The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired — Moving from a Treaty on Paper to a Treaty that is Workable on the Ground
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/wipo-treaty-for-the-visually-impaired
<b>After many years of hard lobbying by the World Blind Union, it appears that the WIPO Treaty on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities (TVI) could become a reality next year. However, due to pressure from the European Union and the United States, and their insistence on several untenable provisions, there is a real risk that the TVI could become unworkable on the ground.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The following is a list of concerns that must suitably be addressed if the TVI is to make a realistic dent in the “book famine” in which only a few per cent of books are available in accessible formats that persons with print disabilities can read.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Definition of authorised entity to be widened.</b><br />The current definition of authorized entity prescribes that only authorized entities that address the needs of beneficiary persons as one of their primary (in brackets) activities or institutional obligations can undertake conversion and distribution of books in accessible formats. This requirement is unacceptable since it will exclude many legitimate organisations and institutions that undertake these activities but who do not address the needs of beneficiary persons as a "primary" activity or institutional obligation. Some examples of such organisations/institutions are mainstream education institutions and mainstream libraries. Delhi University which has a large number of blind students will be excluded and this is unacceptable.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Authorised entities must be required to follow simple rules and procedures when converting and distributing works in accessible formats.</b><br />As is proposed now, authorized entities could be required to follow complex rules and procedures with respect to the permitted activities. In this connection it is critical to note that:<br />
<ul>
<li>Smaller organisations will not be in a position to keep organised records. Therefore smaller organisations that serve rural or small populations must not be subject to a requirement to keep records where they do not distribute accessible formats in electronic form.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>There must be no requirements for organisations to apply Technology Protection Measures to accessible formats in electronic form.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>While organisations can inform beneficiary persons to whom they supply accessible formats that there must be no subsequent distribution to non-beneficiary persons, an organisation should have no obligation to oversee the use by the beneficiary persons they supply accessible formats to, or any responsibility for misuse by beneficiary persons they supply accessible formats to.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>There must be no requirement to share the records that organisations are required to keep with any person or entity other than in the eventuality of copyright infringement proceedings.</li>
</ul>
The rules and procedures must therefore be simplified to reflect the above.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The exception must automatically kick in if the relevant accessible formats are not available in the market on the same day as the mainstream format.</b><br />At present there is no clarity on when the exception kicks in and the existing wording can be interpreted such that the exception may apply only after significant time has passed after the books are available in the market in the mainstream format. If a work is made available in the market in a mainstream format it is essential that beneficiary persons can enjoy the work in the relevant accessible format at the same time. Failure to do so is discriminatory towards beneficiary persons. In this connection, the TVI must expressly clarify that if the accessible format copy is not available on the same day as the mainstream format, the exception automatically applies and authorised entities and beneficiary persons can create accessible format copies on the same day that the mainstream format is commercial available. <br />This will also be an incentive for rights holders to take steps to ensure that accessible format copies are made commercially available on the same day as mainstream formats.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">“<b>Making available” to be possible through wire and wireless means.</b><br />One of the proposed changes to the TVI is the clarification that “making available” accessible format copies to the public should be as per Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty thereby expressly providing for communication to the public, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. Given that technology is making it increasingly possible for beneficiary persons to access accessible format copies over wire and wireless means, this is clarification is very critical.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Authorised Entity in the exporting country must not have any obligation to verify any form of legal eligibility in the importing country</b>.<br />As per the current wording of the TVI an authorized entity in one Member State: <br />
<ul>
<li>Must, when exporting to beneficiary person in another Member State, verify whether that other Member State would permit that beneficiary person to make or import that accessible copy; and </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Can only export to an entity or organization in another Member State that the originating authorizing entity has identified as another authorized entity. </li>
</ul>
It is obvious that authorised entities in one country cannot verify the above with any degree of certainty and therefore it is impossible for authorised entities to comply with this requirement. Moreover, as in the case of all copyright exceptions and limitations, rights holders have the right to take copyright infringement action against any person or entity that operates outside, or exceeds, the exception. This requirement relating to the verification legal legibility must therefore be deleted.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Member states having the flexibility to decide whether to link exceptions to commercial availability</b>.<br />At present, the draft TVI provides Member States the flexibility to decide whether to confine permitted activities to instances where there is no commercial availability of accessible format copies. This flexibility is critical for Member States since the economic and distribution ground realities in each Member State vary widely and only a Member State can decide this issue conclusively for its own circumstances. Any attempt to change this position in the TVI must be opposed.<br />In short, barring the above issues, the Treaty appears to heading in the right direction. The upcoming intersessionals in Geneva (17-19th October 2012) to discuss the text of the Treaty will be crucial to decide the fate of the Treaty. Watch this space.</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Rahul is the founder of Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy and he advices the World Blind Union on legal issues relating to the WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired.<br /></i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/wipo-treaty-for-the-visually-impaired'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/wipo-treaty-for-the-visually-impaired</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-09-28T04:41:08ZBlog EntryWIPO To Negotiate Treaty For The Blind In June; ‘Still Some Distance To Travel’
https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june
<b>In a swift 15 minute session this morning delegates at the World Intellectual Property Organization extraordinary assembly agreed to convene a high-level meeting in Morocco in June to finalise a treaty on international exceptions to copyrights on books in special formats for visually impaired people. </b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Catherine Saez was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/18/wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june-still-some-distance-to-travel/">published</a> in Intellectual Property Watch on December 18, 2012. Rahul Cherian is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After long informal discussions yesterday with the assembly chair, Ambassador Uglješa Zvekić of Serbia, the decision <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WIPO-EGA-Decisions-Dec-2012.pdf" target="_blank">document</a> [pdf] was issued this morning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said, “It is a great decision. Of course we are all aware that there is still some distance to travel before we have a treaty, but this decision, I think, places us one further step along the road and in a very good position to be able to deliver the objective, namely a very positive outcome of this exercise, with a good treaty that improves the situation of visually impaired persons and the print disabled.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The General Assembly decided that a diplomatic conference should be convened in June 2013, in Morocco, with a mandate to negotiate and conclude a treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Furthermore, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will meet in a special session for five days in February to expedite further text-based work on the draft treaty, <a href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_25/sccr_25_2.pdf" target="_blank">document SCCR/25/2</a> [pdf] “in order to reach sufficient level of agreement on the text.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assembly also directs "the Preparatory Committee to meet at the end of the February SCCR meeting to decide, if needed whether additional work is required with the objective of holding a successful Conference in June 2013," the decision says. It also states that the preparatory committee will invite observers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assembly decision has five paragraphs. With respect to paragraph 4 of the decision (on the special work session in February), Zvekić said, “we agreed to state for the record that in this paragraph, the phrase ‘additional work’ means additional work by either the SCCR or the preparatory committee, so that the preparatory committee can decide that either itself, the SCCR, or both may have additional work to do in order to prepare a revised text for the diplomatic conference.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Document SCCR/25/2, which contains the draft articles as approved by the last SCCR session in November, "will constitute the substantive articles of the Basic Proposal for the Diplomatic Conference," the decision says, “with the understanding that any Member State and the special delegation of the European Union may make proposals at the Diplomatic Conference.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The assembly also established a preparatory committee, which met at the close of the assembly this morning to work on modalities of the diplomatic conference, such as the draft rules of procedure, the list of states and organisations to be invited, and the agenda, dates, venue and other organisational questions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Blue Sky with Some Clouds</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new consensus on a diplomatic conference and on a legally binding treaty to create exceptions and limitations to copyright for the benefit of visually impaired people cannot eclipse the fact that the draft text still reflects profound divisions between countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In February, delegates will have to tackle remaining issues, such as the inclusion of the three step test and commercial availability, on which they currently are at a standstill. Both inclusions are favoured by developed countries, in an effort to protect their right holders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yesterday morning, the delegation of Barbados said the treaty should be effective, and “while acknowledging the importance of safeguards,” it is important that “provisions in the text would not unduly restrict authorised entities from making accessible formats available under national law exceptions.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Provisions should not render the text nugatory through exposing authorised entities to possible liability and making their work administratively burdensome,” the delegate said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WBU-press-release-18-Dec-2012.doc" target="_blank">press release</a> [doc] issued today by the World Blind Union (WBU), Maryanne Diamond, leader of the WBU Right To Read campaign, said, "The decision of the WIPO Extraordinary General Assembly today is a very significant milestone on the road to a treaty. It means governments have kept the work on track to agree a binding and effective treaty in 2013, which if completed would allow blind people to access many thousands more books."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"The work is far from over, though. We urge all parties to now negotiate a simple, binding and effective treaty. A good treaty will really help us to end the book famine in which only some one to seven percent of books are ever made accessible to us," the release said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rahul Cherian, from Indian WBU member Inclusive Planet, also said in the release that "the objective of this treaty must be that of helping blind and print disabled people to get accessible format books, especially in developing countries. To achieve this goal, it must be workable and simply worded so that blind and print disabled people and their organisations can use it to really make a difference."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Currently in many countries, copyright law prevents charities from making accessible copies of books, and from sending them to others in countries speaking the same language, the release said. "The WIPO treaty sought by the World Blind Union would remove these copyright barriers and open up a new world of reading to blind people."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june'>https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-21T11:50:04ZNews ItemWIPO to Convene a Diplomatic Conference in Morocco to Finalise TVI
