The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 41 to 55.
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty
<b>On Day 3 (December 10, 2014), the SCCR briefly re-convened at the Plenary. The Chair, Martin Moscoso updated the Committee on the discussions and the developments that had taken place over the course of the past two days in the Informals. The Centre for Internet and Society made a brief pointed intervention on one of the documents being discussed in the Informals.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Note: <i>The documents cannot be made public yet. They were shared with Observers and Member States (even those that did not participate in the Informals) on the condition of maintaining confidentiality</i>.</p>
<hr />
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:</p>
<p>Thank you, chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First on the making available these documents, we would like to echo what CCIA and KEI said- we would also like to see the informal papers made public, so that we can have a more informed discussion on these issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, very briefly, on some of the rights to be granted- in one of the Informal Discussion Papers laid out, in -- in the third column, which are essentially fixation and post fixation rights, just very briefly, that whatever is done in any case after the signal is fixed is already covered by copyright law and we find it frightening and we see little sense in providing two sets of incompatible, and overlapping rights- copyright, that is already existing, and a sort of a para-copyright (that this treaty seeks to create) for the same underlying content.</p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-12T11:56:14ZBlog EntryThe Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari was one of the speakers at this side event held on December 10, 2014.</b>
<div class="content" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>See the <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/2135">details on Knowledge Ecology International website</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>On Wednesday, 10 December 2014, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) will convene a side event entitled, "The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?"; the event will take place in Room B of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) from 13:30 to 15:00. Speakers include: Nehaa Chaudhari, (Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi/Banglaore), Jeremy Malcolm, (Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation), James Love, (Director, KEI) and Viviana Munoz Kieffer, (Coordinator, Innovation and Access to Knowledge Programme, South Centre).</p>
<p><b>Background</b></p>
<p>Since its first SCCR (Nov 2-10, 1998) WIPO and member states have been asked to resolve the requests for new legal protections for broadcasting organizations. All participants to the SCCR were asked then "to submit, by the end of March 1999, proposals and/or views in treaty language or in other form."</p>
<p>Since then the rights of broadcasting organizations have been on the agenda. While the committee is still trying to identify precisely the problems Broadcasters' rights (or right?)to be solved (piracy in its broadest definition?), the proposal for a new international norm setting may create a new layer of post fixation rights in content that broadcasters do not create, license nor own.</p>
<p>The demandeurs i.e. some of the broadcasting organizations representatives and some member states are listing endless rights such as transmission, retransmission or deferred transmission whether simultaneous or near simultaneous on demand of a broadcast signal to the public, as well as transmission over the internet. Most of these rights exist in some form or another in most WIPO member states. However, for many SCCR participants, if the committee truly wants to move forward on this new norm setting exercise it must focus on a narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the core need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.</p>
<p>After 15 years of negotiations, formal and informal, text based or not, it is time to answer some of the following questions:</p>
<p>Would adding a new layer of rights over content on the internet be consistent with the committee's mandate to limit protection to the broadcaster's signal?</p>
<p>Would the new international right (or rights) have an impact on consumers and creative communities globally?</p>
<p>Would the new instrument have the necessary exceptions for quotations or news of the day?</p>
<p>Would the extension of the rights under discussion to cable television (and services which already require subscriber fees) create a redundant layer of protection to services already protected under other legal regimes and thus be anticompetitive?</p>
<p>Would the protection of over the air broadcast signal be sufficient for broadcasters? If not why not?</p>
</div>
<hr />
<p><b>Download the transcript <a href="https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/kei-side-talk-events.pdf" class="external-link">here</a></b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2015-01-09T02:31:55ZNews Item29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made its intervention on the proposed treaty in the ongoing WIPO session on December 9, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Thank you, Mister Chair.</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This intervention will be based on the chart detailing the ‘Concepts’ corresponding to the Definitions. We believe that certain elements of these concepts are inconsistent with a broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach; and over the course of the next few minutes, I will briefly discuss these.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>First,</i></b><b> </b>Mr. Chair in the first column- on broadcasting or cablecasting organizations (in the traditional sense); where communication of the signal has been listed under scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, ‘communication’ itself is an element of copyright and is distinct from broadcast rights that are related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, may be broadcast or transmitted. Accordingly, Mr. Chair under the element of Scope of Responsibility, we are of the opinion that it should read Broadcast or Transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal; and the focus should not be at regulating communication to the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>Second, </i></b>Mr. Chair, in the second column- on broadcasting and cablecasting transmission- we have three observations. First- under the means of transmission, we believe that transmission over computer networks encompasses IP based transmissions, and should be excluded, in order for the treaty to remain consistent with a signals based approach. Second- on the reception of the broadcast or cablecast transmission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase ‘general public’. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public (say family members) could possibly be covered by the term “public”, but would be excluded from “general public”; which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not- which also flows into the third column on the Signal- and whether it is encrypted or not; which then also relates to whether broadcasting organizations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Mr. Chair, we don’t think that there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Given that signal theft is already a crime, having a specific right to prevent unauthorized decryption might result in an absurdity, where it could even cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This provision might result in an absurdity, where it would cover decrypting an unauthroised retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter, where the retransmission in the first instance was illegal to begin with.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>Finally</i></b>, Mr. Chair, on the third column and the meaning of signal- we submit that our preferred definition would be where the definition of a signal is confined, and it understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or cablecast and NOT one which has the capability of such a transmission, as stated in the third column in your Chart on concepts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaBroadcast TreatyIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-12-12T11:55:51ZBlog Entry28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“the Committee” / "SCCR") took place in Geneva from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014. In this article, Nehaa Chaudhari, who attended this meeting on behalf of CIS, discusses the developments that took place with reference to the proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”).</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At its 28<sup>th</sup> Session, the WIPO SCCR devoted two and a half days to a discussion on the Broadcast Treaty. For the majority of this period informal discussions <b>(“Informals”</b>) were held between member states and there was no plenary. While Non- Government Organizations ( <b>“NGOs”</b>) and those member states who were not participating in the Informals were able to listen to the discussions taking place, we were requested to not report about them in any form whatsoever. Consequently, this article does not mention, cite or discuss the conversations in the Informals in any manner whatsoever, and is confined to deliberations at the plenary sessions.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Preliminary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Proceedings on Day 1 (June 30, 2014) began with a speech by the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry. Commending the “exceptional progress” made by the Committee over the past few years, Mr. Gurry cited the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/">Marrakesh</a> and <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/beijing/">Beijing</a> Treaties as success stories. In talking about the Broadcast Treaty, Mr. Gurry said that the then ongoing FIFA World Cup, 2014 was “the perfect example” for member states on the economic and social importance of broadcasting. He went on to add that the Broadcast Treaty was the last component of the international legal framework which had not been “updated for the digital environment”. Identifying the challenge as developing a shared understanding of what and how to protect, Mr. Gurry was of the opinion that the Committee would make progress on the development of an instrument that was narrow in scope to combat cross border digital piracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his statement following that of the Director General, the Chairperson, Edgar Martin Moscoso Villacorta (<b>“the Chair”</b>) explained that he had held consultations with the regional coordinators and three other nations from each group on June 27, 2014 to figure out how best to proceed at the upcoming 28<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee; before opening the floor to Regional Coordinators for their Opening Statements.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Group Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators : Reflections of a North-South Divide</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Opening statements by Regional Coordinators on behalf of their groups reflected sentiments similar to those witnessed at the 26<sup>th</sup> and 27 <sup>th</sup> Sessions of this Committee<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a>. While there was broad consensus on having a well-balanced work plan that addressed the different issues of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research and persons with disabilities, statements also reflected the disagreements between various groups on the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the various items on the agenda, largely along the fault-lines of the classic <i>Global North</i> v. the <i>Global South.</i> For instance, statements by the European Union (<b>“the EU”</b>) and Group B, the group of developed countries emphasised the convening of a diplomatic conference for the Broadcast Treaty, but on the other hand, statements by the groups of developing countries highlighted the importance of limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Regional Coordinator (presently, Paraguay) for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (<b>“GRULAC”</b>) placed emphasis on a “well balanced work plan which envisages the different issues” but also stated that for their group, “the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions (is) of the utmost importance.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The representative of Bangladesh, in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Group said that their group considered all issues to be equally important, notwithstanding the fact that they might enjoy different levels of discussion at the SCCR; and on the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations said that the group was “willing to work constructively” and hoped to continue “meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organizations and to advance further to a balanced international instrument of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organizations.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The statement of the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) Group, presently represented by the Czech Republic categorically stated that the CEBS Group was “striving for the successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organizations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the Diplomatic Conference to take place, as soon as possible, preferably in 2015.” (sic)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, in their statement recognised the “tradition…to allocate more time to discussion on more mature subject matters”, referring to the Broadcast Treaty and, like the CEBS Group, also touched upon the issue of convening a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union (<b>“the EU”</b>) has perhaps been one of the most vocal proponents of the Broadcast Treaty at past sessions of the Committee, and carried forward this tradition into the 28<sup>th</sup> session as well, labelling negotiations on the Broadcast Treaty “a high priority” for Member States. The EU also echoed the statements made by the CEBS Group as well as Group B on the need to call for a diplomatic conference “as soon as possible.” In order to achieve this, said the EU, there was a need to build a “broad consensus” on the problems that needed to be addressed as well as on the extent of protection envisaged.