The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 91 to 105.
CIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on Exceptions & Limitations for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives
<b>This was the statement delivered by Pranesh Prakash on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, Knowledge Ecology International, Conseil International des Archives, Library Copyright Alliance, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to commend this house for adopting SCCR/23/8 as a working document on the issue of exceptions and limitations on libraries and archives. This issue is of paramount interest the world over, and particularly in developing countries. I would like to limit my oral intervention to three quick points, and will send a longer statement in via e-mail.</p>
<p>First, we feel that this committee should pay special attention to ensuring that digital works and online libraries and archives such as the Internet Archive, also receive the same protection as brick-and-mortar libraries.</p>
<p>Second, we are concerned that we have been seeing some delegations advancing a very narrow interpretation of the three-step test. Such a narrow interpretation is not supported by leading academics, nor by practices of member states. A narrow interpretation of the three-step test must be squarely rejected. In particular, I would like to associate CIS with the strong statements by IFLA and KEI to maintain flexibilities within exceptions and limitations, instead of overly prescriptive provisions encumbered by weighty procedures and specifications.</p>
<p>We have comments about parallel trade as well, drawing from our experience and research in India, and will send those in writing.</p>
<p>Libraries and archive enhance the value of the copyrighted works that they preserve and provide to the general public. They do not erode it. Exceptions and limitations that help them actually help copyright holders. The sooner copyright holders try not to muzzle libraries, especially when it comes to out-of-commerce works, electronic copies of works, and in developing countries, the better it will be for them, their commercial interests, as well as the global public interest.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightFair DealingsIntellectual Property RightsArchivesWIPO2012-07-25T10:54:38ZBlog EntryEU stalls treaty talks to allow copyright waiver for print disabilities
https://cis-india.org/news/eu-stalls-treaty-talks-to-allow-copyright-waiver-for-print-disabilities
<b>India and other developing countries support such a legally binding treaty, writes Priscilla Jebaraj in an article published in the Hindu on July 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union is holding up a treaty to allow books and other printed works to be converted into a format accessible to the visually impaired and other print disabled people without seeking the permission of the copyright holder.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, and most other developing countries, strongly support such a legally binding treaty currently being negotiated at a World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) meeting in Geneva. However, non-governmental organisation sources at that summit say that the EU is stalling the treaty by placing unreasonable restrictions on how copyrighted works are to be converted, and by whom. The EU office in Delhi and Brussels did not respond to a request for comment on their position.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"[The treaty] would allow organisations working for the blind to import and export accessible works without seeking the copyright holder's permission, since very little money is spent in developing countries on converting books into accessible formats, while they are much more readily available elsewhere," according to Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society who is attending the summit as an NGO member. If the treaty is not finalised by Wednesday, when the meeting ends, disabled people could be forced to wait till 2014 for their next chance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last week, Indian delegate G.R. Raghavender pleaded with negotiators to finalise the treaty without further delay "so that we won't go back, especially the Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind people in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world blind population, that is 37 million."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In fact, the treaty will benefit a much larger group of print-disabled, including those who suffer from motor disabilities which prevent them from holding a book, or learning disabilities such as dyslexia, or autism, which make it hard to read. There are approximately 70 million print-disabled people in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Accessible formats would include Braille, electronic text and audio versions of books, making Western publishers' jittery about piracy fears. Hence, some countries are demanding stringent tracking mechanisms and legal requirements that activists say will effectively block access to disabled people in developing countries — where more than 85 per cent of them live.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"An instrument that subjects the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by persons with visual impairments to market forces and bureaucratic practices will not work," Mr. Prakash said, in his statement to WIPO delegates. "In India, our Parliament recently passed an amendment to our copyright law that grants persons with disabilities, and those who are working for them, a strong yet simply-worded right to have equal access to copyrighted works as sighted persons."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In fact, the EU Parliament had given its unanimous approval to the treaty in February 2012. "It would be a democratic travesty if the EU’s representatives here today posed any problems to a clear road map for a binding international treaty, especially by posing unrealistic proposals with regards to authorised entities and other issues very far from consensus positions in the WIPO and in clear contradiction with the aims of the World Blind Union," said David Hammerstein, a representative of American and European consumer organisations, making a statement at the Geneva meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Read the original published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3679662.ece">Hindu</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/eu-stalls-treaty-talks-to-allow-copyright-waiver-for-print-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/news/eu-stalls-treaty-talks-to-allow-copyright-waiver-for-print-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T09:37:25ZNews ItemWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:51:38ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions. </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:44:21ZFileTranscripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24