https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-to-convene-conference-to-finalise-tvi-next-year
<b>In a landmark development, on December 18, 2012, the Extraordinary General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation agreed to convene a diplomatic conference, likely to be in Morocco, in June of next year to finalise the Treaty for Visually Impaired Persons/Persons with Print Disabilities.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This comes about five years after a team of about ten of us sat down in the offices of <a href="http://keionline.org/">Knowledge Ecology International</a> in Washington D.C. to draft the first cut of the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even as late as December 17, it was uncertain as to whether the outcome would be positive, particularly as the United States was fixated on the word "instrument" and not "treaty". At one point during the EGA it was rumored that the US and the EU were insisting on a "kill switch" in the decision document of the Extraordinary General Assembly. Essentially the US and the EU were apparently pushing for wording in the decision text stating that if the text of the Treaty was not fully agreed by the end of the upcoming WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in February, then the diplomatic conference was off. Luckily none of this type of wording was reflected in the decision of the EGA. The EU was insisting on a non-binding instrument as opposed to a treaty till November this year when they finally capitulated due to the extensive pressure applied internally by blind groups such as the European Blind Union and the Royal National Institute of Blind People in the United Kingdom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, it is not smooth sailing from here on since there are still some very critical issues to be resolved in the text of the Treaty. Possibly the most critical issue from the perspective of blind groups is the outstanding issue of commercial availability. The European Union and the United States insist that the Treaty should apply only when works in accessible formats such as Braille or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAISY_Digital_Talking_Book">Daisy</a> are not commercially available. The contentious provision in the Treaty in relation to export of accessible format copies is the following: "The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said distribution or making available of published works which, in the applicable accessible format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price, in the country of importation." There is also a similar clause with respect to national exceptions as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The problem that we have with this clause is that it places the burden on exporting organizations to determine, prior to export, whether a work is available in an accessible format in the importing country within a "reasonable time" and "reasonable price". In reality, this will be impossible for organizations to verify this position with any degree of certainty without spending substantial amounts of money or dedicating significant resources for this. As a result the organizations will not export accessible format copies because they are nervous about copyright violation thereby meaning that the treaty will not be used in reality. Obviously from our perspective there is no point in having a treaty which cannot be used to benefit the millions of persons with visual impairment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another outstanding issue that is crucial to us is that a beneficiary (such as a visually impaired person) in one country should be able to import accessible format copies directly from organizations abroad. The European Union does not want to permit this and insists that export and import should only be between organizations. The position of the European Union will be counterproductive because it will add too much burden on organizations in developing countries to serve their disabled populations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We get the opportunity to fix these issues during the next session of the Standing Committee meeting in February 2013. If required there could another session called to sort out text related issues before the diplomatic conference in June.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ultimately, the success or failure of the Treaty will boil down to whether the US and the EU actually end up ratifying the Treaty. After all, they have the largest collections of material in accessible formats which we need to import into India. The <a href="http://www.hathitrust.org/">Hathi Trust</a> in the United States has approximately 10 million books in accessible formats which will be invaluable for the visually impaired community in India. Given the recent rejection of the United States of the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/human-rights-watch/us-senate-misses-opportun_b_2244885.html">United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities</a> it remains to be seen what the future holds.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rahul Cherian is the legal advisor to the World Blind Union on the Treaty and is the founder of the <a href="http://www.inclusiveplanet.org.in/">Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-to-convene-conference-to-finalise-tvi-next-year'>https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-to-convene-conference-to-finalise-tvi-next-year</a>
</p>
No publisherRahul CherianAccessibilityWIPO2012-12-24T06:18:58ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 3 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 3 of 3) summarizes Day 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts. </b>
<hr />
<p><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr />
<h2>Day 5 – 26th SCCR</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The agenda for the final day of the 26th SCCR was set as limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Trinidad and Tobago</b>, speaking on behalf of the GRULAC group of nations, supported the idea of an international convention on this agenda. It was of the opinion that such an instrument would work for the benefit of the economic development and socioeconomic enablement of millions of people in the GRULAC region. <b>Algeria</b>, speaking on behalf of the African Group, emphasized the digitalization of education, research and living across the world and the impact that this has on the right of peoples of all nations to access knowledge. Responding directly to sustained opinion from the developed world of the absence of a need for an international convention, Algeria spoke about the need for balance and uniformity in regulations. This balance between the right to access knowledge and to protect intellectual property is often achieved through the concept of limitations and exceptions. This balance also requires uniformity because conflicting cross-border norms in our digitally borderless world would render the ameliorative effects of limitations and exceptions moot. Further, the Berne Convention has proved to be of minimal help since interpretations have emerged of its dissonance with the tools needed for distance education. Therefore, in order to cover the digital dimension of limitations and exceptions, an international treaty is critical. In the words of the Algerian delegate, “We know that the balance between Intellectual Property rights and public interest are generally translated by exceptions and limitations. Unfortunately in the area of education and scientific research, national legislation does not seek this balance in a uniform and comprehensive manner.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The delegate also responded to concerns about the text proposed by the African Group. The proposal, he said, was a text-oriented tool to find an apt balance. Further, it was also imbibed with a certain degree of flexibility to allow for its adaption to the needs of development as understood by nations, various kinds of copyright protections and various treaties in literary and artistic property. Furthermore, the African Group wished for this text, if adopted, to move on the principle of consensus and expressed a willingness to incorporate any constructive concerns that delegates may have in order to stay true to the ideal of consensus-based diplomacy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A number of developing and developed countries supported the need for greater discussion at the international paradigm on the topic of limitations and exceptions, and also the swift adoption of an international instrument in this respect. <b>Kenya</b> and the <b>Islamic Republic of Iran</b> put their weight behind the African Group, emphasizing similar values of digitalization of information and communication, right to access knowledge, public interest and need for an international instrument. <b>Tunisia </b>also supported the notion that an international instrument would lead to the harmonization of standards and benefit the international community.<b><i> China</i></b> came out in strong support of further negotiations. <b>Russia</b> noted that it was in support of a single document for limitations and exceptions that covers within its ambit the entire gamut of protections discussed at this forum. Further, it also supported the contention of the Japanese delegation that the international instrument should not include contentious issues such as instance liability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is also pertinent to note that <b>Japan</b>, on behalf of Group B, came out against the idea of a treaty based approach to the negotiations, much preferring “constructive work on principles and updating of studies by the Secretariat”. The <b>European Union</b> submitted that the extant international copyright framework was both adequate and ideal for the needs of both the digital and analog world of education, research and needs of persons with other disabilities. The EU proceeds to draw a distinction between the needs of educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities vis-à-vis needs of persons with visual and print impairment. In drawing this distinction, it seeks to achieve principled coherence across its support for the Marrakech Treaty and its opposition to any treaty on limitations and exceptions. It expressed concern that the working document was not an accurate reflection of the views of those countries that were of the opinion that present negotiations should be confined to the sharing of national experiences. Given the diversity in domestic regulations, any international treaty should seek to achieve domestic regulatory harmony and then proceed, assuming that the need argument fails to hold water.