[Ecommerce] Intellectual Property Watch: WIPO Takes Broadcasting Treaty Negotiation Outside Geneva

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

/http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php/72

----------------------
/


    4/7/2005


      WIPO Takes Broadcasting Treaty Negotiation Outside Geneva



Filed under:

    * English <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?cat=3D1>
    * WIPO <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?cat=3D13>
    * Broadcasting <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?cat=3D43>

by William New @ 4:02 pm/


/

The World Intellectual Property Organisation, a Geneva-based U.N. body,
is holding informal, invitation-only talks on a treaty on broadcasters=92
rights around the world rather than at its headquarters.

The informal gatherings are not billed as negotiations, but rather are
regional consultations aimed at =93increasing governments=92 understanding
of the 16 treaty proposals and to further promote consensus at the
regional level,=94 according to a WIPO official who stressed that WIPO is
organising the meetings at the request of the host countries.

But some WIPO member governments and accredited non-governmental
organisations say they are concerned that WIPO will use the consensus it
reaches informally in the regions to move the issue forward at the full
multilateral level, which they say may be a tactic to dispel
coordinated, cross-regional opposition among seasoned negotiators in
Geneva. Many other member governments have supported the regional approach.

According to an official invitation letter sent by WIPO for this week=92s
Latin America and Caribbean regional consultation in Colombia and
obtained by IP-Watch, the regional meeting will discuss a =93new, revised
version=94 of the consolidated text of the treaty. The letter from Rita
Hayes, WIPO deputy director-general responsible for copyright issues,
was sent to technical experts in the governments, inviting them
=93personally=94 to attend the meeting and offering to pay much of their
expenses. Hayes is participating in all of the consultations, an
official said.

The October 2004 WIPO General Assembly directed the Standing Committee
on Copyright and Related Rights to accelerate progress toward the
conclusion of a broadcasting treaty. A copyright committee meeting in
November <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=3D6312>
addressed the issue but ended without agreement toward recommending a
diplomatic conference (a high-level negotiating meeting). WIPO maintains
that the chair=92s conclusion of the copyright committee meeting =93invited
the secretariat to organise regional consultations.=94

The conclusions of all the regional meetings will be available in a
separate document at the end of the consultative process, the WIPO
official said. The series of regional meetings end in late July, and the
General Assembly holds its annual meeting starting in late September.

Some skeptical governments argue that the consultation approach is
invalid since it arose from the November meeting whose outcome did not
have the required consensus or vote called for in WIPO procedures. At
the end of the meeting, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India and Iran
complained 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 in an interview at the time, Hayes
downplayed their objections, arguing there was an =93overwhelming sense of
the committee=94 to move forward.

Those same governments were among those who raised concerns about an
unrelated informal regional consultation in February on another issue
considered critical to developed countries and to WIPO=92s future =96 paten=
t
harmonisation. An invite-only February consultation in Casablanca,
Morocco resulted in general agreement on a way forward, but some members
said WIPO was not authorised to conduct substantive discussions without
full membership participation. Of the vocal opponents of patent
harmonisation, Brazil alone officially attended and at first stood alone
in its opposition to the consultation outcome. The Casablanca proposal
ran aground later in the spring when it came before the full WIPO
membership.

On the regional broadcasting treaty consultations, the WIPO official
said that member states have invited WIPO to organise the meetings. They
are =93part of a process,=94 and member states are not bound by the results
of the consultations, the official said, adding that the intent is to
improve understanding of the proposals submitted by 16 governments.

=93The consultations are also seeking to promote consensus and to move
forward on the few outstanding issues to facilitate the conclusion of
the negotiating process,=94 the official said. =93The regional meetings aim
to enable governments to finalize their position individually and
regionally on the proposals.=94 The program of each meeting is coordinated
by the General Assembly, according to WIPO.

