The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 51 to 65.
At WIPO, Authors, Civil Society Watchful Of Rights For Broadcasters
https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-may-1-2014-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters
<b>The article by Catherine Saez was published in IP Watch on May 1, 2014. CIS statement on the broadcast treaty is mentioned.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The original article can be <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/05/01/at-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters/">read here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nongovernmental organisations attending the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee meeting which this week sought to breach differences on what a treaty protecting broadcasters should cover, expressed their views with some unusual coherence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is meeting from 28 April to 2 May.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The SCCR heard NGO statements on broadcasting on the second day of the meeting. Representatives of libraries, commercial television, authors, recording industry, actors, musicians, rights management bodies, film producers, and civil society gave their perspectives. Most of them called for limitations on the rights the treaty is proposing to grant broadcasters.</p>
<p><b>Broadcasters Deny Risks, Ask for Protection against Pirates</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Broadcasters’ organisations have contended that the treaty would respect authors’, performers’ and producers’ rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“All the right holders in the broadcast content automatically benefit from the broadcasters’ ability to take effective action against pirates,” says a document jointly written by several broadcasting organisations. “At the same time, content right holders are not refrained in exercising their own rights against third parties.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Association of Commercial Television (ACT) in Europe, which said it represents 33 media groups in Europe, both free-to-air channels and paying television channels, said a lot of members are simulcasting their signal on their website. All of their members, the representative said, are making their signal available to the public through catch-up television services. According to the database of the <a href="http://www.obs.coe.int/en/home">European Audiovisual Observatory</a>, there are 1,132 catch-up television services in Europe, the representative added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If those catch-up services were not to be protected by the treaty, it would be easy for pirates “to argue that they didn’t intercept the traditional signal but instead copied the on-demand signal of the broadcaster which would actually leave the broadcasters without any meaningful protection,” he said.</p>
<p><b>Authors Asks Recognition of Rights, Equitable Remuneration</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But doubts are still out there. The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) said royalties collected from broadcasters and other entities are major source of revenue for authors and the discussions on the broadcasters’ treaty was of key importance. CISAC represents 225 author societies which are referred to as collective management associations, from 120 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Protection for broadcasters should exist if and only if broadcasters themselves recognise and respect the rights of creators of the underlying content,” the CISAC representative said. The majority of royalties collected around the world on behalf of authors are collected for the communication to the public of their works, he said. Unfortunately, he added,” in a number of countries, authors still face reluctance from broadcasters to recognise authors’ rights and obtain licences for the content their transmit.” This is an issue that must be discussed in the context of any future broadcasters’ treaty, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A strong statement was delivered by the representative of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). One of the issues stemming from the discussions, he said, is the “inherent difficulties that arise when a broadcaster is given rights that seem to be very similar to the rights already enjoyed by those who created and own the rights to the content that they transmit.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Beyond that issue, he said the federation’s concern “relates to certain rights for broadcasters that go beyond the rights enjoyed by those who create the content that is carried on broadcasters’ signals.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IFPI asked that any broadcasting treaty considered by WIPO ensure that any grant of rights to broadcasters be made contingent upon respect and consideration for the rights and the interests of those whose content is carried on their signals. “It would be remarkable,” he said, “if a treaty for the protection of broadcasters gave broadcasters rights relating to musical recordings that are superior to the rights of those who create and produced those recordings. However, the current draft text threatens to do just that,” he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the treaty gives broadcasters the right to prevent certain uses of their signals, he said, it should also “ensure that performers and producers of sound recordings enjoy either the right to prevent the use of their recordings by broadcasters or the right to equitable remuneration from broadcasters who use those recordings.”</p>
<p><b>Broadcasters Seen As Free Riders by Some </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IFPI representative also remarked on the 1996 WIPO <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295578#P143_21677">Performances and Phonograms Treaty</a> (WPPT), which he said gave the opportunity to countries to opt out of their obligation to give performers and producers of phonograms equitable remuneration from broadcasters. Later, the representative told <i>Intellectual Property Watch</i> that the United States and China had chosen to opt out.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“A treaty that requires signatories to give protection to broadcasters, while the same broadcasters could continue to broadcast recorded music without having to pay for that music or to obtain permission from those who own the rights in that music,” he said, “would be a treaty that condones misappropriation of creative content … for commercial gain, the very conduct that broadcasters purport to seek to curtail in pressing for a treaty.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He later told <i>Intellectual Property Watch</i> that the committee should seek to address the loophole of the WPPT.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Actors said audiovisual work including feature films and television series add “great economic value” to the signal of broadcasters. Although sharing an interest in protecting the broadcasters’ signal, the representative said some of the proposals on the table go “beyond what we believe is necessary to protect a broadcast signal,” and blur the line between the protection of the signal and the protection of the content carried by that signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Musicians followed the same line and said it would be “incoherent” if broadcasting organisations were granted new rights by WIPO members “which violate those of the creators.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“If piracy is the appropriation of a right from legitimate owners of that right, what are we seeing when broadcasters exploit musical recordings for which they make no payment to the performers or the producers of phonograms?” he asked.<br /> According to the British Copyright Council, “an ability for a broadcasting organisation to prevent the misuse of its signal is … important for all rights holders who lie behind the authorisation of the signal.” But he also added that granting protection to broadcasters should also permit the underlying right owners “to continue to assert their own exclusive rights or their rights to equitable remuneration from broadcasters.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Film Producers Association (FIAPF) said exclusive rights support the creativity of authors and allow film producers to get the funding they need to transform that creative ability into a cultural product. Broadcasters are important partners in the film production and distribution chain in many countries, the representative said. Although supportive of updating the protection for broadcasters, FIAPF called for a formulation of the treaty text that would avoid confusion between broadcasters’ rights and rights to audiovisual content.</p>
<p><b>Libraries, Civil Society Worried</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The representative of the Electronic Information for Libraries and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions said both organisations see “no compelling public policy reason for a new international instrument on the protection of broadcasting organisations, because piracy of broadcast signals is already adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties.” An additional layer of rights that could affect access to content is of great concern to librarians, she said, as it “imposes an additional barrier to access to knowledge, especially to content in the public domain.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) compared the potential treaty to an unidentified flying object “that has been buzzing around this room for years.” The representative said TACD “opposes the idea of granting any new layer of IP rights for broadcasters that would make it more expensive and more complex to legally obtain access and use of information.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fixation rights if not clearly limited could create problems for consumers, he said, adding that TACD supports strong exceptions to any new rights to protect access to works and their use.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Center for Internet and Society also expressed concern on Article 9 of the draft treaty (Protection of broadcasting organisations) which they said could give broadcasters rights over the content that is being carried by the signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International said the treaty was not “about copyright piracy but a special ride for broadcasters,” and warned against creating new layers of rights, which could create more obligations for consumers, libraries and businesses to pay more money not to copyright holders but to the distributors of content.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-may-1-2014-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters'>https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-may-1-2014-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T11:36:15ZNews ItemCIS Statement (on Technological Measures of Protection) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on May 2, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Technological Measures of Protection", which is topic 9 of <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-26.pdf" class="internal-link">Working Document SCCR 26/3</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We believe that in an environment where much of the preservation and dissemination of knowledge by libraries and archives is in the digital format, having a limitation and exception provision as regards this particular provision of TPMs in this international instrument is integral; and we echo the Canadian Library Association and The Charted Institute of Library and Information Professionals among others on the need for such an exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TPMs have the potential to override any fair use or fair dealing exceptions in copyright; and would render much of the discussion that we have been having over the past two days and at earlier sessions of this Committee, redundant, were where such an exception not to be talked about along with other exceptions that we are discussing for libraries and archives. TPMs may prevent end users from using works in ways that are allowed under fair use or fair dealing provisions- permitted exceptions in copyright law. If for instance, TPMs were in place on master copies of files that were obtained by libraries and archives, these institutions would not be allowed to carry out basic preservation activities such as file format migration which in turn would limit the life span of the master files in question and also render access to these files difficult (if that's the word that I could use); which in turn defeats the very purpose of preservation and access to knowledge by libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore Mr. Chair, we think that the suggestion echoed — that the suggestion made by KEI earlier, that Article 7 of the Marrakech Treaty that deals with TPMs would be a logical — could be a logical step forward, and we think that there is merit in that statement, and we would like to align ourselves with that statement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T11:18:23ZBlog EntryCIS Statement (on Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works out of Commerce) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on May 1, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works Out of Commerce", which is topic 7 of <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-26.pdf" class="internal-link">Working Document SCCR 26/3</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mister Chair, we will be addressing this topic on two levels:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>First</i>, the need for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives for orphan, retracted and withdrawn works and works out of commerce.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Second</i>, the need for these limitations and exceptions to be a part of an international legal instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the first level, Mr. Chair- we are of the opinion that this limitation and exception is necessary for libraries and archives to be able to perform their key functions- the preservation and dissemination of knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This exception speaks to a very complex environment- One where the owner of a work cannot be located despite an exhaustive search and therefore digitazation cannot take place because to do so would be copyright infringment; one where the volumes of works that we’re speaking of are anywhere between 10 and 70 percent of the collections of some libraries (these figures are based on reports released by various libraries, library associations and others, that are available online); one, where rights information of works is lacking; and an environment where works have been withdrawn for a variety of reasons. The outcome which commonly arises as a result of all of these is that works are not available to the public, in turn affecting access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, which is one of the basic purposes of copyright. Any interpretation or understanding of copyright ought to be one that aids in the achievement of this purpose, as opposed to deviating from it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the second level, Mr. Chair- we believe that there is a need for an international legal instrument to govern these limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have heard the statements made to this Committee by various Hon’ble delegations today and at earlier sessions of this Committee. What emerges, as KEI said earlier, is that there is a lack of uniformity in national legislations and approaches in addressing this issue. What also emerges is that the current copyright framework in some developing and least developed countries does not adequately address these issues. Therefore, Mr. Chair, as we have stated at earlier Sessions of this Committee- to be able to harmonize these limitations and exceptions, to ensure that these limitations and exceptions have a cross border effect, and hopefully to have discussions that we have here are influence national law making and state practice (also, as KEI said earlier), we believe that an international legal instrument that deals with among others the exception we are discussing in Topic 7, is very important.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s all we have to say at the moment, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T11:21:05ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 27 Text (April 29, 2014)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-05T00:30:39ZFileTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 27