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <b>Indian</b> delegate submitted that the discussions were in furtherance of earlier deliberation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. There was a dire need to understand libraries and education not in a parochial, institutional sense but in a broad and enabling manner to meet the needs of developing and least developed nations. Both the material and transmission should be covered in order for distance learning to be enabled in any meaningful manner. Further, it was also of the opinion that an expansion of ISP liability is needed, citing the IT Act in support of this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this point, the developing nations made their voice heard in opposition to the fundamental premise of the ongoing negotiations – that an international treaty is a worthwhile goal to work towards. <b>Poland</b>, on behalf of the CEBS Group, commecnced his statement by taking cognizance of the importance of educational and research institutions and activities in our society and economy. The delegate recognized the existence of the knowledge triangle of education, research and innovation. Proceedings from this premise, it was the view of the CEBS Group that the best way to hone this innovation is by establishing a robust and strong system of intellectual property. Further, it went on to draw the link between the critical activities of distance learning, collaborative research with the activities of publishing and other aspects of the creative sector. Copyright policies therefore have to also take into the account the economic and social effects of not enabling access to research. The CEBS Group argued for a balanced copyright approach. It went on to support the idea of each WIPO member incorporating enabling limitations and exceptions within their domestic copyright regimes through a mutual sharing of best practices and national experience using multilateral for a such as this one. It was of the belief that modern copyright systems should provide for efficacious licensing mechanisms that are flexible, supportive and enabling to education, research and teaching activities as well as the needs of persons with other disabilities. Supporting the values emphasized by the developing world does not necessarily require the adoption of a binding international instrument. It concluded that the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of limitations and exceptions should not come at the flexibility that is conventionally afforded to WIPO member states to determine their own educational, research and teaching policies and norms to enable the lived experience of persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <b>United States</b> started by submitting their own document – SCCR/23/4 – on objectives and principle for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. The US chose to further the CEBS submission by underscoring the potency of the extant copyright regime – Berne Convention 1886 and WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996. Both have a balance between copyright and education and have the promotion of education, research and teaching as their stated goals. Therefore, notwithstanding the contention that they are anachronistic given the digitalization of information and communication, it is possible to accommodate contemporary needs within existing regimes. The US stated that it was of the opinion that finding common ground on principles and an examination of the diverse national treatment of the issue of limitations and exceptions would render a more productive, positive solution than foisting a treaty or international legal instrument on the domestic regimes of WIPO members. It was of the opinion that this would “permit progress by promoting steps forward on shared goals and principles while enhancing international understanding and maintaining flexibility at the national level. We do not support work towards a treaty.” It also went on to voice concerns about the inclusion of controversial and broad areas of protection within the rubric of the treaty – topics such as public health and ISP liability were causing much consternation to the delegate of the United States. A plethora of reasons were advanced by the US that articulated its layered opposition to this entire process. There was a concern that given fundamental differences of opinion, inclusion of contentious protection would be pernicious to the negotiation itself. It was also of the opinion that a lot of the provisions had only incidental relevance to the central question of education and rights of persons with other disabilities would distract the nations from the purpose of the proposed international instrument. This proliferation of protections would in turn harm the considerable economic, social and political capital invested in the negotiation process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Senegal</b> affirmed the idea of an international agreement on limitations and exceptions. It believed that the contemporary is far removed from the world in which the Berne Convention and extant international copyright regime was conceptualized. Therefore, Senegal was in favour of a flexible international instrument that responded to digitalization and was proactive rather than reflexive. <b>Sudan</b> also threw its weight behind the African Group proposal and offered a scathing critique of the exclusivist tendencies of the contemporary copyright regime. It called for “efforts to break the current situation faced by certain countries in communication or in building the infrastructure and bridging the digital gap.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Columbia</b>, on the other hand, spoke about the need to understand if there is a lacuna in the present international copyright regime and understand the implications of adding to existing corpus of limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At this juncture, the Chair opened the floor for contributions from <b>civil society representatives</b>. <b>Knowledge Ecology International</b> focussed its submissions on three foci – specific exceptions, three-step test and the corporate system. KEI acknowledged the raft of protections for limitations and exceptions within existing copyright structures but articulated the need for specific exceptions. Further, it reasoned out the incompatibility of the Berne three-step test with the needs of contemporary knowledge creation, research and access. Transplanting the Berne Convention to this context would render it moot and have far-reaching pernicious consequences on the international community’s reactions to dire questions of access particularly in the developing and developed world. KEI acknowledged the underlying premise of US/EU/Group B objections to an international instrument by pointing out the difference in national treatment of limitations and exceptions. As a response to this legitimate concern, it suggested that complimentary confidence building measures such as a multi-stakeholder platform work alongside the treaty negotiations so as to ensure that it is an inclusive process that alienates no stakeholder.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>IFRRO</b> came out in strong support of the position against an international treaty. It stated that in pursuit of limitations and exceptions, one must not lose sight of the legitimate rights that creators have over their work. Diluting that principle would do harm to the idea of copyright and by extension creative and innovative thought. In support of this contention, studies were cited that showed a causal link between IP protection and income of authors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Centre for Internet and Society</b> underscored the value of universal access to education and knowledge. Information and communication technology in the contemporary carry the tantalizing prospect of the realization of this ideal without excessive expenditure. It is also critical for this access question to be all-inclusive, for “formal and informal institutions and for environments and in digital and non-digital formats”. The experience of developing and least developed nations is a feeling of exclusion from the silos of knowledge in the west and it falls upon the international community to disrupt these silos to ensure equitable access to knowledge and, as a consequence, power. Individuals in these countries not only have to spend more on each book but have to spend a higher proportion of household income on it vis-à-vis Western households. The present international copyright framework lacks the ability to facilitate the realization of this ideal for three reasons. <i>First</i>, the myopic and complex compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Convention. <i>Second</i>, the incompatibility of the three step test to contemporary limitations and exceptions. And finally, the need for harmonization of national practices and facilitation of cross-border exchange of information and knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On being called on by the <b>United States, Ecuador </b>and <b>Egypt</b>, it was decided that the Secretariat would study the possibility of a study on the ambit of copyright and related rights as also limitations and exceptions for persons with disability and from the perspective of learning concerns. It was also decided that the Secretariat would update regional studies on limitations and exceptions for educational, research and teaching institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The next session, SCCR 27, would focus on a discussion on exceptions and limitations with a focus on libraries and archives.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Draft Conclusions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft conclusions to this year’s SCCR was put up by the Chair for comments by all members. Belarus and CEBS fully supported the text and praised it for its balanced approach. The United States also supported it but requested an edit to Paragraph 6 Line 4 – a ‘to be defined’ in parenthesis after the words ‘on demand transmissions’. India expressed gratitude that everyone’s views were taken into account in the draft conclusions and asked for two edits. It stated that parts of the discussion on Article 9 were absent from the text. Further, the words beneficiaries in the draft conclusions was included when it had no definition in the document. Finally, it suggested that the word last line in paragraph 5 be changed to might or may. The Chair responded to India’s concerns on paragraph 5 by directing attention to the word ‘if’ in the text. Ecuador and Brazil both supported India’s opinion that the word should be may or might and not should. India submitted that this is not simply an editorial or cosmetic change but one that reflected a substantive issue. Ecuador also stated that countries might in the future want to include internet transmissions and the word should conditions the negotiations, lending it a restrictive air. Brazil also stated that it was crucial for the text to be both balanced and reflective of every stakeholder’s concerns. India stated that this was a demand from two or three groups. The lack of consensus on this point implies that the word should be may and not should. The EU, US, Japan, Switzerland and Poland (on behalf of the CEBS) supported the text <i>in toto</i>- a tacit snub to India’s suggestion. Italy stated that the word ‘if’ in the text provides the kind of flexibility that India is seeking and that altering the word should to may would rob the provision of meaning and be grammatically grotesque. Looking for alternatives, India also requested that the words ‘at least’ be deleted in order for some aspect of its concerns to be taken into account. Belarus characterized the text as entirely factual and accurate portrayal of the negotiations that took place-gave its support to the entire text. The Chair then offered an explanation of the terminology and showed how the wording allowed for both possibilities of inclusion and exclusion of transmission over the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian then turned attention to the lack of a definition to the word beneficiaries. The Chair acknowledged India’s concerns and accepted the US suggestion to add the words ‘to be defined’ after both beneficiaries and on demand transmissions. Brazil also suggested traditional broadcasting/cablecasting or broadcasting/cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense as possible ways to word the text. The EU requested the Chair for some language suggestions on how best to resolve this. The proposals (and not issues, after a request from India) on Articles 5,6,7,9 and 12 were added to the annex. After the incorporation of all these concerns and compromises, the Chair approved this section.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Libraries and Archives</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, the United States made two suggestions. <i>First</i>, that the word may be removed from paragraph 18 as it detracta from the nature of the deliberation on that point. <i>Second</i>, the inclusion of the phrase “other proposals submitted” in paragraph 21. Brazil stated that it stood for the draft conclusions to be a clear picture of the positions adopted by WIPO members. In this light, it called for the inclusion of the names of member states that wished to discuss national laws in paragraph instead of the nebulous phrase ‘some member states’. He also requested a clarification on the last line of paragraph 16. Trinidad and Taboga indicated that it was adopting a flexible approach; it supported the suggestions by the US and Brazil but were also willing to work with the text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union wanted the word ‘also’ to be removed from paragraph 14. It also suggested that the final sentence of paragraph 16 be “these studies will serve as information and work resources for the committee”. Ecuador agreed with the US working document. It was of the opinion that the document should better reflect a spirit of compromise. On limitations and exceptions for museums, given the study reflected in the plenary for persons with other disabilities – there was a discrepancy between the discussions and the text. One was with the understanding that it was subject to the availability of resources while the other implied that it was mandatory in nature. The EU wanted licensing to be included in the text. The US thanked Ecuador for working out a compromise on the language and accepted it. Algeria expressed its desire to stick to the language proposed by the Chair on paragraph 13.