Centre for Internet and Society

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:55:51Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made its intervention on the proposed treaty in the ongoing WIPO session on December 9, 2014.

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, Mister Chair.

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.

First, 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.

Second, 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.

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.

Finally, 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.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:56:14Z

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.

Note: 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.

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, chair.

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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention : Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-12-14T02:56:46Z

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on December 11 during one of the sessions in WIPO asked two questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews.

In 2008, WIPO commissioned a study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.This was prepared by Prof. Kenneth Crews. On December 10-11, 2014, at SCCR 29, Prof. Crews presented an updated (2014) version of this study and addressed comments and questions from Member States and Observers.

CIS Statement:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Professor Crews for your presentation yesterday, and for this comprehensive study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, very timely, and very important to us, from the perspective of access to knowledge and information.

I have two questions:

My first question: Did you find, in your examination, that, in terms of/ or on the question of limitations and exceptions, did you find, that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that lever of change lies to ensure that fair dealing provisions are extended equitably to the digital environment as well?

My second question, is on the interoperability of Limitations and Exceptions: Given that copyright is a very national thing, and, as your study has also well established, countries have a whole range of very diverse approaches and practices on Limitations and Exceptions; but also given that we live in an increasingly globalized world, we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the trans-boundary movement of works, with as little friction as possible, both- in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So, what did your examination show us of how interoperable- or not- the range of Limitations and Exceptions actually are?

Those are my two questions.

Thank you very much.

Response by Prof. Kenneth Crews:

Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out. So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means.

Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities

nehaa — 2014-12-20T13:40:19Z

At the 29th session of WIPO's SCCR, the Chair, Martin Moscoso, requested NGOs to send in their statements on limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research institutions and persons with disabilities in writing, to be placed on the record. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent in this written statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As we have always maintained in the past sessions of this Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society strongly believes that everyone, regardless of borders and barriers, either physical, or those created by time, distance and costs should have access to knowledge and education.

To that end, we strongly support the proposal made by India, earlier, on continuing constructive work in this area. We also welcome the suggestion by the Indian delegation on a synthesis of these issues (facilitated by an expert, through the Chair), so that we can have a constructive discussion on these issues.

Mr. Chair, we are very mindful of the fact that there exists a very real, very demonstrable need for limitations and exceptions for education, teaching and research institutions and also for the benefit of persons with disabilities. There is also an equally crucial need to ensure that these limitations and exceptions are open ended and are appropriate for the digital environment; a conversation we believe that is imperative for Member Nations to take forward, definitely more so than one around granting a 'para-copyright' for organizations that already enjoy a great deal of protection under existing treaties, and are far less vulnerable than beneficiaries of these limitations and exceptions.

We thank the United States of America for their document- SCCR/27/8 on the Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. We appreciate the recognition of the copyright system in the dissemination of works of authorship as well as the critical role that it plays in the promotion of educational, teaching and research objectives. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of a balance of rights and exceptions and limitations sustaining the role and activities of educational, teaching and research institutions.

However, we do believe that for a true balance to be achieved between rights and limitations and exceptions, the rights of the users of copyrighted works for the purposes of access to knowledge will have to be treated on par with those of the rights holders themselves. We believe that for this to be possible, measures will have to be taken to ensure international interoperability of limitations and exceptions and international standards suitable to address emerging and present issues of the digital environment will have to be developed. As we have submitted before this Committee earlier, it is our belief that the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. Mr. Chair, we reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area, that will facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.

As a first step towards this end, we urge Member States to collaborate on and engage in substantive discussions building on existing Working Documents presently before this Committee. We look forward to an engaging discussion and providing all our complete support as we move forward on this very important agenda item.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-education-teaching-research-institutions-and-persons-with-disabilities

35th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

sinha — 2017-11-15T13:35:02Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 15 November, 2017.

The Centre for Internet and Society, in agreement among others, believes that an international binding instrument to govern exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives is critical.

In several countries, their set of limitations and exceptions do not serve all intended beneficiaries in a comparably equal manner. For example, for the work of archives in India, there is very little that allows such institutions to do in terms of making copies for preservation and noncommercial dissemination. India, like many other countries here has a rich cultural heritage – and doing any activities with old audiovisual material involves identifying rightholders and clearing rights connected to orphan works and traditional cultural expressions as well. Imagine the onerous task of an archive of clearing all these rights in connection with appropriate agencies, and of course clearing additional permissions from authors and performers. In our research, we discovered that most archives in India miserably fail on this front, causing valuable material being locked in storage rooms for decades.

Needless to say, accessibility to this national wealth of knowledge in archives also supports the mission of libraries, museums and educational institutions and researchers.

