The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 61 to 75.
Comments on the Broadcast Treaty and Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-broadcast-treaty-and-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>This November at WIPO the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights was witness to a tough negotiation on the proposed Treaty providing access to copyrighted materials to visually impaired persons. In between these discussions, the SCCR also found time to have two short plenary sessions on the proposed broadcast treaty as well as working documents on exceptions for libraries and archives.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although we were unable to make a statement at the SCCR due to logistical constraints, CIS had the following comments prepared on both these issues:</p>
<h3>Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society would like to reiterate the statement on principles provided in the 22nd SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcast Treaty. While we are encouraged by the inclusion of more suitable alternatives in many of the areas that civil society organizations had expressed concern, it is important that these alternatives be considered carefully. Some of the alternatives in the working document are not in keeping with the mandate of this Committee and we need to ensure that any new treaty provides a balanced protection to broadcast organizations.</p>
<p>We wish to enumerate a few key areas that need to be emphasized once again in this regard –</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To begin with, the definition of ‘broadcast’ itself should not be too broad. The treaty needs a clear and precise definition that limits the protection to signals and does not extend to retransmissions or transmissions over computer networks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Similarly, it is essential that the protection granted to a broadcasting organization should be limited to broadcast signals. The current working document extends this protection to public accessibility/performance of the broadcast signal and such restrictions might not be feasible in developing and least developed countries. One alternative even extends the protection available to fixations of the broadcasts and this is entirely unacceptable in a signals based treaty. The obligations with regard to technological protection measures, if any, should also be limited to protect only those broadcasts that are lawful.</p>
<p>Limitations and exceptions to the protections granted by this treaty are also of great importance, especially so in light of the Development Agenda. These exceptions and limitations should be made mandatory and be expanded to include issues of national interest and for free-to-air broadcast signals (such as the laws governing broadcast of cricket games in India).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lastly, as pointed out many times already, we are of the opinion that a fixed term of protection, whether 20 or 50 years, is inconsistent with the idea of a signals based approach to the treaty.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Proposed Legal Instruments on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives and Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the Secretariat and the entire Committee for the hard work being put in this week at the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">International instruments that govern exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives as well as educational, teaching and research instruments and persons with other disabilities is key to ensure a balanced global copyright system that protects both right holders and users. Such instruments will not only allow the preservation of copyrighted works, but also provide greater access to these materials, especially in developing countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The working documents before us cover a number of issues and we would like to address a few of them today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, the three-step test. This has been a contentious issue with regard to all three instruments that are being discussed here this week. We would like to reiterate that a narrow interpretation of the three-step test should not be adopted, it is important that any and all flexibilities that can be made available to libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second, libraries, archives, educational, research and teaching institutions should definitely be allowed to import and export copyrighted works and parallel trade in these works should be allowed. The language used in the current working document (SCCR/24/8) needs to be improved upon (Article 14, under 4.1 on page 12). This provision should indicate that as long as the copy of the work is lawfully produced, an educational institution, library, research organization or student is free to acquire, sell, import, export or otherwise dispose of that copy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thirdly, we wish to emphasize once again, the importance of protecting works that are in a digital format, as well as online libraries and archives. Additionally, the transmission of these works in a digital form as well as any internet service providers engaged in facilitating access to materials under this treaty should also be granted protection.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-broadcast-treaty-and-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-broadcast-treaty-and-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishersmitaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-04T23:11:34ZBlog EntryComment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of December 16, 2009' with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society. First, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election.<br /><br />And I would like to congratulate Prof. Sirenelli on his excellent presentation.<br /><br />I would like to flag a few points, though:</p>
<ol><li>One of the benefits of normal laws, as opposed to the soft/plastic laws, which he champions, is that normal laws are bound by procedures established by law, due process requirements, and principles of natural justice. Unfortunately, the soft/plastic laws, which in essence are private agreements, are not.</li><li>The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression and Opinion made it clear in his report to the UN Human Rights Council that the Internet is now an intergral part of citizens exercising their right of freedom of speech under national constitutions and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That report highlights that many initiatives on copyright infringement, including that of the French government with HADOPI and the UK, actually contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights</li><li>The right of privacy is also flagged by many as something that will have to be compromised if such private enforcement of copyright is encouraged.<br /></li></ol>
<p>I'd like to know Prof. Sirinelli's views on these three issues: due process, right of freedom of speech, and the right to privacy.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionIntellectual Property RightsPiracyCensorshipWIPO2011-12-01T11:59:45ZBlog EntryCIS-TWN Analysis of WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled (SCCR/22/15)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities
<b>CIS and the Third World Network (TWN) conducted a quick analysis of the "Consensus document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities presented by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and the United States of America" presented as WIPO document numbered SCCR/22/15.</b>
<h1>SCCR/22/15</h1>
<p>ORIGINAL: English</p>
<p>DATE: June 20, 2011</p>
<p>Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights</p>
<p>Twenty-Second Session Geneva, June 15 to 24, 2011</p>
<p>Consensus document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities <i>presented by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and the United States of America</i></p>
<h2 id="preamble">PREAMBLE</h2>
<p>Recalling the principles of non-discrimination, equal opportunity and access, proclaimed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,</p>
<p>Mindful of the obstacles that are prejudicial to human development and the fulfillment of disabled persons with regard to education, research, access to information and communication,</p>
<p>Emphasizing the importance of copyright protection as an incentive for literary and artistic creation and enhancing opportunities for everyone to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits,</p>
<p>Recognizing the importance of both accessibility to the achievement of equal opportunities in all spheres of society and of the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works in a manner as effective and uniform as possible,</p>
<p>Aware of the many barriers to access to information and communication experienced by persons who are blind or have limited vision, or have other disabilities regarding access to published works,</p>
<p>Aware that the majority of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability live in countries of low or moderate incomes,</p>
<p>Desiring to provide full and equal access to information, culture and communication for the visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability and, towards that end, considering the need both to expand the number of works in accessible formats and to improve access to those works,</p>
<p>Recognizing the opportunities and challenges for the visually impaired/persons with a print disability presented by the development of new information and communication technologies, including technological publishing and communication platforms that are transnational in nature,</p>
<p>Recognizing the need to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,</p>
<p>Aware that national copyright legislation is territorial in nature, and where activity is undertaken across jurisdictions, uncertainty regarding the legality of activity undermines the development and use of new technologies and services that can potentially improve the lives of the visually impaired/persons with print disabilities,</p>
<p>Recognizing the large number of Members who, to that end, have established exceptions and limitations in their national copyright laws for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, yet the continuing shortage of works in <s>special</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">accessible</span> formats for such persons,</p>
<p>Recognizing that the preference is for works to be made accessible by rightholders to people with disabilities at publication and that, to the extent that the market is unable to provide appropriate access to works for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, it is recognized that alternative measures are needed to improve such access,</p>