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Technical Assistance from Broadcasters</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States of America placed an emphasis on a treaty that would address challenges posed by new technologies, indicated in their request to the Secretariat to inform the member states about different sizes and types of broadcasters using new technologies by conducting a survey, recognising that a lot had changed over the course of the past 12 years, when a report on this issue was last prepared; a proposal which was supported by the delegation of India as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following these comments by the United States of America (but in an unrelated move), the Chair suggested technical assistance be sought from broadcasters. Surprisingly, he identified three NGOs (in this case associations of broadcasters), namely Asian Broadcasters Union, International Association of Broadcasters and National Association of Broadcasters, who could provide technical assistance if required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This stance was supported strongly by the delegations of Egypt and the Russian Federation. While it also found support from the Japanese delegation, it also pointed out that a mere presentation might bring about some confusion, and instead thought that it might be a better idea to update the studies commissioned by WIPO in 2002.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Resistance to this proposition was offered by the delegation of Venezuela who questioned the “expertize of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue” and “the selection criteria” among others. Exclaiming in surprise at the manner on which this proposal had been accepted, the delegate sough further clarifications on the issue, demanding to know “who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.” (sic.) The concern on the absence of transparency was also echoed by the delegate of Uruguay, who expressed his great “astonishment” at “three technical experts” at the session, saying that it was “most inappropriate” to be informed about the presence of technical experts after regional coordinators had earlier expressed their refusal to have such an exercise. In response, the Chair said that this was a decision that he had taken in response to a request for technical consultations made at the earlier session of the Committee. He went on to add that the Committee could do without the technical assistance if perceived to be unnecessary and the process not transparent.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Scope of Protection: Article 6</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Scope of Protection under the Broadcast Treaty is laid out under Article 6 of Working<a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_28/sccr_28_ref_sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Document 27/2/Rev.</a> (<b>“Working Document”</b>). <b> </b>This document lays out the text which forms the basis of the negotiations at the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Confining the Broadcast Treaty to a <i>signal based approach</i> versus broadening the scope of the treaty to a more technologically neutral <i>rights based approach</i> was the chief point of conflict between the developed and the developing nations, reflect in their statements discussed below.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Opening the proceedings, the United States of America (<b>“the US”/ “USA”</b>) placed complete support on the statement of Group B; but also added that the way forward “to finding consensus” was to “focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.” The US proceeded to outline its proposal of “a single right to authorise the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium.” Highlighting the key advantages to this proposal the US said that its proposal was “modern”, recognizing the importance of “new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy and avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions”. However, the US was also quick to clarify that the “right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast” and would also “avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast” as well as “avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India reiterated its serious concerns regarding webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks. Japan, on the other hand, while most other nations chose to reserve their comments for discussions in the Informals alone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the third day of this meeting, the Chair presented the progress that had been made over the course of the discussions taking place in the Informals. He said that webcasting had been removed from the scope of application. The concern, said the Chair, was that webcasting was also carried out by other actors- not just broadcasting organizations, and that having different rules for different actors carrying out the same activity would not be “a good message” (sic.)</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Rights of Broadcasters: Article 9</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Rights of Broadcasters under the Broadcast Treaty are laid out under Article 9 of the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_28/sccr_28_ref_sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Working Document</a>.<b> </b>The US said that it “remained convinced” that a narrow scope of rights would make it possible for the SCCR to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. The Russian Federation on the other spoke of the need to take into account the “appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, and the unauthorized use of the signal.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As in the case of the Scope of Application, in the case of Rights of Broadcasters as well, the Chair updated the plenary on the discussions in the Informals. The discussions were informed by two informal documents listing out the rights as well as the scope. While discussing the rights, said the Chair, it was decided to merge simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission since they were closely related. The rights sought to be granted to the broadcasters include those of fixation, reproduction of fixations, distribution of fixations and performance of the broadcast among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response to the Chair’s invitation for suggestions, the delegate of Sri Lanka suggested that one of the sentences be rephrased as follows: “Transmission or retransmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium whether simultaneous, near simultaneous or deferred including on demand transmission on a broadcast signal.” She also added fixation rights should be granted only to that extent of a file being copied for the purpose of transmission, before it has been transmitted. A few other delegations either echoed similar sentiments, or chose to remain silent until the Informals.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Comments by NGOs</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the third (and the final for the Broadcast Treaty), day of discussions, the Chair opened the floor to interventions, observations and comments by NGOs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">AIR, representing broadcasting organizations spoke of the “great need” to update the Rome Convention because of the prevalence of piracy, especially transmissions over the internet. The National Association of Broadcasters cited instances of television piracy as examples of the harm to broadcasters and need for such a treaty. The Japanese Commercial Broadcasters Association expressed its support for post fixation rights and said that they were important to broadcasters, “especially the right of making available a fixed broadcast is crucial in order to fight online piracy which we said a number of times before…” (sic.). Also recognising the need to be flexible, the Japanese Commercial Broadcasters expressed their support to the proposal made by the Japanese delegation in making some rights optional.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A different set of concerns was articulated by other NGOs, who were not associations of broadcasters. Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue ( <b>“TACD”</b>) spoke of the possible “collateral damange to public access and culture” and the addition of “new layers of complications barriers and costs added” to access to information and knowledge by consumers. Further, highlighting the irony of the SCCR with the strong push towards a binding Broadcast Treaty “with a wide scope”, the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue said that this was in “stark contrast on the part of some other Member States to discussing new global norms” to facilitating the role played by libraries and archives. Additionally, TACD also said that there was the danger of “opening up an endless and incomprehensive Pandora box of overlapping rights on content between non creators of broadcasts and the real creators” (sic.), and also expressed grave concern over the negative impact of post fixation rights on the use of news, culture and information by consumers ad users. “In consideration of a new international norm for broadcasters, we must not forget the common food for the free flow of information for citizens,” said TACD. It also said that the focus of the work should not be to satisfy the interests of one special group while ignoring the possible negative unintentional consequences on “normal users”, and asked for a social impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International (<b>“KEI”</b>) in their statement stated that the broadcasters had failed to meet their burden of proving the need for “exclusive rights to fight piracy.” In order for the Committee to make progress, KEI suggested that the focus be on a “narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the key need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.” KEI also questioned and opposed the extension of broadcasters’ rights to cable television and other services which were not only subscription based, but were also protected under theft of service laws. Further confining the scope of the Broadcast Treaty, KEI suggested that the treaty only deal with over the air broadcasts which were free to the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A powerful statement by CCIA referred to fixed signals as “fiction” and said that the existing model in the Brussels Satellite Convention was adequate to protect piracy of signals. Echoing the sentiments of various other organisations as well (including CIS as discussed below), CCIA stated that while broadcasters had stated that the present approach was not adequate to protect their interests, no reasons had been offered fir the same. In agreement with other nations as well as TACD before it, CCIA also sought information from WIPO on the “real world impact of the obligations” it intended to create.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also joining the call for impact assessment was the Third World Network (<b>“TWN”</b>). TWN also spoke of restricting the scope of the Broadcast Treaty to the mandate accorded to the SCCR in line with the 2007 General Assembly decision, the need to base discussing on WIPO’s Development Agenda, and the “negative implications on the free flow of information over the Internet and the negative impact on the public domain and access to knowledge.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society (<b>“CIS”</b>), in agreement with CCIA pointed out that the broadcasters had not discharged their burden of justifying the need for the Broadcast Treaty and why “international instruments including, among others, the TRIPS and the Rome Convention” were insufficient to address the concerns of broadcasters. Joining other organizations including CCIA, TACD and TWN in a call for a further study, CIS requested an impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty on all stakeholders. Further, CIS pointed out that if the rationale for seeking this protection was the protection of the underlying investment, IP based transmissions should be out of the scope of this treaty, since the investments involved in IP based transmissions and those in broadcasting in a traditional sense were very different. CIS also strongly opposed the inclusion of fixation and post fixation rights since they were inconsistent with a <i>signals based approach</i> and pointed out the irony in protecting a signal for twenty years, when the signal itself lasted milliseconds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IFTA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance placed emphasis on the separation of the content and well as the broadcast signal as well maintaining a balance by also safeguarding public interest.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Chair’s Conclusions</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After five days of deliberations, the 28<sup>th</sup> Session of the SCCR, just like the 27<sup>th</sup> Session, ended with no conclusions being adopted by the Committee, as a result of which the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_28/sccr_28_ref_conclusions.pdf">Chair’s Conclusions</a> were prepared by the Chair, Martin Moscoso.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clarifying that this item would be maintained on the agenda for the 29<sup>th</sup> Session of the SCCR and that there had been no agreement on recommendations to the WIPO General Assembly, the Chair’s Conclusions state that the Committee conducted discussions on issues relating to “categories of platforms and activities to be included under the object and scope of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, and initiated discussions on definitions.” The Chair’s Conclusions also clarify that “the Secretariat was requested by some Members to provide an update of the 2010 study on “Current Market and Technology Trends in the Broadcasting Sector” (Document SCCR 19/12), focusing on the use of digital technology by cablecasting and broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense whether public or commercial, including in developing countries, with the aim of presenting the results of the study and providing opportunities for technical discussion at the 29th session of the SCCR.”</p>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="100%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> <i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1 (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ report on the 26<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
