[Ecommerce] Quick glance at the new draft from WIPO?

[Manon Ress]

Quick glance at the new broadcasters, cablecasters and webcasters=92 treaty=
.

<>Webcasters are still in. See Definitions Article 2 (bt ) p.23, Scope 3
(alt e) p.29. They are included. But still a problem.

National Treatment Article 5. 2 alternatives p.37:

Alt J limits to exclusive rights specifically granted in the new
instrument (more support according to explanatory comments) Follows Rome
and WPPT model.

Alt K (US and Egypt) global national treatment extending to any rights
that contracting parties do now or hereafter grant to their nationals.
Follows Berne and WCT model.

<>
Right of transmission Article 6 p.39. Canada had proposed language to
have a reservation clause (see p. 38 of explanatory comments) as well as
Argentina in its proposal. However, there's nothing in the drat
provision! <>

Rights to communication to the public Article 7 p.41. Alternative M had
more support. It opens the possibility to limit the applicability by a
reservation (in US and in Egypt proposals)

Right of Fixation Article 8 p.43. According to notes, there=92s
convergence (p.42) and thus no alternative is proposed. That is if
there=92s convergence that the broadcasters should acquires more rights
than they already have and I=92m not sure that is really true. Note that
in a signal protection only proposal (and that is what the instrument
should be) the provision would not be necessary. If a broadcaster owns
the right in a program it can fix the program as it wishes. If the
broadcasting organization does not own the rights, it can license or
acquire the rights=85the right of fixation will give more rights to
powerful broadcasters and less will be left for creators.

<>Article 9-12 (pp.45-51). Rights of reproduction, distribution,
transmission following fixation, right of making available are all dealt
in the same manner. Since some members wanted to grant exclusive rights
(authorize AND prohibit) and others (like the US) *only* the right to
prohibit, the new draft has footnotes (1-4) that would combine both
approaches. Countries could establish, instead of exclusive rights, a
right to prohibit =85*only*.

<>Protection for signals prior to broadcasting Article 13. No change but
a note in comments about further discussions p.52.

<>Limitations and Exceptions Article 14 (p.55). Same as in June,
countries =93may=94 provide etc. (It should be =93must provide=94). Same
discussion on whether non-commercial broadcasting organizations
exceptions should be grandfathered in. I am not sure why this has not
received more support, it=92s a good one!

Good news on Term of Protection Article 15 p.57. An Alternative (EE)
with 20 years (instead of the 50 years of DD) has finally been added.
Singapore and India should hopefully get more support at the next session.

<>Technological Measures Article 16. There was a lot of controversies
about this (see report and explanatory comments) and questions on the
impact on access to the public domain at last session. Maybe Alternative
V which goes very far will not get much support?

<>Re Rights management information Article 17, the explanatory comments
are puzzling: =93a high degree of convergence in the substance of this
Article is emerging=94. I check the Report. True there was little talk of
17 but it is linked to 16 and I would not describe it as with a =93high
degree of convergence=94. <>

I=92m sure there are many other things to look at carefully=85I'm looking
forward to reading your comments.

Have a good weekend,

Manon

--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology, www.cptech.org PO Box 19367, Washington, DC=
 20036
T.: 1.202.387.8030, f.: 1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des Morillons CP 2100 121=
1 Geneva 2
Switzerland Tel: 41 22 791 6727