[A2k] Third World Network Statement at SCCR

[Sangeeta]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]


Please post this on the list



Thanks

Sangeeta



THIRD WORLD NETWORK STATEMENT



WIPO STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT RIGHTS



23rd November 2005



Thank you for the opportunity to take the floor



Mr Chairman



Generally we find the proposals in the second revised text to expand
protection beyond the Rome Convention to be poorly conceived.



This treaty is an effort by broadcasters to obtain an expanded set of
commercial rights over material they did not create and do not own.
Basically what the proposed broadcasting treaty does is to change the
bargaining position of the broadcasters vis -a- vis the content creaters and
the public.



The proposed treaty also extends economic rights to works that are in the
public domain and freely accessible to the public.



There are many elements of the proposed draft treaty that extends to areas
that go beyond the original aim of the Treaty which was to protect against
signal piracy.



We are not aware of any country anywhere in the world that has anything like
what is as a package being proposed here in WIPO. For example on the
inclusion of webcasting as part of the treaty, the United States, which is
the primary advocate of this new right for companies like Yahoo, does not
have such a law.



WIPO should show caution and not be used as an institution to promote brand
new untested regulatory schemes which if attempted nationally would be
rejected immediately.



Listening to the debate it is quite clear to me there is broad uncertainty
among members in particular developing country members over the need to
adopt a treaty such as that which is being proposed as it goes far far
beyond the original aim of the Treaty and no one really has an in depth
understanding of the implications of what is being proposed.



For example many delegations support the inclusion of webcasting as part of
this proposed treaty. But there are fears that the webcasting treaty
language will control the free flow of information over the internet, and
this in turn will be profoundly harmful to the public and access to
knowledge. Further most of the Internet Community has not been consulted.
Electronic Frontier Foundation has just said that it has been rejected by 21
technology companies.



CI has also just stated that we are only beginning to realize some of the
problems relating to implementation of WPPT and TPMs.



Much uncertainty prevails over many elements in this treaty and yet many
delegations wish to persist to push for this treaty and think of the
consequences later.



We are of the view that it is only logical that before embarking on a norm
setting exercise that the implications of the standards to be set are
understood. Thus the urgent need to conduct impact assessments.



For example if Members opt for a 50 year protection, the decision must be
made only after fully knowing the effect of the 30 year extension on the
works in the public domain, the impact on access to knowledge, especially by
developing and least developed countries and on evidence of the true need to
extend protection by 30 years.



It is only after understanding the social, cultural and economic
implications particularly the impact on access to knowledge and on
development, will Members be better equipped to design a treaty that retains
the balance between public and private interests.



It would also be highly desirable noting the burdensome implications on
society that could arise from having bad rules, for countries to conduct
national consultative process involving various stakeholders and to seek
views on the various elements of this treaty.



We understand that in some developed countries such as in US there have been
requests by the civil society and businesses for such consultations but to
date we are not aware of any public consultation in these countries.



Thank you





--
[ image001.gif of type image/gif deleted ]
--