[Ecommerce] member states quotes re webcasting treaty
Manon Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org
Sat Sep 24 10:36:36 2005
What did they say regarding webcasting?
In their own words, direct quotes from Member States on webcasting
from the WIPO Reports of Session 12 (November 2004), 11 (June 2004)
and 10 (November 2003)
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/topic.jsp?group_id=3D62
************************************************************************
**
Twelfth Session
Geneva, November 17 to 19, 2004
SCCR/12/4
34. The Delegation of Algeria "It was important to reiterate that
the scope of protection for a possible treaty should not cover
webcasting and that it should respect the rights of authors and
performers."
46. The Delegation of Bangladesh "At the international level, it
took the view that webcasting should be excluded from discussions on
the scope of protection."
47. The Delegation of New Zealand: There remained significant
opposition to the inclusion of =93webcasting=94. The Internet had
created many challenges for copyright systems around the world. At
the international level, however, it was perhaps prudent to clarify
and update the rights of traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, a
matter long outstanding, and deal with webcasting at a later stage so
that further discussions could be undertaken on that technology."
50. The Delegation of the Russian Federation: "The scope of
protection should not cover webcasting."
51. The Delegation of Colombia: "Webcasting was an important issue
in the present technological environment. At the international
level, however, it was perhaps premature to deal with it at present.
It would be better to address that issue at a later stage and
concentrate now on more traditional issues. Moreover, regulation of
webcasting could imply the necessity of dealing with the status and
government regulation of webcasters, which greatly differed from
those of traditional broadcasters."
52. The Delegation of Zambia "supported the statement made on
behalf of the African Group by the Delegation of Egypt. [...] The
role and importance of new technologies, such as webcasting and
simulcasting, was fully understood in some countries, but in Africa
those issues were not ripe for legislation and it would be
counterproductive to anticipate how those technologies would
develop. Therefore, the Delegation could not support the inclusion
of any of those alternatives in the treaty as further information and
awareness were necessary."
53. The Delegation of China: "The protection of webcasting raised
some concern; the priority should be to regulate the behavior of
webcasting organizations, since webcasters=92 rights had impinged on
the rights of content owners. The issue had to be left aside, or, at
least, the protection should not been made mandatory. The issue
could be dealt with at a later stage."
54. The Delegation of Togo: "The protection of program-carrying
signals could be supported, whereas the protection of webcasting
organizations required further study since it was an emerging
activity in developing countries. It would be premature to legislate
without knowing the full implications of that activity."
184. The Delegation of Mexico expressed "could not support the
inclusion of webcasting as an object of protection."
************************************************************************
*****
Eleventh Session
Geneva, June 7 to 9, 2004
SCCR/11/4
27. The Delegation of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, noted
the need to agree on a framework for the final treaty, and identified
a number of issues for debate. Webcasting was a complex matter from
both technical and legal viewpoints, and as recent technological
developments were not sufficiently developed to be regulated, that
issue should not be included in the Text of any draft treaty for the
protection of broadcasting organizations. More time was required to
analyze the economic and social implications of a specific protection
for webcasters.
28. The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African
Group: "It would not be appropriate to include webcasting in a
possible instrument, as this raised complex issues with technical and
legal implications under constant change, and their impact was
therefore not yet fully understood by many Member States."
33. The Delegation of Norway: "The issue of webcasting should be
left out of the instrument, in order to focus on the imminent needs
of traditional broadcasting organizations and the issue should be
further analyzed."
46. The Delegation of India "said that the Consolidated Text
ignored the consensus reached by many delegations in previous
sessions with regard to the inopportune inclusion of webcasters in a
future treaty. Protection for webcasters as well as cablecasters was
far beyond the necessary legal protection needed for neighboring
rights holders."
50. The Delegation of Egypt stated "The Delegation was against the
inclusion of webcasters in the treaty."
51. The Delegation of Brazil "It found that the inclusion of
webcasting in the Consolidated Text was unacceptable. It recalled
that the level of opposition among delegations in previous SCCR
sessions had been overwhelming. Excluding webcasting from debate
would be a significant contribution."
