Digital Rights Network

Manon Ress writes to the a2k list: In their answer to TACD re broadcasting treaty, the EC explains that the proposed treaty cannot depart from a previous treaty (Rome). This despite the fact that the US and many other countries have never signed!. Protection can only go up. Exceptions can only be narrow and optional.

QUOTE:
To that extent, the EU cannot agree with the TACD demands since it would not reflect the current level of protection that is already accorded to broadcasters in the Community copyright acquis and would have the effect of diluting that protection. Nor would it be feasible within the context of international negotiations for a new treaty updating the rights of broadcasting organisations in the intellectual property context under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisations to depart from the substantive norms of previous treaties [i.e. protection cannot go down]. This is what the Brazilian and Argentinean proposals envisage, namely the provision of mandatory rights for users. This would be contrary to all previous relevant Treaties in this area. The traditional approach in this area and the one which reflects EU law as well is to introduce optional exceptions for certain users such as the disabled or for teaching and research purposes. [emphasis added]
END OF QUOTE

what: WIPO Seminar on Broadcasting Treaty (sponsored by Broadcasters)
url: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2006/wipo_ma_2006_23.html
registration: http://www. wipo.int/copyright
when: 2006-06-21 (21st June)
where: Barcelona

From http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2006/wipo_ma_2006_23.html

BARCELONA SEMINAR TO DISCUSS BROADCASTING ISSUES

International experts, business leaders, academics, government delegates and policy makers will come together on June 21, 2006, in Barcelona, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Catalan Broadcasting Council and the Barcelona Bar Association, to examine current technical, economic and legal realities in the field of broadcasting and identify areas for development.

Here we are in Day 5 of the 14th SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Releated Rights) meeting at WIPO which is entirely dedicated to discussing the broadcast treaty (Jamie Love has recently posted an article at the huffington post which provides good simple summary of the situation written in his typical combative and engaging style).

At present it doesn't look like NGOs will get a chance to speak as further discussion of webcasting (in addition to that on wednesday) ended up taking up much of the morning. Last night the committee worked late (until 2230) in an attempt to get through the remaining issues related to the core treaty (definition of terms, rights provided, national treatment, limitations and exceptions and TPMs).

Intervention of the Open Knowledge Foundation
WIPO SCCR 2005-11-23

In the interests of brevity Mr Chairman we will limit our comments. The Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) is a non-profit organization based in the United Kingdom, which is dedicated to promoting access to knowledge as well as an open approach to knowledge production and reuse.

Brazil earlier today mentioned a 3-step test for the public interest. We would like to point out Mr Chairman that such a test has already been put forward in the form of the recently released Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property. This was produced, after extensive consultation, by a drafting committee consisting of distinguished academics, artists, and Noble Laureates under the auspices of the Royal Society of Arts. Principle nine of the charter states:

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!).

I authored the following as the FFII statement at WIPO IIM on the Development Agenda.

--------------

Submission of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, WIPO IIM 11th to 13th April 2005

First, at the outset Mr Chairman we would like to congratulate you, as well as the distinguished Vice-Chair, on your election. We would also like to thank the WIPO secretariat and its member states for this opportunity to present our views to you today.

Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, and others, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a non-profit association registered in several European countries, which is dedicated to the spread of data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of public information goods based on copyright, free competition, and open standards. More than 500 members, 1,200 companies and 75,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.

The 3 day WIPO intersessional intergovernmental meeting (IIM) on the development agenda ended today. The Agenda was proposed by Brazil and Argentina together with other developing nations last september at the WIPO general assembly. A previous post dealt with the Friends of Development submission to the IIM which along with 3 other submissions (Mexico -- IP is great, US -- what we need is a website, UK -- just observations, pretty vague) formed the basis for discussions. Overall the results were very positive:

• A whole group of civil-society NGOs got ad-hoc accreditation at the last minute (though ominous grumblings from the US and Italy about this not happening next time). This meant, perhaps for the first time in WIPO history, civil-society NGOs equalled rights-holder groups both in presence and in submissions (though probably not in weight ...).
• Among country delegations on a very rough count the FoD proposal had more supporters then detractors. However unsurprisingly most developed country groups either damned with faint praise or outright opposed the proposal.
• Most importantly, the benefits of having a positive agenda were clearly demonstrated. Discussion in WIPO is no longer solely about what the next IP extension should be. Instead the focus is on balance, development, access to knowledge, alternative models for innovation and creativity. The consequences were obvious: Rights-holder groups sounded weak now that they couldn't rant about the sanctity and importance of property and the absolute truth of IP = innovation. We get a great intervention from the WHO making clear that IP can/does negatively impact on access to the medicine (you can imagine what this does to the submissions from the pharma lobbyists).

Lamest submission: Sudan for their lengthy explication of the development benefits they'd gained from IP.

Comments in ## .... ##

Full version available from the WIPO IIM page

## If all you've got is a hammer then everything's a nail: need to move away from IP monoculture in approach to innovation and creativity, access to knowledge etc##

4. Experience demonstrates that WIPO has concentrated its efforts in the diffusion of standardized approaches to IP policies that assume, from an uncritical standpoint, that development follows suit as intellectual property rights protection is strengthened. Current worldwide debate questioning the appropriateness of such an approach has not been reflected in WIPO's work. Rather, discussions in WIPO have overlooked the importance of a systematic assessment of the implications of increased and standardized IPR protection in terms of access to and diffusion of science, technology and related knowledge and know-how, especially for LDCs and developing countries.

Dramatic events marked the close the 12th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. The meeting was part of a continuing series dedicated to a proposed Broadcast Treaty (summary and analysis of the treay).

Debate over adoption of the Chair's (Jukka Liedes of Finland) conclusions stalled over the particular question of whether to have regional or interssessional meetings. This point may seem trivial but was in fact of crucial importance. This was because it was widely believed that regional meetings were the idea of the secratariat and a method by which they could force rapid adoption of the treaty in toto by undermining the strong interregional alliance centred on Brazil, India and Egypt who have been objecting to certain extreme IP provisions such as the presence of TPMs (Technological Protection Measures).