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Brazilian delegate called for flexibility on paragraph 14 in light of the proposal by the EU delegation on the point of discussion on national laws. The United States responded that it didn’t quite follow the position being adopted by the Brazilian delegate on paragraph 14 and much preferred a return to the text originally adopted by the Chair. Egypt pointed out the possible confusion that could emerge between paragraph 16 and 21, and in light of this expressed a willingness to engage in a full scale discussion on proposals from Canada and the EU. The EU responded directly to paragraph 14 in particular. It spoke out against the idea of listing the WIPO members that asked for a discussion on national laws as this would be against WIPO practice both in other parts of the same document as well as in other deliberations. EU stated that it saw no need to list out WIPO members and stood firmly against it. Brazil responded with a modicum of alarm at the opposition to the simple proposal to introduce the elements of precision in a document that is meant to be factual. It is far better for readers to understand the precise picture rather than having a general understanding of issues. Italy, Belarus and Greece threw their collective weight behind the EU opposition to this. All stated that this would be highly inappropriate and would amount to the singling out of the EU and other nations that took a stance, something that they didn’t see a need for. The US proposed a compromise where instead of naming the member states, ‘some member states’ would be used. Brazil said that this term was not just nebulous but could give the wrong impression to future delegates of the precise number of states that wished for discussion on national laws. Ecuador played the role of the voice of reason and stated that the progress of negotiations shouldn’t be hampered because of such a cosmetic set of differences. There was no need for the level of precision that was exemplified by the naming of WIPO members. Instead, it stated that it advocated for a general references to nations that asked for a discussion on national laws. This general reference was supported by Algeria and finally adopted by the Chair as a compromise between the opposing factions. On paragraph 16, the Chair called for the part on limitations and exceptions on museums to be deleted with the understanding that there would be an update by Professor Kenneth Cruz that would include all aspects of this issue. On paragraph 14, the Chair was in favour of the compromise suggested by the United States. It stated that in using the word ‘some’ no particular number or indication thereof was intended and that caveat was always there; instead what was only meant through the word ‘some’ was that the number of was more than one. Asked for Brazil to show some flexibility in this situation. Egypt raised the important issue of not conflating the fundamental disagreement on the nature of the proposed instrument and the desire to have discussions on national laws. It stated that in case both were being included, they be mentioned in separate paragraphs because a conflation would lead to misplaced conclusions being drawn.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Deliberations on paragraph 16 ensued and the Chair clarified that on paragraph 16, the first and third sentence were being retained while the second was done away with. Ecuador asked for thereto be no confusion between studies on limitations and exceptions and those on museums. Its objection does not extend to the latter. The Chair suggested that all references to museums be deleted. Algeria wanted the words on preparation not being delayed to be retained and applied to all studies being proposed. US agreed with the Chair’s proposal but added that perhaps a separate study on limitations and exceptions on museums be included. Algeria insisted that this principle be applicable to all studies and not just studies on museums. The Chair stated that a separate study on limitations and exceptions for museums be included with the understanding that this would not delay general discussions on limitations and exceptions. The last sentence was also retained. With this, deliberations on this topic were closed.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Limitations and Exceptions For Educational and Research Institutions and for Persons with Other Disabilities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union delegate stated that it was in support of the inclusion of the point on licensing as an appropriate point in the text. Sharing Algeria’s concern, it also called for the deletion of the word ‘understood’ in paragraph 23. Algeria had earlier raised a problem with the use of the word ‘understood’, preferring the phrase ‘agreed on’. The EU also called for the text to be accurate reflection of the negotiations. Brazil responded to the concerns of the EU delegate by stating that he would not be in support of a suggestion that this document not be the basis for future work on this topic. Ecuador supported Brazil’s point on this being a text-based negotiations and that this should be the basis for future deliberations. Brazil also expressed a bewilderment at the EU insistence of the inclusion of the point on licensing. It asked for its relevance in an agreement on educational institutions; a clarification was sought from the EU. The EU responded that it was of the opinion that we’re dealing with related subjects that deserve equal treatment. In this context, since licensing was included in the previous agreement, it must also be reflected in these conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Egypt supported the Chair’s language in paragraph 23. Further, it went on to attempt a compromise by suggesting that this text be not <i>the</i> basis for future text-based work but <i>a </i>basis. This would lend the issue a degree of much-needed flexibility. The US, on the side, supported the EU on including licensing schemes. The EU responded favourably to the compromise suggested by Egypt and said that a text where the word <i>the</i> is replaced by <i>a</i> is one that is agreeable to the EU.</p>
<p>The Chair outlined the three issues as</p>
<ul>
<li>The word ‘the’ in Item 27</li>
<li>The inclusion of the point on licensing and the tussle between the EU (arguing for inclusion, supported by the US) and Brazil (against the inclusion).</li>
<li>The point of this being the basis for future text-based negotiations and the compromise suggested by Egypt and accepted by the EU.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A compromise was worked out on licensing where the words “but other delegations do not see it that way” be included as a rider. Differences on points 1 and 3 were also ironed out as the Egyptian compromise was accepted. On this point, the third section was approved and deliberations came to an end.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Other Matters</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was announced that the reports of the Stakeholders’ Platform – SCCR/26/5 and SCCR/26/7 – be put up on the web page. Finally, suggestions were wielded and discussed for future meetings of the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It was agreed that SCCR 27 would be dedicated to the protection of broadcasting organizations (two-and-half days), limitations and exceptions (two days) and conclusions and discussions on future work (half a day).</p>
<hr />
<h3>Additional Links</h3>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes</a> (Part 1 of 3).</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes</a> (Part 2 of 3) </li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-04-01T09:48:59ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 2 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 2 of 3) summarizes Days 3 and 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts.
</b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes</h2>
<h3><b>Day 3</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair commenced proceedings by noting the need to take stock of the work done over the course of the first two days of proceedings. He stated that we needed to see the points of agreement as well as sticking points that persisted in order to chart a path towards resolution. There was an urgent need for clarity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The floor was opened to Delegations and Regional Groups. The document before the countries is the one on draft conclusions for the discussions surrounding the Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Belarus</span> starts by expressing its support for the document before it and is ready to engage with any proposals that nations might have on it. <span>Poland </span>wanted the wording changed to broadcasting an cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense, but expressed its support for the document otherwise. A few other delegations, such as the one from Trinidad and Tobago, also expressed unease at the terminology of ‘traditional broadcasting organizations” in the document and much preferred broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense. Notwithstanding these concerns, there was considerable support for the draft conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU wants its discussions on transmissions over the internet to also be included as a part of the draft conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>Libraries and Archives</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago expressed its full support for the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. They were keen to “close this gap to strengthen the copyright system as well as the human and collective rights for the benefit of creators and users alike”. It stated that the progress made in this regard was entirely consistentwith the Millennium Development Goals and the Development Agenda of WIPO. The CEBS group also came out in support of this framework. Further, it added that it would benefit greatly from the sharing of national experiences in this matter. It was stated that the modern copyright system should have a licensing system that is supportive of libraries, archives and other every day research. CEBS was sceptical however of the need to enter into any sort of international treaty in this regard. The delegate from Bangladesh pointed out the acute need for this limitation and exception particularly from the perspective of a developing nation in dire need of free flow of information. In this context, the Indian delegate was invited to make comments. The EU put on record its opposition to any sort of binding international instrument in this regard, and they wished to see this desire reflected in the title of the document. Iran called for the commencement of text-based negotiation since it was fairly clear that there was a need for an international instrument in this matter. Colombia concluded by stating that access to knowledge should be the guiding principle for the exceptions and limitations. It was very important for the libraries to fulfil the public interest for there to be copyright protection to its activities. It stresses however the need to continue to provide incentive and legitimate copyright protection even within this framework.</p>
<h3><b>Day 4</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discussions continued on the first topic of preservation as found in the SCCR/26/3 which focusses on exceptions and limitations enabling libraries and archives. For this session, the Chair outlined the issue up for comments as the right of reproduction and safeguarding copies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Azerbaijan</span>, speaking for the first time, stated that it took cognizance of the importance of exceptions and limitations and supported an international instrument on it. The purpose of limitations and exceptions should be to allow librarians and archives to preserve the documents. The documents protected should be used solely for research purposes and must be in accordance with fair practice. <span>Australia</span> clarified the role of preservation to be the continuing availability of physical and digital works already held in the collections of a library or archive for the benefit of present or past users. Critical to be very specific when talking about preservation in order to prevent the proliferation of rights. It stated that it was yet to be convinced of the need for an international instrument. <span>Belarus</span> noted that it supported the need for an international legislation. It supported the formulation of rules in this regard on the basis of the three step test, in order to maintain the balance of interests at play. It is imperative that strict rules of interpretation are employed while introducing this into domestic legislation in order to avoid ambiguous approaches that will lead to the abuse of the freedoms codified. The non-commercial and non-profit making nature of libraries and archives were emphasized. In explaining the merits of the three step test that would facilitate the entry of this international document into domestic law, <span>Poland</span> shared its national experiences in this regard with the group. <span>Brazil </span>suggested that the concern of proliferation of works voiced by many countries could be resolved by engaging in deliberations that result in clear definitions. It suggested that the intervention made by Canada be made