WIPO Mulls Second Copyright Committee Meeting in Geneva

Part of the concern about the regional process appears to be that WIPO
typically holds two SCCR meetings during the year between General
Assembly meetings, but so far has held only one as the work-year is
drawing to a close. The first SCCR was held in November, just weeks
after the General Assembly, and now WIPO says it is looking at the
possibility of a second one before the next assemblies but wants to
complete the consultations first. The WIPO official also said the
three-part Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a possible
development agenda (to be completed on 22 July) and the August summer
break are creating scheduling conflicts.

The first regional consultation was for Arab countries, held in Rabat,
Morocco on 11 to 13 May. A separate consultation was held for rest of
the African countries in Nairobi, Kenya from 17 to 19 May. Then a
regional consultation for Caucasian, Central Asian and Eastern European
countries was held in Moscow, Russia from 8 to 10 June.

This week=92s consultation is in Cartagena, Colombia from 4 to 6 July. The
final two consultations will be for Central European and Baltic States
in Bucharest, Romania, and for Asia-Pacific countries in Manila, The
Philippines. All of the meetings are listed in English on WIPO=92s Website
as addressing the =93protection of broadcasting organisations,=94 except th=
e
Central European and Baltic States, which is on the =93rights=94
broadcasting organisations.

New Draft Texts On Treaty, Webcasting

As called for by the chair of the November SCCR meeting, WIPO has
drafted a revised version of the comprehensive treaty text and a
separate working paper on =93non-mandatory=94 alternatives for the
protection of webcasting and for simulcasting, which is webcasting by
broadcasters.

The new draft treaty text reflects discussions in the November meeting.
In November, the United States was isolated in its support for the
inclusion of webcasting in the broadcasting treaty, and it was agreed to
take it out for separate and later consideration. A compromise proposal
by the European Commission to include only simulcasting met with more
support but also was put aside because it was also seen as a type of
webcasting.

The webcasting working paper includes alternatives to extend protections
to webcasters and to webcasting broadcasters through provisions added to
the treaty or as a protocol to the treaty. One option would allow
countries to take reservations to the provision.

Non-governmental Groups Balk At Regional Strategy

Another effect of holding substantive meetings outside of Geneva is that
it makes it difficult for non-governmental groups opposing the treaty to
attend the talks.

=93It used to be that the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related
Rights met twice a year,=94 said Cory Doctorow, European affairs
coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. =93NGOs could turn up
at meetings because they are accredited=94 to attend in Geneva.

=93But they have venue-changed,=94 he said. =93In regional meetings, the
presence of NGOs is very ambiguous.=94

Doctorow said the purpose may to break up unified opposition in Geneva.
=93We see it as a divide and rule strategy,=94 he said. At the SCCR,
countries like Egypt, Brazil, India got together to oppose the
broadcasting treaty. Now those countries will have to face off somewhat
alone against their regions. =93It=92s like a teacher separating the naught=
y
students,=94 Doctorow said.

In addition, the change in venue came just after NGOs were =93making
headway=94 in their participation on the issue with the help of the
=93single logistics=94 of holding meetings in Geneva. =93All of the knowled=
ge
[of logistics such as where to stay cheaply] goes out the window,=94
Doctorow said. =93For cash-strapped NGOs, it=92s a fairly punishing blow.=
=94

Robin Gross, executive director of IP Justice, views the broadcasting as
a =93special interest=94 proposal to give new rights to broadcasting
companies that currently do not exist in national laws. An example she
gave is the proposal to give broadcasting companies new rights to
prohibit consumers from bypassing digital locks on programming, even if
it is in the public domain.

Artists also dislike the treaty out of concern that it will give new
rights to their performances to the broadcasting companies, Gross said.
IP Justice, which has analyzed the draft treaty section by section, has
published a =93top 10 reasons to reject the treaty
<http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/Top_10_reasons_WIPO.html>.=94

/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/>. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to
a Creative Commons License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/> which makes them
available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.=
/

/William New, the author of this post, may be reached at
wnew@ip-watch.org <mailto:wnew@ip-watch.org>./

/You can subscribe for automatic notifications of these stories, via the
RSS feed <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-rss2.php> or via the e-mail
alerts <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe.php>. Subscribers can
choose the frequency of notifications as well as particular topics of
greatest interest to them./