<p><i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for transcripts of the discussions at the 27 <sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
<p><i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 26<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
<p><i>See</i> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 27<sup>th</sup> Session of the Committee.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-08-07T10:44:05ZBlog EntryOpening Comments by India on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opening-statement-of-india-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>This was the statement made by the Indian delegation at the 28th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on July 2, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Hon'ble Chair</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In the quest for Knowledge society-for the developing countries- the issue of haves and have -not’s is now sliced with an additional divide of knows and Know -not’s. Libraries and Archives are the engines of creativity and promote intergeneration equity. They indeed are the modern day temples, mosques and churches- The notion of strong copyright boundaries has found its resonance to encircle spaces hitherto providing the socio economic infrastructure for developing nations. It is in this context that we need to look for appropriate international instrument to consolidate the access by way of limitations and exceptions to libraries, archives, educational institutions and other disabled people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The overemphasis of stricter and stronger copyright as the engine of creativity is now questioned by latest studies. Ekhard Höffner a German historian has in his comprehensive research argues the fact that in the 19th century Germany outpaced UK, as the copyright laws were not strong as it was in UK. This fact goes contrary to the established view that Copyright is directly correlated to the expansion of creative works and publication. In fact Germany could do the catch up with the other powers in Europe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">I am mentioning this to emphasize for the developing world to do the catch up it is necessary to have limitations and exceptions for Libraries/archives/educational institutions. At this junction it is necessary to recognize the importance of such consensus without presuming whether what sort of International Instrument it should be.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">India supports the effort of harmonizing the exceptions and limitations from an international dimension for intergenerational equity and as a tool to develope socio-economic- human resource infrastructure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opening-statement-of-india-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opening-statement-of-india-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-07-21T17:55:28ZBlog EntryStatement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari, attending the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 30 June, 2014 to 04 July, 2014, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives on behalf of CIS on Day 4, 03 July, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We thank the delegation of the United States for putting forward their Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, presented to this Committee in <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_8.pdf">Document SCCR/ 26/8</a>. I would like to comment on two of the topics that we have discussed today- one; the adoption of national exceptions and two; limitations and exceptions in a digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>First</em>, Mr. Chair, on the adoption of national exceptions: We appreciate the recognition of the ‘public service’ role of libraries and the importance of limitations and exceptions for them to perform their role of facilitating access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, the goals of the copyright system. However, Mr. Chair, we do believe that the true and complete realization of these objectives would not be possible without an international legal instrument that lays out minimum international standards for countries to adopt and implement, that fosters a system for cross border exchange and creates an enabling environment to facilitate the implementation and adoption of limitations and exceptions at the national level.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Second, </em>Mr. Chair, on limitations and exceptions in a digital environment; we appreciate the objective set out in the proposal made by the United States and welcome the statements by the delegations of Kenya, Chile and South Africa, that international regulation will grant a solution to the problems facing libraries and archives in the digital environment. Mr. Chair, the digital environment presents huge opportunities for countries such as India and perhaps others in the Global South for the preservation and dissemination of knowledge and in turn benefit education and research; with libraries and archives playing a crucial role. The digital environment, Mr. Chair, also presents a fair share of challenges. These include as IFLA, CLA, EIFL, IAB, the Karisma Foundation and others have also stated- multiplicity and complexity of licenses to be negotiated with various rights holders, the mandated use of particular platforms by publishers, difficulties in obtaining copyright clearances and limitations on remote access to name a few. Additional challenges are placed by technological measures of protection, (something that we also spoke about in our submission at the previous session of this Committee; where technological measures of protection often placed on master copies of files obtained by libraries and archives prevent basic preservation activities such as file format migration and limit the ways in which end users can utilize the work in question, rendering redundant, fair use or fair dealing provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Therefore, Mr. Chair, we are of the opinion that an international legal instrument addressing the challenges faced by libraries and archives in the digital environment is necessary and the way forward for members of this Committee- and existing mechanisms in national laws of those nations that do have them are insufficient.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Video</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;">Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014 are </span><a style="text-align: justify;" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp" target="_blank">available online</a><span style="text-align: justify;">.
To view CIS' Statement, select 'Standing Committee on Copyright and
Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session- June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva,
Switzerland)' from the drop-down list of videos. CIS' Statement is in
the video </span><span style="text-align: justify;">titled SCCR/28-
Thurs3 - English - Afternoon session. The length of the video is
02:13:52. The statement is available in this video from 01:38:46</span></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-07-21T17:56:24ZBlog EntryMaher Reports on WIPO Copyright Deliberations
https://cis-india.org/news/society-of-american-archivists-july-2-2014-maher-reports-on-wipo-copyright-deliberations
<b>SAA Past President and IPWG member William Maher represented the views of American archivists as a permanent observer at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meeting, December 16-20.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Read the original published on the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.archivists.org/news/2014/maher-reports-on-wipo-copyright-deliberations">website of the Society of American Archivists</a>. CIS is briefly mentioned.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Attendees discussed an international treaty for library and archives exceptions for copyright, including provisions related to orphan works and making preservation copies. Maher noted that many of the national delegates are less familiar with the mission of archives than that of public libraries; his <a href="http://files.archivists.org/governance/SAA-statement-SCCR26.pdf" target="_blank">statement on SAA’s behalf</a> helped to bridge that gap. (View his presentation and that of the International Council on Archives representative <a href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp" target="_blank">here</a>, at 26:30 and 34:00.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">View the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) information flyer <a href="http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/ifla_wipo_message_overview_final.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following is Maher's report on the meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Summary Report on Service as </b><b>Society of American Archivists <br /> NGO Representative </b><b>at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s <br /></b><b>Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 26<sup>th</sup> Session</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">William J. Maher<br /> January 10, 2014</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Executive Summary:</b> At the December 2013 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the SAA was instrumental in educating not only the WIPO national delegates but also the library advocacy groups on the differences between libraries and archives and the specific archival needs for a treaty supporting copyright exceptions and limitations. With our coalition partners, the SAA helped prevent the marginalization of work on library and archives exceptions during future meetings. Meanwhile, new leadership of the SCCR helped the Committee avoid the stalemate that had been evident at SAA’s prior attendance in November 2011. Thus, momentum has been maintained for continued work on library and archives exceptions at the three SCCR sessions scheduled for 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Next Steps:</b> Because of the positive outcome of SCCR 26 calling for continuation of “text-based” work on library and archives exceptions over the next three meetings in 2014, it will be important for SAA to secure funding to ensure that our archival voice, experience, and particular needs continue to inform both the NGOs and national delegates at the these sessions. In addition, to help make that representation most effective, the Intellectual Property Working Group will need to develop several concise case study statements or “issue briefs” to exemplify the particular archival dimensions of the eight remaining themes in the draft text being considered for a treaty. Finally, early consultations should be held with coalition partners to develop a strategy to ensure retention of the text’s orphan works provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Background:</b> Copyright law may be established by national laws, but it is international treaties, such as the Berne Convention and the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty that provide the broad framework of copyright and authors’ rights. While current treaties allow nations to provide some exemptions to authors’ monopoly of exclusive rights, the areas for exceptions are quite limited, and none are mandated except in the recently treaty supporting exceptions for visual impaired persons.[1] Meanwhile, there continue to be onerous regimes for exclusive rights,[2] and it has been difficult to get attention to archivists’ and librarians’ specific interests in supporting acquisition, preservation, and accessibility of our of collections, and services to our users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fortunately, there are global actors with whom American archivists can collaborate. Thanks to 2004 and 2008 initiatives by Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, and Nicaragua, there has been a call for WIPO to develop treaty language that would require member states to enact education- and development-friendly exemptions into national law. The International Council on Archives (ICA) has commissioned a copyright working group to examine these issues, created a “white paper” entitled <i>Current Issues in Copyright for Archives</i>, and appointed the UK’s Tim Padfield as a representative to WIPO. By their joint work, ICA and the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) have created a plan to secure appropriate exceptions and limitations to copyright’s exclusive rights. The plan’s success, however, would require continued engagement in and representation at WIPO.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is the body authorized to draft language for international treaties on copyright and generally meets twice a year. The possibility of “library and archives rights” was the subject of a special SCCR meeting in Geneva in November 2011. This meeting was the first time the Society of American Archivists was able to participate as an <i>ad hoc</i> Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) observer, and I attended as SAA’s representative. Subsequently, SAA applied for and was granted status as a permanent NGO observer, and on that basis sent me once again as a representative to the SCCR 26 meeting December 16-20, 2013. Given what I had observed in 2011, the protocol and process of the SCCR made much more sense in 2013. Perhaps this was just part of the learning curve, but it equally well could be a result of new leadership of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The effort to develop a treaty to provide exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives has been tied to development concerns of the “global South.” When the WIPO General Assembly adopted a development agenda in 2007, SCCR had a mandate to make development needs an integral part of its work. It commissioned Kenneth Crews to provide a report examining copyright laws of 149 of WIPO’s 184 member states.[3] Results, not surprisingly, showed wide variations in national practices and a general lack of provisions addressing library and archives needs. In 2010, SCCR expanded its consideration of exemptions and limitations to include provisions for visually impaired persons, libraries and archives, and education. Then, in June 2011, the 41-member Africa Group presented a draft WIPO treaty for these latter areas, based heavily on a 2010 proposal from IFLA. Finally, IFLA itself presented its own “Treaty Proposal on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives” (TLIB) at the November 2011 meeting.