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 27th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note: This is an unedited transcript of the discussions at SCCR 27. We are hosting the text for archival purposes:</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ul>
</ul>
<p>Day 1: April 28, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-1-april-28-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 2: April 29, 2014:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt" class="external-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-day-2-april-29-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 3: April 30, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-3.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussion-transcripts-day-3.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 4: May 1, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-may-1-2014.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-day-4-may-1-2014.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Day 5: May 2, 2014</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-05-02-sccr-27.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-5.pdf" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 27 PDF</a></li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>Click for <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty" class="internal-link">WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty</a></p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-25T04:50:59ZBlog EntryReport on the WIPO Director General’s Meeting with NGO’s
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-wipo-director-general-meeting-with-ngos
<b>The Director General’s meeting with NGO’s was held on March 25, 2014. This is an annual meeting where accredited NGO’s have an opportunity to have a one on one discussion with the Director General on issues that concern them.</b>
<p>The webcast of the meeting can be <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=31743">found here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This year’s meeting featured queries on a whole range of issues from mainstreaming the development agenda recommendations to the number of WIPO meetings. The Director General engaged in a frank exchange of views with NGO representatives and stressed the importance of NGO’s in WIPO’s work.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Opening Statement</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The meeting kicked off with a statement by the Director General. He reported that the demand for IP titles was greater than the world economy- citing the growing number of patent and trademark applications. He also commended the SCCR in concluding the Marrakesh Treaty and said that the engagement and alignment of civil society actors was crucial to the signing of the Treaty. He also noted the role of the World Blind Union and the publishing community in supporting the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Director General also had updates on the work of various committees for the 2014-15 biennium. With respect to the Design Law Treaty in the SCT, he stated that the US and Canada had accepted the possibility of an article on technical assistance but not as a condition to convene a diplomatic conference. On the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR, he said that a lot of work needs to be done and that the SCCR needs to decide if a Treaty with a narrower scope is feasible and if a Diplomatic Conference has to be convened in September. On the IGC, he stated that this committee was WIPO’s greatest political risk and that the Committee must find a way to deliver on a project that has been on since 2001.On the Lisbon Agreement, the Director General stated that 28 States had agreed to renew the agreement and the new agreement would cover GI and Appellations. He noted that this was a huge step forward as GI’s become more and more valuable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition, he noted three areas of interest for the future work of the WIPO:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Balance between collaboration and competition: The Director General noted that there should be greater emphasis on collaboration and competition at the WIPO. He called for emphasis on cooperation, open innovation in global value chains. At the same time he stated that IP also creates competition. He stated that the tension between competition and collaboration should be under consideration in the future as it is growing into a major geopolitical issue.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Digital Economy: The Director General said that Member States should engage on the impact of an increasingly digital world on the environment. While this issue has been under discussion since the 90’s, there have been new developments that need further consideration. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Appropriate Technology: The Director General commented on the passive transfer of technology and said that there is a knowledge gap between having technology and knowing how to use it, and this should be kept in mind in future wok.</li>
</ol>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Q&A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following the opening statement, the Director General fielded questions from NGO representative. Below is a summary of a few notable responses from the Director General.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On a question regarding the mainstreaming of the Development Agenda, the Director General said that it is up to the Members to decide how to make the Development Agenda normative. But he pointed out that both the Beijing and Marrakesh Treaties refer to the Development agenda in their text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to a question on future plans and projects on public health and IP, he said that the WIPO is encouraging research projects on the issue. He also pointed out that the WTO, WIPO and WHO are engaged in an active collaboration on this issue and had also organised a seminar on it. He also said that the three Director Generals had published studies on the topic.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">MSF made a number of interventions on the issue of public health. They argued that ongoing WIPO research did not meet the needs for medical innovation and that there was need for serious rethink on how to make it work better. They also said that the focus of WIPO research was currently only on LDC’s and this left out developing countries and consequently a large number of people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response the Director General said that the WIPO could only “build with what it’s got” and said that they should engage with more parties and with what they do. He also said that they are beginning to engage with middle income countries. He also said that WIPO research was free and that it could be easily shared and the fee was only if there was a sale.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">MSF also called for a change on the nature of technical assistance as there were repeated seminars on anti-counterfeiting measures with little or no focus on the quality of medicines. On this, the Director General agreed with MSF and said that the larger problem was quality assurance which needed to be addressed, but he also pointed out that WIPO as an IP agency could not get into the issue of quality assurance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He also fielded a question from the author on making WIPO sessions more accessible with the possible use of remote participation in the future. The Director General said that this was a good idea, but he pointed out that this was up to the Members to consider and possibly implement. He also noted that it was only recently that WIPO started webcasting meetings and that there would be issues of time management with remote participation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On a question about the increasing number of meetings at the WIPO, the Director General acknowledged that this was a problem and that the respective Committees had to decide if it was essential to convene a meeting ever so often. But he also pointed out that the Secretariat cannot interfere in such matters and could only facilitate discussion on these issues. He also said that it might be better if experts met regularly to discuss technical issues and negotiators met only when an issue had matured.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On a further question on the number of documents being released for every meeting and their increasing length, the Director General joked that it was unlikely that anyone under the age of 30 would read all the documents. He said that this is an issue that should be looked into.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-wipo-director-general-meeting-with-ngos'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-wipo-director-general-meeting-with-ngos</a>
</p>
No publisherpuneethAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-04-30T05:33:27ZBlog EntryCIS Statement at 27th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on April 29, 2014.</b>
<p>This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on the Scope of the Treaty and the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. The statement makes references to a specific Working Document <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-27-cis-wipo.pdf" class="internal-link">available here</a>. CIS statement is quoted in <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1994">Knowledge Ecology International</a> on April 29, 2014 and in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/05/01/at-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters/">Intellectual Property Watch</a> on May 1, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal. Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach, which we believe is the mandate binding on this Committee. <br /> <br /> That is all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.<br /> <br /> In response to CIS' statement, the Chair had this to say:<br /> <br /> <i>Thank you, CIS,. That was a very clear statement and gave us a very clear explanation of the situation. We will indeed take due account of that in the course of this afternoon's further discussion. </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-01T14:27:48ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 3 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 3 of 3) summarizes Day 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts. </b>
<hr />
<p><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr />
<h2>Day 5 – 26th SCCR</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The agenda for the final day of the 26th SCCR was set as limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Trinidad and Tobago</b>, speaking on behalf of the GRULAC group of nations, supported the idea of an international convention on this agenda. It was of the opinion that such an instrument would work for the benefit of the economic development and socioeconomic enablement of millions of people in the GRULAC region. <b>Algeria</b>, speaking on behalf of the African Group, emphasized the digitalization of education, research and living across the world and the impact that this has on the right of peoples of all nations to access knowledge. Responding directly to sustained opinion from the developed world of the absence of a need for an international convention, Algeria spoke about the need for balance and uniformity in regulations. This balance between the right to access knowledge and to protect intellectual property is often achieved through the concept of limitations and exceptions. This balance also requires uniformity because conflicting cross-border norms in our digitally borderless world would render the ameliorative effects of limitations and exceptions moot. Further, the Berne Convention has proved to be of minimal help since interpretations have emerged of its dissonance with the tools needed for distance education. Therefore, in order to cover the digital dimension of limitations and exceptions, an international treaty is critical. In the words of the Algerian delegate, “We know that the balance between Intellectual Property rights and public interest are generally translated by exceptions and limitations. Unfortunately in the area of education and scientific research, national legislation does not seek this balance in a uniform and comprehensive manner.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The delegate also responded to concerns about the text proposed by the African Group. The proposal, he said, was a text-oriented tool to find an apt balance. Further, it was also imbibed with a certain degree of flexibility to allow for its adaption to the needs of development as understood by nations, various kinds of copyright protections and various treaties in literary and artistic property. Furthermore, the African Group wished for this text, if adopted, to move on the principle of consensus and expressed a willingness to incorporate any constructive concerns that delegates may have in order to stay true to the ideal of consensus-based diplomacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A number of developing and developed countries supported the need for greater discussion at the international paradigm on the topic of limitations and exceptions, and also the swift adoption of an international instrument in this respect. <b>Kenya</b> and the <b>Islamic Republic of Iran</b> put their weight behind the African Group, emphasizing similar values of digitalization of information and communication, right to access knowledge, public interest and need for an international instrument. <b>Tunisia </b>also supported the notion that an international instrument would lead to the harmonization of standards and benefit the international community.