[Ecommerce] Notes from WIPO GA discussion on Broadcast Treaty

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Notes from September 28, 2004

These are my notes from the session on the broadcast treaty at the WIPO
General Assembly.

Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
CPTech

-------

Protection of Broadcasting Organizations


Deputy Director-General Rita Hayes: Mrs. Hayes noted that the WIPO
Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
(WPPT) of 1996 did not cover the protection of broadcasting
organizations. Consequently, the Standing Committee on Copyright and
Related Rights (SCCR) began a program of work on a treaty for the
Protection of Broadcast Organizations. She remarked that document
WO/GA/31/7 stated that:

=93the WIPO General Assembly is recommended to consider, beginning at its
September/October session in 2004, the possibility of convening, at an
appropriate time, a diplomatic conference on the protection of
broadcasting organizations=94 (WO/GA/31/7).

She noted that the final operative paragraph of document WO/GA/31/7
(para 4):


The WIPO General Assembly is invited to note the information contained
in the present document and to consider approving the convening of a
Diplomatic Conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations to
be organized at an appropriate time.



Mrs. Hayes noted that the 11th session of the SCCR took place from June
7 to 9, 2004. The next session of SCCR will take place between November
17-19, 2004 (Point 4) of WO/GA/31/7. The Chair of the 11th Session of
the SCCR is working on a consolidated draft text for a proposed treaty
for the protection of broadcast organizations.

India: The representative from India cited Article 14 of the TRIPS
Agreement which calls for protection to broadcasters, performers and
sound recorders. He noted that India has already implemented the
obligations of Article 14. The representative of India asserted that the
ambit of the broadcast treaty served a TRIPS plus agenda. He noted that
developing countries were having difficulties implementing Article 14 of
the TRIPS Agreement and had difficulty ascertaining the implications of
TRIPS obligations. The representative of India emphasized that the TRIPS
Agreement should contribute to the transfer of technology as detailed in
purpose and objectives of the TRIPS Agreement. He maintained that there
was no broad consensus on this treaty in the SCCR. He noted that the
treaty also serve the interest of content creators and society at large.
The representative from India was at a loss for words to the final
operative recommendation of document WO/GA/31/7. The General Assembly
had not read the consolidated draft text. India wanted to adop the
language from final operative paragraph of WO/GA/31/4 for the General
Assembly =93take note=94 for consideration but modified appropriately with
respect to document WO/GA/31/7. India indicated the need to read the
consolidated text before approving the text at the General Assembly.
India requested that this decision be suitably amended.

Egypt (African Group): The African Group is in favor of protection for
broadcasters but wants balanced protection that takes into account all
stakeholders. The priority is to promote access to knowledge. There are
still considerable differences in the scope of protection. African
wisdom promotes care and caution. It would be desirable to abide by the
actual text of the Chair=92s recommendation.

Japan: Japan noted that extensive discussions on the protection of
broadcasting organizations at the SCCR since 1998. It is extremely
important to establish broadcasting treaty. Japan wanted a decision on
Diplomatic Conference.

Mexico: Mexico was in favor of convening Diplomatic Conference once a
consensus was reached.

Netherlands (European Community and its Member States): The Netherlands
indicated that there was a need a treaty for the protection for
broadcasting organizations. The EU was in favor of a decision to convene
a Diplomatic Conference at an appropriate time. This decision should be
taken by the General Assembly based on the SCCR=92s recommendation.

China: The representative from China indicated that making a decision on
an appropriate time is difficult. There must be a balance of interests
in this treaty. This treaty should not neglect the protection of AV
performers.

South Africa: South Africa supported the African Group and India. The
information to be debated in November 2004 is relevant for the decision
making process. This should be an agenda item in September 2005.

Brazil: Brazil noted that several of provisions in the treaty proposal
are controversial: webcasting, provisions on technological provision
measures, cablecasting rights, and extension of casting rights.. These
treaties must take into account consumer interests., limitations and
exceptions. The broadcast treaty must not hinder free and open access to
the public domain. The limitations on access to knowledge run contrary
to the MDGs and the objectives of the World Summit on the Information
Society. The proposed treaty deals with complex subject matter. Brazil
agrees with calls for signal protection based approach. In the spirit of
SCCR recommendation, Brazil called for keeping this item as an agenda
item in the next GA in 2005.

Canada: Canada recognized the merits of a Diplomatic Conference at an
appropriate time but it noted that it would be impossible to assess this
decision till a consolidated text is presented Nov 2004. Canada noted
its support that the protection of broadcasters remain an agenda item
for the General Assemblies in 2005.

USA: The US noted that the June SCCR passed a resolution that the
General Assembly would make a decision to convene Diplomatic Conference
based on the decision of the SCCR. The US urged the General Assembly to
authorize the scheduling of a Diplomatic Conference.

Chair: The Chair noted that there was unanimity in this idea: Nobody
challenged the idea of convening a Diplomatic Conference. Nobody
considered it possible to decide on a date today. He recommended that
the General Assembly could say yes to a Diplomatic Conference but was
not in a position to determine a date.

The Chair indicated that there were two options.

The first options was that the Assembly agree to put this topic as an
agenda item for the Assembly in September/October 2005. He noted that
from that date, it could take at least 6 months to convene a Diplomatic
Conference.

The second option was that after the SCCR completed its work, WIPO could
convene an extraordinary General Assembly. This decision would needed
unanimity from all Members and a formal agreement from all Members. It
was not for a SCCR to determine the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.


India: India noted that the chair wanted to quickly advance an agenda.
India stressed that there was one article in the proposed treaty which
kept the General Assembly from convening a Diplomatic Conference. There
existed very substantial differences among Member States. India noted
that it was not standard practice to convene extraordinary session of
GA. India emphasized that it was very expensive for WIPO convene an
extraordinary session of the General Assembly. India noted that the
Organization is facing very severe financial difficulties.

Chair=92s decision:

=93The General Assembly requests the Standing Committee on Copyright and
Related Rights to accelerate its work. The "Protection of Broadcasting
Organization" will remain an agenda item at the next General Assembly in
2005. The General Assembly in 2005 will decide, at an appropriate time,
on the possibility of convening of a Diplomatic Conference."