So Mr. Chair, we strongly believe that an update to the international copyright system via a binding instrument would serve many countries well. It would empower all countries to fill in such deficiencies in relation to libraries, archives, educational and research institutions, museums and persons with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

35th SCCR: CIS Statement on GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment

sinha — 2017-11-17T10:03:21Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, made this statement on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017.

We would like to reiterate the importance of GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit organisation in India that undertakes research on internet and digital technologies from an academic and policy perspective.

In an environment of monopolies controlling the distribution of digital goods and services, which connect users and creators, such a comprehensive study assumes significant importance, especially for creators in the global south.

We are especially concerned with the methods by which platform intermediaries are enforcing their private IP rules on creators worldwide, and if there are fair systems in place to address takedown, and the subsequent restoration of works unfairly taken down from their platforms. It must be noted that there is a serious lack of transparency as far as the conduct of such intermediaries go, and often actions are taken without appropriate justification/explanation.

It is equally important that we continue to build on limitations and exceptions for libraries, museums, archives, educational institutions, researchers, and users’ in the digital environment.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-statement-on-grulac-proposal-for-analysis-of-copyright-in-the-digital-environment

WIPO Regional Seminar on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions

Admin — 2019-05-04T02:23:57Z

Anubha Sinha participated in the WIPO “Regional Seminar for the Asia Pacific Group on Libraries, Archives, Museums and Educational & Research Institutions in the Field of Copyright”, which was held on April 29 and 30, 2019, in Singapore. The event was co-organized by Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, Singapore Cooperation Programme and WIPO.

More info on the programme here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/wipo-regional-seminar-on-copyright-limitations-and-exceptions

25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Assessment of Inventive Step

rohini — 2016-12-16T22:27:03Z

Statement emailed by Rohini Lakshané on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society to the Secretariat for the WIPO Standing Committee for the Law of Patents, Twenty Fifth Session, with reference to agenda item 7, "Sharing session on examples and cases relating to assessment of inventive step including, but not limited to, the topics suggested in document SCP/24/3, paragraph 8.

Based on submissions by various stakeholders, the Indian Patent Office released a new set of guidelines for patent examiners to examine Computer Related Inventions or CRIs, in February 2016. The guidelines, inter alia, introduced a new three-step test, which The Centre for Internet and Society, India, had proposed to the IPO in its submissions. The test determines the applicability of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, which excludes as inventions "a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms".

The three-step test places a restriction on the patenting of software. An invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme per se. Only if the contribution of the claim lies in both the computer programme as well as hardware, it would be considered for other steps of patentability. All in all, the new guidelines are in compliance with the legislative requirement for patentability of software.

Innovation in electronic hardware as well as in software is cumulative and often involves building upon previous inventions. Various small and medium enterprises in their submissions had requested a strict standard for patentability of software inventions. We hope that the implementation of these guidelines would enable start-ups and small and medium enterprises to innovate without the fear of patent infringement litigation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/twenty-fifth-session-of-wipo-scp-statement-on-assessment-of-inventive-step

WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)

praskrishna — 2012-07-31T12:13:25Z

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which was live-streamed and made available by WIPO.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24_sccr24_post-lunch.txt

WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)

praskrishna — 2012-07-31T12:34:00Z

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which was live-streamed and made available by WIPO.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-25_sccr24_post-lunch.txt

At WIPO, Study On Copyright Exceptions Stimulates Broad Discussion With Author

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T14:33:46Z

During the recent meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee, a study was presented on exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries and archives at the national level. The presentation spurred a full day of discussion about how to ensure libraries can continue to provide an indispensable service, and a substantive exchange with the author.

The article by Catherine Saez was published in Intellectual Property Watch on December 18, 2014

The 29th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) took place from 8-12 December.

On 10 December, Kenneth Crews, former director of the copyright advisory office at Columbia University and now in the private sector, presented an update [pdf] of his 2008 WIPO-commissioned study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (IPW, WIPO, 12 December 2014).

The study provided safe ground for broad discussions on the sensitive issue of exceptions and limitations, and the role of WIPO in the issue, with a large number of countries taking the floor to offer comments on the study and its findings, providing specific details on their own legislation and/or asking questions.

Harmonisation

Mexico, for example, asked whether there was a general movement leading to a harmonisation exercise in international copyright law.

Crews answered there was no movement toward an era of harmonisation, but harmonisation could be an answer in the field of limitations and exceptions if it left sufficient policy space to countries.

On the one hand, he said, “there is virtue in harmonisation, in allowing for the predictability of the law … as your business activities move from one country to another.” It makes the law easier to understand, and easier to address some of the issues of cross-border exchange..,” he said.

But the major disadvantage of harmonisation would be the loss of opportunity for countries to “experiment, test new ideas in lawmaking, and to move in some new directions,” he added.