https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts
<b>We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO">http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO</a>. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 19, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 20, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-23-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 23, 2012)</li>
<li>(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012) </li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 24, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_pre-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt" class="internal-link">WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text</a> (July 25, 2012)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-31T12:35:43ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:34:22ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-20-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:08ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-post-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:33:29ZFileWIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt
<b>This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-19-sccr24-pre-lunch.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-07-25T03:36:37ZFileCIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash intervened during the discussion of future work of the ACE with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that some of the proposals on future work could be worded better to reflect their true meaning. For instance, one of the proposal calls for control of the problem of "parallel import". However, "parallel importation" is actually allowed by both the TRIPS Agreement and by various other instruments such as the Berne Convention? Indeed, calling “parallel import” a problem is like calling "exceptions and limitations" a problem. This is a view that has been firmly rejected here at WIPO, especially post the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda. This, quite obviously, could not have been the intention of the proposal framers.</p>
<p>Further, the link between some of the proposals and the Development Agenda could be made clearer. It has been established that the Development Agenda is not just something for the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to consider, but for all committees to make an integral part of their work.</p>
<p>I would also like to underscore the importance of evidence-based policy-making.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would like to mention that a report has already been commissioned by WIPO on intermediary liability, which was written by Prof. Lilian Edwards and was released in a side-event during SCCR 22, in June 2011.</p>
<p>If the ACE is going ahead with a study or an event, I would suggest that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, who in his report to the UN Human Rights Council dealt in some depth with intermediary liability, be involved or invited.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsWIPO2011-12-01T15:30:38ZBlog EntryComment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of December 16, 2009' with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society. First, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election.<br /><br />And I would like to congratulate Prof. Sirenelli on his excellent presentation.<br /><br />I would like to flag a few points, though:</p>
<ol><li>One of the benefits of normal laws, as opposed to the soft/plastic laws, which he champions, is that normal laws are bound by procedures established by law, due process requirements, and principles of natural justice. Unfortunately, the soft/plastic laws, which in essence are private agreements, are not.</li><li>The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression and Opinion made it clear in his report to the UN Human Rights Council that the Internet is now an intergral part of citizens exercising their right of freedom of speech under national constitutions and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That report highlights that many initiatives on copyright infringement, including that of the French government with HADOPI and the UK, actually contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights</li><li>The right of privacy is also flagged by many as something that will have to be compromised if such private enforcement of copyright is encouraged.<br /></li></ol>
<p>I'd like to know Prof. Sirinelli's views on these three issues: due process, right of freedom of speech, and the right to privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsPiracyCensorshipWIPO2011-12-01T11:59:45ZBlog EntryStatement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement
<b>The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.
</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the South African and Mexican delegations for their hard work on this text before us.</p>
<p>We wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided last SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcasting Treaty, and would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by Public Knowledge, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Knowledge Ecology International, International Federation of Library Associations, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<h3>Broadcasters Already Protected Online<br /></h3>
<p>Broadcasters make two kinds of investments for which they are protected. They invest in infrastructure and they invest in licensing copyrighted works. The first investment is protected by 'broadcast rights', and the latter investment is protected by copyright law.</p>
<p>Broadcasters, being licensees of copyrighted works, generally already have rights of enforcement insofar as their licence is concerned. Therefore there is no need to provide for additional protections with regard to broadcasters in order to enable them to proceed against acts that violate existing copyright laws: they already have those rights by way of licence. This is often forgotten when talking about rights of broadcasters.</p>