into an annex as a subject that can discussed in the text in the future. <span>Russia</span> noted that the Berne Convention is the bedrock of international intellectual property and copyright law and coupled with reference to national legislation would help in reaching a common understanding on preservation. <span>Morocco </span>was in support of an international legislation since dealing with the problem nationally would be woeful piecemeal approach. <span>Senegal</span> pointed out definitional issues that were plaguing the discussion. If there was no common ground on the idea of a library and an archive, then the discussions on exceptions and limitations would not break any new ground. Therefore, the discussions appeared to be proceeding on two tracks – nature and scope of the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and the need for an international instrument that went beyond national legislation. The Chair opened comments on the latter track since that is foundational. The <span>United States</span> reiterated its opposition to any agreement that transcended national legislation. It also wished to introduce a bit of complexity in its discussions by pointing out that its domestic copyright law had no understanding of a library or archive. Therefore, it was going to be difficult to come to an understanding at the international level when national legislations themselves have not reached that point in their trajectory. Both El Salvador and Ecuador tacitly stated that they were in favour of an international legislation by continuing the discussion on merits. El Salvador opined that there was some degree of good faith involved and that was unavoidable in the pursuit of the desire to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. <span>Greece </span>stated that limitations and exceptions should only be applicable when an additional copy is not available in the market. Significantly, it stated that libraries and archives could enter into agreements with the rights holders by themselves. A flexible international framework was what Greece was aiming at, not an international legislation that went beyond national legislation. Both Greece and the EU suggested using the EU Copyright Directive as a starting point for defining libraries and archives. It asked for the flexibility it already had within the EU framework to be respected. <span>Italy</span> stated that it saw no international interest in a transnational agreement on exceptions and limitations. <span>India</span> emphasized the point that there was an international interest in preserving the culture of countries. The international dimension was in the context of cross-border cultural exchange. <span>Congo</span> came out in support of an international agreement as well. There was some degree of opposition from Greece that questioned India on why either manuscripts on cross-border cultural exchange had anything to do with preservation. In its opinion, those two goals could be achieved even without the formation of an international agreement on exceptions and limitations. India responded by clarifying that it did not use the example about ancient manuscripts in the context of copyright but the existence of an international interest in the matter of preservation. The issue of preservation of works within a library are for present and future use. This use, in today’s globalized world, is not just for the citizens of that country but for researchers the world over. In order to allow for thus cultural exchange, it was imperative that the copyright of the work not come in the way. Hence, there was the need for an international, and not merely national, legislation on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On France’s concern about Ecuador’s vague understanding of fair use, Ecuador clarified that this would be the same as in the Berne Convention and the three step test would apply. Finland, Jordan and Senegal then shared their countries’ national experience in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair concluded the discussion on the first topic by articulating what he saw as a principle that is in the common agreement of all. In order to ensure that libraries and archives can develop their public service of the preservation of works in order to preserve knowledge and heritage, we need exceptions and limitations. Certain circumstances and guarantees are yet to be discussed and disagreements persist but none that threaten the need for a discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 2 – Right of Reproduction and Safeguarding of Copies</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and the United States.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>EU</span> opened the discussion with the suggestion that the title of this topic should only be focussed on the right to reproduction. This was in light of the nature of the proposals made by the various groups and nations. <span>Ecuador</span> situated the debate on the right to reproduction within the broader framework of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was imperative, it stated, that a right for libraries be carved out in order to facilitate the important social role they discharge. <span>France</span> added to the concern voiced by the EU in stating that it felt that safeguarding was already covered within the ambit of the previous topic. <span>Brazil</span> responded to this by drawing a clear cut distinction between the first and second topics. The right of reproduction was applicable to libraries while safeguarding was for archives. Both the role of the library and that of the archive merit discussion, it was emphasized, and both should equally be included in the second topic. <span>Senegal </span>supported the idea of an inclusive topic that mentions both the right of reproduction and safeguarding of copies. It stated that a distinct right of safeguarding was crucial at a time when vital cultural artefacts are vulnerable to destruction. The example of the museum in Timbuktu that was ravaged by militants leading to the irreparable loss of invaluable manuscripts was cited in support.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Italy</span> voiced a two-pronged opposition to the very idea of articulating a right to reproduction. <i>First</i>, it stated that allowing for reproduction, even in University libraries, would open the floodgates to copyright violations. It was afraid that copyrighted material would be reproduced within the library which would then lead to that material appearing on for a not envisaged within the rubric of the treaty. <i>Second</i>, it was against the extension of the idea of research to private research. The transmission of the reproduced material to third parties would lead to a loss of revenue to the rights holder in question. To Italy, the latter was even more egregious since the former at least allowed for the possibility of, via the money paid for the reproduction, monetary compensation of the rights holder. The latter however had no room for this to be effected.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Belarus</span> supported the EU position on the exclusion of safeguarding from the present discussions. Further, Belarus stressed that it wanted a caveat to the exception for scientific and educational research. It wanted the kind of material that would fall under the exception to be limited to “just articles or short works or excerpts from books” since “the student or researcher probably doesn’t need the whole book”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Brazil</span> assuaged the concerns of the right holders by pointing out that its proposal in paragraph 2 makes national legislation the focus. Fuether, it added that with respect to the international dimension to the rights, the GA had already stated that there would be an “international legal instrument”. Therefore, the multilateral nature of both the subject matter and scope of the negotiations is beyond the pale of doubt.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The representative from the International Council of Museums noted that all of the rights were equally applicable to museums as well. Very often, museums suffered from a lack of uniformity and harmonization of rules across multiple jurisdictions. This was the need it saw for an international treaty on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair summed up the discussions. Despite the emergence of any sort of consensus, most countries had agreed for a need to have exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Further, a right to reproduction of works for libraries was recognized to facilitate the reproduction of certain works under certain conditions for the purposes of research. The scope of none of these terms have been agreed upon by states nor has there been much agreement on whether this extends to distribution of the material and to what extent. The EU and the USA mentioned that they did not think there was a need for an international agreement on this and the GA wording was not binding in any sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 3 – Legal Deposit</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group and India on this. This was not received very warmly by the delegates. Most thought it was out of the place in the current discussions. The US opposed the need for any discussion at the international level since the issues in question were codified in domestic law to varying degrees. Therefore, it could not be said that it was “ripe for harmonization”. Colombia found the concept of legal deposit “strange” in a document on exceptions and limitations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Topic 4 – Library Lending</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, India, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ecuador</span> explained in great detail that the reason behind this was to allow for libraries to lend copyrighted works to its users or to another library. Very often, research necessitates the movement of the physical copy of a particular work. In other instances, the presence of a particular copyrighted work in a specific library has great symbolic and cultural value, apart from its patent value for research activities. In furtherance of its earlier objections, <span>Italy</span> explained that lending could also lead to egregious copyright violations. Along these lines, it objected to the idea of digital lending since it went against the grain of lending because returning a digital copy was not possible or meaningful. The International Federation of Libraries, representative from civil society, pointed out that there were technological tools that would prevent the unintended and harmful proliferation of lent digital copies. Digital lending could take place by passing along a password encrypted digital copy that would expire after a set period of time.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Greece </span>furthered the harm that this would have on copyrighted works by asking why anybody would want to get the original if lending is applied to the realm of films via digital transmission. Responding to the African Group proposal, it asked how this was in conformity with the three step test. The US responded by drawing a positive causal link between lending and commercial purchase of the product. Again, the Chair summed up by stating that agreement was that exceptions and limitations must extend to library lending but agreement on the scope and nature of this extension evaded consensus.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Additional Links</h3>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1" class="external-link">WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 1 of 3) </a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp">Videos/Webcast of the 26th SCCR</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T04:52:53ZBlog EntryWIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 1 of 3)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1