Maybe the answer lies in the middle, said Crews: harmonise the law to a certain extent, “and then leave some of the details to individual countries.”

The European Union delegate remarked that even in an integrated legal system such as the EU, very few exceptions to copyright are mandatory for EU members. Member states “remain free to implement most of the exceptions in the EU legislation in their national systems,” he said.

Implementation Issues

Tunisia stressed the issue of the implementation of copyright exceptions and limitations in developing countries, particularly for libraries. Libraries often are “fearful of the complications,” referring to the exceptions and limitations legislation, and simply do not use it, preferring “what is possible and available,” he said

Crews said it is important to find “the right formula” for drafting a statute that is detailed enough that users are law-abiding citizens, “and at the same time not be so complicated in the structure of the law that it is difficult or impractical for most – even trained professionals – to follow.”

Cross-Border Exchange, TPMs

Brazil said the study sheds light on certain areas where further cooperation would be welcome. The Brazilian delegate said this cooperation could take into account the dynamic evolution of digital technologies and the “growing cross-border cooperation among libraries and archives.”

The delegate said some factors pose concrete problems for cross-border cooperation, such as the fact that some 33 WIPO members do not provide exceptions for libraries, and a higher number of countries do not provide exceptions and limitations that “could be deemed adequate” to address the new challenges created by the digital environment, and limitations and exceptions provided by national legislation vary deeply from country to country.

Now that the research has started with the 2008 report has been updated, we can see that from the universe of the WIPO membership 33 countries still do not provide limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives in their national legislation. A even greater number of WIPO members do not seem to provide limitations and exceptions that could be deemed adequate in order to address the new challenges libraries and archives increasingly face with the emergence of the digital environment

He also said the study states that technological protection measures (TPM) can have a negative impact on countries’ ability to “legitimately implement exceptions and limitations,” which is a “growing concern as countries seek to better regulate and avoid abuses in the use of TPMs.”

Crews said the issue of cross-border activity and the difficulty in cooperation between countries induced by the difference in laws is perhaps one of the most important that WIPO could address. Part of the solution to that problem might be a trusted third party facilitating the transfer of copyrighted works, he said. A sharing of resources should be allowed while protecting the interest of right-holders, he said, “so that they can participate in this and encourage this activity as well.”

Many developing countries keep insisting that the major issue for libraries and archives is the digital era. The digital revolution “has barely begun,” Crews said. “The transformation of technology and the way we communicate and the way we share information is only beginning, so it is important not to prescribe exact details, but … to take some steps to open up the issue,” he said.

Chile also underlined the fact that the study showed a low number of countries providing exceptions for interlibrary loans.

According to Crews, using licences for cross-border activities is limited to the countries which the licence covers. The risks of having licences as a solution to cross-border exchange is that “it leaves the terms to private negotiations,” and many countries might not have laws on licensing.

Licensing Agreements

Sweden said the country has a dual system: “traditional limitations” in the law or preservation and replacement, for example, and a licensing agreement system. The two systems run side-by-side smoothly, he said.

Crews said that the licensing agreement system is not adaptable to all countries. “There are many reasons why it has not been adopted” in some countries, he said, adding, “I would express some concern about requiring it as an international matter.”

The European Union said exceptions and limitations and licences often coexist well. Those licences are often collectively negotiated, said the EU delegate, and sometimes cover broader uses than the exceptions themselves.

Crews said conceptually in the law-making process, countries need to reckon with the relationship not only of the rights of owners and the public rights of use or the copyright exceptions, but also the role of licences, and should they be allowed to override an exception that is in the law.

“That is a tough question,” he said. “It not only goes to the balance of rights,” he added, but lawmakers should decide to what extent an agreement can impede the statute they have worked hard to develop.

Countries Provide Clarifications, New Legislations

Some countries provided clarifications or additions to the study. For example, Saudi Arabia, which was mentioned in the study as one of the countries with no exceptions and limitations, said the 1984 copyright law provides an exception in paragraph 3.

Ecuador said it is working on a substantial reform of its current intellectual property legislation, including exceptions and limitations for people with disabilities, teaching and educational institutions, and libraries and archives.

China said it is undergoing the third revision of its copyright law, and Thailand said in November it passed an amendment to its copyright law, on TPMs, and this amendment includes an exemption for the circumvention of TPM for libraries and archives, educational institutes, and public broadcasting organisations.

Crews said many countries, including the United States and those in the European Union, have exceptions for TPMs, with two basic procedures: an exception that allows the user to “do the act of circumventing the measures to access the content,” and a legal system that calls on the rights holder to provide the means to users to access the content.

