[A2k] Draft Agenda of WIPO SCCR (May 1-5, 2006)

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Professor Andr=E9 Lucas from Nantes University (France) and Delia Lipszyc,
Buenos Aires University (Argentina) and Chair  of InterAmerican
Copyright Institute will be making introductory presentations at the
meeting of WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
(SCCR) which will meet from May 1-5, 2006 to consider the proposed
broadcasting/webcasting treaty.  Professor Lucas was present at the WIPO
Informal Consultation with European Community States and Group B States
and NGOs on Proposed Broadcasting Treaty held in September 2005 in
Brussels.  At the meeting Professor Lucas advocated for the "updating"
of protection for broadcasting.

Here is an excerpt from Gwen Hinze's EFF blog notes of his responses to
questions from public interest NGOs.

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

http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/notes_sept05.php

<SNIP>

Civil Society Coalition: Qn to Prof. Lucas: you've said that TPM provisions=
 in WCT,
WPPT, EUCD, and elsewhere are controversial and that the TPM provision in p=
roposed
treaty is based on WPPT,. When is it appropriate to consider the merits of
introducing broadcaster TPMs or are you saying that  broadcasters should be=
 given
TPMs because copyright rightsholders have been?

Prof. Lucas: you're right to say that the question of TPMs for broadcasters=
 is no
different than for copyright rightsholders. Your question is should we cons=
ider the
problems of previous copyright TPM regimes before deciding to give these to
broadcasters.

The problem is in implementation of TPMs at the national level, as we have =
seen in
national court decisions. The text of the proposed treaty leaves room to ma=
nage
reconcilation between rightsholders and other users of TPMs and consumers. =
Would be
illogical to deprive broadcasters entirely of TPMs just because problems at=
 national
level with copyright TPM regime implementation.



<SNIP>


EFF, attempting clarification: Just to clarify the nature of the first conc=
ern, it is
that a broadcaster/  webcaster TPM regime could restrict access to public d=
omain and
non-copyrightable material. This would be the case irrespective of any nati=
onal law
exceptions or limitations. Could Prof. Lucas please comment on that point?

Prof. Lucas: that would only be the case in a very limited set of circumsta=
nces,
where something is taking place on only one broadcaster. In that case, ther=
e would be
a need to take measures to protect access.

Where a broadcast program contains public domain material, the worry would =
be that
the public domain material could be monopolized. If a broadcaster includes =
elements
of the public domain that cannot have the consequence of reducing the publi=
c domain
by granting protection to broadcasters.

There would be a de facto monopoly only where the broadcaster is the sole s=
ource for
the public domain material. This is an aspect where the legislature should =
include
measures to ensure access. I'm not denying that it wouldn't happen, or that=
 it's not
possible, but very limited, and need to include measures for that very limi=
ted case.




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

SCCR/14/1 Rev.
ORIGINAL:  English
DATE:  April 11, 2006

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT
AND RELATED RIGHTS
Fourteenth Session
Geneva, May 1 to 5, 2006
DRAFT AGENDA
prepared by the Secretariat



STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT
AND RELATED RIGHTS
Fourteenth Session
Geneva, May 1 to 5, 2006
DRAFT AGENDA
prepared by the Secretariat

1.    Opening of the session

2.    Election of a Chair and two Vice-Chairs

3.    Adoption of the agenda of the fourteenth session

4.    Adoption of the Report of the thirteenth session

5.    Protection of broadcasting organizations

-    Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc,
Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute
(IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor Andr=E9 Lucas, Nantes
University, Nantes, France.

6.    Other matters

7.    Closing of the session