[A2k] Fwd: Blogging WIPO - Notes of SCCR 14, Day 1

[Gwen Hinze]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 04:19:20 -0700
>To: a2k@lists.esential.org
>From: Gwen Hinze <gwen@eff.org>
>Subject: Blogging WIPO - Notes of SCCR 14, Day 1
>Cc: thiru@cptech.org, petra@fairsharing.de
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>This week the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related
>Rights is meeting to discuss the controversial Broadcasting/
>Webcasting Treaty.
>
>FYI the NGO coalition's notes of Day 1 of SCCR 14 are now posted on
>the EFF Deeplinks blog at:
><http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004619.php>
>
>My take on events follows.
>
>Gwen Hinze
>International Affairs Director
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
>----
>
>
>The U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing
>Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Committee meets this week
>to discuss the latest<a
>href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14_2.pdf">
>redraft</a> of the contentious new Broadcasting Treaty. The treaty
>would give broadcasters, cablecasters, and potentially webcasters,
>broad new 50 year rights to control transmissions over the Internet,
>irrespective of the copyright status of the transmitted material. It
>also requires countries to provide legal protection for broadcaster
>technological protection measures that will require Broadcast
>Flag-like technology mandates.
>
>As we've noted <a
>href="htttp://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/webcasting_issues.pdf">elsewhere</a>,
>EFF  believes that these new rights will stifle innovation, create a
>new layer of liability for Internet intermediaries, impair
>consumers' existing rights, restrict the public's access to
>knowledge and culture, and change the nature of the Internet as a
>communication medium.  Many of these concerns could be addressed by
>limiting the scope of the treaty to its intended purpose -- signal
>theft. Unfortunately the new draft doesn't remove any of our
>concerns, but only deepens them..
>
>Webcasting is now back in the treaty, after spending last year in a
>separate "working paper" because the majority of countries opposed
>its inclusion in 2004. Despite many counties' opposition again in
>2005,  it's been included in the treaty as a non-mandatory Appendix.
>Countries that sign the treaty have the option - at any time -- to
>grant webcasters the same exclusive rights given to broadcasters and
>cablecasters by depositing a notice with WIPO.
>
>At the same time,  some of the key proposals to balance the impact
>of the new treaty have been removed from the new draft treaty text
>(the Draft Basic Proposal) and relegated to a new separate <a
>href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14_3.doc">"Working
>Paper".</a>  For instance, the alternative that the treaty not
>include the contentious Technological Protection Measure obligations
>is not in the Draft Basic Proposal, but has been sidelined to the
>Draft Working Paper.  Brazil and Chile's exceptions proposals
>(including exceptions for national competition regulation and
>temporary reproductions of broadcast works that are crucial for
>digital technology innovation) have also been cast off to the Draft
>Working Paper.
>
>The WIPO Committee Chair's decision to create two separate
>documents, rather than a consolidated draft proposal including all
>views, has been highly controversial.  As expected, many countries
>were not pleased with the implied sleight of hand  involved in
>categorizing countries' proposals as "core" (in the Draft Basic
>Proposal) or "alternatives" (in the Draft Working Paper). It's
>particularly troubling that some items, such as webcasting, that
>have been consistently rejected by the majority of Member States,
>have made it into the Draft Basic Proposal -- so  selection for the
>Draft Basic Proposal was clearly not based on majority support.
>Many Member States voiced concerns about transparency when they took
>the floor.  India,  South Africa, Brazil, Iran, and Uruguay stated
>that their views had not been taken into account in the draft treaty.
>
>And there's also little consensus on substantive issues. Many Member
>States clearly disagree with including webcasting in the treaty.
>Several Member States, including Thailand (on behalf of the Asia
>Group), Argentina, Jamaica, Nigeria, Colombia and Peru, also
>expressed concern about the potential for broadcaster technological
>protection measures to impair exceptions and limitations and
>restrict access to public domain materials.
>
>The draft treaty is now officially on the fast track. The draft that
>emerges from this meeting will form the basis for convening a 2007
>intergovernmental Diplomatic Conference when the WIPO General
>Assembly votes in September. That means this week is the last chance
>for WIPO member countries to act to protect Internet innovation and
>the public's access to knowledge.
>
>As usual, we'll be blogging developments from Geneva. The NGO
>Coalition's notes of Day 1 are after the jump.
>
>------------