<b><i> China</i></b> came out in strong support of further negotiations. <b>Russia</b> noted that it was in support of a single document for limitations and exceptions that covers within its ambit the entire gamut of protections discussed at this forum. Further, it also supported the contention of the Japanese delegation that the international instrument should not include contentious issues such as instance liability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is also pertinent to note that <b>Japan</b>, on behalf of Group B, came out against the idea of a treaty based approach to the negotiations, much preferring “constructive work on principles and updating of studies by the Secretariat”. The <b>European Union</b> submitted that the extant international copyright framework was both adequate and ideal for the needs of both the digital and analog world of education, research and needs of persons with other disabilities. The EU proceeds to draw a distinction between the needs of educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities vis-à-vis needs of persons with visual and print impairment. In drawing this distinction, it seeks to achieve principled coherence across its support for the Marrakech Treaty and its opposition to any treaty on limitations and exceptions. It expressed concern that the working document was not an accurate reflection of the views of those countries that were of the opinion that present negotiations should be confined to the sharing of national experiences. Given the diversity in domestic regulations, any international treaty should seek to achieve domestic regulatory harmony and then proceed, assuming that the need argument fails to hold water.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <b>Indian</b> delegate submitted that the discussions were in furtherance of earlier deliberation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. There was a dire need to understand libraries and education not in a parochial, institutional sense but in a broad and enabling manner to meet the needs of developing and least developed nations. Both the material and transmission should be covered in order for distance learning to be enabled in any meaningful manner. Further, it was also of the opinion that an expansion of ISP liability is needed, citing the IT Act in support of this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this point, the developing nations made their voice heard in opposition to the fundamental premise of the ongoing negotiations – that an international treaty is a worthwhile goal to work towards. <b>Poland</b>, on behalf of the CEBS Group, commecnced his statement by taking cognizance of the importance of educational and research institutions and activities in our society and economy. The delegate recognized the existence of the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation. Proceedings from this premise, it was the view of the CEBS Group that the best way to hone this innovation is by establishing a robust and strong system of intellectual property. Further, it went on to draw the link between the critical activities of distance learning, collaborative research with the activities of publishing and other aspects of the creative sector. Copyright policies therefore have to also take into the account the economic and social effects of not enabling access to research. The CEBS Group argued for a balanced copyright approach. It went on to support the idea of each WIPO member incorporating enabling limitations and exceptions within their domestic copyright regimes through a mutual sharing of best practices and national experience using multilateral for a such as this one. It was of the belief that modern copyright systems should provide for efficacious licensing mechanisms that are flexible, supportive and enabling to education, research and teaching activities as well as the needs of persons with other disabilities. Supporting the values emphasized by the developing world does not necessarily require the adoption of a binding international instrument. It concluded that the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of limitations and exceptions should not come at the flexibility that is conventionally afforded to WIPO member states to determine their own educational, research and teaching policies and norms to enable the lived experience of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <b>United States</b> started by submitting their own document – SCCR/23/4 – on objectives and principle for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. The US chose to further the CEBS submission by underscoring the potency of the extant copyright regime – Berne Convention 1886 and WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996. Both have a balance between copyright and education and have the promotion of education, research and teaching as their stated goals. Therefore, notwithstanding the contention that they are anachronistic given the digitalization of information and communication, it is possible to accommodate contemporary needs within existing regimes. The US stated that it was of the opinion that finding common ground on principles and an examination of the diverse national treatment of the issue of limitations and exceptions would render a more productive, positive solution than foisting a treaty or international legal instrument on the domestic regimes of WIPO members. It was of the opinion that this would “permit progress by promoting steps forward on shared goals and principles while enhancing international understanding and maintaining flexibility at the national level. We do not support work towards a treaty.” It also went on to voice concerns about the inclusion of controversial and broad areas of protection within the rubric of the treaty – topics such as public health and ISP liability were causing much consternation to the delegate of the United States. A plethora of reasons were advanced by the US that articulated its layered opposition to this entire process. There was a concern that given fundamental differences of opinion, inclusion of contentious protection would be pernicious to the negotiation itself. It was also of the opinion that a lot of the provisions had only incidental relevance to the central question of education and rights of persons with other disabilities would distract the nations from the purpose of the proposed international instrument. This proliferation of protections would in turn harm the considerable economic, social and political capital invested in the negotiation process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Senegal</b> affirmed the idea of an international agreement on limitations and exceptions. It believed that the contemporary is far removed from the world in which the Berne Convention and extant international copyright regime was conceptualized. Therefore, Senegal was in favour of a flexible international instrument that responded to digitalization and was proactive rather than reflexive. <b>Sudan</b> also threw its weight behind the African Group proposal and offered a scathing critique of the exclusivist tendencies of the contemporary copyright regime. It called for “efforts to break the current situation faced by certain countries in communication or in building the infrastructure and bridging the digital gap.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Columbia</b>, on the other hand, spoke about the need to understand if there is a lacuna in the present international copyright regime and understand the implications of adding to existing corpus of limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this juncture, the Chair opened the floor for contributions from <b>civil society representatives</b>. <b>Knowledge Ecology International</b> focussed its submissions on three foci – specific exceptions, three-step test and the corporate system. KEI acknowledged the raft of protections for limitations and exceptions within existing copyright structures but articulated the need for specific exceptions. Further, it reasoned out the incompatibility of the Berne three-step test with the needs of contemporary knowledge creation, research and access. Transplanting the Berne Convention to this context would render it moot and have far-reaching pernicious consequences on the international community’s reactions to dire questions of access particularly in the developing and developed world. KEI acknowledged the underlying premise of US/EU/Group B objections to an international instrument by pointing out the difference in national treatment of limitations and exceptions. As a response to this legitimate concern, it suggested that complimentary confidence building measures such as a multi-stakeholder platform work alongside the treaty negotiations so as to ensure that it is an inclusive process that alienates no stakeholder.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>IFRRO</b> came out in strong support of the position against an international treaty. It stated that in pursuit of limitations and exceptions, one must not lose sight of the legitimate rights that creators have over their work. Diluting that principle would do harm to the idea of copyright and by extension creative and innovative thought. In support of this contention, studies were cited that showed a causal link between IP protection and income of authors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Centre for Internet and Society</b> underscored the value of universal access to education and knowledge. Information and communication technology in the contemporary carry the tantalizing prospect of the realization of this ideal without excessive expenditure. It is also critical for this access question to be all-inclusive, for “formal and informal institutions and for environments and in digital and non-digital formats”. The experience of developing and least developed nations is a feeling of exclusion from the silos of knowledge in the west and it falls upon the international community to disrupt these silos to ensure equitable access to knowledge and, as a consequence, power. Individuals in these countries not only have to spend more on each book but have to spend a higher proportion of household income on it vis-à-vis Western households. The present international copyright framework lacks the ability to facilitate the realization of this ideal for three reasons. <i>First</i>, the myopic and complex compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Convention. <i>Second</i>, the incompatibility of the three step test to contemporary limitations and exceptions. And finally, the need for harmonization of national practices and facilitation of cross-border exchange of information and knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On being called on by the <b>United States, Ecuador </b>and <b>Egypt</b>, it was decided that the Secretariat would study the possibility of a study on the ambit of copyright and related rights as also limitations and exceptions for persons with disability and from the perspective of learning concerns. It was also decided that the Secretariat would update regional studies on limitations and exceptions for educational, research and teaching institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The next session, SCCR 27, would focus on a discussion on exceptions and limitations with a focus on libraries and archives.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Draft Conclusions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft conclusions to this year’s SCCR was put up by the Chair for comments by all members. Belarus and CEBS fully supported the text and praised it for its balanced approach. The United States also supported it but requested an edit to Paragraph 6 Line 4 – a ‘to be defined’ in parenthesis after the words ‘on demand transmissions’. India expressed gratitude that everyone’s views were taken into account in the draft conclusions and asked for two edits. It stated that parts of the discussion on Article 9 were absent from the text. Further, the words beneficiaries in the draft conclusions was included when it had no definition in the document. Finally, it suggested that the word last line in paragraph 5 be changed to might or may. The Chair responded to India’s concerns on paragraph 5 by directing attention to the word ‘if’ in the text. Ecuador and Brazil both supported India’s opinion that the word should be may or might and not should. India submitted that this is not simply an editorial or cosmetic change but one that reflected a substantive issue. Ecuador also stated that countries might in the future want to include internet transmissions and the word should conditions the negotiations, lending it a restrictive air. Brazil also stated that it was crucial for the text to be both balanced and reflective of every stakeholder’s concerns. India stated that this was a demand from two or three groups. The lack of consensus on this point implies that the word should be may and not should. The EU, US, Japan, Switzerland and Poland (on behalf of the CEBS) supported the text <i>in toto</i>- a tacit snub to India’s suggestion. Italy stated that the word ‘if’ in the text provides the kind of flexibility that India is seeking and that altering the word should to may would rob the provision of meaning and be grammatically grotesque. Looking for alternatives, India also requested that the words ‘at least’ be deleted in order for some aspect of its concerns to be taken into account. Belarus characterized the text as entirely factual and accurate portrayal of the negotiations that took place-gave its support to the entire text. The Chair then offered an explanation of the terminology and showed how the wording allowed for both possibilities of inclusion and exclusion of transmission over the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian then turned attention to the lack of a definition to the word beneficiaries. The Chair acknowledged India’s concerns and accepted the US suggestion to add the words ‘to be defined’ after both beneficiaries and on demand transmissions. Brazil also suggested traditional broadcasting/cablecasting or broadcasting/cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense as possible ways to word the text. The EU requested the Chair for some language suggestions on how best to resolve this. The proposals (and not issues, after a request from India) on Articles 5,6,7,9 and 12 were added to the annex. After the incorporation of all these concerns and compromises, the Chair approved this section.