<p>The investments to be made in infrastructure in traditional broadcast and in IP-based transmission are very different, even if it is the same 'traditional broadcasters' who are indulging in both. Given that this investment is the basis of additional protection for broadcaster over and above the rights provided to underlying copyright, IP-based transmissions should not be covered in any way even if it is traditional broadcast organizations that are engaged in them.</p>
<p>Providing new and separate rights to large broadcasters for their online transmission, as is currently being done via the provision on 'retransmission' while excluding small webcasters will create a hierarchy and a class distinction without any basis in either principle or existing laws.</p>
<h3>Support Countries' Concerns</h3>
<p>We also wish to support the amendments suggested by the Indian delegation. As we were reminded by the Indian delegation, the General Assembly mandate of 2007 only extends to traditional broadcasting and to a signal-based approach. In this regard, we also wish to support the question posed by the United States delegation between signal-based and rights-based approaches, as also the strong statement by the Brazilian delegation on the need to ensure that cultural diversity and competition are protected and promoted by any international instrument on broadcasting, and we would like to add 'preservation of a vibrant public domain' as provided by Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda.<br /><br />Thank you, Chair.<br /><br /><br /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-11-30T06:55:43ZBlog EntryCIS-TWN Analysis of WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled (SCCR/22/15)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities
<b>CIS and the Third World Network (TWN) conducted a quick analysis of the "Consensus document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities presented by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and the United States of America" presented as WIPO document numbered SCCR/22/15.</b>
<h1>SCCR/22/15</h1>
<p>ORIGINAL: English</p>
<p>DATE: June 20, 2011</p>
<p>Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights</p>
<p>Twenty-Second Session Geneva, June 15 to 24, 2011</p>
<p>Consensus document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities <i>presented by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and the United States of America</i></p>
<h2 id="preamble">PREAMBLE</h2>
<p>Recalling the principles of non-discrimination, equal opportunity and access, proclaimed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,</p>
<p>Mindful of the obstacles that are prejudicial to human development and the fulfillment of disabled persons with regard to education, research, access to information and communication,</p>
<p>Emphasizing the importance of copyright protection as an incentive for literary and artistic creation and enhancing opportunities for everyone to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits,</p>
<p>Recognizing the importance of both accessibility to the achievement of equal opportunities in all spheres of society and of the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works in a manner as effective and uniform as possible,</p>
<p>Aware of the many barriers to access to information and communication experienced by persons who are blind or have limited vision, or have other disabilities regarding access to published works,</p>
<p>Aware that the majority of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability live in countries of low or moderate incomes,</p>
<p>Desiring to provide full and equal access to information, culture and communication for the visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability and, towards that end, considering the need both to expand the number of works in accessible formats and to improve access to those works,</p>
<p>Recognizing the opportunities and challenges for the visually impaired/persons with a print disability presented by the development of new information and communication technologies, including technological publishing and communication platforms that are transnational in nature,</p>
<p>Recognizing the need to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,</p>
<p>Aware that national copyright legislation is territorial in nature, and where activity is undertaken across jurisdictions, uncertainty regarding the legality of activity undermines the development and use of new technologies and services that can potentially improve the lives of the visually impaired/persons with print disabilities,</p>
<p>Recognizing the large number of Members who, to that end, have established exceptions and limitations in their national copyright laws for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, yet the continuing shortage of works in <s>special</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">accessible</span> formats for such persons,</p>
<p>Recognizing that the preference is for works to be made accessible by rightholders to people with disabilities at publication and that, to the extent that the market is unable to provide appropriate access to works for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, it is recognized that alternative measures are needed to improve such access,</p>
<p>Recognizing the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, and that such a balance must facilitate effective and timely access to works for the benefit of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability,</p>
<p>Emphasizing the importance and flexibility of the three-step test for limitations and exceptions established in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and other international instruments,</p>
<p>Considering the discussions within the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for the benefit of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability and the various proposals tabled by Member States,</p>
<p>Prompted by a desire to contribute to the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual Property Organization,</p>
<p>Taking into account the importance of an international legal instrument/joint recommendation/treaty both to increase the number and range of accessible format works available to visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability in the world and to provide the necessary minimum flexibilities in copyright laws that are needed to ensure full and equal access to information and communication for persons who are visually impaired/have a print disability in order to support their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others and to ensure the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, for their own benefit and for the enrichment of society,</p>