[4] The draft was cosponsored by ICA, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), and a library NGO called Innovarte.[5]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although IFLA, as an NGO, cannot propose treaty language, at the 23<sup>rd</sup> session of SCCR in November 2011 a coalition of Brazil, Ecuador, and Uruguay put forward a document incorporating all of the essential elements of IFLA’s proposal, and that document received standing for debate and discussion within SCCR. However, the discussion revealed deep divides among the national delegates. Developed countries argued that their separate laws already contained provisions to meet the needs of users for access to library and archival material and that no mandatory treaty was needed. Developing and lesser developed countries argued that the needs of their populations for access to information and knowledge was impaired by the lack of exceptions and limitations to copyright and particularly by the lack of an international instrument that could provide predictability and uniformity across national borders. At best, the developed countries suggested the adoption of so-called “soft law,” or guidelines that countries could adopt. At worst, some argued that attention to balancing copyright with exceptions and limitations was unnecessary use of the committee’s time.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the end, while the November 2011 SCCR 23 could not agree on the nature of the “international instrument” it would be pursuing, it adopted a work plan to continue to discuss library and archives exceptions at its future meetings while also focusing attention on the creation of exceptions to support the needs of visually impaired persons (VIPs). Over the course of 2012 and through mid-2013 (i.e., SCCR 24-25), the Committee focused most of these discussion of exceptions on the VIP matter, but it did set a timetable to devote particular attention to the library and archives exceptions over the course of SCCR 26 through 29, with the objective of adopting a text for submission to a diplomatic conference in 2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Despite the seemingly intractable positions evident in 2011 and widely reported through early 2013 regarding VIP provisions, a June 2013 diplomatic conference in Marrakesh was able to reach an unexpected agreement on a VIP treaty. This was an important development because it represented a first. It elevated copyright exceptions to treaty status, and it involved obtaining consensus among hitherto seemingly irreconcilable parties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The so-called “Miracle of Marrakesh” set the stage for potential drama at the December 2013 SCCR 26. Could the momentum of creating copyright exceptions carry forward from the VIP area to also support library and archives exceptions? Would the publishing industry, collective rights organizations, and the global north be able to argue that the exceptions created at Marrakesh had rebalanced copyright so that attention could now focus on other areas of exclusive rights, such as the long-deferred matter of exclusive rights for broadcasting organizations?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Preparations: </b>Once it was clear that SAA Council would be funding participation at SCCR 26, I was asked to join various listservs and e-mail lists of other treaty advocates and invited to to brainstorm and coordinate positions among treaty-friendly NGOs. These collaborations involved assessing the variant drafts that national delegates had put forward for the 11 separate “topics” or provisions of a proposed treaty text and advising on which variant was best for our particular needs. Particularly important was being able to participate in the shaping of the message for a general publicity piece to explain to the public why copyright reform for libraries and archives mattered. Because of this access and participation, SAA was able to have its logo appear on the ultimate piece after we were sure that it adequately reflected archival as well as library concerns.[6] Throughout the entire preparation period, as well as during the week of SCCR, there were multiple and frequent consultations with the SAA Intellectual Property Workding Group (IPWG) and the SAA Executive Director, especially in drafting the main statement for SAA to present as well as the text for the “Side Event” presentation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SCCR 26, December 16-20, 2013:</b> The schedule for SCCR 26 allocated the first two days to a discussion of exclusive rights for broadcasting organizations, a question of limited interest to archivists. This was to be followed by two days devoted to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, and a final day discussing issues relating to whether exceptions could be created to support educational institutions and organizations. The session opened on December 16 with the election of Martin Moscoso of Peru as a new chair to lead the committee for the next two years. He had most recently served as facilitator over informal discussions between opposing sides at Marrakesh and had strong support from the Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moscoso proved adept at maintaining good order, identifying issues for potential consensus, and managing situations when positions of some national delegates conflicted sharply. The resultant draft text for the SCCR’s plan for future work suggests that the matter of the exceptions for libraries and archives being sought by the Africa Group (AG) and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) will remain on the agenda. Overall, the SCCR session showed a much more positive spirit and productivity than that of November 2011.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Library and Archives Exceptions and Limitations:</b> Despite some efforts by global North countries to extend the broadcasting discussion beyond the scheduled two days, the Chair directed the Committee to follow the previously agreed-upon allocation of time. After calling upon regional groupings and national delegates offered for general comments on library and archives exceptions, the floor was opened the floor for presentations by approximately two dozen NGOs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Interventions from Non-Governmental Organizations:</b> Unlike some other international bodies such as the telecommunications union where invited NGOs participate in floor debate, at SCCR NGOs’ formal involvement is limited to scheduled opportunities to offer statements or “interventions” on the policy issues before SCCR. By long convention, these interventions are limited to three minutes, with some prior chairs enforcing the time limit vigorously. The NGOs at SCCR contained representatives from both sides. Those speaking against the need for library and archives exceptions included Motion Picture Association, International Federation of Journalists, International Federation of Musicians, International Publishers Association, Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Federation of Reproductions Rights Organizations, etc. Those speaking in favor of L&A exceptions included the Canadian Library Association, Center for Internet and Society, German Library Federation, Karisma Fundaćion (Colombia human rights organization), IFLA, eIFL, ICA and the SAA. In his intervention, Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International pointed out that the needs of archives were particularly striking yet seemingly less complex than those of libraries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A central part of my presence as SAA’s NGO representative at SCCR was this opportunity to provide a formal position statement to the Committee.[7] Within the allowed three minutes, I noted how the recent UNESCO “Universal Declaration on Archives” called for broad public access to archives. I also noted that because the public increasingly expected archival content be online, copyright represented a major barrier to the archival mission and to the public’s right to access. Noting the insufficiency of the U.S.’s Section 108 library and archives exceptions, I called the national delegates’ attention to the need to develop a treaty that would provide cross-border uniformity. I closed by suggesting that the viability of both archives and the copyright system required exceptions to support public access for heritage and accountability. The statement appears to have been well-received by treaty advocates based on several comments that received through the end of the week. Perhaps the best indication of this was the blog entry provided by Manon Ress of Knowledge Ecology International, who reproduced my statement in full, immediately preceded by her comment: “The room is clearly divided but the intellectual argument is being won by the libraries and archives. Here are some of the very strong statements.”[8]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Debate by National Delegates on Proposal for Library and Archives Treaty:</b> Following a previously developed work plan, the Committee adopted a text-based discussion of the awkwardly titled: “Working document containing comments on and textual suggestions towards an appropriate international legal instrument (in whatever form) on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.” The work plan had called for discussion of the draft text through its 11 topics which had been built from texts first by the Africa Group and Brazil/Ecuador.[9] Over the two allocated days, the delegates were able to complete work on the first two topics (copying for preservation and for users), touch briefly on legal deposit (topic 3), and begin discussion of library lending (topic 4). Those skeptical of the need for an international treaty kept trying to steer the discussion toward a review of current national practices and the need to protect the authors’ interests. Advocates for the treaty emphasized the need for a base level of exceptions and the need to establish uniformity across national borders. Insofar as multiple phrasings of the the proposed provisions were left in document, those proposals appear to have basically survived the discussion, but it became clear that there was overlap among some of the themes, such as copying for users and library lending/document delivery. Thus, some consolidation could be expected. For archives, issues about preservation, including the need to remove limits on the number of preservation copies, were well handled. However, one of our most important topics, orphan works copying and distribution, was deeper into the work plan and was not addressed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Overall, there was little change in the delegates’ positions during the meeting. In short, the global North argued that an international instrument was not needed because many countries had addressed these concerns with national laws. They therefore tried to steer SCCR’s work towards merely studying the laws and practices of member states. In addition, a number called for an update of Kenneth Crews’ 2007/08 study, presumably on the assumption that legislation in some countries may have changed in the past 6 years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Throughout, the SCCR Chair worked to find a consensus for the future work. On the down side, it appeared that the complexity of the copyright issues archivists face are quite foreign to these policy makers, no matter how much we restated the principles that we would like to see incorporated into an international instrument. The discussion at SCCR 26 clarified that our most important task is to have a rich roster of simple, practical examples of how the lack of a specific exception militates against the public’s need for information and records. We also need to counter the claim that national laws already provide locally tailored solutions by explaining the cross-border, international nature of the problem. Good, clear, and provocative examples in our prepared remarks and in briefing sheets, will advance the understanding of friendly delegates. on whom we have to rely. The IFLA and eIFL representatives began working on such a set of</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>“Side Event” Presentation:</b> SCCR meetings often include “side events” beyond the official proceedings of the Committee. These events include evening receptions as well as the more typical early afternoon panel sessions on some issue of relevance to the topics being considered. At SCCR 26, the Thursday December 19 side event, sponsored by IFLA, was titled “‘Digital Gridlock’” What Future for Libraries and Archives?” Its particular point was to clarify how access to library and archival material is impeded by copyright limits, and how the problem is fundamentally an international one that can only be solved by a treaty providing consistency across borders. The speakers were allocated five to ten minutes. I was asked to present on how copyright affected the future of archives. My remarks were titled, “It's My Heritage, Why Can't I Have It? The Unintended Consequences of the Digital Embargo.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Realizing that neither the delegates nor all the other NGOs understood what archives contain and what archivists do, I drew on my own archives’ experience to describe the scope and use of institutional archives and manuscript collections. I focused on the increasing expectations to meet users needs via online holdings, and I emphasized how copyright in orphan works was a major impediment to meet these expectations. I cited an example of a NARA project where the use of its data files increased 335 times when the data were put online.[10] I made a special point of citing core statistics from Maggie Dickson’s University of North Carolina study to underscore the excessiveness of a strict authors’ rights and permissions regime for archival digital projects.[11] I closed with two specific examples drawn from collections and users at the University of Illinois Archives, in which key cultural heritage information was not readily available to individuals of those communities unless they could afford travel to see the originals. The presentation was well-received and generated some useful discussion during the question period. Overall, the “Side Event” was a successful opportunity to explain the archival concerns and clarify that they are not precisely the same as libraries’.