SCCR 21: General statement of Group B (covering broadcasting, AV protection and limitations and exceptions)Submitted by thiru on 9. November 2010 - 0:18
The following general statement was delivered by France, on behalf of Group B, on the first day (8 November 2010) of SCCR 21.
Group B opening statement
I thank you M. Chair,
Group B is glad to welcome you back in Geneva for this 21st session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which we hope will be a productive one.
In this intervention dated 24 June 2010, Turkey (a member of Group B), made the following unequivocal, nuanced statement before the 20th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of why a WIPO treaty for reading disabled persons is the most effective global solution to solve the problems of reading disabled persons in accessing protected works.
Group B has offered amendments to a proposed conclusion for the WIPO SCCR 18 meeting. The amendments are designed to eliminate any agreement to discuss a treaty for blind and reading disabled persons at the next meeting of the SCCR. The United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, the Holy See (the Vatican), the members of the European Union and other high income countries have joined in this statement. Later the EU offered an even blunter opposition to the treaty proposals. I have blogged about our disappointment in the Obama Administration on the Huffington Post here.
Proposal of Group B for Recommendation to the Assembly
The Working Group of the PCT recognizes the willingness of all Contracting Parties to commit to developing the PCT in order to meet the needs of all applicants, Offices, third parties and the general public. Following its discussion of the roadmap presented in the document PCT/WG/2/3, the PCT Working Group makes the following recommendations to the Assembly.
While some of the news reports have focused on north/south disputes over limitations and exceptions to rights in the WIPO Broadcasting treaty, there is a also a growing divide between North America (US and Canada) on the one hand, and Europe and Japan, on the other, over the nature of the rights in the treaty. The EU position (followed by Japan), which is being pushed by the very non-neutral Finish chair, is for Rome+ rights, to reward investment, not creativity.