<p>Have agreed as follows:</p>
<h2 id="article-a">ARTICLE A</h2>
<h2 id="definitions">DEFINITIONS</h2>
<p>For purposes of these provisions</p>
<p>"work" means a work in which copyright subsists, whether published or otherwise made publicly available in any media.</p>
<p>"accessible format copy" means a copy of a work in an alternative manner or form which gives a beneficiary person access to the work, including to permit the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without a print disability. The accessible format copy must respect the integrity of the original work and be used exclusively by <span style="text-decoration: underline;">beneficiary persons</span><s>persons with print disabilities</s>.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn1" id="fnref1">1</a></sup></p>
<p>[Possible enumeration of different formats.]<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn2" id="fnref2">2</a></sup></p>
<p>"authorized entity" means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or <span style="text-decoration: underline;">an</span><s>non-profit</s> organization<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn3" id="fnref3">3</a></sup> that has as one of its <s>primary missions</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">activities</span> to assist persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access.</p>
<p>An authorized entity maintains policies and procedures to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities that they serve.</p>
<p><s>An authorized entity has the trust of both persons with print disabilities and copyright rights holders. It is understood that to obtain the trust of rightholders and beneficiary persons, it is not necessary to require the prior permission of said rightholders or beneficiary persons.</s><sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn4" id="fnref4">4</a></sup></p>
<p><s>If an authorized entity is a nation-wide network of organizations, then all organizations, institutions, and entities that participate in the network must adhere to these characteristics.</s></p>
<p>"reasonable price for developed countries" means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price than the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market.</p>
<p>"reasonable price for developing countries" means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at prices that are affordable in that market, taking into account the humanitarian needs of persons with print disabilities.</p>
<p>References to 'copyright' include copyright and any relevant rights related to copyright that are provided by a Contracting Party in compliance with <s>the Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the WPPT or otherwise</s>any applicable international treaties or otherwise.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn5" id="fnref5">5</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="article-b">ARTICLE B</h2>
<h2 id="beneficiary-persons">BENEFICIARY PERSONS</h2>
<p>A beneficiary person is a person who</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha; ">
<li>is blind;</li>
<li>has a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability, such as dyslexia, which cannot be improved by the use of corrective lenses to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or</li>
<li>is unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading.</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="article-c">ARTICLE C</h2>
<h2 id="national-law-exceptions-on-accessible-format-copies">NATIONAL LAW EXCEPTIONS ON ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES</h2>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li>
<p>Member State/Contracting Party should/shall provide in their national copyright law for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction, the right of distribution and the right of making available to the public, as defined in article 8 of the WCT, for beneficiary persons as defined herein.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article C (1) by providing an exception or limitation in its national copyright law such that</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha; ">
<li>
<p>Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to make an accessible format copy of a work, supply that accessible format copy or an accessible format copy obtained from another authorized entity to a beneficiary person by any means, including by non-commercial lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertake any intermediate steps to achieve these objectives, when all of the following conditions are met:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li>the authorized entity wishing to undertake said activity has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work;</li>
<li>the work is converted to an accessible format copy, which may include any means needed to navigate information in the accessible format, but does not introduce changes other than those needed to make the work accessible to the beneficiary person;</li>
<li>copies of the work in the accessible format are supplied exclusively to be used by beneficiary persons; and </li>
<li><s>4. the activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis. </s><sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn6" id="fnref6">6</a></sup></li>
<li>
<p>A beneficiary person or someone acting on his or her behalf may make an accessible format copy of a work for the personal use of the beneficiary person where the beneficiary person has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work.</p>
</li>
</ol> </li>
<li>
<p>A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article C (1) by providing any other exception or limitation in its national copyright law that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said exceptions or limitations to published works which, in the applicable <s>special</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">accessible</span> format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>It shall be a matter for national law to determine whether exceptions or limitations referred to in this Article are subject to remuneration.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="article-d">ARTICLE D</h2>
<h2 id="cross-border-exchange-of-accessible-format-copies">CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES</h2>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li>