<p>Recognizing the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, and that such a balance must facilitate effective and timely access to works for the benefit of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability,</p>
<p>Emphasizing the importance and flexibility of the three-step test for limitations and exceptions established in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and other international instruments,</p>
<p>Considering the discussions within the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for the benefit of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability and the various proposals tabled by Member States,</p>
<p>Prompted by a desire to contribute to the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual Property Organization,</p>
<p>Taking into account the importance of an international legal instrument/joint recommendation/treaty both to increase the number and range of accessible format works available to visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability in the world and to provide the necessary minimum flexibilities in copyright laws that are needed to ensure full and equal access to information and communication for persons who are visually impaired/have a print disability in order to support their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others and to ensure the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, for their own benefit and for the enrichment of society,</p>
<p>Have agreed as follows:</p>
<h2 id="article-a">ARTICLE A</h2>
<h2 id="definitions">DEFINITIONS</h2>
<p>For purposes of these provisions</p>
<p>"work" means a work in which copyright subsists, whether published or otherwise made publicly available in any media.</p>
<p>"accessible format copy" means a copy of a work in an alternative manner or form which gives a beneficiary person access to the work, including to permit the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without a print disability. The accessible format copy must respect the integrity of the original work and be used exclusively by <span style="text-decoration: underline;">beneficiary persons</span><s>persons with print disabilities</s>.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn1" id="fnref1">1</a></sup></p>
<p>[Possible enumeration of different formats.]<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn2" id="fnref2">2</a></sup></p>
<p>"authorized entity" means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or <span style="text-decoration: underline;">an</span><s>non-profit</s> organization<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn3" id="fnref3">3</a></sup> that has as one of its <s>primary missions</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">activities</span> to assist persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access.</p>
<p>An authorized entity maintains policies and procedures to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities that they serve.</p>
<p><s>An authorized entity has the trust of both persons with print disabilities and copyright rights holders. It is understood that to obtain the trust of rightholders and beneficiary persons, it is not necessary to require the prior permission of said rightholders or beneficiary persons.</s><sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn4" id="fnref4">4</a></sup></p>
<p><s>If an authorized entity is a nation-wide network of organizations, then all organizations, institutions, and entities that participate in the network must adhere to these characteristics.</s></p>
<p>"reasonable price for developed countries" means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price than the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market.</p>
<p>"reasonable price for developing countries" means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at prices that are affordable in that market, taking into account the humanitarian needs of persons with print disabilities.</p>
<p>References to 'copyright' include copyright and any relevant rights related to copyright that are provided by a Contracting Party in compliance with <s>the Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the WPPT or otherwise</s>any applicable international treaties or otherwise.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn5" id="fnref5">5</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="article-b">ARTICLE B</h2>
<h2 id="beneficiary-persons">BENEFICIARY PERSONS</h2>
<p>A beneficiary person is a person who</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha; ">
<li>is blind;</li>
<li>has a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability, such as dyslexia, which cannot be improved by the use of corrective lenses to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or</li>
<li>is unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading.</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="article-c">ARTICLE C</h2>
<h2 id="national-law-exceptions-on-accessible-format-copies">NATIONAL LAW EXCEPTIONS ON ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES</h2>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li>
<p>Member State/Contracting Party should/shall provide in their national copyright law for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction, the right of distribution and the right of making available to the public, as defined in article 8 of the WCT, for beneficiary persons as defined herein.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article C (1) by providing an exception or limitation in its national copyright law such that</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha; ">
<li>
<p>Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to make an accessible format copy of a work, supply that accessible format copy or an accessible format copy obtained from another authorized entity to a beneficiary person by any means, including by non-commercial lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertake any intermediate steps to achieve these objectives, when all of the following conditions are met:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li>the authorized entity wishing to undertake said activity has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work;</li>
<li>the work is converted to an accessible format copy, which may include any means needed to navigate information in the accessible format, but does not introduce changes other than those needed to make the work accessible to the beneficiary person;</li>
<li>copies of the work in the accessible format are supplied exclusively to be used by beneficiary persons; and </li>
<li><s>4. the activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis. </s><sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn6" id="fnref6">6</a></sup></li>
<li>
<p>A beneficiary person or someone acting on his or her behalf may make an accessible format copy of a work for the personal use of the beneficiary person where the beneficiary person has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work.</p>
</li>
</ol> </li>
<li>
<p>A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article C (1) by providing any other exception or limitation in its national copyright law that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said exceptions or limitations to published works which, in the applicable <s>special</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">accessible</span> format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>It shall be a matter for national law to determine whether exceptions or limitations referred to in this Article are subject to remuneration.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="article-d">ARTICLE D</h2>
<h2 id="cross-border-exchange-of-accessible-format-copies">CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES</h2>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li>
<p>Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall provide that if an accessible format copy of a work is made under an exception or limitation or export license in their national law, that accessible format copy may be distributed or made available to a beneficiary person in another Member State/Contracting Party by an authorized entity<s> where that other Member State/Contracting Party would permit that beneficiary person to make or import that accessible copy</s>.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn7" id="fnref7">7</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article D(1) by providing an exception or limitation in its national copyright law such that:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: upper-alpha; ">
<li>
<p>Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to distribute or make available accessible format copies to authorized entities in other Member States/Contracting Parties for the exclusive use of persons with print disabilities, where such activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn8" id="fnref8">8</a></sup></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to distribute or make available accessible format copies to persons with print disabilities in other Member States/Contracting Parties where the authorized entity has verified the individual is properly entitled to receive such accessible format copies under that other Member State/Contracting Party's national law.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn9" id="fnref9">9</a></sup></p>
</li>
</ol> </li>
</ol>
<p>The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said distribution or making available to published works which, in the applicable <s>special</s><span style="text-decoration: underline;">accessible</span> format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price, in the country of importation.</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; ">
<li><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Without prejudice to other exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors that are otherwise permitted by the Berne Convention or the TRIPS Agreement,</span> a Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article D(1) by providing any other exception or limitation in its national copyright law that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="article-e">ARTICLE E</h2>
<h2 id="importation-of-accessible-format-copies">IMPORTATION OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES</h2>
<p>To the extent that national law would permit a beneficiary person or an authorized entity acting on the beneficiary person’s behalf to make an accessible format copy of a work, the national law should/shall permit a beneficiary person or an authorized entity acting on that person's behalf to import an accessible format copy.<sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn10" id="fnref10">10</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="article-f">ARTICLE F</h2>