The United States said the US Congress is currently reviewing elements of its domestic copyright law, including library-related exceptions and limitations.

In November, the Czech Republic introduced a new amendment to its copyright system, the delegate said, “and the amendment brought a new exception for libraries and archives and for other cultural and educational institutions and for public broadcasters,” enabling them to use orphan works existing in their collection, under specific terms and for certain specific uses.

NGO Questions and Comments

The representative of the Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL) asked Crews how WIPO, as a United Nations agency with a commitment to enhance developing countries’ participation in the global innovation economy, could support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. The representative also asked how libraries can accommodate their increasing need to send and receive information across border, within the realm of copyright law.

Many countries have either no exceptions, or have exceptions but very limited applications, which do not cover digital technology, Crews said, adding that WIPO is in a position to shape the next model.

The International Publishers Association said that legislation is one thing but to know whether they are implemented and how they work is another. The representative advised looking at what kind of practice, and also practical initiatives between stakeholders can solve issues at stake.

In many cases, the representative said, issues are solved by alternative means, citing collective licensing, but also solutions bringing together stakeholders, he said, which provide space and flexibility for adaptation and further change. On cross-border document delivery, he said, “It is not true that documents are not crossing continents or crossing borders.” He explained that there are many alternative ways of receiving content across borders.

Crews said he is supportive of alternatives outside of the law, however, they might not be optimal solutions, he said. In particular, it often takes no less time to develop those alternatives than writing law, he said. He added that those alternatives, such as licences, are available only with respect to certain types of works, whereas statues apply to all types of works.

“The private extra-legal systems are not going to solve all of the issues,” said Crews.

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions said the United Kingdom reform of its copyright law includes for the first time provisions that prevent contracts and licences from overriding the exceptions and limitations enjoyed by libraries and archives for non-commercial uses.

The Center for Internet and Society (India) asked about the interoperability of limitations and exceptions to allow for easier trans-boundary movement of works. Crews said the trans-border concept seldom appears in library exceptions. Trans-border sometimes is governed by copyright law and sometimes by some other part of national law, such as import and export, he said. Some degree of harmonisation can help with interoperability, he said.

In general terms, and following an intervention by the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue mentioning public involvement in the discussions, Crews said, “We are all copyright owners and we are all users of other people’s copyrights to some extent.”

The public does not realise that they are all owners and users of copyrighted works on a daily basis, he said, and they need to become participants in the process.

[Update:]

Knowledge Ecology International asked if the periodical revision of the Berne Convention’s standards for copyright exceptions, which ended in 1971, should be resumed. The KEI representative also asked whether the copyright three-step test contained in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) applies to specific limitations and exceptions to remedies for infringement, in part III of TRIPS (Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights).

Crews answered that the three-step test does not apply to the remedies, or other matters. The test is on “its own terms applicable to the limitations and exceptions,” he said.

On the revision on the Berne Convention, Crews said “the answer is yes” but it is a “bigger subject than we are convened here today to discuss.”

KEI also mentioned a Spanish tax which “apparently” is taken on snippets from news organisations and asked if this tax does not violate the two mandatory exceptions in the Berne Convention, which are news of the day, and quotations.

Crews said the issue might be about the interrelationship of copyright with other areas of the law. The Spanish tax mentioned might be relative to a tax law, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2014-wipo-study-on-copyright-exceptions-stimulates-broad-discussion-with-author

WIPO Delegates Hear Concerns of NGOs on Exceptions for Libraries

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T14:40:05Z

As World Intellectual Property Organization member states launched into discussions on exceptions and limitations to copyright for the benefit of libraries and archives this week, non-governmental organisations were given the opportunity to present their views on the issue. They delivered vibrant, sometimes contradictory, statements on the opportunity for a treaty to preserve exceptions in the international copyright system.

The 26th session of the WIPO Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is taking place from 16-20 December. After two days devoted to the protection of broadcasting organisations, the focus of the next two days has been on a potential international instrument providing exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.

In their general statements, countries remained faithful to their known positions. Developing countries generally underlined the necessity of achieving a balanced international copyright system and their wish to establish a legally binding instrument, and developed countries were of the view that the existing international copyright system already provides exceptions which could be used by libraries and archives.

The African Group said the countries in the group: find it difficult to set up and understand the existing limitations and exceptions; believe an international legally binding instrument would enable them to understand better how they can provide exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives; and consider that it would provide a mechanism for cross-border exchange for such entities.

The European Union clearly stated that its member countries were not willing to consider a legally binding instrument, and said that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives did not require the same kind of action that was taken in favour of visually impaired people, referring to the recently adopted Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.

Developed countries, in particular those in the European Union, did not always stand in favour of a treaty providing exceptions and limitations to copyright for visually impaired people. In the discussion on libraries and archives, developed countries are in favour of sharing national experiences rather than establishing binding new norms.