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Education Exceptions:</b> Friday morning, December 20, was devoted to general statements from NGOs, and regional and national delegates about the set of exceptions that the Africa Group had proposed to support educational organizations and educational activities. These call for a broad array of exceptions to allow copying and digitization of works in support of education and research activities at all levels. Overall, the concept appears to face a tough road ahead. Because this issue was at a very early stage, only the morning of the last day was dedicated to discussing it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Conclusions and Closure of SCCR 26:</b> One the defining elements of any SCCR meeting is the last day’s work to prepare a “Conclusions” document. It summarizes what work was completed during the session, including consensus statements on issues where possible. Most importantly it identifies the work plan and allocation of time in the coming SCCR meeting(s) for particular issues. Because the Conclusions define what it the SCCR has accomplished and where its priorities and policies are headed, each sentence in the relatively short document (generally 3-4 pages) is subjected to great scrutiny and sometimes nearly endless debate late into the night or wee hours of the morning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the smoothness of the earlier days of the week, there was some hope that floor fights would be minimized and that the evening might end early. Unfortunately, that was not the case, even if the ultimate result was positive for those interested in library and archives exceptions. Those delegations advocating for a broadcast treaty and merely more study for the library and archives area launched an effort to allocate the majority of time in the next three SCCR meetings (i.e., three days in each) to broadcasting, with only two days in each for “exceptions.” Thanks to the some effective work by the librarians and archivists present in connecting with a few of the sympathetic to neutral country delegates, wording in the final version of Conclusion item 31 included the specific reference to libraries and archives as the lead topic for the latter two days of the April 2014 SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nevertheless, the issue of relative allocation of time during the three 2014 SCCR meetings was contentious. Because of some persistent resistance by treaty-sympathetic countries, the Committee’s eventual consensus was that the allocation of days for the July and December SCCRs would need to be deferred pending outcomes of the April meeting. While this may seem a small accomplishment or even just a delaying action, in fact it reflects significant success by treaty advocates in not allowing the momentum from Marrakesh to be turned back.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Advocacy as Education of Multiple Publics:</b> SAA’s experience at the SCCR in 2011 and especially in 2013 demonstrates that a central part of successful policy advocacy is not simply communicating our position, but also the extent to which we use the interchange as an opportunity for education. Because the policy makers and stakeholders whom we want to reach are only minimally aware of the mission and professional practices of archivists, influencing policy cannot start until we are recognized as a distinct sector with a mission that matters to the public and communities we serve. Ironically, the low visibility of archives and archivists among the public can work to our advantage in that if we sharpen our message carefully, we can immediately create a positive foundation for future interactions. By providing concise statements that focus on the broad cultural and educational value of archives combined with the substantial professional and ethical standards we have developed over the past three-quarters of a century, we can obtain not just respect for our mission but also a sympathetic hearing for our policy needs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this regard, according to comments from more than one of the stakeholders at SCCR 26, SAA was extremely effective in its communications and advocacy for the archives sector. SCCR 26 also demonstrated that archivists can obtain a hearing and audience for our concerns that is clearly well out of proportion to our inescapably small size. Indeed, it is the power of the archival message that has made stakeholders much larger than ourselves seek us out as coalition partners. In the process, we have gained significant leverage to advance our positions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To the extent that SAA wishes to build on the success at SCCR 26, an infrastructure is needed for this advocacy. First, there needs to be a physical presence at WIPO. Many of the occasions SAA had for influencing the text of coalition advocacy pieces would not have arisen if our planned presence at SCCR had not opened the door to our participation in the coalition’s communication channels through which positions were formulated collaboratively. Only through these were we able to make clear to library and other prospective allies those fundamentally different and compelling archival needs. We to be able to dedicate significant amounts of time to collaboration in the weeks leading up to the meeting. Significant preparation is needed to prepare concise, targeted position statements that can be effectively delivered in time that is measured in seconds rather than minutes. The statements need be supplemented by practical examples of archival needs and the benefits to the public from our holdings and professional work. The examples need to reflect the breadth of the publics whom archives serve as well as how these relate to international policy objectives being sought.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It goes without saying that SAA’s representative has been absolutely dependent upon and grateful for the strong support provided by the Intellectual Property Working Group, especially its chair, and for the confidence and support of the SAA Executive Director. Education is essential for effective advocacy, but it is preeminently a team effort.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Endnotes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[1] </sup>. According to the Berne Convention and the World Trade Organization’s 1994 TRIPS agreement, any exemptions provided by national legislation are supposed to meet a “three-step-test.” “Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to <i>certain special cases</i> which do not conflict with a <i>normal exploitation</i> of the work and do <i>not unreasonably prejudice</i> the legitimate interests of the rights holder.” See: Berne 9.2. at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html" title="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[2]</sup>. For example, the 1996 WIPO Treaty required countries to create legal prohibitions against circumventing any electronic copy-protection mechanisms that copyright holders have used on their works, making archival migration and preservation of electronic records very difficult.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[3]</sup>. Kenneth Crews, <i>Study of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives</i>, <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_2.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_2.pdf</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[4]</sup>. Available at: <a href="http://www.ifla.org/en/node/5856">http://www.ifla.org/en/node/5856</a> .</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[5]</sup>. The TLIB proposal calls for copyright exceptions and limitations that would enable libraries and archives to engage in: parallel importation; library lending; reproduction and supply of copies; preservation; making and distributing accessible copies for persons with disabilities; providing access to retracted, withdrawn, and orphan works; cross-border uses; translation of legally acquired works for specific users/user groups; freedom from contract provisions which would otherwise overwrite the exceptions; circumvent technological protection measures for lawful access; and enjoy limitations on liability for libraries and archives work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[6]</sup>. The resultant flyer can be seen at: <a href="http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/exceptions-limitations/ifla_wipo_message_overview_final.pdf">http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/exceptions-limitations/ifla_wipo_message_overview_final.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[7]</sup>. The full text of the intervention on behalf of the SAA can be found attached as <a href="http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/AppendixA-SAA-statement-SCCR26.pdf" target="_blank">Appendix A</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[8]</sup>. <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1863">http://keionline.org/node/1863</a> Unfortunately, because the SAA’s acronym was mistranslated, WIPO interpreters muddled the translation of the SCCR Chair’s Spanish language introduction of my intervention. Thus, Ms. Ress misidentified the first text as being from the International Council on Archives. While the ICA intervention was quite good, the text Ms. Ress replicates on the KEI blog is a verbatim transcript of the SAA remarks. The video of the SAA presentation can be seen at: <a href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp" title="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp">http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp</a> – Scroll down to below the title "Video on Demand," and in the right-hand menu, select “SCCR/26-Wed 18-English, Afternoon Session.” SAA’s intervention begins at minute 34.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><sup>[9]</sup>. Those themes/topics, with a brief summary of the provisions being sought, were:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">1): Preservation : It shall be permitted for libraries and archives to reproduce works, or materials protected by related rights, for the purposes of preservation or replacement, in accordance with fair practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2) Right of reproduction: A library or archives may reproduce and distribute a copy of a copyright work to a library user, or to another library or archive, for purposes of: education, private study by a users, or interlibrary document supply.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3) Legal deposit: Treaty member countries may determine that specific libraries and archives or any other institution shall serve as designated repositories in which at least one copy of every work published in the country is to be deposited and retained.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">4) Library Lending: It shall be permitted for a library to lend copyright works, or materials protected by related rights, to a user, or to another library.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5) Parallel Importation: Libraries and archives shall have the right to buy, import or otherwise acquire copies of any work published in any other Member State with the permission of the author of that work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6) Cross border uses: To the extent that it is necessary for the exercise of a limitation or exception provided for in this Treaty, cross-border uses shall be permitted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">7) Orphan works, works out of commerce. Libraries and archives shall have the right to reproduce, preserve and make available in any format or retracted any withdrawn works from public access or orphaned works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">8) Limitations on Liability: A librarian or archivist acting in good faith within the scope of his or her duties, is protected from claims for damages, from criminal liability, and from copyright infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">9) Technological Protection Measures: Libraries and archives may circumvent technological protection measures to exercise any of the rights provided by this treaty. 10) Contracts: contractual provisions may not overwrite the limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">10) Margaret O’Neill Adams, “Analyzing archives and finding facts: use and users of digital data records,” <i>Archival Science </i>7( 2007):21–36.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">11) Maggie Dickson, “Due Diligence, Futile Effort: Copyright and the Digitization of the Thomas E. Watson Papers,” <i>American Archivist</i> 73 (2010): 626-36.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/society-of-american-archivists-july-2-2014-maher-reports-on-wipo-copyright-deliberations'>https://cis-india.org/news/society-of-american-archivists-july-2-2014-maher-reports-on-wipo-copyright-deliberations</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-07-03T09:41:28ZNews ItemStatement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at WIPO SCCR 28