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries and Archives</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, the United States made two suggestions. <i>First</i>, that the word may be removed from paragraph 18 as it detracta from the nature of the deliberation on that point. <i>Second</i>, the inclusion of the phrase “other proposals submitted” in paragraph 21. Brazil stated that it stood for the draft conclusions to be a clear picture of the positions adopted by WIPO members. In this light, it called for the inclusion of the names of member states that wished to discuss national laws in paragraph instead of the nebulous phrase ‘some member states’. He also requested a clarification on the last line of paragraph 16. Trinidad and Taboga indicated that it was adopting a flexible approach; it supported the suggestions by the US and Brazil but were also willing to work with the text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union wanted the word ‘also’ to be removed from paragraph 14. It also suggested that the final sentence of paragraph 16 be “these studies will serve as information and work resources for the committee”. Ecuador agreed with the US working document. It was of the opinion that the document should better reflect a spirit of compromise. On limitations and exceptions for museums, given the study reflected in the plenary for persons with other disabilities – there was a discrepancy between the discussions and the text. One was with the understanding that it was subject to the availability of resources while the other implied that it was mandatory in nature. The EU wanted licensing to be included in the text. The US thanked Ecuador for working out a compromise on the language and accepted it. Algeria expressed its desire to stick to the language proposed by the Chair on paragraph 13.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Brazilian delegate called for flexibility on paragraph 14 in light of the proposal by the EU delegation on the point of discussion on national laws. The United States responded that it didn’t quite follow the position being adopted by the Brazilian delegate on paragraph 14 and much preferred a return to the text originally adopted by the Chair. Egypt pointed out the possible confusion that could emerge between paragraph 16 and 21, and in light of this expressed a willingness to engage in a full scale discussion on proposals from Canada and the EU. The EU responded directly to paragraph 14 in particular. It spoke out against the idea of listing the WIPO members that asked for a discussion on national laws as this would be against WIPO practice both in other parts of the same document as well as in other deliberations. EU stated that it saw no need to list out WIPO members and stood firmly against it. Brazil responded with a modicum of alarm at the opposition to the simple proposal to introduce the elements of precision in a document that is meant to be factual. It is far better for readers to understand the precise picture rather than having a general understanding of issues. Italy, Belarus and Greece threw their collective weight behind the EU opposition to this. All stated that this would be highly inappropriate and would amount to the singling out of the EU and other nations that took a stance, something that they didn’t see a need for. The US proposed a compromise where instead of naming the member states, ‘some member states’ would be used. Brazil said that this term was not just nebulous but could give the wrong impression to future delegates of the precise number of states that wished for discussion on national laws. Ecuador played the role of the voice of reason and stated that the progress of negotiations shouldn’t be hampered because of such a cosmetic set of differences. There was no need for the level of precision that was exemplified by the naming of WIPO members. Instead, it stated that it advocated for a general references to nations that asked for a discussion on national laws. This general reference was supported by Algeria and finally adopted by the Chair as a compromise between the opposing factions. On paragraph 16, the Chair called for the part on limitations and exceptions on museums to be deleted with the understanding that there would be an update by Professor Kenneth Cruz that would include all aspects of this issue. On paragraph 14, the Chair was in favour of the compromise suggested by the United States. It stated that in using the word ‘some’ no particular number or indication thereof was intended and that caveat was always there; instead what was only meant through the word ‘some’ was that the number of was more than one. Asked for Brazil to show some flexibility in this situation. Egypt raised the important issue of not conflating the fundamental disagreement on the nature of the proposed instrument and the desire to have discussions on national laws. It stated that in case both were being included, they be mentioned in separate paragraphs because a conflation would lead to misplaced conclusions being drawn.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deliberations on paragraph 16 ensued and the Chair clarified that on paragraph 16, the first and third sentence were being retained while the second was done away with. Ecuador asked for thereto be no confusion between studies on limitations and exceptions and those on museums. Its objection does not extend to the latter. The Chair suggested that all references to museums be deleted. Algeria wanted the words on preparation not being delayed to be retained and applied to all studies being proposed. US agreed with the Chair’s proposal but added that perhaps a separate study on limitations and exceptions on museums be included. Algeria insisted that this principle be applicable to all studies and not just studies on museums. The Chair stated that a separate study on limitations and exceptions for museums be included with the understanding that this would not delay general discussions on limitations and exceptions. The last sentence was also retained. With this, deliberations on this topic were closed.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Limitations and Exceptions For Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other Disabilities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union delegate stated that it was in support of the inclusion of the point on licensing as an appropriate point in the text. Sharing Algeria’s concern, it also called for the deletion of the word ‘understood’ in paragraph 23. Algeria had earlier raised a problem with the use of the word ‘understood’, preferring the phrase ‘agreed on’. The EU also called for the text to be accurate reflection of the negotiations. Brazil responded to the concerns of the EU delegate by stating that he would not be in support of a suggestion that this document not be the basis for future work on this topic. Ecuador supported Brazil’s point on this being a text-based negotiations and that this should be the basis for future deliberations. Brazil also expressed a bewilderment at the EU insistence of the inclusion of the point on licensing. It asked for its relevance in an agreement on educational institutions; a clarification was sought from the EU. The EU responded that it was of the opinion that we’re dealing with related subjects that deserve equal treatment. In this context, since licensing was included in the previous agreement, it must also be reflected in these conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Egypt supported the Chair’s language in paragraph 23. Further, it went on to attempt a compromise by suggesting that this text be not <i>the</i> basis for future text-based work but <i>a </i>basis. This would lend the issue a degree of much-needed flexibility. The US, on the side, supported the EU on including licensing schemes. The EU responded favourably to the compromise suggested by Egypt and said that a text where the word <i>the</i> is replaced by <i>a</i> is one that is agreeable to the EU.</p>
<p>The Chair outlined the three issues as</p>
<ul>
<li>The word ‘the’ in Item 27</li>
<li>The inclusion of the point on licensing and the tussle between the EU (arguing for inclusion, supported by the US) and Brazil (against the inclusion).</li>
<li>The point of this being the basis for future text-based negotiations and the compromise suggested by Egypt and accepted by the EU.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A compromise was worked out on licensing where the words “but other delegations do not see it that way” be included as a rider. Differences on points 1 and 3 were also ironed out as the Egyptian compromise was accepted. On this point, the third section was approved and deliberations came to an end.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Other Matters</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was announced that the reports of the Stakeholders’ Platform – SCCR/26/5 and SCCR/26/7 – be put up on the web page. Finally, suggestions were wielded and discussed for future meetings of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was agreed that SCCR 27 would be dedicated to the protection of broadcasting organizations (two-and-half days), limitations and exceptions (two days) and conclusions and discussions on future work (half a day).</p>
<hr />
<h3>Additional Links</h3>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes</a> (Part 1 of 3).</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes</a> (Part 2 of 3) </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-04-01T09:48:59ZBlog EntryBroadcast Treaty: An Overview
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview
<b>In this blog post, CIS intern Varun Baliga, a third year law student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, presents an overview of the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, currently being deliberated by nations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR).</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Negotiations on the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”) (draft circulated for discussion at the 26<sup>th</sup> SCCR available here- <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf</a>) were initiated for the purpose of protecting such organizations from signal piracy. For a broadcasting organization, their signal is the prime source of revenue. Therefore, state intervention at the international level was required to quell the transnational issue of signal piracy. Moves by a majority of nations indicated that the mood was in favour of drafting a treaty that would codify certain protections for broadcasting organizations in the form of rights. The obvious concerns that arose were the nature and scope of those rights. Overbroad rights often posed significant obstacles to the free flow of information. A number of developing nations were concerned that the latest move was a further entrenchment of the colonization of information and knowledge. It was in the common interest to balance the dire need to combat signal piracy in order to maintain the integrity of the business of broadcasting organizations while at the same time ensuring that it doesn’t come at the cost of the access to the information itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the perspective of the Global South, the focus of the text was Article that protected possible action that states may take in the public interest. The South was interested in elevating the status of the public interest to that of an aspiration that states must seek to live up to. So, public interest must continue to guide even negotiations that seek to protect the interests of multinational corporations. The Broadcast Treaty also protects against the restriction of free flow of technology and access to the same in Article 4. One of the sticking points of negotiations has been the nature and scope of the protection that is to be offered to broadcasting organizations. India, among other countries, has advocated for a strict signal-based approach to the protection. It opines that protection should be offered to the signal alone and not the subject matter that is carried by the signal. Many nations of the developed world look at this as a distinction without a difference. There has also been a strong push from the South to limit protection only to transmission and not cover the retransmission of signals within the aegis of the treaty. Another cleavage of opinion has been on definitional concerns that have plagued the negotiations ever since they commenced. Institutions such as Knowledge Ecology International among others have noted with caution the wide meanings conferred on beneficiaries of protection. Understanding broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations in an all-encompassing way would result in not just the proliferation of rights, thereby harming the sanctity associated with the concept, but would also lead to the manifestation of those rights on contexts that harm free speech and access to information. For example, the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations on the internet could play out in a pernicious fashion, particularly since the internet space has long been one of open and free access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa, have questioned the need for the treaty in the first place. Adopting this position doesn’t mean a devaluation of the harms of signal piracy. On the other hand, questions have been raised as to whether the creation of rights is the most effective, or even the right, solution. The harms of this problem-solution mismatch mean that the stakes are high; therefore, subjecting this treaty to critical scrutiny assumes great importance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, South Africa and the entire bloc has also argued against the inclusion of webcasts and netcasts in the spectrum of rights being conferred on broadcasting organizations. Broadcasting and webcasting work on completely different investment models and don’t work on the same kind of infrastructure. For that and other speech and access reasons, protection should be given, it was argued, only for traditional transmission of the signal. Consensus was ultimately achieved with the US agreeing that the focus of the treaty should be “true signal piracy, real-time transmission of the signal to the public without authorization".<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society has expressed its reservations about the treaty in no uncertain terms in the past. The underlying philosophy has consistently been a robust signal-based approach to the treaty. A consequence of this would be no term of protection for signals since the rights would exist only for infinitesimal amount of time that the signal does. The absence of a term of protection would also preclude concerns about harm to free flow of information from creeping up. CIS noted that there was a need for greater clarity on the meaning of ‘mere retransmissions’ which would not be granted any rights in the April 2007 Non-Paper circulated for the delegates. When the transmission is over a computer networks, there should be inkling of doubt as to the exclusion of both transmission and retransmission from the ambit of protection. Finally, it has called for a different structure of limitations and exceptions to be conceptualized for the treaty. A simplistic transplantation of the Berne Convention provisions would be ignorant of the particular needs of broadcasting. It is critical that the limitations and exceptions be actualized in a manner that is enabling and empowering for the most vulnerable stakeholders.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1701">http://keionline.org/node/1701</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T09:55:45ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 2 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 2 of 3) summarizes Days 3 and 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts.