<h2 id="circumvention-of-technological-protection-measures"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">CIRCUMVENTION OF </span>TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION MEASURES</h2>
<p>Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means to enjoy the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.</p>
<p><s>In the absence of voluntary measures by rightholders and to the extent that copies of the work in the accessible format are not available commercially at a reasonable price or via authorized entities, Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall take appropriate measures to ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means of benefiting from that exception when technical protection measures have been applied to a work, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception.</s><sup><a class="footnoteRef" href="#fn11" id="fnref11">11</a></sup></p>
<h2 id="article-g"><s>ARTICLE G</s></h2>
<h2 id="relationship-with-contracts"><s>RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTRACTS</s></h2>
<p><s>Nothing herein shall prevent Member States/Contracting Parties from addressing the relationship of contract law and statutory exceptions and limitations for beneficiary persons.</s></p>
<h2 id="article-h">ARTICLE H</h2>
<h2 id="respect-for-privacy">RESPECT FOR PRIVACY</h2>
<p>In the implementation of these exceptions and limitations, Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall endeavour to protect the privacy of beneficiary persons on an equal basis with others.</p>
<p>[End of document]</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1">
<p>This change must be replicated everywhere where appropriate. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref1" title="Jump back to footnote 1">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn2">
<p>Formats should not be enumerated, since even the disabilities are not enumerated. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref2" title="Jump back to footnote 2">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn3">
<p>Non-profit organizations alone cannot cope with the needs of visually impaired people in the developing world. Thus, while it may sound like the ideal, it is impractical given the realities of the situation in the developing world. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref3" title="Jump back to footnote 3">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn4">
<p>A "trust" system would make it impossible for developing countries to actualize these provisions. If despite this, copyright infringement happens, then national remedies exist for such infringement. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref4" title="Jump back to footnote 4">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn5">
<p>To clarify: what is the purpose of these and not mentioning WCT, Berne, etc.? <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref5" title="Jump back to footnote 5">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn6">
<p>To be deleted for the same reasons as above. Non-profit basis, if insisted upon, can be retained in Article D(2)(A), but not here. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref6" title="Jump back to footnote 6">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn7">
<p>Import law provisions are already there in Article E, and should remain there. In Art. E, it states, “shall permit” import, and here, “would permit”. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref7" title="Jump back to footnote 7">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn8">
<p>This instance of "non-profit basis" may be retained if necessary. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref8" title="Jump back to footnote 8">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn9">
<p>To clarify: what would such verification require? Would self-certification suffice? <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref9" title="Jump back to footnote 9">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn10">
<p>It should be clarified, possibly through an agreed statement, that nothing in this article shall derogate from the flexibility provided in Art. 6 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows for countries to provide international exhaustion.</p>
<p>Thus, if the principle of international exhaustion is in place (i.e., parallel importation is allowed), then importation can be carried out by anyone, and not just by a beneficiary person or an authorized entity. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref10" title="Jump back to footnote 10">↩</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn11">
<p>This second paragraph weakens the principle established in the first by adding more conditions. They are almost phrased as alternatives, and the first alternative (paragraph) is the better one. <a class="footnoteBackLink" href="#fnref11" title="Jump back to footnote 11">↩</a></p>
</li>
</ol></div>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2011-10-12T08:29:01ZBlog EntryCIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on Exceptions & Limitations for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives
<b>This was the statement delivered by Pranesh Prakash on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, Knowledge Ecology International, Conseil International des Archives, Library Copyright Alliance, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Canadian Library Association.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society would like to commend this house for adopting SCCR/23/8 as a working document on the issue of exceptions and limitations on libraries and archives. This issue is of paramount interest the world over, and particularly in developing countries. I would like to limit my oral intervention to three quick points, and will send a longer statement in via e-mail.</p>
<p>First, we feel that this committee should pay special attention to ensuring that digital works and online libraries and archives such as the Internet Archive, also receive the same protection as brick-and-mortar libraries.</p>
<p>Second, we are concerned that we have been seeing some delegations advancing a very narrow interpretation of the three-step test. Such a narrow interpretation is not supported by leading academics, nor by practices of member states. A narrow interpretation of the three-step test must be squarely rejected. In particular, I would like to associate CIS with the strong statements by IFLA and KEI to maintain flexibilities within exceptions and limitations, instead of overly prescriptive provisions encumbered by weighty procedures and specifications.</p>
<p>We have comments about parallel trade as well, drawing from our experience and research in India, and will send those in writing.</p>
<p>Libraries and archive enhance the value of the copyrighted works that they preserve and provide to the general public. They do not erode it. Exceptions and limitations that help them actually help copyright holders. The sooner copyright holders try not to muzzle libraries, especially when it comes to out-of-commerce works, electronic copies of works, and in developing countries, the better it will be for them, their commercial interests, as well as the global public interest.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightFair DealingsIntellectual Property RightsArchivesWIPO2012-07-25T10:54:38ZBlog EntryCIS's Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Treaty for the Blind
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind
<b>Pranesh Prakash read out an abridged version of this statement as his closing remarks in Marrakesh, where the WIPO Treaty for the Blind (the "Marrakesh Treaty") has been successfully concluded. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to facilitate access to published works by blind persons, persons with visual impairment, and other print disabled persons, by requiring mandatory exceptions in copyright law to enable conversions of books into accessible formats, and by enabling cross-border transfer of accessible format books.</b>
<p>Thank you, Mr. President.</p>
<p>I am truly humbled to be here today representing the Centre for Internet and Society, an Indian civil society organization. If I may assume the privilege of speaking on behalf of my blind colleagues at CIS who led much of our work on this treaty, and the many blindness organizations we have been working with over the past five years who haven't the means of being here today, I would like to thank you and all the delegates here for this important achievement. And especially, I would like to thank the World Blind Union and Knowledge Ecology International who renewed focus on this issue more than 2 decades after WIPO and UNESCO first called attention to this problem and created a "Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Produced by Copyright".</p>
<p>While doing so, I would like to remember my friend Rahul Cherian — a young, physically impaired lawyer from India — who co-founded Inclusive Planet, was a fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society, and was a legal adviser to the World Blind Union. He worked hard on this treaty for many years, but very unfortunately did not live long enough to see it becoming a reality. His presence here is missed, but I would like to think that by concluding this treaty, all the distinguished delegations here managed to honour his memory and work.</p>
<p>I am grateful to all the distinguished delegations here for successfully concluding a reasonably workable treaty, but especially those — such as Brazil, India, Ecuador, Nigeria, Uruguay, Egypt, South Africa, Switzerland, and numerous others — who realized they were negotiating with blind people's lives, and regarded this treaty as a means of ensuring basic human rights and dignity of the visually impaired and the print disabled, instead of regarding it merely as "copyright flexibility" to be first denied and then grudgingly conceded. The current imbalance in terms of global royalty flows and in terms of the bargaining strength of richer countries within WIPO — many of who strongly opposed the access this treaty seeks to facilitate right till the very end — is for me a stark reminder of colonialism, and I see the conclusion of this treaty as a tiny victory against it.</p>
<p>It is historic that today WIPO and its members have collectively recognized in a treaty that copyright isn't just an "engine of free expression" but can pose a significant barrier to access to knowledge. Today we recognize that blind writers are currently curtailed more by copyright law than protected by it. Today we recognize that copyright not only <em>may</em> be curtailed in some circumstances, but that it <em>must</em> be curtailed in some circumstances, even beyond the few that have been listed in the Berne Convention. One of the original framers of the Berne Convention, Swiss jurist and president, Numa Droz, recognized this in 1884 when he emphasized that "limits to absolute protection are rightly set by the public interest". And as Debabrata Saha, India's delegate to WIPO during the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda noted, "intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare."</p>
