, the new guidelines are in compliance with the legislative requirement for patentability of software.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Innovation in electronic hardware as well as in software is cumulative and often involves building upon previous inventions. Various small and medium enterprises in their submissions had requested a strict standard for patentability of software inventions. We hope that the implementation of these guidelines would enable start-ups and small and medium enterprises to innovate without the fear of patent infringement litigation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Madam Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/twenty-fifth-session-of-wipo-scp-statement-on-assessment-of-inventive-step'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/twenty-fifth-session-of-wipo-scp-statement-on-assessment-of-inventive-step</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-12-16T22:27:03ZBlog Entry