<p>Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall provide that if an accessible format copy of a work is made under an exception or limitation or export license in their national law, that accessible format copy may be distributed or made available to a beneficiary person in another Member State/Contracting Party by an authorized entity<s> where that other Member State/Contracting Party would permit that beneficiary person to make or import that accessible copy</s>.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn7" id="fnref7">7</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article D(1) by providing an exception or limitation in its national copyright law such that:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha; ">
<li>
<p>Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to distribute or make available accessible format copies to authorized entities in other Member States/Contracting Parties for the exclusive use of persons with print disabilities, where such activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn8" id="fnref8">8</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to distribute or make available accessible format copies to persons with print disabilities in other Member States/Contracting Parties where the authorized entity has verified the individual is properly entitled to receive such accessible format copies under that other Member State/Contracting Party's national law.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn9" id="fnref9">9</a></sup></p>
</li>
</ol> </li>
</ol>
<p>The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said distribution or making available to published works which, in the applicable <s>special</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">accessible</span> format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price, in the country of importation.</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Without prejudice to other exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors that are otherwise permitted by the Berne Convention or the TRIPS Agreement,</span> a Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article D(1) by providing any other exception or limitation in its national copyright law that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="article-e">ARTICLE E</h2>
<h2 id="importation-of-accessible-format-copies">IMPORTATION OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES</h2>
<p>To the extent that national law would permit a beneficiary person or an authorized entity acting on the beneficiary person’s behalf to make an accessible format copy of a work, the national law should/shall permit a beneficiary person or an authorized entity acting on that person's behalf to import an accessible format copy.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn10" id="fnref10">10</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="article-f">ARTICLE F</h2>
<h2 id="circumvention-of-technological-protection-measures"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">CIRCUMVENTION OF </span>TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION MEASURES</h2>
<p>Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means to enjoy the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.</p>
<p><s>In the absence of voluntary measures by rightholders and to the extent that copies of the work in the accessible format are not available commercially at a reasonable price or via authorized entities, Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall take appropriate measures to ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means of benefiting from that exception when technical protection measures have been applied to a work, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception.</s><sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn11" id="fnref11">11</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="article-g"><s>ARTICLE G</s></h2>
<h2 id="relationship-with-contracts"><s>RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTRACTS</s></h2>
<p><s>Nothing herein shall prevent Member States/Contracting Parties from addressing the relationship of contract law and statutory exceptions and limitations for beneficiary persons.</s></p>
<h2 id="article-h">ARTICLE H</h2>
<h2 id="respect-for-privacy">RESPECT FOR PRIVACY</h2>
<p>In the implementation of these exceptions and limitations, Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall endeavour to protect the privacy of beneficiary persons on an equal basis with others.</p>
<p>[End of document]</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1">
<p>This change must be replicated everywhere where appropriate. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn2">
<p>Formats should not be enumerated, since even the disabilities are not enumerated. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref2" title="Jump back to footnote 2">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn3">
<p>Non-profit organizations alone cannot cope with the needs of visually impaired people in the developing world. Thus, while it may sound like the ideal, it is impractical given the realities of the situation in the developing world. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref3" title="Jump back to footnote 3">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn4">
<p>A "trust" system would make it impossible for developing countries to actualize these provisions. If despite this, copyright infringement happens, then national remedies exist for such infringement. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref4" title="Jump back to footnote 4">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn5">
<p>To clarify: what is the purpose of these and not mentioning WCT, Berne, etc.? <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref5" title="Jump back to footnote 5">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn6">
<p>To be deleted for the same reasons as above. Non-profit basis, if insisted upon, can be retained in Article D(2)(A), but not here. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref6" title="Jump back to footnote 6">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn7">
<p>Import law provisions are already there in Article E, and should remain there. In Art. E, it states, “shall permit” import, and here, “would permit”. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref7" title="Jump back to footnote 7">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn8">
