[Random-bits] CPTech and UDP summaries of day 3 of WIPO SCCR

Fri Nov 19 18:37:01 2004

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Ecommerce] Notes from Day 3 Now Available]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:28:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Manon Ress <manon.ress@cptech.org>
To: Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
CC: david.tannenbaum@economics.oxford.ac.uk

Dear colleagues,

Find below UPD comments and the verbatim notes about the last day of the
Wipo standing commitee on copyright and related rights in Geneva.

My take on it is somewhat different:

Good news:
1)limitations and exceptions for the visually impaired, the libraries 
and educators will be on the next SCCR agenda (maybe June 2005?).  I 
hope the range of stakeholders will somehow become broader?  What about 
private use for example?
2) the performers and other content holders (CISAC and IFPI for 
exampleamong the 14 signatories of a statement) expressed "loud and 
clear" that they are not against the proposed treaty but against almost 
everything in it...except TPMs. The content owners do see the problems 
with giving the casters competing rights (but there's some tricky 
conflicts among them since some of them are both content owners and casters)
3) There were more public interests groups and even though there were 
almost no time for us to speak out, no coffee breaks to exchange 
information with delegates, our papers were found two days in a row in 
the trash, we managed to make our points somehow and got many good vibes 
from delegates who welcomed our input.

Bad news:
1)TPMs got more support from delegates.
2) there's a dangerous proposal to have "flexibility" regarding the 
inclusion of webcasters.  3 options are on the table: the US way:  to 
give them same rights as broadcasters, the EU way, rights to the 
"simulcasters" or webcasters linked to webcasters would get rights, and 
the "no inclusion and thus no new rights for webcasters"(all other 
countries).  There will be reservations or "options" for countries to 
chose what they want to give their casters.  I'm not sure how that would 
help them fight signal piracy on a global internet but maybe the point 
for them is just to get into the exclusive rights status?  Then it will 
be up to the US to push the new norm?
3) Because they have to speed up the process, delegations agreed on 
possible regional meetings but the Chair would not agree to the 
additional possibility of having an open intersessional 
intergovernmental meeting (open to NGOs)and in Geneva.  The opposition 
on this subject was quite surprising.  The rational for the good 
proposal to have intergovernmental meeting in Geneva was that the 
controversial issues are cross regions more than regional (most 
countries in same regions shared their opposition to giving exclusive 
rights to webcasters.
4) Because of this "disagreement" between the chair (who did not want to 
change anything in HIS conslusions but wanted the committee to "join 
in", the day ended with harsh words and a vote that did not seem quite 
right. I thought WIPO was a consensual organizations.  Maybe they'll 
start voting regularly and in other committee now?

that would be interesting to watch.
Manon

----------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [Broadcast-discuss] Notes from Day 3 Now Available
From:    davidt@public-domain.org
Date:    Fri, November 19, 2004 12:15 pm
To:      broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.public-domain.org/node/view/66

The end of this session was truly amazing. Brazil made a strong push
against including suggestions for regional conferences. They pointed out
that the method suggested by the chair departed from the written
recommendations from the previous meeting. A number of countries agreed,
and India suggested alternative language.

Serbia objected on a point of order that India should not have been able
to make a substantive point on a previous point of order. India then
argued that the rules of procedure had been violated in the past, as 
when the chair was elected for back-to-back sessions. India suggested 
that the personal views of one member (the chair) should not be included 
in the report of a committee that was supposed to operate by committee.

Zambia intervened, and the chair then took a show of hands on whether 
his conclusions should go into the committee report. The majority were 
in favor of including the recommendations. The chair then gave a short 
speech on democracy and enthusiastic applause from the back of the room 
ensued.

This summary doesn't do justice to the drama -- be sure to read the last
1/3 of Day 3's notes.

David
_______________________________________________
Broadcast-discuss mailing list
Broadcast-discuss@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss

_______________________________________________
Ecommerce mailing list
Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

-- 
James Love | Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176