<p>When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers. Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing. Marrakesh was the city in which, as Debabrata Saha noted, "the damage [of] TRIPS [was] wrought on developing countries". Now it has redeemed itself through this treaty.</p>
<p>This treaty is an important step in recognizing that exceptions and limitations are as important a part of the international copyright acquis as the granting of rights to copyright holders. This is an important step towards fulfilling the WIPO Development Agenda. This is an important step towards fulfilling the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is an important step towards fulfilling Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Article 30 of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities, all of which affirm the right of everyone — including the differently-abled — to take part in cultural life of the community.</p>
<p>While this treaty is an important part of overcoming the book famine that the blind have faced, the fact remains that there is far more that needs to be done to bridge the access gap faced by persons with disabilities, including the print disabled.</p>
<p>We need to ensure that globally we tackle societal and economic discrimination against the print disabled, as does the important issue of their education. This treaty is a small but important cog in a much larger wheel through which we hope to achieve justice and equity. And finally, blind people can stop being forced to wear an eye-patch and being pirates to get access to the right to read.</p>
<p>I also thank the WIPO Secretariat, Director General Francis Gurry, Ambassador Trevor Clark, Michelle Woods, and the WIPO staff for pushing transparency and inclusiveness of civil society organizations in these deliberations, in stark contrast to the way many bilateral and plurilateral treaties such as Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the India-EU Free Trade Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have been, and are being, conducted. I hope we see even more transparency, and especially non-governmental participation in this area in the future.</p>
<p>I call upon all countries, and especially book-exporting countries like the USA, UK, France, Portugal, and Spain to ratify this treaty immediately, and would encourage various rightholders organizations, and the MPAA who have in the past campaigned against this treaty and now welcome this treaty, to show their support for it by publicly working to get all countries to ratify this treaty and letting us all know about it.</p>
<p>I congratulate you all for the "Miracle of Marrakesh", which shows, as my late colleague Rahul Cherian said, "when people are demanding their basic rights, no power in the world is strong enough to stop them getting what they want".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsFeaturedWIPO2013-07-03T12:01:25ZBlog EntryCIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions
<b>This is a submission made by Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society to the Expert Committee on the Broadcast Treaty constituted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. This submission compares the definitions of various terms in the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations that is being deliberated at WIPO's SCCR at the moment, and definitions for these terms that are already present in existing international instruments. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Special thanks to CIS intern, Amulya Purushothama for her research and writing on this subject. <i>While Amulya was acknowledged as the co author in the actual submission itself, the blurb didn't say so and this has now been changed</i>. Download the file of <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-to-expert-committee.pdf" class="external-link">CIS submission here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Introduction</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This note analyses the differences in definitional clauses across six documents, the proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations <a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> <b>("Broadcast Treaty")</b>,<b> </b>the Proposal on the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organization- The Proposal by the Delegation of South Africa<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> <b>("Proposal by South Africa"), </b>The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,1996 <b>("WPPT")</b>, the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, 1961 <b>("The Rome Convention")</b>, and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012 <b>("The Beijing Treaty")</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The definitions for signal, broadcasting, broadcasting organization, retransmission, fixation, communication to the public and rights management information will be studied in detail as the definitions for these concepts has varied somewhat through the years. The rest of the definitions can be found in a detailed table that follows.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The argument here is simply that by subtly broadening the definition of certain terms, the broadcast treaty grants a higher level of protection to broadcasting organization, and that these protections could possibly extend to covering the content underlying the signals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>1. </b><b>Signal</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines a signal as an "electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof whether encrypted or not"<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a>, the alternative to this provision defines a signal as an "electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast cablecast"<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a>. The proposal by South Africa, on the other hand, defines a signal as "an electric current or electromagnetic field used to convey data". Clearly the definition in the Broadcast Treaty could be extended to cover the content underlying the signal and is not as technologically neutral as the alternative definitions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>2. </b> <b>Broadcasting </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines broadcast as the "transmission of a signal by a broadcasting organization for reception by the public"<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a>, an alternative to this excludes signals sent over computer networks from the definition of a broadcast, <a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a> another alternative defines broadcasting as "the transmission by wireless means for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof". This definition includes satellite transmission, wireless transmission of encrypted signals where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. Transmission over computer networks is excluded from this definition as well.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a> This mirrors definitions of broadcasting set out in the WPPT<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a>, the Rome Convention<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a> and the Beijing Treaty<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>. The proposal by South Africa defines "broadcasting" as the process whereby "the output signal of a broadcasting organization is taken from the point of origin, being the point where such signal is made available in its final content format and is conveyed to any broadcast target area by means of electronic communications" and "broadcast" is construed accordingly. Clearly the proposed definition under the Broadcast Treaty is less technologically neutral as compared to the proposal by South Africa. The proposed definition under the Broadcast Treaty also does not limit the protection granted by the treaty to the signal and unlike the proposal by South Africa does not ensure that definition excludes the underlying content being transmitted by the signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>3. </b><b>Broadcasting Organisations</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines a broadcasting organization as "the legal entity that takes the initiative for packaging assembling and scheduling program content for which it has, where necessary, been authorized by rights holders and takes the legal and editorial responsibility for the communication to the public of everything which is included in its broadcast signal." Or alternatively<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a>, considers broadcasting organisations and cablecasting organisations as one and the same and defines them as "the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representation thereof and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission." The proposal by South Africa defines a broadcasting organization as the "legal entity that has the responsibility for packaging, assembly and/or scheduling of program content for which it has legitimate license. Or rights of use for the transmission to the public, sections of the public or subscribers in the form of an unencrypted or encrypted output signal containing sounds, visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds". Clearly, in stark contrast to the proposed Broadcast Treaty, the proposal by South Africa ensures that cablecasting organisations aren't included within the definition of broadcasting organisations, this definition is also by far the most technologically neutral and ensures adequate protection for broadcasting organisations on all broadcasting platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>4. </b><b>Retransmission</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines "retransmission" as "the transmission by any means by any person other than the original broadcasting organization for reception by the public whether simultaneous or delayed";<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a> or alternatively defines rebroadcast as "the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public of a broadcast or a cablecast by any other person than the original broadcasting organization"; even simultaneous transmission of a rebroadcast is understood to be a rebroadcast under this definition. <a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Under a further alternative<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14">[14]</a> retransmission is defined as "the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a transmission … by any other person than the original broadcasting or cablecasting organization" this definition of retransmission also includes simultaneous transmission of a retransmission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To contrast to this, the Rome convention defines rebroadcasting as the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15">[15]</a> Clearly a higher level of protection is granted to broadcasting organisations under the proposed Broadcast Treaty, one that was so far not guaranteed to them by international conventions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>5. </b><b>Fixation</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines fixation as "the embodiment of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof from which they can be perceived , reproduced or communicated through a device" <a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16">[16]</a> <a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17">[17]</a>,the WPPT defines fixation as "the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device";<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18">[18]</a> and the Beijing Treaty defines audiovisual fixation as "the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds or by the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived reproduced or communicated through a device".