<b>From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th Session. This blog post (Part 1 of 3) summarizes Days 1 and 2 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts. </b>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs</i>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes of the Proceedings</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Day 1<br /></b>There are three salient issues outlined as part of the agenda – i) work towards a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations, ii) exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and for iii) educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.<b> </b><a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> The number of days to be spent deliberating on each issue was also outlined – two days each on the first two issues and one day on the last issue i.e. exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair of the SCCR was elected to be Mr. Martin Moscoso, head of copyright for Peru and Chair of the Drafting Group for the Marrakeech Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators</b></span><br /><b>Trinidad and Tobago</b><br />The representative commenced his speech by pledging the commitment of the Latin American and Caribbean group of states to work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It emphasized the need for coherence between the activities of this group and the Millennium Development Goals of the UN and the Development Agenda of WIPO. Effecting the vision articulated by the agenda of this SCCR will help bring about this coherence. Finally, he added that the Group wished to discuss the broadcasting treaty on the basis of the mandate offered by the 2007 General Assembly. This mandate was to pursue a “signal-based approach” to the drafting process of any new treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Poland</b><br />On behalf of the Central European and Baltic states, the representative reaffirmed the group’s support for establishing standards for the protection of broadcasting organizations in the form of a binding treaty. To this end, the Group put forth its proposal for a Diplomatic Conference in 2015 to the end of negotiating and implementing such a treaty. Finally, best practices were also emphasized and, pertinently, the Group indicated that it understood that the digitalized and globalized business and information economy of the contemporary necessitated a licensing of rights that was adequately reflective of its needs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Japan</b><br />On behalf of Group B, Japan emphasized the importance the Group placed on text based discussions to the developing treaty mechanism for the protection of broadcasting organizations. It noted that any further understanding or future negotiations must rest on a common understanding of critical foundational issues such as definitions, scope of application of the instruments and the spectrum of rights or protections to be granted. Finally, an offer to share experience for the optimum functioning of limitations and exceptions was made. It was the opinion of Group B that the extant copyright framework enabled the limitations and exceptions to play out both in the digital and analogue world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Bangladesh</b><br />On behalf of the Pacific Group, Bangladesh underscored the importance of situating all countries’ concerns and deliberations on the bedrock of the social and economic development needs of the Pacific Group nations. It identified the responsibility of countries to ensure that the limitations and exceptions were articulated in a manner that copyrighted works were made available to individuals in need. Thus, its vision was for an inclusive and comprehensive framework that catered to the needs of all stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable and needy. To this end, it saw new international legal instruments as the means.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Russia</b><br />The Russian representative supported the 2015 Diplomatic Conference time frame and emphasized the value of transparency throughout the course of the proceedings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Algeria</b><br />On behalf of the African Group, the signal-based approach was affirmed as the basis for any treaty. The needs of the developing countries were also given special importance. While the exchange if best practices and experience is helpful, the Group does not see it as a substitute for tangible, binding treaty provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>European Union<br /></b>Representative called for the provisions of the Marrakeesh Treaty to be implemented. The existing treaty framework was understood to be sufficient for the full realization of the limitations and exceptions in the various realms envisaged by the outlined agenda. It was necessary, it opined, for copyright to continue to remain a key incentive for creative processes. In light of this, no further international legal instruments were necessary. Finally, the licensing of rights was also within the scope of this body.<b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Protection by Broadcasting Organizations<br /></b></span>The working document for the treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> was declared to be the basis for any future text-based deliberation.<span><b> </b></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Proposal by Japan – SCCR/26/6</b><a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a><br />The Representative outlined the purpose behind the proposal at the very outset as a step forward from the common understanding regarding the privacy of the broadcasting towards establishing the contours of the scope of application. The proposal was for the introduction of Article 6<i>bis</i> that included two things – <i>first</i>, that signal transmitted over computer networks be included within the aegis of the treaty with an exception carved out for on demand transmission signal and <i>second</i>, flexibility for states in deciding to afford protection for transmission signals over networks by the broadcasting organizations; in other words, the idea of national treatment in the realm of transmission signals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>While welcoming the Japanese proposal, the US Representative noted that the text was still open to changes. Given limited time for deliberations on this, he culled out three points of focus that would aid a streamlined approach to the text: beneficiaries of protection, objects of protection and the scope of the rights.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The EU had two questions directed at the Japanese proposal: whether the two alternatives proposed by Japan (simultaneous and unchanged transmission) have a different or same meaning and whether the nature of the protection is an entirely optional one or at least partially mandatory? Japan later clarified that if the former alternative had webcasting as subject to the protection of the treaty and the latter used the scope of application of this treaty.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Iran</span> highlighted the issue of conflict of treaty protections with the legitimate interests of other stakeholders and urged that this conflict situation should never arise. Further, it added that the definition of broadcasting should not be an anachronistic one and should adapt to the needs of today’s broadcasting organizations and should, in no way, hinder free access to knowledge and information by society.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Venezuela</span> adopted a diametrically opposite stance to most other countries on the issue. It was not of the opinion that broadcasting organizations are entities worthy of rights protection. It stated that the treaty seemed to be more for the benefit of multi-national organizations rather than member states and its citizens. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Day 2<br /></b>The Chair outlined the agenda of the meeting as comments on Articles 6 and 7 which is to do with the scope of the treaty and beneficiaries respectively. Further, it was also put forth that the session would attempt to resolve and break common ground on the various discussions had in the regional groups in the previous day. Finally, deliberations would be focussed on Article 5 followed by Article 9.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>Japanese delegate </span>outlined the conclusions of his groups’ deliberations. They want both beneficiaries and broadcasting to be included within the scope of the treaty. The country is of the view that all obligations should be made optional rather than obligatory. There is also general consensus, subject to final wording and definition of on demand, for an exceptions to be culled out for on demand transmission. <span>Belarus </span>expressed its wish for the scope of the treaty to be extended to both broadcasting and cablecasting organizations. It states in no uncertain terms that the signal should be protected. The proposal was to use the terminology broadcasting organizations and rights holding organization. Signals transmitted over satellite must also be protected in the model envisaged by this Group. Its application to the internet was also affirmed; pertinent, since this is a sticking point between the views of the nations and that of important third party stakeholders to this deliberative process. It did mention a clear caveat that these rights should, in no way, affect the rights of the author of the work or that of the users. Responding, in some sense directly to the words of the Venezuelan delegate’s comments the previous day, the Belarusian delegate stressed that his Group does support the idea of conferring rights on broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>India</span> reminded the nations present that the 2007 mandate, on the basis of which this meeting was being conducted, was for work towards a treaty for the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations using a signal-based approach. A question was raised as to whether the current discussion transcended the limits of this mandate. Chair noted this observation and asked for the views of other states’ on the matter of mandate. The response of the delegate from <span>Trinidad and Tobago </span>on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean states was non-committal in his answer as he briefed the chair about the difference of opinion on this matter within his group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moving on to the scope of the application of this treaty and the beneficiaries, it was the view of the CEBS Group, as articulated by the <span>Polish delegate</span>, that the protection afforded by the treaty should be effective, contemporary and technology neutral, else its purpose would be defeated by its obsoleteness. It reiterated that the transmission via the internet must also be included within the scope of the treaty, because that is a major route of circumvention that could be used to undermine the <i>raison d’etre </i>of the treaty. It was also of the opinion that the difference of opinion on webcasting could be overcome using the opt-in system envisaged by the Japanese proposal. CEBS was also of the firm view that, notwithstanding any foundational disagreements, those on demand transmissions that are based on multiple transmissions at the same time should be included within the scope of the protection. On behalf of the African Group, <span>Senegal</span> concerned about questions of mandate. It said that the strict, textual or broad, liberal interpretation of the words of 2007 mandate should be a <i>sine qua non </i>to any further deliberations. The Chair noted this concern and said that the floor was open to this issue as well. The <span>EU</span> stated that simulcasting should be the basic minimum and obligatory minimum, of any protection. It stated that it was open to discussing the extension of the protections to other transmission as its saw merit in such extension. Finally, it clarified that since current discussions were on transmissions and the scope of protection they were well within the 2007 mandate – protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair then turned over the floor for comments by individual countries. <span>Senegal </span>commenced by posing a question to Belarus on the nature of reservations that it envisaged in light of its proposal to protect transmissions, no matter what its nature. <span>Belarus </span>responded that the protection definitely extends to transmissions over the internet but that does not preclude a discussion on deferred retransmissions. Reservations should ideally be outlined be provided for in the treaty itself. However, they can also be in the form of national legislation but it made it clear that such a stance would be a compromise for its Group and would be considered only if nations thought it necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The floor was yielded to <span>Canada</span>. It noted that it is encouraged by the deliberations it had witnessed so far surrounding the various proposals received. It emphasized the value of the optional approach envisioned by Japan, as it embodied the critical component of successful negotiations – the embracing and incorporation of difference of opinion. <span>Russia</span> underscored its support for the unified approach of Belarus. Russia also wished to implement the kind of model that was in the Audiovisual Treaty and the Marrakeech Treaty. It wanted a reservation in the treaty itself that would establish a minimum standard of protection for cablecasting organizations as per national legislation. This would balance out the views of those in favour of an optional system against those who prefer an entirely mandatory one. <span>Mexico </span>welcomes the Japanese proposal and seemed to be generally in favour of it. <span>Australia</span> outlined three distinct issues. It was in favour of protection of transmission over the internet and saw simulcasting as a minimum obligatory protection. Its support for the Japanese proposal would depend on the definition of on demand services. Finally, Australia underlined that this entire discussion should be careful in how it understood the idea of traditional broadcasters and cablecasters. Keen to introduce an air of pragmatism to talk about the 2007 mandate, <span>Kenya </span>pointed out that the concept of transmission has undergone a change since 2007 and since the mandate was one that was conferred by the countries present at this discussion, there was no need to be very rigid about it. It wanted a technology neutral approach. Kenya was also keen on clarity on whether this international treaty was meant to build in existing international protections or was intended to be a stand-alone replacement for any protections that may exist for certain or all countries. It welcomes the flexibility that the Japanese proposal offered. The discussion veered in the direction of mandate yet again as <span>India</span> noted that any change to the mandate must be done by the GA alone. Else, the reinterpretation could be in such a manner as to allow for a treaty to emerge under the rubric of this mandate with countries reserving the freedom to enter into another treaty on the same matter in the future. It spelled out that it was crucial to remain within the confines of the GA mandate through the course of these proceedings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US delegate opined that the proceedings were completely in conformity with the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It reiterated its 2007 desire to have a clear common definition of a broadcasting and cablecasting organization. Notwithstanding that, simply because of a different mode of transmission, internet and webcasting do not fall outside the ambit of protection. As far as the signal based approach is concerned, the US interpreted that to mean the signal itself and nothing to do with the content – an issue the nations are grappling with at present.