</b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes</h2>
<h3><b>Day 3</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair commenced proceedings by noting the need to take stock of the work done over the course of the first two days of proceedings. He stated that we needed to see the points of agreement as well as sticking points that persisted in order to chart a path towards resolution. There was an urgent need for clarity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The floor was opened to Delegations and Regional Groups. The document before the countries is the one on draft conclusions for the discussions surrounding the Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Belarus</span> starts by expressing its support for the document before it and is ready to engage with any proposals that nations might have on it. <span>Poland </span>wanted the wording changed to broadcasting an cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense, but expressed its support for the document otherwise. A few other delegations, such as the one from Trinidad and Tobago, also expressed unease at the terminology of ‘traditional broadcasting organizations” in the document and much preferred broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense. Notwithstanding these concerns, there was considerable support for the draft conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU wants its discussions on transmissions over the internet to also be included as a part of the draft conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>Libraries and Archives</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago expressed its full support for the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. They were keen to “close this gap to strengthen the copyright system as well as the human and collective rights for the benefit of creators and users alike”. It stated that the progress made in this regard was entirely consistentwith the Millennium Development Goals and the Development Agenda of WIPO. The CEBS group also came out in support of this framework. Further, it added that it would benefit greatly from the sharing of national experiences in this matter. It was stated that the modern copyright system should have a licensing system that is supportive of libraries, archives and other every day research. CEBS was sceptical however of the need to enter into any sort of international treaty in this regard. The delegate from Bangladesh pointed out the acute need for this limitation and exception particularly from the perspective of a developing nation in dire need of free flow of information. In this context, the Indian delegate was invited to make comments. The EU put on record its opposition to any sort of binding international instrument in this regard, and they wished to see this desire reflected in the title of the document. Iran called for the commencement of text-based negotiation since it was fairly clear that there was a need for an international instrument in this matter. Colombia concluded by stating that access to knowledge should be the guiding principle for the exceptions and limitations. It was very important for the libraries to fulfil the public interest for there to be copyright protection to its activities. It stresses however the need to continue to provide incentive and legitimate copyright protection even within this framework.</p>
<h3><b>Day 4</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discussions continued on the first topic of preservation as found in the SCCR/26/3 which focusses on exceptions and limitations enabling libraries and archives. For this session, the Chair outlined the issue up for comments as the right of reproduction and safeguarding copies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Azerbaijan</span>, speaking for the first time, stated that it took cognizance of the importance of exceptions and limitations and supported an international instrument on it. The purpose of limitations and exceptions should be to allow librarians and archives to preserve the documents. The documents protected should be used solely for research purposes and must be in accordance with fair practice. <span>Australia</span> clarified the role of preservation to be the continuing availability of physical and digital works already held in the collections of a library or archive for the benefit of present or past users. Critical to be very specific when talking about preservation in order to prevent the proliferation of rights. It stated that it was yet to be convinced of the need for an international instrument. <span>Belarus</span> noted that it supported the need for an international legislation. It supported the formulation of rules in this regard on the basis of the three step test, in order to maintain the balance of interests at play. It is imperative that strict rules of interpretation are employed while introducing this into domestic legislation in order to avoid ambiguous approaches that will lead to the abuse of the freedoms codified. The non-commercial and non-profit making nature of libraries and archives were emphasized. In explaining the merits of the three step test that would facilitate the entry of this international document into domestic law, <span>Poland</span> shared its national experiences in this regard with the group. <span>Brazil </span>suggested that the concern of proliferation of works voiced by many countries could be resolved by engaging in deliberations that result in clear definitions. It suggested that the intervention made by Canada be made into an annex as a subject that can discussed in the text in the future. <span>Russia</span> noted that the Berne Convention is the bedrock of international intellectual property and copyright law and coupled with reference to national legislation would help in reaching a common understanding on preservation. <span>Morocco </span>was in support of an international legislation since dealing with the problem nationally would be woeful piecemeal approach. <span>Senegal</span> pointed out definitional issues that were plaguing the discussion. If there was no common ground on the idea of a library and an archive, then the discussions on exceptions and limitations would not break any new ground. Therefore, the discussions appeared to be proceeding on two tracks – nature and scope of the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and the need for an international instrument that went beyond national legislation. The Chair opened comments on the latter track since that is foundational. The <span>United States</span> reiterated its opposition to any agreement that transcended national legislation. It also wished to introduce a bit of complexity in its discussions by pointing out that its domestic copyright law had no understanding of a library or archive. Therefore, it was going to be difficult to come to an understanding at the international level when national legislations themselves have not reached that point in their trajectory. Both El Salvador and Ecuador tacitly stated that they were in favour of an international legislation by continuing the discussion on merits. El Salvador opined that there was some degree of good faith involved and that was unavoidable in the pursuit of the desire to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. <span>Greece </span>stated that limitations and exceptions should only be applicable when an additional copy is not available in the market. Significantly, it stated that libraries and archives could enter into agreements with the rights holders by themselves. A flexible international framework was what Greece was aiming at, not an international legislation that went beyond national legislation. Both Greece and the EU suggested using the EU Copyright Directive as a starting point for defining libraries and archives. It asked for the flexibility it already had within the EU framework to be respected. <span>Italy</span> stated that it saw no international interest in a transnational agreement on exceptions and limitations. <span>India</span> emphasized the point that there was an international interest in preserving the culture of countries. The international dimension was in the context of cross-border cultural exchange. <span>Congo</span> came out in support of an international agreement as well. There was some degree of opposition from Greece that questioned India on why either manuscripts on cross-border cultural exchange had anything to do with preservation. In its opinion, those two goals could be achieved even without the formation of an international agreement on exceptions and limitations. India responded by clarifying that it did not use the example about ancient manuscripts in the context of copyright but the existence of an international interest in the matter of preservation. The issue of preservation of works within a library are for present and future use. This use, in today’s globalized world, is not just for the citizens of that country but for researchers the world over. In order to allow for thus cultural exchange, it was imperative that the copyright of the work not come in the way. Hence, there was the need for an international, and not merely national, legislation on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On France’s concern about Ecuador’s vague understanding of fair use, Ecuador clarified that this would be the same as in the Berne Convention and the three step test would apply. Finland, Jordan and Senegal then shared their countries’ national experience in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair concluded the discussion on the first topic by articulating what he saw as a principle that is in the common agreement of all. In order to ensure that libraries and archives can develop their public service of the preservation of works in order to preserve knowledge and heritage, we need exceptions and limitations. Certain circumstances and guarantees are yet to be discussed and disagreements persist but none that threaten the need for a discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 2 – Right of Reproduction and Safeguarding of Copies</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and the United States.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>EU</span> opened the discussion with the suggestion that the title of this topic should only be focussed on the right to reproduction. This was in light of the nature of the proposals made by the various groups and nations. <span>Ecuador</span> situated the debate on the right to reproduction within the broader framework of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was imperative, it stated, that a right for libraries be carved out in order to facilitate the important social role they discharge. <span>France</span> added to the concern voiced by the EU in stating that it felt that safeguarding was already covered within the ambit of the previous topic. <span>Brazil</span> responded to this by drawing a clear cut distinction between the first and second topics. The right of reproduction was applicable to libraries while safeguarding was for archives. Both the role of the library and that of the archive merit discussion, it was emphasized, and both should equally be included in the second topic. <span>Senegal </span>supported the idea of an inclusive topic that mentions both the right of reproduction and safeguarding of copies. It stated that a distinct right of safeguarding was crucial at a time when vital cultural artefacts are vulnerable to destruction. The example of the museum in Timbuktu that was ravaged by militants leading to the irreparable loss of invaluable manuscripts was cited in support.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Italy</span> voiced a two-pronged opposition to the very idea of articulating a right to reproduction. <i>First</i>, it stated that allowing for reproduction, even in University libraries, would open the floodgates to copyright violations. It was afraid that copyrighted material would be reproduced within the library which would then lead to that material appearing on for a not envisaged within the rubric of the treaty. <i>Second</i>, it was against the extension of the idea of research to private research. The transmission of the reproduced material to third parties would lead to a loss of revenue to the rights holder in question. To Italy, the latter was even more egregious since the former at least allowed for the possibility of, via the money paid for the reproduction, monetary compensation of the rights holder. The latter however had no room for this to be effected.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Belarus</span> supported the EU position on the exclusion of safeguarding from the present discussions. Further, Belarus stressed that it wanted a caveat to the exception for scientific and educational research. It wanted the kind of material that would fall under the exception to be limited to “just articles or short works or excerpts from books” since “the student or researcher probably doesn’t need the whole book”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Brazil</span> assuaged the concerns of the right holders by pointing out that its proposal in paragraph 2 makes national legislation the focus. Fuether, it added that with respect to the international dimension to the rights, the GA had already stated that there would be an “international legal instrument”. Therefore, the multilateral nature of both the subject matter and scope of the negotiations is beyond the pale of doubt.