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari, attending the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 30 June, 2014 to 04 July, 2014, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 02 July, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mister Chair, there are two things that I would like to talk about, on behalf of CIS- <i>first</i>, on justifications for this Treaty; <i>second</i> on the scope and the rights sought to be granted under this Treaty, which I will speak of together, if I may.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On justifying the need for this Treaty, Mr. Chair, we would reiterate what we have said in past sessions of this Committee – there has been no conclusive demonstration on the need for this Treaty and on why existing mechanisms in international legal instruments, including, among others TRIPS and the Rome Convention are not sufficient to address the concerns of the broadcasters. We have heard that these are insufficient, but no justifications as to why- something that KEI also pointed out in their statement before us. Further, Mr. Chair, we’re concerned by the fact that the latest study on the unauthorised use of signals presented to this Committee is the one from 2010 at the 20<sup>th</sup> Session of this Committee. We strongly support the proposal made by India, TWN, CCIA and TACD to update this study and include an impact assessment of ALL the stakeholders, something that the earlier study does not address; in order to more comprehensively assess not just the need, but also the impact of this proposed treaty, and address some of the questions and concerns raised by TACD and TWN in their statement earlier.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Without prejudice to this submission on the need for this treaty, Mr. Chair, we would also like to comment on the scope of, and the rights under this Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Chair, we would continue to submit that this proposed treaty should be based on a signals based approach and not a rights based approach. We have heard submissions by broadcasters at this and at previous sessions of this Committee, where the basis of seeking additional protection for broadcaster is to protect the underlying investment. Mr. Chair, investments made in infrastructure for broadcasting in the traditional sense are very different from those required for an IP based transmission, even if the same broadcaster is engaging in both. Therefore, Mr. Chair, given that the rationale for seeking this additional layer of rights over and above existing copyright is the protection of investment for broadcasting in the traditional sense is the , IP based transmissions should not be covered in any way under this Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, Mr. Chair, fixation and post fixation rights envisaged under Article 9 of Working Document SCCR 27/2/ Rev. and indicated in the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/informal-discussion.pdf" class="internal-link">Informal Document</a> circulated today, are inconsistent with a signals based approach. We are strongly opposed to all of the rights indicated in the Third Row of this Informal Discussion Document. This Document, we believe, is moving the discussion towards a rights based approached and not a signals based approach, which we find deeply concerning. We also believe, Mr. Chair, that it is not logical to prescribe a term of protection (beyond the life of a signal), least of all 20 or 50 year term (as under Article 11 of this Working Document) for a signal that lasts milliseconds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Video</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align:justify; ">Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014 are </span><a href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp" style="text-align:justify; " target="_blank">available online</a><span style="text-align:justify; ">. To view CIS' Statement, select 'Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session- June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva, Switzerland)' from the drop-down list of videos. CIS' Statement is in the video </span><span style="text-align:justify; ">titled SCCR/28- Wed2 - English - Morning session. The length of the video is 44:51. The statement is available in this video from 24 minutes, 00 seconds- when the Chair recognizes CIS.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-07-14T05:40:27ZBlog EntryFrance, Greece, India and the European Union Sign the Marrakesh Treaty
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/france-greece-india-eu-sign-marrakesh-treaty
<b>On April 30, 2014, on Day 3 of the 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, a Signing Ceremony was conducted for member states wishing to sign the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to books and other reading material for the print disabled.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Read the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty" class="external-link">WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty</a></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Opening the proceedings, the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry called the Marrakesh Treaty “one of the greatest achievements of this Committee in the past year.” The Hon’ble Ambassador of France in his speech following that of the Director General emphasised the importance that his government placed on this treaty. Mrs. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development signed the Marrakesh Treaty for the Government of India. In her address at the Signing Ceremony, Mrs. Ish placed emphasis on India’s 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, stating that these provisions were “in complete harmony” with the Marrakesh Treaty and that India was “well poised” to implement the same. Mrs.Ish also stated that India would be ratifying the treaty “very soon.” Most importantly perhaps, Mrs. Ish reminded the Committee that appropriate mechanisms to implement this treaty would have to be put in place; and that implementing it in its true spirit would require cooperation from all member states. The Ambassador of Greece, speaking on behalf of Greece and the European Union said that they wanted the Marrakesh Treaty to serve its original purpose of benefitting persons with print disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Blind Union (EBU) and the Secretary General of (and speaking on behalf of) the International Publishers’ Association (IPA) also made statements at the Signing Ceremony. EBU was of the opinion that while the signature was a “major, symbolic leap forward”, the next crucial step was to ensure its speedy ratification so that it might become effective. IPA echoed previous speakers on the point that ratification and implementation were but first steps, and that access would only be achieved as a result of “collaboration between rights organizations and rights holders.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It will be interesting to see how these member states follow up on their signatures to the Marrakesh Treaty. The treaty will only be effective 3 months after at least 20 nations have ratified it.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/france-greece-india-eu-sign-marrakesh-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/france-greece-india-eu-sign-marrakesh-treaty</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T23:23:25ZBlog EntryIs the WIPO Treaty for Broadcasters Moving Forward at SCCR 27?
https://cis-india.org/news/knowledge-ecology-international-manon-ress-april-29-2014-is-wipo-treaty-for-broadcasters-moving-forward-at-sccr-27
<b>The WIPO treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organization: The Way Forward? </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CIS statement at WIPO is <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1994">quoted in this post submitted by Manon Ress</a> to Knowledge Ecology International on April 29, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On day 2 of Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 27, it looks as if the US delegation was showing the SCCR delegates a "way forward" for a new treaty for broadcasting organizations. It seemed as if US diplomacy was working efficiently and the US proposal was gathering support. However, while the US proposal was indeed gathering support, public interest groups and copyright owners also became more vocal in their opposition to the proposal on the table.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Let me highlight aspects of the first 2 days (Monday and Tuesday 28-29 April, 2014) of discussions on the treaty. Wednesday half day is in principle devoted to conclusions on the first topic of the SCCR 27 and will be dealt with in a separate blogpost.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, led by Martin Moscoso, a most efficient Chair, the delegates moved quickly through the text (with many alternatives) and discussed the various technological platforms as well as the various forms of transmission for broadcasting. They decided to come up (later) with a matrix to, if not clarify at least simplify the work on the proposal. Monday was about the object of protection (what is a signal?) and Tuesday was about Article 9. which is the Article about rights. The issues were: what are the rights that will be granted or not granted to the broadcasters in the treaty.<br />Until lunch time Tuesday, the mood was quite optimistic and it was no longer "if there is a treaty" ...but when there is a treaty. Delegates were chatting everywhere and one could almost feel a treaty fever coming to the SCCR again.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussions were quite diplomatic but also technical. The Delegates are, after all, copyright and related rights experts obviously enjoying arguing and debating, subject matter protection, scope and of course nature of rights. Here is the Secretariat comprehensive review of Article 9 which include the many Exclusive rights that are on the table.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">SECRETARIAT: this very high level. We have for Article 9 on page 8 two alternatives, alternative A and Alternative B. Then we have Article 9 in the annex, a proposal from India and then we also, of course, have the new proposal on, in that document, annex 6, I believe this is covered in Article 6 of the cablecasting organizations.Starting with the working text,Ssccr/27/2rev. Both of these Articles, they deal with exclusive rights to authorize by broadcasting organizations, the first one lists fewer rights it covers retransmission, performance, the use of a pre-broadcast signal with them and then with the performance (?), it leaves it as a matter of domestic law to determine the conditions under which this may be exercised provided that the protection is adequate and effective.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights that broadcasting organizations may authorize.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fixation, direct, indirect production, retransmission by any means, communication to the public, making available, transmission for the reception by the public following fixation and making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of broadcasts with respect to this alternative, there are two subparagraphs, two and three, that address some flexibilities. Two says that the indirect reproduction and retransmission rights may be a matter for domestic law where the protection of the right is claimed to determine the conditions under which it may be exercised provided that the protection is adequate and effective.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is possible under 3 to deposit a notification with the Director General saying that instead of the exclusive right of authorizing providing for in subparagraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 there could be a right to prohibit with a notification.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Then there's a general final subparagraph talking about adequate, effective legal protection to signals. With the means of the protection being governed by legislation of the country where the protection is claimed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Annex includes various proposals and the Chair asked each proponents to explain:<br />For example, here is the US Intervention:<br />quote</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The U.S. proposal for discussion is found in the annex at page 4, we first suggested this concept a year ago at intercessional meeting and fleshed it out in actual language at the last SCCR session. As we described then, the goal of our suggested language for discussion is to try to cut through the same debate of the scope of rights for this treaty that's been going on for in the range of 15 years now. What we were attempting to do was to identify a single core right, that would be very narrowly focused to address the fundamental concerns of broadcasters, to do so within the scope of the General Assemblies mandate to deal with signal protection, signal-based protection. As you see from the language, I won't go in a lot of detail, we have described this before, we would suggest that no post-fixation rights would be required at the international level, just protection for the signal itself and that after fixation we would be relying on protection for the content rather than the signal so not through this treaty, but through other treaties and through national laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So the way we formulated it was to focus on simultaneous or near simultaneous retransmission to the public of both the signal and the pre-broadcast signal because the broadcasters had made a case for the need of protection for pre-broadcast signal as well. As you can see from our proposed definition for discussion purposes we would define near simultaneous retransmission to be a transmission that's delayed only to the extent necessary to accommodate time differences or to facilitate the technical transmission of the signal. So recognizing that -- well sometimes there's a delay but we would be talking about delays of something more like seconds and hours rather than years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What we would also like to do at this point, rather than spend many hours having everyone discuss again what their original proposals were, perhaps there's a way forward that this committee could consider. We do have a number of complex alternatives with multiple rights for Article 9 before us at this point.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And in the interest of being able to make progress, we would like to put forth an idea for consideration. In the discussion of our proposal for discussion purposes of this new approach we have not yet in the meetings that we have held since we first put it forward, we have not yet heard opposition to the Treaty covering at least that much and the main area of this agreement seems to be whether there should also be additional rights particularly relating to post-fixation uses. So one suggestion we put forward for consideration on how to move forward in this meeting would be to see if we can as a committee try to narrow the range of choices before us and there are a number of ways that this can be done. One possibility would be to say that one choice is the U.S. suggested approach in our proposal for discussion, and the other main choice would be to start with that, but then also add some version of the various post-fixation rights that other Delegations have proposed as the alternative. Maybe there's a way that the proponents could combine some of their catalog of rights into a shorter catalog or a single more general right dealing with post fixation uses and then although certainly the United States isn't in a position to agree to such a broader catalog, we would have a clearer idea of what the two main fundamental approaches are, and that would help us all clarify the situation and present the alternatives to be negotiated as we move forward and make it easier to look for potential compromises.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I don't know if that's entirely clear, and I would be I don't know if that's entirely clear, and I would be glad to describe in more detail what we were thinking about, but we put this out for everyone's consideration as a possible way to move forward rather than just to continue to go in circles with everyone explaining their own position. And again, you know, as we keep saying, we want to stress that all we're talking about again is a international minimum and that doesn't prevent anyone from having the entire catalog of rights that they may have in their current national system to preserving those rights and urging others to adopt them as well. We're looking for something that we can all agree to at international level.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This US Proposal which is about a narrow right (a signal-based approach) and also a way to limit the proposals on the table by having only two fundamental approaches on the table. The signal-based narrow approach or the US proposal by contrast with the catalog of rights proposed by the EU (and its supporters).</p>