<p>This instance of "non-profit basis" may be retained if necessary. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref8" title="Jump back to footnote 8">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn9">
<p>To clarify: what would such verification require? Would self-certification suffice? <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref9" title="Jump back to footnote 9">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn10">
<p>It should be clarified, possibly through an agreed statement, that nothing in this article shall derogate from the flexibility provided in Art. 6 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows for countries to provide international exhaustion.</p>
<p>Thus, if the principle of international exhaustion is in place (i.e., parallel importation is allowed), then importation can be carried out by anyone, and not just by a beneficiary person or an authorized entity. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref10" title="Jump back to footnote 10">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn11">
<p>This second paragraph weakens the principle established in the first by adding more conditions. They are almost phrased as alternatives, and the first alternative (paragraph) is the better one. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref11" title="Jump back to footnote 11">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol></div>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2011-10-12T08:29:01ZBlog EntryCIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty
<b>This statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty was delivered on December 17, 2010 at the 19th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights by Nirmita Narasimhan on behalf of CIS.</b>
<h2>CIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19<br /></h2>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society believes that the protection that may be
afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including
Article 14 of the TRIPS Convention, are sufficient to safeguard the
interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been
under discussion for more than a decade without any progress, is, as the
WIPO Chair observed, an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no
avail" (SCCR/15/2/rev).</p>
<p>We believe that at any rate webcasting/netcasting should be kept out of the
ambit of the broadcast treaty, even if only restricted to "retransmission"
of broadcasts as in the current draft, since by its very nature webcasting
is very different from broadcasting. Webcasting is currently quite vibrant,
with a recent report by Arbor Networks estimating that around ten per cent
of all Web traffic is streaming video, making webcasting the fastest growing
application on the Internet. Given this situation, a strong case has to be
made to show that an international treaty is required to protect and promote
webcasting, which has not been done.</p>
<p>Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda,
which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered
by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying
content of the transmission.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Statements by other organizations on WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19<br /></h3>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005195.html">Electronic Frontier Foundation<br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005192.html">Public Knowledge</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005193.html">International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, and Library Copyright Alliance (Joint Statement)<br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005199.html">Computer and Communications Industry Association</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2012-02-01T09:07:41ZBlog EntryWIPO Broadcast Treaty and Webcasting
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting
<b>On Friday, 8 May 2009, at Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting held a stakeholders' briefing meeting on the Broadcast Treaty that has been on the table at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The purpose of that meeting was to inform the relevant stakeholders of the developments in Geneva, as well as to garner input from them regarding the stance to be adopted by India at the WIPO. Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society participated and made a presentation on webcasting, highlighting the differences between webcasting and broadcasting, and arguing that webcasting should not be part of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty.</b>
<p>First, we wish to applaud the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for holding this stakeholders' meeting, which is a definite step towards greater transparency, and are grateful for having been invited to provide our input. The meeting was attended by representatives from various government offices and ministries, including the Ministry of Human Resource Development (which administers the Indian Copyright Act), broadcasters, broadcast associations, law firms, and civil society organisations. The Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting inaugurated the session by talking of how the Broadcast Treaty involved the assessment and balancing of various interests while keeping 'public interest' foremost. This was followed by Mr. N. P. Nawani, Secretary General of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ibf-india.com/about_home.htm">Indian Broadcasting Foundation</a> (IBF), presenting on the concerns of the broadcasting industry. After this Prof. N. S. Gopalakrishnan, head of the School of Law, Cochin University of Science and Technology, spoke.<br /><br />Prof. Gopalakrishnan covered many areas of relevance: the concept of broadcasting and the legal rights involved; the scheme of legal protection over broadcast signals and over the content of the signals, and the difference between the two; gaps in the international law covering broadcasting; details of the proposed broadcast treaty; the implications of the broadcast treaty and concerns of the Indian government; and unresolved issues.<br /><br />Amongst the unresolved issues mentioned by Prof. Gopalakrishnan was that of webcasting and the problems related to that. The discussion below aims to shed some light on some of the problems created by the inclusion of webcasting in the broadcast treaty.