The United States said it was not in support of norm-setting through treaty provisions. The delegate also said exceptions and limitations should be consistent with other member state obligations, including the so-called three step test.

The notion of three-step test haunted the discussions leading to the Marrakesh Treaty. It stems originally from Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (IPW, WIPO, 14 June 2013) and provides conditions for reproduction.

A large number of non-governmental organisations took the floor on 18 December, with stark differences in the approach of the issue of exceptions and limitations to copyright for libraries and archives.

Industry, Creators: International Instrument Superfluous

The industry, such as the International Federation of Film Producers, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), The International Association of Editors (IPA), the International Video Federation (IVF), the Ibero-Latin-American Federation of Performers (FILAIE), and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), said that the existing international copyright framework already provides exceptions and limitations, and national legislations can be develop to address issues met by libraries and archives.

FILAIE said that it was in support of the Marrakesh Treaty but that a balance between society and the rights holders should be maintained. The IPA said there is no need for change in the international law, and suggested active legislative assistance to WIPO member states by the secretariat.

IVF concurred and said effective technical assistance in implementing the existing international copyright framework should be a focus of the SCCR.

The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisation (IFRRO), in its statement, also said the current international conventions adequately provide for the establishment of relevant library exceptions in national legislation, such as reproduction for preservation proposals. The sharing of experiences ” both in the wording of library and archive exceptions and practical solutions seems to IFRRO to be the most appropriate way to enhance the performance of library and archive services,” the representative said.

“Exceptions and limitations are already part of the toolkit of existing treaties,” the representative for the International Federation of Actors and the International Federations of Musicians said. The international normative framework is providing “a coherent and flexible structure with just recognition of the contribution of creators to the information society and knowledge society, and the establishment of exceptions and other mechanisms providing access for the public to creative content,” he said.

The International Authors Forum concurred with the idea that existing provisions contain sufficient flexibility and asked that WIPO member states “will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the WIPO texts for adequate remuneration for the authors in accordance with the three-step test.”

Libraries, Archive Underline Inadequacies, Support Treaty

Libraries and archivists have a different view of the issue and reported on problems as they experience them on the ground.

The German Library Association cited a new study published by the European Commission (Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society [pdf]), and said it “paints a dire picture of the adequacy of the Directive for exceptions for libraries in the European Union in the digital environment.”

In particular, the representative said, it “identifies a lack of cross-border application of exceptions for libraries and a patchwork of national laws as preventing libraries from fulfilling their functions,” in particular presenting cross-border issues, he said.

“There is a high level of international copyright protection,” he said, but “there is no such uniformity of limitations.” To act legally, he said, “library staff has to know about the limitations and exception, not only in their own country, the country of origin, but also in the country of destination of its service.”

The Canadian Library Association said it came to WIPO “to ensure a basic copyright framework is made available to libraries everywhere, and not just in Canada to deliver essential information services, and so that other communities can benefit from the same societal and economic impacts as we have in Canada.”

Even in Canada, the representative said, libraries’ activities are under threat, “as increased restrictions such as technology group protection measures and licensing terms and conditions degrade the environment in which we work, leaving libraries changing our role to simple market access intermediaries for publishers.”

For Electronic Information for Libraries, an international framework establishing basic standards is necessary to avoid increasing inequalities in public knowledge. “We recognise the theory that the international copyright framework provides legal space to ensure meaningful limitations and exceptions,” the representative said, “But when the reality is different, and the gap between countries is widening, intervention is required to ensure the integration of key public interest concepts into the international framework.”

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions also underlined the disparity in national exceptions and limitations making it impossible for libraries to “competently fulfil our role as intermediaries between rights holders and users.”

CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions

Amulya Purushothama and Nehaa Chaudhari — 2015-09-03T02:08:34Z

This is a submission made by Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society to the Expert Committee on the Broadcast Treaty constituted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. This submission compares the definitions of various terms in the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations that is being deliberated at WIPO's SCCR at the moment, and definitions for these terms that are already present in existing international instruments.

Special thanks to CIS intern, Amulya Purushothama for her research and writing on this subject. While Amulya was acknowledged as the co author in the actual submission itself, the blurb didn't say so and this has now been changed. Download the file of CIS submission here.

Introduction

This note analyses the differences in definitional clauses across six documents, the proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations [1] ("Broadcast Treaty"), the Proposal on the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organization- The Proposal by the Delegation of South Africa[2] ("Proposal by South Africa"), The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,1996 ("WPPT"), the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, 1961 ("The Rome Convention"), and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012 ("The Beijing Treaty")

The definitions for signal, broadcasting, broadcasting organization, retransmission, fixation, communication to the public and rights management information will be studied in detail as the definitions for these concepts has varied somewhat through the years. The rest of the definitions can be found in a detailed table that follows.