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The representative from the International Council of Museums noted that all of the rights were equally applicable to museums as well. Very often, museums suffered from a lack of uniformity and harmonization of rules across multiple jurisdictions. This was the need it saw for an international treaty on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair summed up the discussions. Despite the emergence of any sort of consensus, most countries had agreed for a need to have exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Further, a right to reproduction of works for libraries was recognized to facilitate the reproduction of certain works under certain conditions for the purposes of research. The scope of none of these terms have been agreed upon by states nor has there been much agreement on whether this extends to distribution of the material and to what extent. The EU and the USA mentioned that they did not think there was a need for an international agreement on this and the GA wording was not binding in any sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 3 – Legal Deposit</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group and India on this. This was not received very warmly by the delegates. Most thought it was out of the place in the current discussions. The US opposed the need for any discussion at the international level since the issues in question were codified in domestic law to varying degrees. Therefore, it could not be said that it was “ripe for harmonization”. Colombia found the concept of legal deposit “strange” in a document on exceptions and limitations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 4 – Library Lending</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, India, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ecuador</span> explained in great detail that the reason behind this was to allow for libraries to lend copyrighted works to its users or to another library. Very often, research necessitates the movement of the physical copy of a particular work. In other instances, the presence of a particular copyrighted work in a specific library has great symbolic and cultural value, apart from its patent value for research activities. In furtherance of its earlier objections, <span>Italy</span> explained that lending could also lead to egregious copyright violations. Along these lines, it objected to the idea of digital lending since it went against the grain of lending because returning a digital copy was not possible or meaningful. The International Federation of Libraries, representative from civil society, pointed out that there were technological tools that would prevent the unintended and harmful proliferation of lent digital copies. Digital lending could take place by passing along a password encrypted digital copy that would expire after a set period of time.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Greece </span>furthered the harm that this would have on copyrighted works by asking why anybody would want to get the original if lending is applied to the realm of films via digital transmission. Responding to the African Group proposal, it asked how this was in conformity with the three step test. The US responded by drawing a positive causal link between lending and commercial purchase of the product. Again, the Chair summed up by stating that agreement was that exceptions and limitations must extend to library lending but agreement on the scope and nature of this extension evaded consensus.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Additional Links</h3>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 1 of 3) </a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp">Videos/Webcast of the 26th SCCR</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T04:52:53ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 1 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th Session. This blog post (Part 1 of 3) summarizes Days 1 and 2 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts. </b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes of the Proceedings</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Day 1<br /></b>There are three salient issues outlined as part of the agenda – i) work towards a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations, ii) exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and for iii) educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.<b> </b><a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> The number of days to be spent deliberating on each issue was also outlined – two days each on the first two issues and one day on the last issue i.e. exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair of the SCCR was elected to be Mr. Martin Moscoso, head of copyright for Peru and Chair of the Drafting Group for the Marrakeech Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators</b></span><br /><b>Trinidad and Tobago</b><br />The representative commenced his speech by pledging the commitment of the Latin American and Caribbean group of states to work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It emphasized the need for coherence between the activities of this group and the Millennium Development Goals of the UN and the Development Agenda of WIPO. Effecting the vision articulated by the agenda of this SCCR will help bring about this coherence. Finally, he added that the Group wished to discuss the broadcasting treaty on the basis of the mandate offered by the 2007 General Assembly. This mandate was to pursue a “signal-based approach” to the drafting process of any new treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Poland</b><br />On behalf of the Central European and Baltic states, the representative reaffirmed the group’s support for establishing standards for the protection of broadcasting organizations in the form of a binding treaty. To this end, the Group put forth its proposal for a Diplomatic Conference in 2015 to the end of negotiating and implementing such a treaty. Finally, best practices were also emphasized and, pertinently, the Group indicated that it understood that the digitalized and globalized business and information economy of the contemporary necessitated a licensing of rights that was adequately reflective of its needs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Japan</b><br />On behalf of Group B, Japan emphasized the importance the Group placed on text based discussions to the developing treaty mechanism for the protection of broadcasting organizations. It noted that any further understanding or future negotiations must rest on a common understanding of critical foundational issues such as definitions, scope of application of the instruments and the spectrum of rights or protections to be granted. Finally, an offer to share experience for the optimum functioning of limitations and exceptions was made. It was the opinion of Group B that the extant copyright framework enabled the limitations and exceptions to play out both in the digital and analogue world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Bangladesh</b><br />On behalf of the Pacific Group, Bangladesh underscored the importance of situating all countries’ concerns and deliberations on the bedrock of the social and economic development needs of the Pacific Group nations. It identified the responsibility of countries to ensure that the limitations and exceptions were articulated in a manner that copyrighted works were made available to individuals in need. Thus, its vision was for an inclusive and comprehensive framework that catered to the needs of all stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable and needy. To this end, it saw new international legal instruments as the means.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Russia</b><br />The Russian representative supported the 2015 Diplomatic Conference time frame and emphasized the value of transparency throughout the course of the proceedings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Algeria</b><br />On behalf of the African Group, the signal-based approach was affirmed as the basis for any treaty. The needs of the developing countries were also given special importance. While the exchange if best practices and experience is helpful, the Group does not see it as a substitute for tangible, binding treaty provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>European Union<br /></b>Representative called for the provisions of the Marrakeesh Treaty to be implemented. The existing treaty framework was understood to be sufficient for the full realization of the limitations and exceptions in the various realms envisaged by the outlined agenda. It was necessary, it opined, for copyright to continue to remain a key incentive for creative processes. In light of this, no further international legal instruments were necessary. Finally, the licensing of rights was also within the scope of this body.<b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Protection by Broadcasting Organizations<br /></b></span>The working document for the treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> was declared to be the basis for any future text-based deliberation.<span><b> </b></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Proposal by Japan – SCCR/26/6</b><a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a><br />The Representative outlined the purpose behind the proposal at the very outset as a step forward from the common understanding regarding the privacy of the broadcasting towards establishing the contours of the scope of application. The proposal was for the introduction of Article 6<i>bis</i> that included two things – <i>first</i>, that signal transmitted over computer networks be included within the aegis of the treaty with an exception carved out for on demand transmission signal and <i>second</i>, flexibility for states in deciding to afford protection for transmission signals over networks by the broadcasting organizations; in other words, the idea of national treatment in the realm of transmission signals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>While welcoming the Japanese proposal, the US Representative noted that the text was still open to changes. Given limited time for deliberations on this, he culled out three points of focus that would aid a streamlined approach to the text: beneficiaries of protection, objects of protection and the scope of the rights.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The EU had two questions directed at the Japanese proposal: whether the two alternatives proposed by Japan (simultaneous and unchanged transmission) have a different or same meaning and whether the nature of the protection is an entirely optional one or at least partially mandatory? Japan later clarified that if the former alternative had webcasting as subject to the protection of the treaty and the latter used the scope of application of this treaty.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Iran</span> highlighted the issue of conflict of treaty protections with the legitimate interests of other stakeholders and urged that this conflict situation should never arise. Further, it added that the definition of broadcasting should not be an anachronistic one and should adapt to the needs of today’s broadcasting organizations and should, in no way, hinder free access to knowledge and information by society.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Venezuela</span> adopted a diametrically opposite stance to most other countries on the issue. It was not of the opinion that broadcasting organizations are entities worthy of rights protection. It stated that the treaty seemed to be more for the benefit of multi-national organizations rather than member states and its citizens. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Day 2<br /></b>The Chair outlined the agenda of the meeting as comments on Articles 6 and 7 which is to do with the scope of the treaty and beneficiaries respectively. Further, it was also put forth that the session would attempt to resolve and break common ground on the various discussions had in the regional groups in the previous day. Finally, deliberations would be focussed on Article 5 followed by Article 9.