<p>One had to note that what was in December for SCCR 26, an informal US proposal in the annex, had gathered many supporters. For example, the US proposal was supported in some ways by India:</p>
<p>INDIA: Good morning, Mr. President.<br /> I think Belarus, the Distinguished Delegate from Belarus and the Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. started the day with good morning, with good initiatives. We're open to discuss those issues. Going back to the comments made by the Distinguished Delegate from belarus, we do agree that no additional protection to the content should be given because content, the content, it is either author or the performer, asper the convention or the WCPT or the sin graphic producer, the producer of the sin graphic or the sound performing. Already the protection, is that.</p>
<p>What we need to protect here, it is the signal as said by the Distinguished Delegate of the United States also. The signal-based approach, that's what it says, the signal has to be protected. If you look at the definition of signal which India has given in annex, Article 5, page 1, it clearly said that the signal means an electronically generated carrier consisting of a specific program whether encrypted or not and then encryption, it is the dpm, we all know that, you know that that's the business model, the technical model followed by most. Coming to the program carried by the signal, that's the broadcast content.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So we have to see what exactly the signal is carrying the broadcast. It contains, you know, various types of Intellectual Property that's a copyrighted material that we can divide into four main categories. One is, of course, the program content, whether it is in-house production, created by -- acquired from the content owner, and then the other content is the advertisement, and then the moment you will see these two things, each has its own look and appearance just like CNN or BBC, the moment that content is on the screen, you know this is CNN content, you know that this is BBC content, even the same if their live casting, this, you see, in the Standing Committee, you know how it is different, it is a CNN journalist, a B cc journal. Then becomes the way they arrange the content, that's the full thing. The way it is presented. So, these are the four things, the signal, broadcast content, content, so various licensing and arguments are there. The advertising appearing between the few seconds in the BBC journal is different than what advertisement of the CNN and apart from the look and feel of the journal, and then coming to the proposal I would like to briefly explain and make sure we're given the Article 9. It is totally based on the signal-based approach in what we have explained here that the broadcasting organization hall enjoy the right to prohibit if done without authorization the rebroadcast of the signal through traditional procedure casting means, so rebroadcast not only the broadcast, the rebroadcast has to be protected. Here the question of fixation comes, you know, the fixation to be allowed only for the purposes of the rebroadcasting are in the near simultaneous broadcast, which was our Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. was telling, maybe deferred on the delayed -- unless you fix it, you don't do that. Coming to the simultaneous broadcasting, the U.S. Delegate was talking about, here simultaneous in the traditional sense only, it is clear it is a signal-base aid approach in the traditional sense, not the webcasting or simulcasting, what we need to protect here, if any unscrupulous guy, unauthorized manner taking this program-carrying signal, putting it over the internet, the investment of that broadcaster has to be protected. So that's what our proposal talks about, not about the simulcasting, live screaming and other platforms. So there -- otherwise, we will be including the webcasting and simulcasting in the traditional approach. In the traditional platform doesn't carry the webcasting of the simulcasting in the traditional sense and also in the webcasting. That's the simulcasting, doing the same thing, in two different platforms.The simulcasting can be allowed here in the traditional sense, if the BBC wants to, at the same time, broadcasting the same problem, the reach of the B cc in that territory would be different and it is different, they're covering different parts of the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So, that's what I would approach here. Then with that, the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. raising the post mixation rights, one significant until appears on the screen, there is l. C or led, nowadays the technology, it is crazy. It is on the screen. So only the content, not the signal. So the fixation of signal, then post-fixation don't come in the signal-based approach. What we need to do is the Protection of Country the signal and if fixation is coming, that fixation is allowed only for the rebroadcast, deferred or delayed broadcast purposes. We'll come back in these issues as the further discussion continues.<br /> Thank you. <br />And by by Mexico.<br /> > MEXICO: Thank you, Chairman. It gives me great pleasure to see you Chairing and you have the full support of my Delegation in all your work and moving forward in the topics of this committee such valuable work from Mexico. I would like to thank the Secretariat for the document that they provided us with in such a punctual manner. Thank you for helping us with our work. I would like to recall all Delegations. That we need to be seeking the establishment of general standards to feel more comfortable within the legal framework of these particular topic. We shouldn't be looking for participation on any individual basis because we will move forward with our work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I recall that any international Treaty has to be based on general principles and not on details and the details should be stipulated in the respective domestic legislation of each Member State. On that note I would like to support the proposals from the Distinguished Delegate from the United States that we should, yes, move forward in this way with the work of this committee <br />And by Japan:<br /> JAPAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair.<br /> Good morning, everyone. I'm speaking on behalf of the Japanese Delegation.<br /> We're in the position to support the suggestion by the Distinguished Delegates from the U.S. to put to option related to scope of protection. With respect to scope protection, some Member States seems to find great value in wide variety of rights including fixation rights, including the right of production and the right of making available after the fixation. For such members, post-fixation rights should be included in this Treaty. On the other hand, some Member States are of the view that the minimum fixation rights, simultaneous or near simultaneous retransmission and the right of pre-broadcast is enough under this Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here we would like to point out that in order to find the way forward in our discussion more flexible approach may be necessary. From our perspective one possible way while setting the common denominator among all Member States of subject matters for minimum mandatory protection, other rights which not all the members must -- most members think is necessary and this is treated as the subject matter for optional protection. Of course, even if we take such an approach we have to further discuss which rights should be mandatory protection and which rights should be optional protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And by South Africa:<br /> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.<br /> In fact, I would like to associate myself with the previous speaker, Mexico and the U.S. I think it would be better to have just a general and another scope of rights for the broadcasters sips we're dealing with the signal-based approach and so as always to avoid having to include issues and list of issues that are covered by other Treaties. It may cause a problem in the long run in the sense that some Member States may find themselves want to be a part of this Treaty having to do a balancing act as to whether they need to join into this Treaty to be parties to the other Treaties or to the other issues that are being included in this particular Treaty. It would favor a very narrow, general scope of rights as I think the U.S. has captured that very well. I think it will help us to move forward. Otherwise we'll never -- a long, protracted kind of discussion and we have a very good experience in this, we have been looking at this for a very long time and part of the problems lie in this -- having a very long list of rights and so on, so on. I think that domestic legislation can do justice into the catalog of rights that Member States will now want to prescribe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But things were not that easy with the EU:<br /> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to everyone. We tried to look at all the possibilities and options on the table and tried to think of some matrix as you proposed yesterday for which we have to find for both the object of protection and for the rights. Looking at what was presented and discussed today, we tried to put this into some kind of order also in response to the proposal by the Delegation of The United States. What I will present now is our understanding of where we understand with these discussions on various rights and, of course, there may be rates where we have not understood properly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To us, it seems that there is a consensus in the room as to simultaneous, as to the right to authorize a prohibited or prohibit simultaneous retransmission by any means. As long as we talk about simultaneous retransmission we think from the discussions that took place here, but everybody agrees with simultaneous transmission, that should be covered by the catalog of rights.<br /> Then the other category, the important category here, are any transmissions from fixation. In our view, we should in a way separate the discussion on transmission from fixation from other post fixation points. I think often we use here the term simultaneous retransmission versus post-fixation rights. I think there is a bit of a more nuance to the situation here because we have the post fixation rights because of the reproduction and distribution which we'll talk about later. We have the core right here, the core right which is a retransmission from fixation.<br /> In the U.S. proposal there is also an element of such transmission from fixation as far as we understand, but it is limited. It is limited by technical means and limited in time because it is only to take account of time zones.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In other alternatives that we have on the table as far as we understand in the working document, alternative A, Alternative B, the proposal which was presented today by Belarus on behalf of some members of the CACEEC group, and to the extent that we understand the proposal of the Delegation of India, all these proposals include the right to authorize and prohibit only the right to prohibit in case of the proposal from India transmissions from fixation. We have -- atlas the way we see it, on one side we have the U.S. proposal with transmissions from fixations limited in some way and specifically in time, and then we have a number of proposals where we have transmissions from fixations included. For us, that would be the second block after the simultaneous retransmission, the second block to look at is this block of transmission from fixation. Within this block there are a number of Delegations that in the very explicit way include the so-called making available right. This is the case of Alternative B in the working document, this is the case of the proposal -- proposal presented by Belarus today and this of course has been the position of the European Union as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So that's for us, the second thing to look at, maybe to put in this matrix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We would like to somehow maybe separate this block of transmissions from fixation from what we usually call post-fixation rights. When we move to post-fixation rights you have -- this is always interesting, helpful to look at the table proposed by by the Japanese Delegation, there are a number of rights so that you have the right of fixation itself, of course, that's not exactly post-fixation rights but I think belongs to this group of rights, reproduction and distribution and the right of public performance in places without accessible, for repayment of the fee. All these rights, we think belong to this third block. To be looked at.<br /> Of course, there are certain overlaps, when you look at the various proposals, some extend to all the rights, some extend to only some of these rights. In our view, these three groups are -- it is something to be looked at.