The argument here is simply that by subtly broadening the definition of certain terms, the broadcast treaty grants a higher level of protection to broadcasting organization, and that these protections could possibly extend to covering the content underlying the signals.

1. Signal

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines a signal as an "electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof whether encrypted or not"[3], the alternative to this provision defines a signal as an "electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast cablecast"[4]. The proposal by South Africa, on the other hand, defines a signal as "an electric current or electromagnetic field used to convey data". Clearly the definition in the Broadcast Treaty could be extended to cover the content underlying the signal and is not as technologically neutral as the alternative definitions.

2. Broadcasting

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines broadcast as the "transmission of a signal by a broadcasting organization for reception by the public"[5], an alternative to this excludes signals sent over computer networks from the definition of a broadcast, [6] another alternative defines broadcasting as "the transmission by wireless means for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof". This definition includes satellite transmission, wireless transmission of encrypted signals where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. Transmission over computer networks is excluded from this definition as well.[7] This mirrors definitions of broadcasting set out in the WPPT[8], the Rome Convention[9] and the Beijing Treaty[10]. The proposal by South Africa defines "broadcasting" as the process whereby "the output signal of a broadcasting organization is taken from the point of origin, being the point where such signal is made available in its final content format and is conveyed to any broadcast target area by means of electronic communications" and "broadcast" is construed accordingly. Clearly the proposed definition under the Broadcast Treaty is less technologically neutral as compared to the proposal by South Africa. The proposed definition under the Broadcast Treaty also does not limit the protection granted by the treaty to the signal and unlike the proposal by South Africa does not ensure that definition excludes the underlying content being transmitted by the signal.

3. Broadcasting Organisations

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines a broadcasting organization as "the legal entity that takes the initiative for packaging assembling and scheduling program content for which it has, where necessary, been authorized by rights holders and takes the legal and editorial responsibility for the communication to the public of everything which is included in its broadcast signal." Or alternatively[11], considers broadcasting organisations and cablecasting organisations as one and the same and defines them as "the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representation thereof and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission." The proposal by South Africa defines a broadcasting organization as the "legal entity that has the responsibility for packaging, assembly and/or scheduling of program content for which it has legitimate license. Or rights of use for the transmission to the public, sections of the public or subscribers in the form of an unencrypted or encrypted output signal containing sounds, visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds". Clearly, in stark contrast to the proposed Broadcast Treaty, the proposal by South Africa ensures that cablecasting organisations aren't included within the definition of broadcasting organisations, this definition is also by far the most technologically neutral and ensures adequate protection for broadcasting organisations on all broadcasting platforms.

4. Retransmission

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines "retransmission" as "the transmission by any means by any person other than the original broadcasting organization for reception by the public whether simultaneous or delayed";[12] or alternatively defines rebroadcast as "the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public of a broadcast or a cablecast by any other person than the original broadcasting organization"; even simultaneous transmission of a rebroadcast is understood to be a rebroadcast under this definition. [13]

Under a further alternative[14] retransmission is defined as "the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a transmission … by any other person than the original broadcasting or cablecasting organization" this definition of retransmission also includes simultaneous transmission of a retransmission.

To contrast to this, the Rome convention defines rebroadcasting as the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.[15] Clearly a higher level of protection is granted to broadcasting organisations under the proposed Broadcast Treaty, one that was so far not guaranteed to them by international conventions.

5. Fixation

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines fixation as "the embodiment of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof from which they can be perceived , reproduced or communicated through a device" [16] [17],the WPPT defines fixation as "the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device";[18] and the Beijing Treaty defines audiovisual fixation as "the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds or by the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived reproduced or communicated through a device".[19] In this capacity, the definitions proposed in the Broadcast Treaty seem to be in line with the earlier international treaties.

6. Communication to the Public

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines communication to the public as "any transmission or retransmission to the public of a broadcast signal or a fixation thereof by any medium or platform".[20]or alternatively as "making the transmissions … audible or visible or audible and visible in places accessible to the public.[21] Whereas the WPPT defined communication to the public as "the transmission to the public by any medium, otherwise than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram… including making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public."[22] The Beijing Treaty defined communication to the public as "the transmission to the public by any medium otherwise than by broadcasting, of an unfixed performance or of a performance fixed in an audio visual fixation… "communication to the public" includes making a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation audible or visible or audible and visible to the public." [23] Clearly the definition has been broadened under the proposed treaty, which makes it plausible for the protection granted to broadcasters to cover the content underlying the signal as well.