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Legal regimes for broadcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>At the national level, the law governing broadcasting is the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Broadcasting is covered by many sections of the Indian Copyright Act, including: ss. 2(dd) (definition of "broadcast"), 2(ff) (definition of "communication to the public"), 37 (the section granting a special "broadcast reproduction right"), and 39A (containing exceptions to s.37). At the international level, broadcasting is covered by the Rome Convention, 1960 (which India has signed, but hasn't ratified); the Brussels Convention, 1974 (only pre-broadcast satellite signals); the TRIPS Agreement, 1994 per Article 14 (which doesn't mandate that broadcasting rights be granted directly to the broadcasters); the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 (WPPT) in Articles 2(f) and 15; and the proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations ("Broadcast Treaty"). In May 2006, provisions for webcasting were brought back into the Broadcast Treaty as part of the non-mandatory Appendix after having been excised in 2004 owing to protests by many countries on their inclusion. The current draft (SCCR/15/2 rev.) was prepared in September 2006 as an attempt to put together an all-inclusive document (with alternative versions of proposed provisions present in the document), and a diplomatic conference was planned to push the treaty through. In August 2007, WIPO released a 'non-paper' (SCCR/S2/Paper1) and dropped plans for the diplomatic conference, as there was still significant disagreement about the treaty. In November 2008, the WIPO chair released an informal paper (SCCR/17/INF/1), which advocated technological neutrality, and hence, presumably, that webcasting to be covered by the treaty.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Meaning of broadcasting and netcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Broadcasting is generally taken to be a point-to-multipoint transmission of audio-visual content. Hence, cable transmissions and Internet/Web transmissions (which are point-to-point) are usually not included when one uses the term "broadcasting". But there is no one common definition of "broadcasting". As things stand in the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, the definition of broadcasting (Art. 5(a)) does not cover cablecasting, which is separately defined in Art. 5(b), neither does it cover webcasting. However, the definition of "retransmission" as provided in the draft treaty is broad enough to cover Internet-based transmission, and hence could provide a backdoor via which webcasting is included. The rights covered by the all-inclusive draft WIPO Broadcast Treaty include the rights of and over: retransmission; communication to the public; fixation; reproduction; distribution; transmission following fixation; making available of fixed broadcasts; and pre-broadcast signals. The treaty also mandates legislative protection to systems of digital rights management (DRM) and technological protection measures (TPMs). This, coupled with post-fixation rights, grants broadcasters the rights to dictate what one can and cannot do with a broadcast, thus negating all fair dealing rights and possibly restricting the public domain as well. It may be noted that even content creators are not provided such rights in the vast majority of the world, and that fair dealing rights are much better safeguarded by copyright law. The latest proposal by the U.S. on the term "netcasting" is to be found in an <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_15/sccr_15_inf_2.doc">informal paper presented at SCCR 15</a> [MS Word document], and has been <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/2006/09/how-restrictive-is-usptoloc-proposed.html">criticised as overly expansive</a> by civil society organisations such as Consumer Project on Technology (now Knowledge Ecology International).<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Non-justifications for webcasting's inclusion</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Webcasting is sought to be included within the Broadcast Treaty for a number of reasons, all of which are problematic. Firstly, there is the argument of technology neutrality, which advocates say is to ensure that the treaty is relevant into the future as well. However, adopting technology neutrality as the basis for doing so amounts to wilful blindness to technological advancements, and the benefits that such advancement provides, including lowered costs of infrastructure. Secondly, advocates argue that thanks to media convergence, the same content (which is usually digital) can be delivered through various communication networks. This disregards the need to establish the requirement for a new right to be created, and simply assumes that just because the function that the two (broadcasters and webcasters) perform are similar means that they operate in similar economic and social environments. In fact, webcasters work in a very different environment from broadcasters. <br /><br />This is an environment where intense innovation and competition already exist, and don't need to be artificially created by means of a new property right in an international treaty. Furthermore, the United States, a country with extremely large and hugely profitable broadcasting networks, does not have a specific statute to protect broadcasters’ rights. Even it only has laws protecting the conditional-access regime. Second, much less investment is required to reach a set number of people through webcasting than through broadcasting -- and these people can be spread throughout the globe. Typically, a computer with a fast internet connection is all that is required. Given this, anyone can become a 'broadcasting organisation'. Additionally, IP addresses (in IPv6) are not limited, unless one considers 340 undecillion addresses to be 'limited'. This is a big difference from terrestrial broadcasting, where Hertzian frequencies are limited, and hence one has to pay a premium for them. Lastly, signal appropriation does not happen for sake of the signal, but for the content. Protection, thus has to be given to the content (and already is given, in the form of copyright law). Copyright owners who object to such appropriation, and who are often large multinational corporations, have proven more than willing to pursue those who appropriate their works – broadcasters are not necessarily in a better position to do so. This situation is aggravated with webcasting. Indeed, on the Web, something akin signal appropriation is not only not frowned upon, but often encouraged: embedding of audio and video from other servers on your own website is prevalent.