<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19">[19]</a> In this capacity, the definitions proposed in the Broadcast Treaty seem to be in line with the earlier international treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>6. </b><b>Communication to the Public</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines communication to the public as "any transmission or retransmission to the public of a broadcast signal or a fixation thereof by any medium or platform".<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20">[20]</a>or alternatively as "making the transmissions … audible or visible or audible and visible in places accessible to the public.<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21">[21]</a> Whereas the WPPT defined communication to the public as "the transmission to the public by any medium, otherwise than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram… including making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public."<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22">[22]</a> The Beijing Treaty defined communication to the public as "the transmission to the public by any medium otherwise than by broadcasting, of an unfixed performance or of a performance fixed in an audio visual fixation… "communication to the public" includes making a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation audible or visible or audible and visible to the public." <a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23">[23]</a> Clearly the definition has been broadened under the proposed treaty, which makes it plausible for the protection granted to broadcasters to cover the content underlying the signal as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>7. </b><b>Rights Management Information</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines rights management information as "information that identifies the broadcasting organization, the broadcast, the owner of any right in the broadcast, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the broadcast and any numbers or codes that represent such information when any of these items of information is attached to or associated with the broadcast or the pre broadcast signal or its use in accordance with Article 6."<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24">[24]</a> The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, defines it as "information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public."<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The WPPT extends the same definition to performances and performers as it defines rights management information as "information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer, the producer of the phonogram, the phonogram, the owner of any right in the performance or phonogram, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance or phonogram, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a fixed performance or a phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a fixed performance or a phonogram to the public."<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26">[26]</a> And the Beijing Treaty defines rights management information as "information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer or the owner of any right in the performance or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation."<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27">[27]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clearly the current treaty extends the protection offered to rights management information to pre-broadcasting signals in addition to broadcast signals, this represents a higher level of protection granted to broadcasters under the proposed Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Detailed Table on Definitions in International Treaties</b></p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Definition</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Broadcast Treaty 27/2 rev</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Broadcast Treaty Proposal by South Africa</b></p>
<p><b>WIPO/CR/Consult/GE/11/2/2</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,1996 </b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Rome Convention, 1961</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Signal</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A, 5(a): "signal" is an electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof, whether encrypted or not;</p>
<p>Alternative to (a), "signal" means an electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast or cablecast</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>"signal" is an electric current or electromagnetic field used to convey data;</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Broadcast</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A : Article 5 (b): "broadcast" means the transmission of a signal by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization for reception by the public;</p>
<p>Alternative to (b): "broadcast" means the transmission of a set of electronically generated signals by wireless and carrying a specific program for reception by the general public, broadcast shall not be understood as including transmission of such a set of signals over computer networks.</p>
<p>Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (a) "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting". Wireless transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. "broadcasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>"broadcasting" means the process whereby the output signal of a broadcasting organization is taken from the point of origin, being the point where such signal is made available in its final content format and is conveyed to any broadcast target area by means of electronic communications and "broadcast" is construed accordingly"</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(f): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of</p>
<p>sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by</p>
<p>satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the</p>
<p>means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its</p>
<p>consent;</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 3 (f): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of</p>
<p>images and sounds;</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(c): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting", transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Broadcasting Organization</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (c): "broadcasting organization" means the legal entity that takes the initiative for packaging assembling and scheduling program content for which it has, where necessary, been authorized by rights holders and takes the legal and editorial responsibility for the communication to the public of everything which is included in its broadcast signal.</p>
<p>Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (c): "broadcasting organization" and "cablecasting organization" mean the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representation thereof and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>"broadcasting organization" means the legal entity that has the responsibility for packaging, assembly and/or scheduling of program content for which it has legitimate license. Or rights of use for the transmission to the public, sections of the public or subscribers in the form of an unencrypted or encrypted output signal containing sounds, visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Retransmission</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5(d): "retransmission" means the transmission by any means by any person other than the original broadcasting organization for reception by the public whether simultaneous or delayed;</p>
<p>Alternative to (d) rebroadcast means the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public of a broadcast or a cablecast by any other person than the original broadcasting organization; simultaneous transmission of a rebroadcast shall be understood as well to be a rebroadcast.</p>
<p>Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (d): "retransmission" means the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a transmission referred to in provisions (a) or (b) of this article by any other person than the original broadcasting or cablecasting organization; simultaneous transmission of a retransmission shall be understood as well to mean a retransmission.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 3(g): "rebroadcasting" means the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the</p>
<p>broadcast of another broadcasting organization.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Fixation</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (e) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof from which they can be perceived , reproduced or communicated through a device</p>
<p>Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (f) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(c): "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from</p>
<p>which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device;</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(b): "audiovisual fixation" means the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds or by the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived reproduced or communicated through a device.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Communication to the Public</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (f): "communication to the public" means any transmission or retransmission to the public of a broadcast signal or a fixation thereof by any medium or platform.</p>