7. Rights Management Information

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines rights management information as "information that identifies the broadcasting organization, the broadcast, the owner of any right in the broadcast, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the broadcast and any numbers or codes that represent such information when any of these items of information is attached to or associated with the broadcast or the pre broadcast signal or its use in accordance with Article 6."[24] The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, defines it as "information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public."[25]

The WPPT extends the same definition to performances and performers as it defines rights management information as "information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer, the producer of the phonogram, the phonogram, the owner of any right in the performance or phonogram, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance or phonogram, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a fixed performance or a phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a fixed performance or a phonogram to the public."[26] And the Beijing Treaty defines rights management information as "information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer or the owner of any right in the performance or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation."[27]

Clearly the current treaty extends the protection offered to rights management information to pre-broadcasting signals in addition to broadcast signals, this represents a higher level of protection granted to broadcasters under the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Detailed Table on Definitions in International Treaties

Definition	Broadcast Treaty 27/2 rev	Broadcast Treaty Proposal by South Africa WIPO/CR/Consult/GE/11/2/2	WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996	WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,1996	Rome Convention, 1961	Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012
Signal	Article 5, Alternative A, 5(a): "signal" is an electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof, whether encrypted or not; Alternative to (a), "signal" means an electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast or cablecast	"signal" is an electric current or electromagnetic field used to convey data;
Broadcast	Article 5, Alternative A : Article 5 (b): "broadcast" means the transmission of a signal by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization for reception by the public; Alternative to (b): "broadcast" means the transmission of a set of electronically generated signals by wireless and carrying a specific program for reception by the general public, broadcast shall not be understood as including transmission of such a set of signals over computer networks. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (a) "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting". Wireless transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. "broadcasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks	"broadcasting" means the process whereby the output signal of a broadcasting organization is taken from the point of origin, being the point where such signal is made available in its final content format and is conveyed to any broadcast target area by means of electronic communications and "broadcast" is construed accordingly"		Article 2(f): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent;	Article 3 (f): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds;	Article 2(c): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting", transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.
Broadcasting Organization	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (c): "broadcasting organization" means the legal entity that takes the initiative for packaging assembling and scheduling program content for which it has, where necessary, been authorized by rights holders and takes the legal and editorial responsibility for the communication to the public of everything which is included in its broadcast signal. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (c): "broadcasting organization" and "cablecasting organization" mean the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representation thereof and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission.	"broadcasting organization" means the legal entity that has the responsibility for packaging, assembly and/or scheduling of program content for which it has legitimate license. Or rights of use for the transmission to the public, sections of the public or subscribers in the form of an unencrypted or encrypted output signal containing sounds, visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds.
Retransmission	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5(d): "retransmission" means the transmission by any means by any person other than the original broadcasting organization for reception by the public whether simultaneous or delayed; Alternative to (d) rebroadcast means the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public of a broadcast or a cablecast by any other person than the original broadcasting organization; simultaneous transmission of a rebroadcast shall be understood as well to be a rebroadcast. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (d): "retransmission" means the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a transmission referred to in provisions (a) or (b) of this article by any other person than the original broadcasting or cablecasting organization; simultaneous transmission of a retransmission shall be understood as well to mean a retransmission.				Article 3(g): "rebroadcasting" means the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.
Fixation	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (e) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof from which they can be perceived , reproduced or communicated through a device Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (f) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device.			Article 2(c): "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device;		Article 2(b): "audiovisual fixation" means the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds or by the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived reproduced or communicated through a device.
Communication to the Public	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (f): "communication to the public" means any transmission or retransmission to the public of a broadcast signal or a fixation thereof by any medium or platform. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (e): "communication to the public" means making the transmissions referred to in provisions (a), (b) or (d) of this article audible or visible or audible and visible in places accessible to the public.			Article 2(g): "communication to the public" of a performance or a phonogram means the transmission to the public by any medium, otherwise than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram. For the purposes of Article 15, "communication to the public" includes making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public.		Article 2(d): "Communication to the public of a performance means the transmission to the public by any medium otherwise than by broadcasting, of an unfixed performance or of a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation. For the purposes of Article 11, "communication to the public" includes making a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation audible or visible or audible and visible to the public.
Pre-broadcast Signal	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (g): "pre broadcast signal" means a transmission prior to broadcast that a broadcasting organization intends to include in its program schedule, which is not intended for direct reception by the public
Rights Management Information	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (h) "rights management information" means information that identifies the broadcasting organization, the broadcast, the owner of any right in the broadcast, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the broadcast and any numbers or codes that represent such information when any of these items of information is attached to or associated with the broadcast or the pre broadcast signal or its use in accordance with Article 6.		Article 12(2): "rights management information" means information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public	Article 19(2): "rights management information" means information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer, the producer of the phonogram, the phonogram, the owner of any right in the performance or phonogram, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance or phonogram, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a fixed performance or a phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a fixed performance or a phonogram to the public.		Article 16(2): "rights management information" which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer or the owner of any right in the performance or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation.
Transmission	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (i), "transmission" means the sending for reception by the public of visual images sounds or representations thereof by the way of an electronic carrier	"electronic communications" means the emission, transmission or reception of sounds , visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds by means of magnetism, radio or other electromagnetic waves, optical electromagnetic systems or any agency of a like nature, whether with or without the aid of tangible conduct.
Program	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 , alternative to (j), "program" means a discreet package of one or more works protected by copyright or related rights in the form of live or recorded material consisting of images, sounds or both.
Cablecast	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (k) "cablecast" means the same as "broadcast" when the transmission is by wire and excluding transmission by satellite or over computer networks. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (b): "cablecasting" means the transmission by wire for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof. Transmission by wire of encrypted signals is "cablecasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the cablecasting organization or with its consent. "cablecasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks.
Performers				Article 2(a) :"performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore	Article 3(a): "performers" means actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works;	Article 2(a): "performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons, who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.