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, the delegate suggested a refocus on the prime problem facing broadcasters i.e. signal piracy. The suggestion is to give the broadcasters control of the retransmission. This would avoid protection for the content being broadcast and would not fall into the trap of post-fixation rights. An argument was also made for retransmission over any medium in a technologically neutral system. Such retransmission would be limited to simultaneous or near simultaneous (a term that needs definition) only to the extent necessary where the delay is meet technical requirements of delivery or to account for time differences. This would also include prebroadcast signal. There are clear advantages to this approach, as noted by the delegate</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Short and simple.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Avoids a proliferation of superfluous rights.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Dos not overlap with the rights in content and does not create additional, unnecessarily layers of protection and authorization.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Affirms and codifies the kind of protection that broadcasters require to fortify against signal piracy.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Greater range of rights that could also be codified at the domestic level.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Could avoid the need for any defined term whatsoever.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The potential impact on consumer or private use also covered.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Japan</span> adopted a self-confessed cautious approach to obligatory protection for transmission across computer networks due to the absence of a unified domestic viewpoint on the matter. <span>South Africa</span> was also of the opinion that the protection should not go beyond broadcasters and cablecasters. <span>Colombia</span>, however, was of the opinion that the protection should cover both traditional and non-traditional signals due to the advance in technology in the future that the treaty must anticipate. A broad and flexible approach was therefore preferred by this delegate. <span>India</span> expressed a desire to introduce an alternative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Afternoon Session</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Inclusion of transmission over the internet within the scope of the treaty</li>
<li>Whether or not simulcasting is within the mandate of this meeting</li>
<li>Inclusion of transmission of original programming by webcasting in the treaty</li>
<li>Deferred and unchanged transmission of broadcasting programmes within transmission over the internet</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These four topics have witnessed some form of input or discussion thus far.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Comments on Article 9</span><br />Article 9 relates to protection of broadcasting organization and embodies two alternatives – A and B. Alternative A provides for a short list of exclusive rights, a limited right to authorize including retransmission of signal to the public by any means. Alternative B provides for a broader list of exclusive rights, including post-fixation rights and the exclusive right of fix and right of retransmission by any means and making available to the public.</p>
<p>In response to the US proposal articulated earlier, India put forth an alternative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the table for comments at this juncture are the US Proposal, the Indian alternative and the alternatives A and B to Article 9.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <span>EU</span> stated that its position would fall closer to Alternative B than A. It was important for the EU to have broad rights of retransmission of broadcasts on all platforms. Retransmissions should be both simultaneous and based on fixations. They also wanted fixed broadcasts – the right of retransmission where the recipient pf the transmission chooses the place and the time of such transmission – to be included within the treaty. With respect to performance of broadcast signals ij places accessible to the public, the EU stressed that it should be limited to places accessible to the public on payment of an entrance fee as envisioned by the Rome Convention. Protection for prebroadcast signals was also sought, thereby covering a comprehensive list of protections.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU wanted to know whether the near to simultaneous transmission would be included within the US proposal. It thought the US proposal was based on a single right and was narrow vis-à-vis the EU one, but it expressed a willingness to engage. On the Indian proposal, the EU wished to enquire whether computer retransmissions would be protected against, given its ease.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Ecuador </span>stated that it wished to add “and cablecasting” to India’s proposal Article 9(1)(i) after the mention of traditional broadcasters. <span>India</span> indicated that this addition was agreeable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Japan </span>mentioned that Alternative B was preferable to it since it had flexibility built into it thereby allowing for better harmonization and incorporation in the domestic law. Further, it stated that signal piracy had three major classifications – unauthorized access or useof prebroadcast signal, programming carrying signals and fixed broadcast. Finally, it clarified that simultaneous and near simultaneous transmission are protected under the Japanese proposal.</p>
<p>South Africa had two quick comments – that it was interested in the US proposal and preferred Alternative B. The EU also noted with interest the Indian proposal and expressed keen interested to engage with the same.</p>
<p>Both Senegal and Poland affirmed their preference for Alternative B in the deliberations on Article 9.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran steps in and articulates the stance that India has taken in a cogent manner. It noted the concern that if the content owner does not grant the right to broadcast over a computer or internet, then piracy could result in the absence of protection for the broadcasting organization. It is important to understand that a broadcasting organization is the owner of the signal. Therefore, if the broadcasting organization is not allowed to rebroadcast or retransmit over certain networks due to the contract then this would defeat the purpose of the treaty. Critically, this point is to do with the need for affirming the right of the broadcaster to prevent his own signal from getting used elsewhere without authorization.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>India</span> then went to make two critical clarifications on definitions. Broadcast means the transmission of a set of electronically generated signals by wireless and carrying a specific programme for conception of the general public and it should not include the transmission of signals over computer networks. Broadcasting organization means the legal entity taking the interior of packaging, assembling, scheduling of the programme and converting of the signals with the authorization of the owner of the copyright and related rights for broadcast for the reception of the public. Article 5 of the Indian proposal was distributed to all members and comments were invited. The meeting was adjourned to give time to the regional coordinators.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_1_prov.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_1_prov.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_24/sccr_24_10_corr.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_24/sccr_24_10_corr.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf</a></p>
<hr />
<ul>
<li> Meeting Documents for the 26th SCCR are available <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=29944">at this link</a>.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Videos/Webcast of the 26th SCCR can be <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp">seen here</a>.</li>
<li>CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities" class="external-link">here</a>.</li>
<li>CIS Statement on the proposed treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives" class="external-link"> here</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-03-20T04:49:55ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and
Society, India.</p>
<p>The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program
on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the
domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that
there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic,
which will endure in the long term as well.</p>
<p>In India, researchers at public and private institutions in
both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021,
submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing
research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open
Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research
collaborations.</p>
<p>At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action
plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised
limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that
could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.</p>
<p>We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a
Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these
actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the
limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states
making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward
laid in the Proposal.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2022-05-12T08:41:01ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Statement by CIS on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item
<b>Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 41st WIPO SCCR session, on the limitations and exceptions agenda item.</b>
<p>Thank you Mr. Chair. </p>
<p>I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India. </p>
<p>The pandemic has hit the world hard, and developing countries even harder. The committee should urgently lead the way on developing concrete solutions in the domain of limitations and exceptions that are timely and meaningful. Useful suggestions have already been offered by member states in the nature of tools that could enhance cross-border cooperation and international norm setting. This could take the form of guidelines, model laws, and the like. </p>
<p>Further, the regional consultations should have proper representation and give proper weightage to views of beneficiaries of this agenda item. WIPO should also plan to institute measures to enable proper participation, in view of the digital divide</p>
<p dir="ltr">It should further be borne in mind that there exists wide socio-economic disparity in the region, and there has traditionally been a strong reliance by students and researchers on knowledge generated in foreign countries. Thus a lack of international harmonisation of limitations and exceptions disproportionately affects developing countries. These limitations and exceptions need to urgently address cross-border uses, online uses, and digital preservation to create the maximum developmental impact.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-statement-by-cis-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-06-29T13:20:59ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 3 and Day 4
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1
<b>Day 3 and 4 saw the presentation of four studies conducted by external experts on music markets in various regions in the world and one study on rights of stage directors of theatrical productions. Day 4 saw member states sharing their positions on a proposal for creation of two rights 1) rights of stage directors of stage productions and 2) public lending right.