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>Japanese delegate </span>outlined the conclusions of his groups’ deliberations. They want both beneficiaries and broadcasting to be included within the scope of the treaty. The country is of the view that all obligations should be made optional rather than obligatory. There is also general consensus, subject to final wording and definition of on demand, for an exceptions to be culled out for on demand transmission. <span>Belarus </span>expressed its wish for the scope of the treaty to be extended to both broadcasting and cablecasting organizations. It states in no uncertain terms that the signal should be protected. The proposal was to use the terminology broadcasting organizations and rights holding organization. Signals transmitted over satellite must also be protected in the model envisaged by this Group. Its application to the internet was also affirmed; pertinent, since this is a sticking point between the views of the nations and that of important third party stakeholders to this deliberative process. It did mention a clear caveat that these rights should, in no way, affect the rights of the author of the work or that of the users. Responding, in some sense directly to the words of the Venezuelan delegate’s comments the previous day, the Belarusian delegate stressed that his Group does support the idea of conferring rights on broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>India</span> reminded the nations present that the 2007 mandate, on the basis of which this meeting was being conducted, was for work towards a treaty for the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations using a signal-based approach. A question was raised as to whether the current discussion transcended the limits of this mandate. Chair noted this observation and asked for the views of other states’ on the matter of mandate. The response of the delegate from <span>Trinidad and Tobago </span>on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean states was non-committal in his answer as he briefed the chair about the difference of opinion on this matter within his group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moving on to the scope of the application of this treaty and the beneficiaries, it was the view of the CEBS Group, as articulated by the <span>Polish delegate</span>, that the protection afforded by the treaty should be effective, contemporary and technology neutral, else its purpose would be defeated by its obsoleteness. It reiterated that the transmission via the internet must also be included within the scope of the treaty, because that is a major route of circumvention that could be used to undermine the <i>raison d’etre </i>of the treaty. It was also of the opinion that the difference of opinion on webcasting could be overcome using the opt-in system envisaged by the Japanese proposal. CEBS was also of the firm view that, notwithstanding any foundational disagreements, those on demand transmissions that are based on multiple transmissions at the same time should be included within the scope of the protection. On behalf of the African Group, <span>Senegal</span> concerned about questions of mandate. It said that the strict, textual or broad, liberal interpretation of the words of 2007 mandate should be a <i>sine qua non </i>to any further deliberations. The Chair noted this concern and said that the floor was open to this issue as well. The <span>EU</span> stated that simulcasting should be the basic minimum and obligatory minimum, of any protection. It stated that it was open to discussing the extension of the protections to other transmission as its saw merit in such extension. Finally, it clarified that since current discussions were on transmissions and the scope of protection they were well within the 2007 mandate – protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair then turned over the floor for comments by individual countries. <span>Senegal </span>commenced by posing a question to Belarus on the nature of reservations that it envisaged in light of its proposal to protect transmissions, no matter what its nature. <span>Belarus </span>responded that the protection definitely extends to transmissions over the internet but that does not preclude a discussion on deferred retransmissions. Reservations should ideally be outlined be provided for in the treaty itself. However, they can also be in the form of national legislation but it made it clear that such a stance would be a compromise for its Group and would be considered only if nations thought it necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The floor was yielded to <span>Canada</span>. It noted that it is encouraged by the deliberations it had witnessed so far surrounding the various proposals received. It emphasized the value of the optional approach envisioned by Japan, as it embodied the critical component of successful negotiations – the embracing and incorporation of difference of opinion. <span>Russia</span> underscored its support for the unified approach of Belarus. Russia also wished to implement the kind of model that was in the Audiovisual Treaty and the Marrakeech Treaty. It wanted a reservation in the treaty itself that would establish a minimum standard of protection for cablecasting organizations as per national legislation. This would balance out the views of those in favour of an optional system against those who prefer an entirely mandatory one. <span>Mexico </span>welcomes the Japanese proposal and seemed to be generally in favour of it. <span>Australia</span> outlined three distinct issues. It was in favour of protection of transmission over the internet and saw simulcasting as a minimum obligatory protection. Its support for the Japanese proposal would depend on the definition of on demand services. Finally, Australia underlined that this entire discussion should be careful in how it understood the idea of traditional broadcasters and cablecasters. Keen to introduce an air of pragmatism to talk about the 2007 mandate, <span>Kenya </span>pointed out that the concept of transmission has undergone a change since 2007 and since the mandate was one that was conferred by the countries present at this discussion, there was no need to be very rigid about it. It wanted a technology neutral approach. Kenya was also keen on clarity on whether this international treaty was meant to build in existing international protections or was intended to be a stand-alone replacement for any protections that may exist for certain or all countries. It welcomes the flexibility that the Japanese proposal offered. The discussion veered in the direction of mandate yet again as <span>India</span> noted that any change to the mandate must be done by the GA alone. Else, the reinterpretation could be in such a manner as to allow for a treaty to emerge under the rubric of this mandate with countries reserving the freedom to enter into another treaty on the same matter in the future. It spelled out that it was crucial to remain within the confines of the GA mandate through the course of these proceedings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US delegate opined that the proceedings were completely in conformity with the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It reiterated its 2007 desire to have a clear common definition of a broadcasting and cablecasting organization. Notwithstanding that, simply because of a different mode of transmission, internet and webcasting do not fall outside the ambit of protection. As far as the signal based approach is concerned, the US interpreted that to mean the signal itself and nothing to do with the content – an issue the nations are grappling with at present.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, the delegate suggested a refocus on the prime problem facing broadcasters i.e. signal piracy. The suggestion is to give the broadcasters control of the retransmission. This would avoid protection for the content being broadcast and would not fall into the trap of post-fixation rights. An argument was also made for retransmission over any medium in a technologically neutral system. Such retransmission would be limited to simultaneous or near simultaneous (a term that needs definition) only to the extent necessary where the delay is meet technical requirements of delivery or to account for time differences. This would also include prebroadcast signal. There are clear advantages to this approach, as noted by the delegate</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Short and simple.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Avoids a proliferation of superfluous rights.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Dos not overlap with the rights in content and does not create additional, unnecessarily layers of protection and authorization.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Affirms and codifies the kind of protection that broadcasters require to fortify against signal piracy.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Greater range of rights that could also be codified at the domestic level.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Could avoid the need for any defined term whatsoever.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The potential impact on consumer or private use also covered.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Japan</span> adopted a self-confessed cautious approach to obligatory protection for transmission across computer networks due to the absence of a unified domestic viewpoint on the matter. <span>South Africa</span> was also of the opinion that the protection should not go beyond broadcasters and cablecasters. <span>Colombia</span>, however, was of the opinion that the protection should cover both traditional and non-traditional signals due to the advance in technology in the future that the treaty must anticipate. A broad and flexible approach was therefore preferred by this delegate. <span>India</span> expressed a desire to introduce an alternative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Afternoon Session</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Inclusion of transmission over the internet within the scope of the treaty</li>
<li>Whether or not simulcasting is within the mandate of this meeting</li>
<li>Inclusion of transmission of original programming by webcasting in the treaty</li>
<li>Deferred and unchanged transmission of broadcasting programmes within transmission over the internet</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These four topics have witnessed some form of input or discussion thus far.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Comments on Article 9</span><br />Article 9 relates to protection of broadcasting organization and embodies two alternatives – A and B. Alternative A provides for a short list of exclusive rights, a limited right to authorize including retransmission of signal to the public by any means. Alternative B provides for a broader list of exclusive rights, including post-fixation rights and the exclusive right of fix and right of retransmission by any means and making available to the public.</p>
<p>In response to the US proposal articulated earlier, India put forth an alternative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the table for comments at this juncture are the US Proposal, the Indian alternative and the alternatives A and B to Article 9.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>EU</span> stated that its position would fall closer to Alternative B than A. It was important for the EU to have broad rights of retransmission of broadcasts on all platforms. Retransmissions should be both simultaneous and based on fixations. They also wanted fixed broadcasts – the right of retransmission where the recipient pf the transmission chooses the place and the time of such transmission – to be included within the treaty. With respect to performance of broadcast signals ij places accessible to the public, the EU stressed that it should be limited to places accessible to the public on payment of an entrance fee as envisioned by the Rome Convention. Protection for prebroadcast signals was also sought, thereby covering a comprehensive list of protections.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU wanted to know whether the near to simultaneous transmission would be included within the US proposal. It thought the US proposal was based on a single right and was narrow vis-à-vis the EU one, but it expressed a willingness to engage. On the Indian proposal, the EU wished to enquire whether computer retransmissions would be protected against, given its ease.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ecuador </span>stated that it wished to add “and cablecasting” to India’s proposal Article 9(1)(i) after the mention of traditional broadcasters. <span>India</span> indicated that this addition was agreeable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Japan </span>mentioned that Alternative B was preferable to it since it had flexibility built into it thereby allowing for better harmonization and incorporation in the domestic law. Further, it stated that signal piracy had three major classifications – unauthorized access or useof prebroadcast signal, programming carrying signals and fixed broadcast. Finally, it clarified that simultaneous and near simultaneous transmission are protected under the Japanese proposal.</p>
<p>South Africa had two quick comments – that it was interested in the US proposal and preferred Alternative B. The EU also noted with interest the Indian proposal and expressed keen interested to engage with the same.</p>
