[A2k] Bridges Weekly: WIPO COMMITTEE APPROVES BROADCAST TREATY AMIDST DISAGREEMENT

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

<SNIP>

Sceptics, from the high-tech industry, civil society, and many
developing countries, warn that if the treaty's scope remains wide, it
could end up substantially raising the costs of using broadcasted
material for personal or educational purposes, and could restrict the
entry of information into the public domain. Prior to the meeting,
several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and major multinational
companies, including Dell, Intel, and Sony, released a joint statement
saying that there was "no justification" for a new treaty. Some suggest
that the broadcast industry is simply trying to protect itself by
stymieing innovation in new digital technologies, as it unsuccessfully
attempted to do with the VCR in the 1980s.

During the talks in Geneva, negotiators observed that even such central
terms as "signal" and "broadcast" had not been clearly defined,
rendering it hard to clearly determine the precise scope of the treaty.
Developing countries including Brazil, India, Iran and Argentina
reiterated that any implicit or direct reference to webcasting and
simulcasting should be specifically excluded from protection under an
eventual treaty. The two forms of transmission over the internet were
split off from the negotiations at the SCCR's last meeting in May, in
the face of US opposition (see BRIDGES Weekly, 10 May 2006,
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-05-10/story3.htm). At the recent meeting,
most developing countries stressed that broadcasting should be
understood in the traditional sense, thereby excluding activities such
as transmission over the internet.

<SNIP>

Numerous countries expressed their disagreement over the initiative to
call for a diplomatic conference, both inside and outside the meeting
rooms. Nevertheless, Liedes deemed members to have consented "by
silence" at the end of the meeting to recommend convening one from 7
July to 1 August 2007. He said that the draft proposal (SCCR/15/2) would
constitute the working basis for this diplomatic conference, which would
aim at finalising a broadcast treaty, with 'broadcasting' to understood
in the traditional sense.

These conclusions elicited negative reactions from developing country
negotiators, who argued that the draft proposed treaty was far from
ready to form the basis of a diplomatic conference, given the divergence
of views on its content. India stated that since three meetings of the
SCCR had failed to produce consensus, this would likely happen at the
diplomatic conference as well. The US, too, expressed reservations on
making the draft proposal the basis for the conference, stating that
there were numerous uncertainties in it that would first need to be
resolved. WIPO meetings generally operate on the basis of consensus. On
being questioned by countries such as India about the level of support
for the committee's decision, Liedes said that that the call for a
diplomatic conference on the treaty was no more a recommendation for the
General Assembly to decide on.

<SNIP>

The Consumer Project on Technology's Thiru Balasubramaniam was
particularly critical of the way in which Liedes deemed the draft text
approved. "We feel that the chair, Jukka Liedes, deserves a red card for
his conduct during the negotiations, he said. "For the second
consecutive time, he silenced the voice of non-governmental
organizations --public interest and industry alike." The SCCR chair,
Balasubramaniam added, "steamrolled over the procedural and substantive
concerns expressed by the US, India, Bolivia, Argentina, Iran and Brazil
through a byzantine 'silent approval' vote. Proceeding to a diplomatic
conference with a 108 page text riddled with inconsistencies is a recipe
for disaster."


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

http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/index.htm

BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest - Vol. 10, Number 30 20 September 2006

WIPO COMMITTEE APPROVES BROADCAST TREATY AMIDST DISAGREEMENT

In spite of persistent differences over its content, a potential new
treaty to update the rights of broadcasters over their transmissions
received the backing of a World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO) committee on 13 September.

After discussions from 11-13 September, the chair of WIPO's Standing
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) decided that there was
sufficient consensus on the proposed agreement to send it to a
'diplomatic conference,' the final stage for the negotiation of a
treaty. Thus, even though the meeting left several member states feeling
unsettled, the committee will ask WIPO's General Assembly, which kicks
off on 25 September, to convene one in July 2007. Chair Jukka Liedes
(Finland) suggested that countries could discuss their remaining
disagreements in the interim, specifically alongside a January 2007
preparatory meeting for the diplomatic conference.

Differences on text persist

The nature and scope of rights conferred by the proposed treaty remain a
source of controversy. As it stands, the draft text would confer on
broadcasting and cablecasting organisations exclusive rights over
anything they transmit -- equivalent to a new intellectual property right.

US and EU broadcasters, who have strongly backed the negotiations, say
that they need such protections to prevent their signals from being
stolen and retransmitted on a large scale.