The Chair also presented the draft summary of the session upon its conclusion, on Day 4. This blog post shares the specific text under the broadcasting and limitations and exceptions agenda items, relevant from an access to knowledge perspective.</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">1. On the issue of transparency and inclusivity in informal work on the 'protection of broadcasting organisations' agenda item, that emerged on <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-1">Day 1</a>, the Chair summarised:</span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">" </span><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29"><span id="docs-internal-guid-c9f5266b-7fff-0158-ea0e-f92bc8fc953c">The chair and vice chair and will take the views expressed during the session on the modalities of the informal work into consideration, including the need to uphold the principles of transparency and inclusivity."</span></span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">2. An 'information session' on impact of COVID was proposed by the Asia-pacific group on <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2">Day 2</a>, the Chair summarised:<br /></span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29"></span><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">" The Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session, footnote 1, the text of the footnote is as follows. The reference to half day is based on a meeting day with two three-hour sessions, in case SCCR/42 has truncated meeting days with single daily meeting sessions of up to three hours, the information session could take place during one entire day. </span></p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-87c772fa-7fff-1080-c67b-c3cde12e0f29">So, back to the sentence after the footnote. I will repeat, the Committee requested the Secretariat to organise 1/2 day information session on the topic of the impact of COVID-19 on the <strong>cultural, creative and educational ecosystem including copyright, related rights and limitations and exceptions</strong> during the week of the 42nd session of the Committee. During the session following presentations from experts, member states will have the opportunity to exchange views and experiences. This process will be guided by a holistic and balanced approach. The information session will be separated from the rest of the agenda during the 42nd session."</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-3-and-day-4-1</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaBroadcast TreatyLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:51:23ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 41: Notes from Day 2
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2
<b>Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the scope, direction, and progress of work on the limitations and exceptions agenda. This blog post summarises positions and contentions around: 1) Information Session on impact COVID 2) Creating a binding limitations and exceptions international instrument 3) Work Plan under the L&E agenda 4) Conducting regional consultations as per the report on regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions. </b>
<p>There was a strong consensus on the fact that COVID had adversely affected actors and beneficiaries involved with the copyright system, but there was less consensus on which stakeholders and beneficiaries to focus on as a priority, and which next steps and remedies should be considered. The gamut of stakeholders under the limitations and exceptions agenda item includes authors, publishers, creative cultural industries, educational and research institutions, persons with disabilities, libraries, museums, and archives, licensing societies, and users’ rights advocates.</p>
<h2>Agenda Item: Limitations and Exceptions<br /></h2>
<h3>1. Conducting an Information Session on impact of COVID <br /></h3>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) proposed an information session on the copyright framework in the format of presentations from experts and relevant stakeholders as well as exchange of views among them at the next SCCR (SCCR42) to understand the impact on COVID-19, especially as developing countries, with a view of rights, related rights and exceptions and limitations. It noted the lack of international settings that could have enabled a collaborative approach during COVID-19 to handling the impact on education, research, culture and knowledge.</p>
<p>Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iran supported the proposal. South Africa backed both the proposal and the regional consultations along with a preference for completing them in a time bound manner by the next SCCR. Belarus was in support as well.</p>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) was in favour of an information session for evaluating an all-round impact of the pandemic which was not only from a limitations and exceptions viewpoint. In a similar vein, USA suggested that the information session be holistic in its framing – all parts of the copyright system should be taken into consideration. UK (on behalf of Group B) stated that it would prefer to examine a formal proposal document on such a session first, that should adopt a ‘holistic approach’.</p>
<p>Towards the end, Indonesia questioned whether the idea of a ‘holistic’ information session equally focused on rights and related rights could even be counted or considered as a next step in the limitations and exceptions (“<strong>L&E</strong>”) agenda item.</p>
<h3>2. Working towards a binding international L&E instrument <br /></h3>
<p>Georgia (on behalf of the CEBS group) stuck to its position of 1) taking an evidence-based approach on the way forward for the L&E agenda and preference to 2) exchanging national best practices instead of creating a binding treaty. Ecuador was also in favour of exchanging best practices. UK (on behalf of group B) was in favour of providing technical assistance to countries, and the EU and USA maintained their position against an international instrument.</p>
<p>Bangladesh (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) stated that COVID had forced a rethink of role of copyright in ensuring access to educational and resource materials as well as protecting the rights of the creators of the copyrighted works, in situations such as the pandemic. The absence of an international instrument on limitations and exceptions has been widely felt in this context.</p>
<p>Pakistan stated that a baseline international instrument was necessary and would be useful for looking at one’s own national law. South Africa (on behalf of Asia-Pacific group) Indonesia reminded everyone that work under this agenda item should proceed under the 2012 mandate of developing a legal instrument on limitations and exceptions. Iran also expressed its support for a norm-setting instrument.</p>
<h3>3. Work Plan under the L&E agenda <br /></h3>
<p>South Africa said that a clear way forward for limitations and exceptions was necessary, and that way forward should not be limited to the views and steps mentioned in the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report on the regional seminars and international conference on limitations and exceptions ("<strong>report</strong>")</a>. It also supported the 2012 mandate on developing an international instrument on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of group B) stated that access to knowledge should not inhibit the remunerative rights to authors and performers. Ecuador said that it supported narrow limitations and exceptions that comply with the Berne three-step test.</p>
<p>Russia suggested the creation of a set of “general principles” underpinning this agenda item, to set a base standard agreed by everyone and begin work from that point. It noted that it was crucial to resolve the issues of cross-border sharing, legal uncertainty between countries, and digital preservation. It added that the principles could become the guiding principles for national legislation as well. <br />Pakistan, noting the COVID impact, stated that cross-border cooperation or international norm-setting could be useful. Brazil stated that there was a consensus on preservation and cross-border issues, and room for further discussions on limitations and exceptions for ‘persons with other disabilities’ under this agenda item. Chile added that international guidelines were desirable at least in the area of education, libraries, and archives.</p>
<p>In the end, Indonesia in its statement reminded everyone that there was still no concrete work plan (under this agenda) on the table. This despite the draft report indicating issues such as preservation, online uses, cross-border uses, and safe harbour as feasible for discussion on next steps. The report had also recommended formation of expert groups to study these issues further (para 400 of the report (SCCR42/2)) It added that while it was aligned to the 2012 mandate (of producing a legal instrument), the work plan could include a joint recommendation.</p>
<h3>4. Regional Consultations (as per <a class="external-link" href="https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=515597">report's recommendation</a>) <br /></h3>
<p>China endorsed the regional consultation. EU supported regional consultations, noting that COVID had impacted creative cultural industries as well. Pakistan stated that it was important for the consultations to include beneficiaries of this agenda item.</p>
<p>UK (on behalf of Group B) questioned whether holding regional consultations were necessary during a pandemic, and later added that the regional consultations and information session exercises should not be executed together.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-41-notes-from-day-2</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2021-07-08T14:55:30ZBlog EntryWIPO SCCR 27 Text (April 29, 2014)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-29-sccr-27.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-05T00:30:39ZFileWIPO SCCR 25 Day 5, November 23, 2012 (Full Text)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-5-november-23-2012.txt
<b>Rough transcript of proceedings from WIPO SCCR on Day 5, November 23, 2012.
</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-5-november-23-2012.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-5-november-23-2012.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:55:55ZFileWIPO SCCR 25 Day 4, November 22, 2012 (Full Text)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-4-november-22-2012.txt
<b>Rough transcript of proceedings from WIPO SCCR on Day 4, November 22, 2012.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-4-november-22-2012.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-4-november-22-2012.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:52:46ZFileWIPO SCCR 25 Day 3, November 21, 2012 (Full Text)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-3-november-21-2012.txt
<b>Rough transcript of proceedings from WIPO SCCR on Day 3, November 21, 2012.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-3-november-21-2012.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-3-november-21-2012.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:45:51ZFileWIPO SCCR 25 Day 2, November 20, 2012 (Full Text)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-2-november-20-2012.txt
<b>Rough transcript of proceedings from WIPO SCCR on Day 1, November 20, 2012.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-2-november-20-2012.txt'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-25-day-2-november-20-2012.txt</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-05T00:46:53ZFile