<p>Both Senegal and Poland affirmed their preference for Alternative B in the deliberations on Article 9.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran steps in and articulates the stance that India has taken in a cogent manner. It noted the concern that if the content owner does not grant the right to broadcast over a computer or internet, then piracy could result in the absence of protection for the broadcasting organization. It is important to understand that a broadcasting organization is the owner of the signal. Therefore, if the broadcasting organization is not allowed to rebroadcast or retransmit over certain networks due to the contract then this would defeat the purpose of the treaty. Critically, this point is to do with the need for affirming the right of the broadcaster to prevent his own signal from getting used elsewhere without authorization.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>India</span> then went to make two critical clarifications on definitions. Broadcast means the transmission of a set of electronically generated signals by wireless and carrying a specific programme for conception of the general public and it should not include the transmission of signals over computer networks. Broadcasting organization means the legal entity taking the interior of packaging, assembling, scheduling of the programme and converting of the signals with the authorization of the owner of the copyright and related rights for broadcast for the reception of the public. Article 5 of the Indian proposal was distributed to all members and comments were invited. The meeting was adjourned to give time to the regional coordinators.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_1_prov.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_1_prov.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_24/sccr_24_10_corr.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_24/sccr_24_10_corr.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf</a></p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li> Meeting Documents for the 26th SCCR are available <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=29944">at this link</a>.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Videos/Webcast of the 26th SCCR can be <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp">seen here</a>.</li>
<li>CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities" class="external-link">here</a>.</li>
<li>CIS Statement on the proposed treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives" class="external-link"> here</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T04:49:55ZBlog EntryNGO Profile: Knowledge Ecology International
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international
<b>As CIS’ observer in Geneva, I will be profiling NGOs and other prominent actors at the WIPO. In the first in a series of blogs, I profile the work of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) at the various International Organisations in Geneva.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) is an NGO <i>that searches for better outcomes, including new solutions, to the management of knowledge resources</i>. KEI is focused on social justice, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, including low-income persons and marginalized groups.<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1] </a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">KEI has a strong presence in Geneva and their works revolves around the International Organisations that are located here. Their Geneva office is run by Thiru Balasubramaniam, who previously worked with the WHO.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">International Organisations in Geneva</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">KEI is active in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva. At the WHO KEI is represented at the World Health Assembly and the WHO Executive Board. KEI was alsoan active participant at the Intergovernmental Committee on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), which existed from 2006-08.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the WTO, KEI is engaged in work around TRIPS council meetings- this includes technical assistance to Members and research and analysis of the outcomes of these meetings (the TRIPS Council unlike the WIPO is not open to Observers). KEI along with other NGO’s are also looking towards a possible Treaty on the Supply of Global Public Goods.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Work around WIPO</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">KEI is active at the following WIPO Committees: the General Assembly, the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Their work in these areas is outlined below:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">KEI has been actively involved in the Development Agenda at the WIPO from the beginning. They have actively participated in shaping discussions related to the transfer of technology and access to knowledge (A2K). Jamie Love, the Director of KEI was commissioned by the WIPO to author a paper on Alternatives to the Patent System. KEI had also mooted the idea for a Global Conference on Open Collaborative Research in 2003. The idea had widespread support from the scientific community, which saw fruition with the organization of the conference in January, 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">KEI was instrumental in the conception and passage of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (TVI) at the WIPO. They are currently engaged in work surrounding the Broadcast Treaty and Limitations & Exceptions for Libraries and Archives. KEI’s stance<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3] </a>on the former is that the proponents of the Treaty have not made a strong enough case in favour of the Treaty and that it could potentially impede access to knowledge and create barriers to the enjoyment of the internet. On the latter, they believe that the Berne appendix must be revisited to recraft it to strengthen the education exception and that the Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries (1976) should also be used as a way for developing countries to serve their education and libraries needs.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Publication</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">KEI’s publications and Research Notes can be accessed <a href="http://keionline.org/publications">here</a>. In addition, they run two Listserves on IP-Health and A2K which can be accessed <a href="http://keionline.org/lists">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p><i>I would like to thank Thiru Balasubramaniam, KEI’s representative in Geneva for agreeing to do the interview which was the primary source of this blog</i>.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. See <a href="http://www.keionline.org/about">http://www.keionline.org/about</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. The proposal can be accessed here: <a href="http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/kei_wto_agreement_on_public_goods.pdf">http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/kei_wto_agreement_on_public_goods.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>].Interview with Thiru Balasubramaniam on file with the author.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international</a>
</p>
No publisherpuneethAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-11T16:10:57ZBlog EntryCIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made this statement at the WIPO-SCCR on December 20, 2013.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society believes in the universal access to knowledge/education for all, without the barriers of time, distance and costs. We believe that information and communication technologies provide us with the opportunities to achieve this universality for ALL learners, both, through formal and informal institutions and learning environments, in both, digital and non digital formats.<br /><br />The adoption of limitations and exceptions for education and research is particularly significant from the perspective of developing and least developed nations, where prices of books and other learning material are high not just in absolute terms, but where consumers often have to commit higher proportions of their income to have access to these materials.<br /><br />We are in agreement with some of the delegations before us, among others with Ecuador, Kenya and the African Group in our belief that the present international legal framework, does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Appendix are complex, narrow, unworkable and of little value to developing nations.<br /><br />We believe, therefore, Mr. Chair, that there is a need to adopt open ended exceptions for education, teaching and research compatible with the digital environment. In our opinion, Mister Chair, a narrow construction and application of the three step test to these limitations and exceptions would not be the ideal way forward especially for developing and least developed countries. We believe Mr. Chair, that these limitations and exceptions should be those that harmonize national practices; prescribe an international standard, facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.</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-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-12-30T06:17:50ZBlog EntryWIPO Broadcast Treaty- SCCR 26 : Proposals Introduced
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-sccr-proposals-introduced
<b>India and the United States introduced proposals for discussion at the ongoing session of the SCCR.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the ongoing session of the 26th SCCR, India and the United States have introduced proposals for discussion:</p>
<ol>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indias-proposal.zip" class="internal-link">this proposal</a> for Article 5 (Definitions)</li>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/article-6" class="internal-link">this proposal</a> for Article 6 (Scope of Application)</li>
<li>Japan introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/explanatory-note-on-article-6-bis" class="internal-link">this proposal</a> as Article 6 bis</li>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/beneficiaries-of-protection.pdf" class="internal-link">this proposal </a>for Article 7 (Beneficiaries of Protection)</li>
<li>India introduced <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-rights.pdf" class="internal-link">this proposal </a>for Article 9 (Protection for Broadcasting Organizations)</li>
<li>The United States introduced a <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/proposal-for-discussion.pdf" class="internal-link">Proposal for Discussion</a> for Article 9 (Protection for Broadcasting Organizations). The delegation was keen to clarify that this was <i>not</i> a “US Proposal”; but merely a “Proposal for Discussion”</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-sccr-proposals-introduced'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-sccr-proposals-introduced</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-12-30T15:48:59ZBlog EntryCIS Comments to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>As a follow up to a stakeholder meeting called by the MHRD on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, CIS provided written comments on the Working Document for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations adopted by the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at its twenty-fourth session, Geneva, July 16 to 25, 2012.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the November 27, 2013, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India conducted a <i>Stakeholders Meeting on the proposed WIPO treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations </i>at New Delhi. Nehaa Chaudhari represented CIS and commented <i>inter alia</i> on the need for a Broadcast Treaty, the necessity to confine the treaty to a signals based approach, the term of protection for broadcasting organizations, and the protection of the general public interest. At this meeting, with representation from the government, academia, industry bodies and civil society, there was a general consensus on the adoption of a treaty that would most further India’s national interest, and on the treaty being limited to a signals based approach, in consonance with the 2007 mandate of the WIPO General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In furtherance of the feedback process initiated at the aforesaid meeting, CIS presents this detailed clause-by-clause submission in response to the proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty. This submission was prepared by Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many thanks to Pranesh Prakash, Snehashish Ghosh and Bhairav Acharya for their inputs and discussions, and to Varun Baliga for his research.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please click (<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-comments-to-hrd-on-wipo-treaty.pdf" class="internal-link">here</a>) for CIS’ comments. For the Working Document referred to in the Submissions, please "<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr.pdf" class="internal-link">click here</a>".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-12-07T07:57:50ZBlog Entry