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Problems if webcasting is included</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Apart from the lack of justifications for going ahead with the treaty, especially when it seeks to create a separate property right over signals instead of merely providing for signal protection and includes webcasting (at least upon 'retransmission'), there are many problems that the treaty creates. Firstly, transaction costs will increase vastly, leading to a tragedy of the anticommons where no one ends up using the content because clearing all the surrounding rights is too difficult. On top of clearing and making payment for rights from the copyright holders, a person wishing to use parts of any content that has been broadcast/webcast would have to get the rights cleared from the first broadcaster/webcaster as well. This is inevitable if property-like rights are bestowed upon the act of distributing signal in the form of a broadcast or hosting audio and visual content for webcasting.<br /><br />Secondly, materials in the public domain and openly-licensed content will become more difficult to gain access to, and the exercise of fair dealings with copyrighted content will be hampered. Since rights over signal are independent of rights over content, a copy of the public-domain work will have to be procured from an archive, which negates the very purpose of broadcasting and webcasting, which is to make content more easily accessible to a large number of people located over great distances. Additionally, limitations and exceptions are extremely difficult to negotiate and are of the 'ceiling' kind, limiting the limitations and exceptions that national legislatures can prescribe. Thus, the fair dealing rights over the signal will probably end up being more limited than the fair dealing rights over content. This makes the situation akin to anti-circumvention measures, which (in countries where they are legally recognised) have fewer limitations and exceptions than the content they protect.<br /><br />Thirdly, public benefit and access will seriously be harmed. It is conceivable that this treaty might hamper the Indian legislature's ability to pass statutes such as the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, which mandate sharing of certain kinds of signals. Lawyers will claim that such statutes go against India's international obligations.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Differences between webcasting and broadcasting</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>To sum up, there are a large number of differences between broadcasting and webcasting.<br /><strong>Infrastructure</strong>: The expenditure required to establish the infrastructure for a webcasting unit is much less than that required for an equivalent (in terms of reach in terms of listeners). Even traditional broadcasting is not that expensive: fixed-frequency radio transmission kits have been known to cost as little as Rs. 50 (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4735642.stm>. Thus, one of the biggest arguments for protection ('to recover investment') is taken away. The content producers' 'investment' is protected by copyright law.<br /><strong>Competition</strong>: Providing incentives to increase competition and hence public benefit is often a reason cited as a reason for introduction of a new property-like right. However, such incentives seem utterly redundant in the online market where becoming a webcasting organisation is trivial, and immense competition already exists.<br /><strong>Broadcasting vs. Uni- and Multicasting</strong>: The notion of 'broadcasting' does not exist in IPv6. The closest that a webcaster can come to broadcasting is 'multicasting' to a specific range of IP addresses. What one sees on the Web today is "unicasting", which is initiated by a request from the recipient and not by the webcaster.<br /><strong>Temporal limitations</strong>: Unlike traditional broadcasting (which does not include cable), content on demand is possible over the Web. By this, the temporal limitations faced by traditional broadcasting, which is ephemeral, are overcome. This opens up many possibilities that should not be hampered by creating an excessive legal regime (and that too a property regime) over webcasting.<br /><strong>Geographic limitations</strong>: While terrestrial broadcasting is limited in geographic scope (which satellite and cable-casting are less susceptible to), webcasting knows no geographic limitations. As long as an Internet connection is present, the content can be viewed anywhere. Additionally, granting a separate webcasting right will open up a jurisdicational can of worms.<br /><strong>Marginal costs of subscribers</strong>: While in terrestrial broadcasting, adding an additional receiver does not cost the broadcaster anything, in satellite television (direct-to-home), cable television and webcasting, each additional receiver means either additional infrastructure (cables and set-top boxes) or additional server load. In the case of webcasting, this marginal cost is small enough to ignore, especially given all the other reasons mentioned previously.<br /><br /></p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>There are still a number of uncertainties surrounding the inclusion of webcasting in the Broadcast Treaty. Michael Nelson of the Internet Society points out that questions such as who the broadcaster is in a download grid, in distributed gaming, for webcasts of surveillance videos, etc., are unanswered. As the example of the download grid (a situation where the 'casting' is multipoint-to-point) shows, many Internet-specific scenarios have not been contemplated by the treaty negotiators. Situations which might soon be reality, such as peer-to-peer relaying of webcasts are also not contemplated, and the treaty would become a policy document preventing such technological innovations. Whether IPTV would be included within webcasting is also unclear. The WIPO chair in his informal paper noted, 'Finally, if after consideration of the options above (A/B) and possible other options, it will not in the present situation be possible to decide on the establishment of a new treaty, the SCCR should end these discussions through an express decision in order to avoid further spending of time, energy and resources to no avail. Such a decision could include a timetable for later revisiting and reconsidering the matter.' (SCCR/15/2 rev) SCCR should end these discussions which have gone on for more than a decade without any progress.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2011-08-04T04:42:10ZBlog Entry