Sceptics, from the high-tech industry, civil society, and many
developing countries, warn that if the treaty's scope remains wide, it
could end up substantially raising the costs of using broadcasted
material for personal or educational purposes, and could restrict the
entry of information into the public domain. Prior to the meeting,
several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and major multinational
companies, including Dell, Intel, and Sony, released a joint statement
saying that there was "no justification" for a new treaty. Some suggest
that the broadcast industry is simply trying to protect itself by
stymieing innovation in new digital technologies, as it unsuccessfully
attempted to do with the VCR in the 1980s.

During the talks in Geneva, negotiators observed that even such central
terms as "signal" and "broadcast" had not been clearly defined,
rendering it hard to clearly determine the precise scope of the treaty.
Developing countries including Brazil, India, Iran and Argentina
reiterated that any implicit or direct reference to webcasting and
simulcasting should be specifically excluded from protection under an
eventual treaty. The two forms of transmission over the internet were
split off from the negotiations at the SCCR's last meeting in May, in
the face of US opposition (see BRIDGES Weekly, 10 May 2006,
http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/06-05-10/story3.htm). At the recent meeting,
most developing countries stressed that broadcasting should be
understood in the traditional sense, thereby excluding activities such
as transmission over the internet.

An important point of contention was whether or not technological
protection measures (TPMs; for example, 'broadcast flags' that make
transmissions unrecordable) should be included within the scope of the
draft treaty. The treaty currently contains an option to exclude TPMs,
which has placated many developing countries. The US and some other
developed countries, on the other hand, would like to see such measures
covered by the treaty.

Supporters of narrowing the scope of treaty rights and excluding TPMs
argue that both are necessary to protect access to knowledge,
information in the public domain, and personal use. Countries such as
South Africa stressed that any treaty would need to maintain an
appropriate balance between the economic interests of the broadcasting
organisations and the freedom of expression of individuals. Other
governments cautioned that a treaty might adversely affect competition.

To address these concerns, many countries asked for the flexibility to
determine limitations and exceptions to treaty obligations, in order to
suit specific national needs and conditions. They emphasised the need
for the policy space to draft provisions reflective of their own
priorities and interests. Yet again, member states differed widely, and
the issue was passed on to the diplomatic conference -- in the event, of
course, that the General Assembly agrees to convene one.

Diplomatic conference scheduled for July 2007

Numerous countries expressed their disagreement over the initiative to
call for a diplomatic conference, both inside and outside the meeting
rooms. Nevertheless, Liedes deemed members to have consented "by
silence" at the end of the meeting to recommend convening one from 7
July to 1 August 2007. He said that the draft proposal (SCCR/15/2) would
constitute the working basis for this diplomatic conference, which would
aim at finalising a broadcast treaty, with 'broadcasting' to understood
in the traditional sense.

These conclusions elicited negative reactions from developing country
negotiators, who argued that the draft proposed treaty was far from
ready to form the basis of a diplomatic conference, given the divergence
of views on its content. India stated that since three meetings of the
SCCR had failed to produce consensus, this would likely happen at the
diplomatic conference as well. The US, too, expressed reservations on
making the draft proposal the basis for the conference, stating that
there were numerous uncertainties in it that would first need to be
resolved. WIPO meetings generally operate on the basis of consensus. On
being questioned by countries such as India about the level of support
for the committee's decision, Liedes said that that the call for a
diplomatic conference on the treaty was no more a recommendation for the
General Assembly to decide on.

Though unable to voice their opinions during the meetings, civil society
and industry representatives expressed serious objections to the treaty.

A representative of a performers' organization in Europe noted that
member states were considering updating broadcasters' rights under the
1961 Rome Convention while performers' rights had been in cold storage
for about as many years.

The Consumer Project on Technology's Thiru Balasubramaniam was
particularly critical of the way in which Liedes deemed the draft text
approved. "We feel that the chair, Jukka Liedes, deserves a red card for
his conduct during the negotiations, he said. "For the second
consecutive time, he silenced the voice of non-governmental
organizations --public interest and industry alike." The SCCR chair,
Balasubramaniam added, "steamrolled over the procedural and substantive
concerns expressed by the US, India, Bolivia, Argentina, Iran and Brazil
through a byzantine 'silent approval' vote. Proceeding to a diplomatic
conference with a 108 page text riddled with inconsistencies is a recipe
for disaster."

The future of the proposed broadcast treaty will be determined by the
upcoming WIPO General Assembly, which is also set to consider the fate
of a series of proposals to integrate developmental concerns into every
aspect of the organisation's functioning.

ICTSD reporting; "WIPO: Broadcast Treaty Moving Forward Despite
Objections" GWEN HINZE and THIRU BALASUBRAMANIAM
(http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004913.php), 16 September; "WIPO
Broadcasting Treaty Advances Past Disagreements," INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
WATCH, 14 September 2006; "Proposed Treaty on TV Signals Spurs
Criticism," LA TIMES, 13 September 2006.