[1] See Working Document for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Prepared by the Secretariat, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 27^th Session, Geneva, April 28- May 2, 2014, SCCR/27/2/REV. (Hereafter The Broadcast Treaty.)

[2] The Proposal on the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Proposal by the Delegation of South Africa, Informal Consultation Meeting on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Geneva, April 14 and 15, 2011, WIPO/CR/Consult/Ge/11/2/2. (Hereafter, The South African Proposal)

[3] Article 5, Alternative A, 5(a), the Broadcast Treaty.

[4] Article 5, Alternative A, Alternative to (a), The Broadcast Treaty.

[5] Article 5, Alternative A, Article 5 (b), The Broadcast Treaty.

[6] Article 5, Alternative A, Alternative to (b), The Broadcast Treaty.

[7] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (a) The Broadcast Treaty.

[8] See Article 2(f) of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996.(Hereinafter, WPPT) that reads as: "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent"

[9] See Article 3 (f) of the Rome Convention, 1961 (Hereafter The Rome Convention), that reads as: '"broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds.'

[10] See Article 2(c) of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012(Hereafter The Beijing Treaty), that reads as '"broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting", transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.'

[11] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (c) The Broadcast Treaty.

[12] Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5(d) The Broadcast Treaty.

[13] Alternative to Article 5(d), The Broadcast Treaty.

[14] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (d), The Broadcast Treaty.

[15] Article 3(g), The Rome Convention, 1961.

[16] Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (e), The Broadcast Treaty.

[17] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (f), The Broadcast Treaty.

[18] Article 2(c), WPPT.

[19] Article 2(b), The Beijing Treaty

[20] Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (f), The Broadcast Treaty.

[21] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (e), The Broadcast Treaty.

[22] Article 2(g), WPPT.

[23] Article 2(d), The Beijing Treaty.

[24] Article 5 (h), The Broadcast Treaty.

[26] Article 19(2), WPPT.

[27] Article 16(2), The Beijing Treaty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions

The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?

praskrishna — 2015-01-09T02:31:55Z

Nehaa Chaudhari was one of the speakers at this side event held on December 10, 2014.

See the details on Knowledge Ecology International website.

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).

Background

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."

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.

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.

After 15 years of negotiations, formal and informal, text based or not, it is time to answer some of the following questions:

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?

Would the new international right (or rights) have an impact on consumers and creative communities globally?

Would the new instrument have the necessary exceptions for quotations or news of the day?

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?

Would the protection of over the air broadcast signal be sufficient for broadcasters? If not why not?

Download the transcript here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem

25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Future work

rohini — 2016-12-16T23:01:40Z

Rohini Lakshané, attending the 25th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) held in Geneva from December 12, 2016 to December 15, 2016, made this statement on Agenda Item #12, "Future Work".

Thank you, madam Chair.

On behalf of my organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, India, I urge future SCPs to include the topics of standards as well as patents in the hardware and software domains. In many developed countries, the mobile phone is the only means of access to the Internet, and in turn, of access to knowledge and information. In a study published this year by CIS, we found that all mobile phone patents in India are owned by non-Indian entities. Like in the case of pharmaceuticals, we believe that a rise in prices should not drive affordable hardware out of the reach of the people. To that effect, I would like to reiterate that the SCP consider including this topic in future meetings.

Thank you, madam Chair.

See the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/25th-session-of-the-wipo-scp-statement-on-future-work