<p>Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (e): "communication to the public" means making the transmissions referred to in provisions (a), (b) or (d) of this article audible or visible or audible and visible in places accessible to the public.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(g): "communication to the public" of a performance or a phonogram means the</p>
<p>transmission to the public by any medium, otherwise than by broadcasting, of sounds of a</p>
<p>performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram. For the</p>
<p>purposes of Article 15, "communication to the public" includes making the sounds or</p>
<p>representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(d): "Communication to the public of a performance means the transmission to the public by any medium otherwise than by broadcasting, of an unfixed performance or of a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation. For the purposes of Article 11, "communication to the public" includes making a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation audible or visible or audible and visible to the public.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Pre-broadcast Signal</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (g): "pre broadcast signal" means a transmission prior to broadcast that a broadcasting organization intends to include in its program schedule, which is not intended for direct reception by the public</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Rights Management Information</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (h) "rights management information" means information that identifies the broadcasting organization, the broadcast, the owner of any right in the broadcast, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the broadcast and any numbers or codes that represent such information when any of these items of information is attached to or associated with the broadcast or the pre broadcast signal or its use in accordance with Article 6.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 12(2): "rights management information" means information which</p>
<p>identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information</p>
<p>about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent</p>
<p>such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or</p>
<p>appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 19(2): "rights management information" means information which</p>
<p>identifies the performer, the performance of the performer, the producer of the phonogram,</p>
<p>the phonogram, the owner of any right in the performance or phonogram, or information</p>
<p>about the terms and conditions of use of the performance or phonogram, and any numbers or</p>
<p>codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a</p>
<p>copy of a fixed performance or a phonogram or appears in connection with the</p>
<p>communication or making available of a fixed performance or a phonogram to the public.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 16(2): "rights management information" which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer or the owner of any right in the performance or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Transmission</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (i), "transmission" means the sending for reception by the public of visual images sounds or representations thereof by the way of an electronic carrier</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>"electronic communications" means the emission, transmission or reception of sounds , visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds by means of magnetism, radio or other electromagnetic waves, optical electromagnetic systems or any agency of a like nature, whether with or without the aid of tangible conduct.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Program</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 , alternative to (j), "program" means a discreet package of one or more works protected by copyright or related rights in the form of live or recorded material consisting of images, sounds or both.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Cablecast</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (k) "cablecast" means the same as "broadcast" when the transmission is by wire and excluding transmission by satellite or over computer networks.</p>
<p>Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (b): "cablecasting" means the transmission by wire for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof. Transmission by wire of encrypted signals is "cablecasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the cablecasting organization or with its consent. "cablecasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks.</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>Performers</b></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(a) :"performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act,</p>
<p>sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or</p>
<p>expressions of folklore</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 3(a): "performers" means actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver,</p>
<p>declaim, play in, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works;</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Article 2(a): "performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons, who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> See Working Document for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Prepared by the Secretariat, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 27<sup>th</sup> Session, Geneva, April 28- May 2, 2014, SCCR/27/2/REV. (Hereafter The Broadcast Treaty.)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> The Proposal on the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Proposal by the Delegation of South Africa, Informal Consultation Meeting on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Geneva, April 14 and 15, 2011, WIPO/CR/Consult/Ge/11/2/2. (Hereafter, The South African Proposal)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Article 5, Alternative A, 5(a), the Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Article 5, Alternative A, Alternative to (a), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Article 5, Alternative A, Article 5 (b), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> Article 5, Alternative A, Alternative to (b), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (a) The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> See Article 2(f) of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996.(Hereinafter, WPPT) that reads as: "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent"</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> See Article 3 (f) of the Rome Convention, 1961 (Hereafter The Rome Convention), that reads as: '"broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds.'</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> See Article 2(c) of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012(Hereafter The Beijing Treaty), that reads as '"broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting", transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.'</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (c) The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5(d) The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a> Alternative to Article 5(d), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a> Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (d), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">[15]</a> Article 3(g), The Rome Convention, 1961.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">[16]</a> Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (e), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">[17]</a> Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (f), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">[18]</a> Article 2(c), WPPT.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">[19]</a> Article 2(b), The Beijing Treaty</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">[20]</a> Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (f), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a> Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (e), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a> Article 2(g), WPPT.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">[23]</a> Article 2(d), The Beijing Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">[24]</a> Article 5 (h), The Broadcast Treaty.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">[25]</a> Article 12(2), The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26">[26]</a> Article 19(2), WPPT.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27">[27]</a> Article 16(2), The Beijing Treaty.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions</a>
</p>
No publisherAmulya Purushothama and Nehaa ChaudhariIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2015-09-03T02:08:34ZBlog EntryCIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty
<b>This statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty was delivered on December 17, 2010 at the 19th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights by Nirmita Narasimhan on behalf of CIS.</b>
<h2>CIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19<br /></h2>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society believes that the protection that may be
afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including
Article 14 of the TRIPS Convention, are sufficient to safeguard the
interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been
under discussion for more than a decade without any progress, is, as the
WIPO Chair observed, an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no
avail" (SCCR/15/2/rev).</p>
<p>We believe that at any rate webcasting/netcasting should be kept out of the
ambit of the broadcast treaty, even if only restricted to "retransmission"
of broadcasts as in the current draft, since by its very nature webcasting
is very different from broadcasting. Webcasting is currently quite vibrant,
with a recent report by Arbor Networks estimating that around ten per cent
of all Web traffic is streaming video, making webcasting the fastest growing
application on the Internet. Given this situation, a strong case has to be
made to show that an international treaty is required to protect and promote
webcasting, which has not been done.</p>
<p>Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda,
which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered
by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying
content of the transmission.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Statements by other organizations on WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19<br /></h3>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005195.html">Electronic Frontier Foundation<br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005192.html">Public Knowledge</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005193.html">International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, and Library Copyright Alliance (Joint Statement)<br /></a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2009-December/005199.html">Computer and Communications Industry Association</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property RightsBroadcastingWIPO2012-02-01T09:07:41ZBlog EntryCIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made this statement at the WIPO-SCCR on December 20, 2013.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Centre for Internet and Society believes in the universal access to knowledge/education for all, without the barriers of time, distance and costs. We believe that information and communication technologies provide us with the opportunities to achieve this universality for ALL learners, both, through formal and informal institutions and learning environments, in both, digital and non digital formats.<br /><br />The adoption of limitations and exceptions for education and research is particularly significant from the perspective of developing and least developed nations, where prices of books and other learning material are high not just in absolute terms, but where consumers often have to commit higher proportions of their income to have access to these materials.<br /><br />We are in agreement with some of the delegations before us, among others with Ecuador, Kenya and the African Group in our belief that the present international legal framework, does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Appendix are complex, narrow, unworkable and of little value to developing nations.<br /><br />We believe, therefore, Mr. Chair, that there is a need to adopt open ended exceptions for education, teaching and research compatible with the digital environment. In our opinion, Mister Chair, a narrow construction and application of the three step test to these limitations and exceptions would not be the ideal way forward especially for developing and least developed countries. We believe Mr. Chair, that these limitations and exceptions should be those that harmonize national practices; prescribe an international standard, facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-12-30T06:17:50ZBlog EntryCIS Statement in WIPO SCCR 43
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-in-wipo-sccr-43
<b>Shweta Mohandas delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 1 of the 43rd WIPO SCCR session on the Broadcast Treaty. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><br />Thank you, Mr. Chair.<br /><br />I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second revised draft text for the WIPO Broadcasting Organisations Treaty presents certain concerns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The absence of a provision on term allows perpetual rights to both traditional broadcasters and streamers. Further, the provision on limitations and exceptions is narrow, and not mandatory. It undermines the existence of open-licensing models on the internet. In the absence of a strong mandatory limitations and exceptions provision, the text gives broadcasters rights over openly-licensed content and works in the public domain.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-in-wipo-sccr-43'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-in-wipo-sccr-43</a>
</p>
No publisherShweta Mohandas and Anubha SinhaCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2023-03-28T14:12:21ZBlog EntryCIS Statement at 27th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on April 29, 2014.</b>
<p>This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on the Scope of the Treaty and the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. The statement makes references to a specific Working Document <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-27-cis-wipo.pdf" class="internal-link">available here</a>. CIS statement is quoted in <a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/node/1994">Knowledge Ecology International</a> on April 29, 2014 and in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/05/01/at-wipo-authors-civil-society-watchful-of-rights-for-broadcasters/">Intellectual Property Watch</a> on May 1, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal. Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach, which we believe is the mandate binding on this Committee. <br /> <br /> That is all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.<br /> <br /> In response to CIS' statement, the Chair had this to say:<br /> <br /> <i>Thank you, CIS,. That was a very clear statement and gave us a very clear explanation of the situation. We will indeed take due account of that in the course of this afternoon's further discussion. </i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-01T14:27:48ZBlog EntryCIS Statement (on Technological Measures of Protection) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on May 2, 2014.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Technological Measures of Protection", which is topic 9 of <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-26.pdf" class="internal-link">Working Document SCCR 26/3</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We believe that in an environment where much of the preservation and dissemination of knowledge by libraries and archives is in the digital format, having a limitation and exception provision as regards this particular provision of TPMs in this international instrument is integral; and we echo the Canadian Library Association and The Charted Institute of Library and Information Professionals among others on the need for such an exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TPMs have the potential to override any fair use or fair dealing exceptions in copyright; and would render much of the discussion that we have been having over the past two days and at earlier sessions of this Committee, redundant, were where such an exception not to be talked about along with other exceptions that we are discussing for libraries and archives. TPMs may prevent end users from using works in ways that are allowed under fair use or fair dealing provisions- permitted exceptions in copyright law. If for instance, TPMs were in place on master copies of files that were obtained by libraries and archives, these institutions would not be allowed to carry out basic preservation activities such as file format migration which in turn would limit the life span of the master files in question and also render access to these files difficult (if that's the word that I could use); which in turn defeats the very purpose of preservation and access to knowledge by libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore Mr. Chair, we think that the suggestion echoed — that the suggestion made by KEI earlier, that Article 7 of the Marrakech Treaty that deals with TPMs would be a logical — could be a logical step forward, and we think that there is merit in that statement, and we would like to align ourselves with that statement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T11:18:23ZBlog EntryCIS Statement (on Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works out of Commerce) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives
<b>The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on May 1, 2014. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works Out of Commerce", which is topic 7 of <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-26.pdf" class="internal-link">Working Document SCCR 26/3</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much, Mister Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mister Chair, we will be addressing this topic on two levels:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>First</i>, the need for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives for orphan, retracted and withdrawn works and works out of commerce.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Second</i>, the need for these limitations and exceptions to be a part of an international legal instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the first level, Mr. Chair- we are of the opinion that this limitation and exception is necessary for libraries and archives to be able to perform their key functions- the preservation and dissemination of knowledge.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This exception speaks to a very complex environment- One where the owner of a work cannot be located despite an exhaustive search and therefore digitazation cannot take place because to do so would be copyright infringment; one where the volumes of works that we’re speaking of are anywhere between 10 and 70 percent of the collections of some libraries (these figures are based on reports released by various libraries, library associations and others, that are available online); one, where rights information of works is lacking; and an environment where works have been withdrawn for a variety of reasons. The outcome which commonly arises as a result of all of these is that works are not available to the public, in turn affecting access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, which is one of the basic purposes of copyright. Any interpretation or understanding of copyright ought to be one that aids in the achievement of this purpose, as opposed to deviating from it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the second level, Mr. Chair- we believe that there is a need for an international legal instrument to govern these limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We have heard the statements made to this Committee by various Hon’ble delegations today and at earlier sessions of this Committee. What emerges, as KEI said earlier, is that there is a lack of uniformity in national legislations and approaches in addressing this issue. What also emerges is that the current copyright framework in some developing and least developed countries does not adequately address these issues. Therefore, Mr. Chair, as we have stated at earlier Sessions of this Committee- to be able to harmonize these limitations and exceptions, to ensure that these limitations and exceptions have a cross border effect, and hopefully to have discussions that we have here are influence national law making and state practice (also, as KEI said earlier), we believe that an international legal instrument that deals with among others the exception we are discussing in Topic 7, is very important.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s all we have to say at the moment, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2014-05-02T11:21:05ZBlog Entry CIS Intervention on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR/SS/GE/2/13