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, I think if we look at this, if we create in matrix in that sense, it will help us to move further. Then, of course, for us, the next step of the discussion is to then understand in more detail various proposals and I'll just give a couple of examples. I think it is clear for everybody in the room to understand the proposal of the United States on near simultaneous transmission T will have to be very clear what is near simultaneous means, and especially since it is limited in time, in the U.S. today, they indicated, that limited in time not in terms of years, but rather in terms of hours or let's say shorter periods of time, it is very important to know how this would be, how it would be understood and how it works in practice. I think as regards to proposal from India, one thing for us is still maybe not entirely clear is this reference that in all cases the protection has to be subject to the extent of rights acquired from the owners of copyright and related rights. That's, for example, in terms of transmissions of sport events, which are not covered by copyright, we don't understand how this would be covered or whether the proposal of India is, but these would not be covered at all by these Treaties but there is a number of issues that we can go into more depth with each of these proposals. I think that the final, final block is what kind of rights are we talking about in terms of exclusive rights, rights to prohibit. That's all other rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a number of these proposals, we have the right to offer us and prohibit, why for example in the proposal from India we have clearly right to prohibit. That's the final element of the matrix with which we have to look at because maybe not necessarily for all of the rights we have to have the same right. In the sense the same category of right. Maybe we can have some rights that are exclusive rights and for some rights, rights to prohibit, of course, we should not finally forget the protection for the pre-broadcast signal because we have not mentioned it today, but I think on that element also there is quite a broad consensus to have this as a right to the protection for pre-broadcasting. Thank you very much. <br />After quite a few confused and confusing interventions, the US took the floor again urging the delegates to separate the two main issues, what are we trying to protect and with what rights:<br />United States.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A lot of issues have been raised in the last round of interventions. I do think it is important to keep our minds fixed on the idea that there is two separate issues and one is the scope or object of protection and the other is what the nature of the rights are. Sometimes I think we're conflating them in the discussions, if we look at the matrix, the object of protection, what that is, I just wanted to note one more time while we've got the broadcasters in the room that I do think there is still some open questions that would be good to get answers to if not -- if it is not possible to get the answers this week, then the next time that this committee meets, and those were my questions about to what extent the uses of new technology described by the BBC and summarized in Japan's little summary document, to what extent the uses of new technology have become standard and how widely adopted they are among broadcasters in different countries and of different types and sizes. I think that would be helpful to know.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also where the piracy takes place, where it is that those who are Pirating, getting the signals from would be useful to know as well and I partly raise these questions because to the extent we're debating the inclusion of or consideration of simulcasting, deferred, on demand transmission signals, in addition to the question of what extent the piracy problems would be covered by copyright in the content and another question with could be could this be seen an an issue of infringe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rather than the issue of protection. If we're protecting over the air broadcast signals, is the problem that the piracy of those signals is taking place using the simulcast versus using the actual over the air broadcast. That's why I see the issues as related, and I think it would be helpful to get more answers to those questions as we look at whatever matrix is prepared.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In terms In terms of the rights, the Article 9 issues, the EU asked a number of questions, I think the Delegate from the EU is correct that there's -- it is not just that the rights are prefixation and post fixation, there is probably at least three different types of things we're talking about. In the language the U.S. has proposed for discussion we're not presuming that the existence of a fixation at any point along the way negates the right, not at all. In fact, you certainly could have a simultaneous, near simultaneous near transmission of the public even where the retransmission is made from a fixation and indeed some technologies may require the use of a fixation to enable the retransmission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I think what we're focusing on is the idea that there is no right to control the fixation itself or what is otherwise done with subsequent copies, including consumer copying, that would not fall within the right.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Then, just to say that we appreciated the comments from the Delegate of Brazil and also wanted to clarify our proposal was really a matter of process, not substance. We agree with Russia that we're looking to move this forward and so even though our view is that a single right rather than a combination is the most likely way to be able to make progress and move the debate forward, and achieve an outcome, we also think we could make progress here this week if we could simplify the full range of rights that are on the table and figure out a way to present two options for consideration and further negotiation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That would only be for purposes of the negotiation rather than an agreement on substance at this point, that that's the right approach so then each of us could still be able to convince other Member States of our own view or to find some way to accommodate the concerns once we see what the two approaches clearly are.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is a matter of process to be able to move forward from the complex text that we currently have before us.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Then just finally, we also agree that we still have open the exact wording of what the right would be in Article 9, is it a right to authorize, exclusive right to authorize, a right to prohibit, prevent, maybe at this point in time we need to keep those things in brackets also for further consideration, negotiation, including the issue razed by the E.U. Delegate that possibly the exact wording may be different depending on what the right is that we're talking about.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following the US intervention, India discussed the very many different kind of piracy. Then, the Chair gave the floor to the NGOs and before lunch, the NAB (the demandeur for the treaty) made some clarifications related to the Monday presentation by the BBC (the red button or on demand webcast of BBC programs). Which was followed by KEI which stated:<br />quote.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is not a treaty about copyright piracy but a special ride for broadcasters. I think it is not a good idea to sort of refer to cases where there is already a right, the copyright owners have (kei) unless you make it relevant to what's discussed here this week. IP rights are a form of regulation, and they create monopolies, rights to exclude, new layers of rights to clear, a shrinking of the public domain, and more obligations for consumers, libraries, businesses to pay more money not to copyright holders,but to the distributors of content. Don't go overboard. Don't approach this like you're a rich relative giving gifts to nephews and nieces, interventions should be narrow and only where they're actually needed to solve a problem like signal piracy to the extent that it is understood and can be remedied through an instrument, or to achieve a predictable, a desired redistribution of income to broadcasters. You're in this case extending rights to entirely new beneficiaries, it is not just people that broadcast in radio and television which was what the Rome convention addressed and make the service available that no one could charge for. Now you're talking about pay services protected by under legal protections such as regulatory provisions, contracts, theft of service laws, you're talking about cable tv service shut off if you didn't pay, cable -- satellite services that are shut off if you don't pay, you're talking about a wide-range of internet delivery issues and people are talking about post fixation rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You have what the BBC has described, you have people talking about services now provided under services in the United States such as hulu using platforms like these decidings, tablet computers, the explosion of services, and most of the people doing most of the innovative services outside of BBC are not here demanding a WIPO treaty but doing things, it is working, exploding and it is happening without this new form of regulation. So, I would say conclude by saying that the Rome convention or the WPPT or the Beijing treaty should not be the basis of the rights. Those rights already exist, they address different issues. You're talking about something new today and this new thing should be justified by some coherent explanation of a problem you are trying to solve and should be comfortable because of the cost of the regulation you're introducing to the information society is somehow justified by the benefit.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair called then on the American Society of Archivists:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the society of American Archivists, the largest organization of archivists, we want to commend you for the continued wise chairmanship of the srcr and thank you to the Secretariat for the excellent support of the Committee's work. For decades archives included not just paper records but also important sound and video recordings, many of which have come from broadcasters. These are invaluable documents for connecting society to its past. Think of a major event in the past 15 years, the fall of the Berlin wall or the collapse of the twin towers on September 11th, without the video images that were created, these are the documents that will provide the stuff of history that connects future users to the archives. Thus, regardless of whatever measures are put into place to provide the signal protection that broadcasters need, the new rights should not add any further layers on the already existing copyright protection that exists in the content. Over the long passage of time the archives have to span, and given the vigories of institutions that disappear with regularly, adding a new right on broadcast content would add imher rationally for the orphan work in providing abscess to the dock ministry sector that is such an important part of society's historical record. After the lunch break, eIFL took the floor. The giddy mood of "moving forward" that we had witnessed in the morning was slowly changing (the momentum keep changing said a broadcaster sitting behind me).<br />[...]<br /> eIFL: As stated at previous sessions of this Committee we see no compelling public policy reason for a new international treatment on the protection of broadcast organisations because piracy of broadcast signals is adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties as outlined in the earlier statement by KEI. And the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians because it imposes an additional barrier on access to knowledge especially to content in the public domain.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As stated which the Delegation of Ecuador, a new layer of rights will in addition to creating problems for users create froshes rights holders of content that will impact on their ability to freely licensed their works. Libraries have practical experience of such over protection caused by multiple layers of rights. For example, a library in northern Europe wanted to publish a sound recording from their archive that was originally broadcast in the 1950s. The recording was taken from a rebroadcast in the 1980s. And all of the performers'rights had expired and the authors waived their fees due to the importance of the work, the library had to pay $10,000 for the permission to use the recording because the signal protection applied also to the the retransmission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So for many libraries, as you can imagine, such costs are out of the question. As a result, socially valuable works remain inaccessible in libraries and archives, depriving the public of the enjoyment of their work. So Distinguished Delegates, please consider the costs to taxpayers and society as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty. Thank you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the Libraries, --except for the European Broadcasters under ACT which came to support the NAB and the proposed treaty--, other consumer/public interest groups such as TACD and CIS (India) followed by many many right holders (copyright holders or as they say at WIPO content owners) such as IFPI, FILA, BCC and FIAPS (representing authors, performers, music producers) took the floor one after the other to express their strong opposition to the proposed treaty. The main point for the Music industry representative was that before the broadcasters get a new exclusive rights, they should first recognize the rights of the music producers and pay for music that they broadcast. While this is actually happening in many countries already, the US broadcasters do not pay and that should change first according to the IFPI. Finally (and that was a surprise for many), a representative from Direct TV attending the SCCR for the first time expressed its strong concerns for a treaty that would give broadcasters exclusive rights and thus more power to control the media market.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here is the Indian NGO CIS statement:<br /> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach.Notes during the excellent IFPI statement as well as statements by the other copyright owners will be in my next blog for your enjoyment.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/knowledge-ecology-international-manon-ress-april-29-2014-is-wipo-treaty-for-broadcasters-moving-forward-at-sccr-27'>https://cis-india.org/news/knowledge-ecology-international-manon-ress-april-29-2014-is-wipo-treaty-for-broadcasters-moving-forward-at-sccr-27</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T11:58:15ZNews Item 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 Entry