Digital Rights Network

Just back from the WIPO SCCR (Standing Committe on Copyright and Related Rigths) meeting. Full transcript on EFF site.

Interesting first day on limitations and exceptions. Had good presentations from Teresa Hacket on Learning with Libraries and Copyright Issues and Professor Julien Hofman of Commonwealth on Learning on Education, Copyright and Development. They both emphasized problems, particularly for distance learning with the current system. It was also great to see Creative Commons on the podium for the first time with a presentation by Mia Garlick as well as an excellent presentation by Mr Velterop of Springer on Open Access (unsurprisingly there were apparently complaints about this -- just talking about alternative licensing systems is undermining the sacred status of traditional copyright!).

Broadcast treaty discussion started on the second day and went through to end of the third. In the end due to time issues there was no conclusions from the chair which meant that the controversy of last time was avoided (this lack of time had been anticipated by many and was even thought to perhaps be intentional). Discussion divided into 2 parts as follows:

Discussion Round 1

SCOPE etc
  * Web/Simulcasting
    - (1) Opting in
    - (2) Opting out
    - (3) Protocol
  * Pre-broadcast signals
  * TM/RMI
  * Eligibility
  
Discussion Round 2

RIGHTS etc
  * Rights
    - Retransmission
    - Communication
    - Fixation
    - Art. 9-12 post-fixation rights
  * Limitations
  * Term

The debate about scope was pretty much all about webcasting. There was little difference form last year with a majority of countries, particularly those from the developing world, opposed but the US still pushing it (with a smaller core of sympathisers, notably, the Russian Federation -- it was also worrying that the EU appeared more ambivalent about this than previously and repeatedly made vague statements about technological neutrality and keeping all options open).

Day 3 saw us move on to a discussion on Rights etc. Here India came in with a strong submision that echoed many of the points regarding restriction to signal only made in the excellent paper submitted by a group of NGOs (all credit to Nick Ashton-Hart, the author of that document). However it was notable that this section did not involve nearly as much debate. After this the NGOs took the floor. The number of submissions were as follows:

IGO: 1. (UNESCO)
Broadcasters: 11. CRIC (Copyright Research Information Centre), EBU (European B. Union), URTNA, NAB Japan (National Association of B.), CBU (Carribean B. Union), ACT (Association for Commercial Television), NABA , ASBU (Arab ... B. Union), AIR, ABU (Asia and Pacific Broadcasting Union), NAB (National Association of Broadcasters (US))
Webcasters: 1. EDIMA/DIMA (European Digital Media Association)
Rightsholders: 7. CESAC/BEAM, IFTA (Independent Film and Television Alliance), FIM (International Federation of Musicians), IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry), FILAE, IMMF (Intl. Music Managers Federation), FIAF (Film Producers)
Civil-Society/Public Interest: 9. CSC (Civil Society Coalition), UPD (Union for the Public Domain), EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundatin), FGV (Getulio Vargas Foundation), CI (Consumers International), IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations), OKF (Open Knowledge Foundation), IPJ (IP Justice), TWN (Third World Network).
Other: 1. MPI (Max Planck Institute)

Choice Quotes

Note that none of these is guaranteed to be word-perfect accurate but are rather best-effort transcriptions in the circumstances.

Ben Ivins from the NAB on why we don't need evidence when we make IP treaties Parties say that before we proceed, there is a need for further study and analysis of the impact on the public. I expand on Switzerland's remark: you can't go to two weddings at once. After 7 years of deliberations and 13 meetings, it's like the groom turning to the bride on the altar asking for an audit of his bride's finances. There was no call for these studies in 1998-2002. 16 countries submitted proposals without calling for studies. There was no call for such studies for WPPT, for WCT or for Rome or others. Why now? How is this consistent with accelerating the treaty. ..... [right at the end] The consummation of this treaty should take place now, in this sanctuary of Copyright and related rights, and not years hence in a nursing home.

Brazil on TPMs: We would like to comment on term: we have not defined yet a position in Brazil though we believe in principle 20 years would be best. We would like to mention TPMs again as they would undermine any choice of term put into this treaty since the TPMs are effectively permanent and they don't expire. So we think this is an additional reason for excluding TPMs as they grant broadcasters an everlasting and undefined rights over the subject of protection.

Nigeria on Limitations and Exceptions: Many developing countries, particularly in Africa, now have TPM laws. It would be useful to have a specific impact assessment on how the use of TPMs affect the exceptions and limitations to copyright. Developing countries also have to cope with the constraints of poor infrastructure. The delegation of Nigeria supports the idea of balance in copyright, but wants the public interest to be adequately provided for.