[Ecommerce] Broadcasting treaty: is webcasting in or out?

[Manon Ress]

It's still not clear to me.  There's also all the procedure issues.  Not
clear either.
Manon

QUOTE:
"There were differences obviously between member states" of WIPO, Hayes
said. "Some proposals did not get any support at all." She said the
chairman removed those proposals, including the U.S. idea to include
webcasting, as he was asked to do by the delegates. The United States
voiced its support for moving forward anyway, she said.
END OF QUOTE

in Techdaily:
12-13-2004

Intellectual Property: Senior WIPO Official Defends Broadcasting Treaty
Procedure

Non-governmental groups and certain developing countries have
unnecessarily upset international intellectual property negotiations for
a broadcasters' rights treaty, a top treaty negotiator said in a recent
interview.

Rita Hayes, the World Intellectual Property Organization deputy
director-general responsible for copyright issues, defended the
procedure followed by the chairman of the standing committee on
copyrights in a recent meeting on the broadcasting treaty. In the
meeting, India suggested that committee Chairman Jukka Liedes of Finland
was not properly elected.

Hayes said a 1999 committee decision changed procedures, allowing the
then-outgoing chairman and vice chairman to be eligible for upcoming
sessions. "It didn't say one session," she said. In addition, at the
start of each session, there is a nomination for chair from the floor,
which is seconded before an election is held, she said.

"What is amazing to me is we had the same process with the Indian
delegation sitting there," and they did not disagree then, Hayes said.
The process is not unique to the copyright committee, she added.
Finally, she said if a change is desired, it must be brought to members'
attention and then an election held.

Hayes also finessed the complaint by Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India and
Iran that the chairman did not follow proper procedure in moving forward
with a draft treaty text. At the end of the meeting, the chairman asked
for a sense of the committee on whether to proceed, and the five
countries objected. But she downplayed their objections, arguing, "There
was an overwhelming sense of the committee" to move forward.

She added that many developing countries see the treaty as an
opportunity to "update a tremendous asset" and protect their economic
and cultural interests, as well as encourage investment.

She said the text does not represent a draft treaty but rather the
chairman's "recollection of how they had made progress over the past
two-and-a-half days." The committee began the meeting with a
"comprehensive collection of proposals," and the chairman "redrafted"
the proposals and "came with another consolidated text," she said.

"There were differences obviously between member states" of WIPO, Hayes
said. "Some proposals did not get any support at all." She said the
chairman removed those proposals, including the U.S. idea to include
webcasting, as he was asked to do by the delegates. The United States
voiced its support for moving forward anyway, she said.

Hayes also countered the charge by some consumer groups that the treaty
creates new and redundant rights. She argued that the 1961 treaty
covering broadcasters needs updating to reflect cable and satellite
changes and said the treaty would not make it more difficult for
consumers to access broadcasts.

She also said some countries that criticize a proposed 50-year term of
copyright protection as too long have even longer terms in their own
laws.

In addition, Hayes said the plan to now hold regional discussions is
standard procedure but could not say whether nonprofits will be allowed
to participate as they do in Geneva.

By William New

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

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel.:  1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727