52. The Delegation of Argentina "supported the statements of
previous delegations regarding discussing protection of webcasters."
53. The Delegation of Australia "The Delegation was not in a
position to support the protection of webcasters."
54. The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran "was in favor
of the inclusion of broadcasting and cablecasting and opposed to the
inclusion of webcasters in the future treaty."
55. The Delegation of Chile "said that some of the fundamental
pillars of copyright were its limitations and exceptions, as well as
the public domain. It was of the view that the protection of
cablecasters and webcasters, apart from being a serious risk for the
protection of other stakeholders, might cause considerable damage to
the aforesaid pillars. It noted that the impact that such additional
protection could have in developing countries had not been
sufficiently analyzed by the Committee."
56. The Delegation of Egypt "clarified what might have been a
misinterpretation of its previous statement. It said that it fully
supported what the Delegation of Brazil had stated regarding the
protection of webcasters. The Delegation of Egypt was opposed to the
inclusion of that category of beneficiaries in a future treaty too."
57. The Delegation of Singapore "clarified that webcasting had not
been included in its proposal."
************************************************************************
******
Tenth Session
Geneva, November 3 to 5, 2003
SCCR/10/5
The Delegation of Senegal "It recalled the concerns it had expressed
during the previous session of the Committee with regard to the
proposed protection for webcasting organizations. That particular
issue required more information and analysis in order to allow
delegations to establish a better-informed position." 13 p.4
The Delegation of China: "Referring to the scope or objects of
protection, the Delegation concurred with the statement of the
Delegation of Australia, in particular as to the exclusion of
webcasting from any protection to be granted to broadcasters. In the
Delegation=92s country the Internet was a new media, and webcasting was
in its early stages of development, such that the issue of its
protection needed further review and consideration. It noted that
copyright and performers=92 rights were regularly infringed on the
Internet, although it was not yet clear how to ensure their
protection. While its country was committed to active involvement in
the discussions, it was also important to study the issue of
webcasting further, and to regulate any protection of webcasters in a
separate instrument. Encryption and decryption were technological
measures that were adequately addressed by the WCT and the WPPT, and
should otherwise be regulated by domestic law. Therefore, it would
be inappropriate to discuss such issues as separate rights of
broadcasting organizations." 23 p.6
The Delegation of New Zealand: "[...]the best way to proceed at the
international level would be to first concentrate on the protection
of traditional broadcasts and, as the Delegation of Australia had
indicated, deal with webcasting at a later stage. 25 p.7
The Delegation of Brazil: "[...]for some of the new issues introduced
in the discussion, such as webcasting, the social dimension was far
from evident. Information and communication technologies could play
an important role in narrowing the digital and knowledge divide, but
existing asymmetry would be exacerbated if rapidly evolving issues
such as webcasting were dealt with hastily. Before establishing a
timetable for future discussions, it was necessary to clearly assess
areas in which progress could be made. The Delegation opposed the
inclusion of webcasting in a future Treaty on broadcasting. " 26 p.7
The Delegation of Bangladesh: "shared the view that webcasting should
be dealt with in a separate treaty." 27 p.7
The Delegation of Kyrgyzstan "supported a new treaty limited to
traditional broadcasting" 28 p.7
The Delegation of Mexico: "[...]webcasting was an issue that
deserved to be dealt with in future discussions and not in the
present framework." 29 pp.7-8
The Delegation of Egypt "[...]stated its reservations to expanding
protection to include webcasting. In accord with the position of the
African Group, it noted that the situation with respect to webcasting
raised complex technical and legal issues that were under constant
change, and therefore required further discussion. A balanced
position required that protection be given to the signal and not the
content of broadcasts. The Delegation stated that any future
agreement or treaty instrument should be based on proposals that met
general agreement and not those that remained controversial." 33 pp.8-9
The Delegation of India: "The Committee would have to firm up on the
definitions of new words and terms relative to the broadcasting
issues, such as webcasters, cablecasters, etc., so as to make things
clearly understood and these would only enhance the public interest
and its right to access information." 34 p.9
************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607