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-eu-blocking-wipo-treaty-for-blind
<b>The informal session and special session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights was organised by WIPO in Geneva from April 18 to April 20, 2013. Pranesh Prakash participated in the session and spoke about the rights of the visually impaired. An abridged version of this was read out during the meeting on Saturday, April 20, 2013, at 22:15 due to time restrictions.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you, Mr. Chair. I represent the Centre for Internet and Society, a policy research organization based in India. India, as everyone who has been attending these SCCR meetings since 2008 would know, has the world's largest population of blind and visually impaired persons. Two of my colleagues at CIS — Nirmita Narasimhan and Anandhi Viswanathan — are blind, and another one of my CIS colleagues who passed away recently (and whose tireless efforts were remembered here at WIPO recently with a minute of silence) — Rahul Cherian — spent many years working extensively on policy issues related to persons with disabilities, and in particular worked here in WIPO as part of Inclusive Planet, and with the World Blind Union. Hence, this issue is not an abstract one for us, but a very real one.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I commend the delegates here for taking some steps forward during this meeting. However, very disappointingly, with those few steps forward, we have seen a few things we had taken as settled being opened up again, and many steps being taken backward. The already-onerous requirements and procedures laid down in this treaty are seen by a few countries as not being onerous enough. Blind people, it is believed, might 'wrongly' take advantage of these provisions. Worse yet, there is a fear that sighted persons might take advantage of these provisions relating to the blind.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The absurdity of these fears somehow seems to have escaped the notice of many involved in these discussions. There is nothing in these provisions that would convert infringement by sighted people — even if under the pretence of this treaty — magically into lawful acts. And, indeed, there are multifarious ways of infringing copyright without such resort to this treaty. Yet, these very same onerous requirements (such as the "commercial availability" requirement) and bureaucratic processes will unrealistically increase transaction costs for the visually impaired and render infructuous the very purpose of this treaty. Those delegations who are unrelenting on these issues seem to living in a bizarre world where sighted infringers deviously use exceptions granted in an international copyright treaty to engage in piracy; a bizarre world where scanners and the Internet have not been invented. And by refusing to acknowledge these ground realities, they are merely forcing the blind into wearing eye-patches and being 'pirates'.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In particular, I would like to deplore the stand taken by the European Union, being represented here by the European Commission, whose actions run contrary to the call made in May 2011 by the European Parliament to "to address the ‘book famine’ experienced by visually impaired and print-disabled people". This is despite the European Parliament having reminded "the Commission and Member States of their obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to take all appropriate measures to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats, and to ensure that laws protecting IPR do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by people with disabilities to cultural materials". The EU, and a few countries of Group B, including the United States, have been slowly bleeding this treaty to death through over-legislation and bureaucracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States' and EU's stand on technological protection measures, if accepted, would mean that publishers will technologically be able to prevent the blind from enjoying accessible works, even when they can't do so legally on the basis of copyright law. The European Union's stand on all issues has been extraordinarily harmful, and seems to have an aim to make this treaty as unwieldy and unworkable as possible. They seem to regard the Berne Appendix as their model in this regard: an international agreement that exists on paper for the benefit of developing countries, but because of its bureaucratic processes is little used, and is widely regarded as a failure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Here is what it boils down to: when it comes to the economic rights of copyright owners, current international law insists that there be no formalities, yet when it comes to the human rights of visually impaired person to access information — a right specifically guaranteed to them under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — some delegates in this room wish to ensure as many formalities as possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The rights of the visually impaired are being buried under unnecessary and complicated requirements and bureaucratic practices. This injustice must stop: the delegates here have the power to do so. And if the EU does not wish to be viewed as villains by all persons with print disabilities and all persons with conscience, it should stop trying to make this an ineffectual treaty. Many have quipped that this is fast becoming "A Treaty for Rightholders Against Persons with Visual Impairments and Print Disabilities" or alternatively "A Treaty for Morally Impaired Persons and Persons with Ethical Disabilities". That is an international shame.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Having colonized much of the world into using English, French, and Spanish, these European countries along with the USA are now in a position to be both culturally dominant and to refuse to sign up to this treaty if it helps blind persons outside of the EU and the USA who seek access to texts in these languages. These remnants of colonialism must be stamped out.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-eu-blocking-wipo-treaty-for-blind'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-eu-blocking-wipo-treaty-for-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCopyrightAccessibilityAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-04-25T11:57:02ZBlog EntryCIS Intervention on Future Work of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention
<b>The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash intervened during the discussion of future work of the ACE with this comment.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you, Chair.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point out that some of the proposals on future work could be worded better to reflect their true meaning. For instance, one of the proposal calls for control of the problem of "parallel import". However, "parallel importation" is actually allowed by both the TRIPS Agreement and by various other instruments such as the Berne Convention? Indeed, calling “parallel import” a problem is like calling "exceptions and limitations" a problem. This is a view that has been firmly rejected here at WIPO, especially post the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda. This, quite obviously, could not have been the intention of the proposal framers.</p>
<p>Further, the link between some of the proposals and the Development Agenda could be made clearer. It has been established that the Development Agenda is not just something for the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) to consider, but for all committees to make an integral part of their work.</p>
<p>I would also like to underscore the importance of evidence-based policy-making.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would like to mention that a report has already been commissioned by WIPO on intermediary liability, which was written by Prof. Lilian Edwards and was released in a side-event during SCCR 22, in June 2011.</p>
<p>If the ACE is going ahead with a study or an event, I would suggest that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion, who in his report to the UN Human Rights Council dealt in some depth with intermediary liability, be involved or invited.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-future-work-cis-intervention</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightIntellectual Property RightsWIPO2011-12-01T15:30:38ZBlog EntryCIS Comments to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations
<b>As a follow up to a stakeholder meeting called by the MHRD on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, CIS provided written comments on the Working Document for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations adopted by the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at its twenty-fourth session, Geneva, July 16 to 25, 2012.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the November 27, 2013, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India conducted a <i>Stakeholders Meeting on the proposed WIPO treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations </i>at New Delhi. Nehaa Chaudhari represented CIS and commented <i>inter alia</i> on the need for a Broadcast Treaty, the necessity to confine the treaty to a signals based approach, the term of protection for broadcasting organizations, and the protection of the general public interest. At this meeting, with representation from the government, academia, industry bodies and civil society, there was a general consensus on the adoption of a treaty that would most further India’s national interest, and on the treaty being limited to a signals based approach, in consonance with the 2007 mandate of the WIPO General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In furtherance of the feedback process initiated at the aforesaid meeting, CIS presents this detailed clause-by-clause submission in response to the proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty. This submission was prepared by Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many thanks to Pranesh Prakash, Snehashish Ghosh and Bhairav Acharya for their inputs and discussions, and to Varun Baliga for his research.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please click (<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-comments-to-hrd-on-wipo-treaty.pdf" class="internal-link">here</a>) for CIS’ comments. For the Working Document referred to in the Submissions, please "<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr.pdf" class="internal-link">click here</a>".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2013-12-07T07:57:50ZBlog Entry