The 21st session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) commenced its work at 10:33 AM on Monday, 8 November 2010.
This unusually quick start is perhaps indicative of Member States’ commitment to examine the three substantive agenda items up for consideration during this five day negotiation; these three issues include: 1) protection of broadcasting organizations, 2) protection of audiovisual performances and 3) limitations and exceptions.
As a welcome step in transparency, in contrast to a prominent intergovernmental organization based in Geneva overlooking the lake with competence in international trade, WIPO is providing closed captioning available at the following link: http://streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=WIPO. The electronic key to access this service is: wipo4me. This close captioning provided much of the source material for this blog.
Here are some highlights from the morning session. Assistant Director General Trevor Clarke opened the deliberations by exhorting Member States to “advance the work of the SCCR” and to “compromise on the language that is persistently causing these difficulties in reaching conclusions” on future work relating to limitations and exceptions, the protection of audiovisual performances and the protection of broadcasting organizations. The Chair (Jukka Liedes, Finland) urged members to adopt a ‘spirit of compromise’ recalling the difficult sessions of SCCR 18, 19 and 20. Mr. Liedes outlined his objective to reach conclusions by 6 PM on Friday, 12 November 2010 in contrast to the midnight sessions of the last two Committee meetings.
France, on behalf of Group B (industrialized countries), opened SCCR 21’s round of general interventions. Here are some key extracts from the Group B statement.
We continue to support the conclusion of a treaty on the protection of performances in audiovisual media for we believe such an international legal instrument would greatly contribute to cultural and economic development as well as promote cultural diversity. In view of the proposals made by several Member States since the last session of this Committee, holding consultations would be all the more useful
Group B also remains convinced of the need of a treaty to address the challenges of signal piracy encountered by broadcasting organizations. We think such a normative solution should be found rapidly.
On exceptions and limitations, Group B recognizes the special needs of persons with print disabilities which Group B members already address in their national and regional legislation. The careful examination of possible solutions in this Committee reinforces our conviction that the dual track approach involving taking forward both the work of the stakeholders platform and a potential international instrument promises to be the most likely to produce concrete results.
We commend the work done by the platform with the recent launching of its new project TIGAR which will facilitate the transmission of publishers titles to trusted intermediaries. We would like to remind everyone that there are two proposals on the table from Group B members, Each tackle the main obstacle to the access to the protected works for people with print disabilities, namely, the cross-border issue.
We look forward to having substantive discussions on this issue, for we believe working on the substance can help us make progress. We also stand prepared to discuss in future work of this Committee the other important issues under exceptions and limitations raised by the African group.
Bangladesh took the floor on behalf of the Asian Group. The delegate also expressed regret that the 20th Session could not reach an agreed outcome”. With respect to the protection of broadcasting organizations, the Asian Group took note of Part 3 of Professor Robert Picard’s study on the Socioeconomic Dimension of the Unauthorized Use of Signals which reinforced the need for expanded limitations and exceptions in the public interest in any instrument designed to combat signal piracy. With respect to limitations and exceptions, the Asian Group stated:
The Asian Group adds great importance to sharing a balance between the right holders and the larger public interest. Exceptions and limitations to copyright are crucial in this regard. The Asian Group wishes to thank the Secretariat for the updated report on the questionnaire which should be a useful basis for furthering our discussions in this Committee.
With respect to the issue of greater access to copyright protected works by the visually impaired and other print disabled persons, the Asian Group appreciates the work being done in the WIPO Stakeholders’ Platform. We welcome the fourth interim report of the Stakeholders’ Platform and appreciate the progress that’s being made at the Stakeholders’ Platform. It is encouraging to learn about the launch of the project to facilitate access to visually impaired persons to published works.
Mr. Chairman, it is our firm belief that norm-setting in WIPO should not be seen as limited to intellectual rights and protection but should reflect a broader social and development context if WIPO is to remain the principle international body responsible for intellectual property it’s norm-setting activities should reflect the broader context of current IP debates and if possible try to address some ramifications of IP which spill over onto other sectors, especially those concerning the common good.
With a view to bringing in a greater balance the Asian Group considers it is important to have a framework for safeguarding the public interest which is now being dealt with as exceptions and limitations clauses since such a framework does not currently exist. In this context our group would like to reiterate our readiness to proceed with the work on the basis of the treaty proposal put forward by Brazil, Ecuador Paraguay and Mexico as well as the other proposals which had been put forward during the last session. As all of us in this Committee seem to be in agreement that something needs to be done to alleviate the situation with persons with print disabilities the Asian group urges that this Committee moves forward on substantive discussions and not preempt any outcome at this stage in this particular regard. At the same time we hope that this Committee commences a broader and more meaningful discussion on establishing a normative framework for exceptions and limitations encompassing other areas of public policies.
In this context the group suggests that future work programme for this Committee be comprehensive in nature with the possible sequential approach being built into the programme to facilitate substantive discussions on issues that have attained a certain degree of maturity. Mr. Chairman, these are some of the broad comments that we had wished to make on behalf of the group, individual Member States of the group would express their own specific viewpoints in separate statements.
Brazil, on behalf of the Development Agenda Group, made a strong statement concerning the protection of broadcasting organizations noting that the main concern of the Development Agenda Group was
related to the risk that granting stronger copyright protection or additional rights protection measures will increase costs and affect access to broadcasts in developing countries. In order to better understand the issues involved member countries of this Committee requested the Secretariat at the 18th Session to commission a study to take stock of the current condition of the broadcasting environment and social economic dimensions of unauthorized use of signals. That study by, prepared by Professor Picard will be discussed in this session this is an interesting study and we look forward to discussing it in great detail under the appropriate item it has the perspective of multiple stakeholders and looks at social welfare and how to safeguard public interest.
The study by Professor Picard finds for example that the array of data and analysis needed to directly measure or forecast the effects of the treaty with accuracy are not yet available this is partly due to the uncertainty about the overall scope and scale of the losses due to unauthorized use discovered by that treaty.
The study also clearly establishes the differences in how theft or piracy of signals differ from piracy of copyright goods such as books, DVDs, et cetera and notes the economic effect of signal piracy is weaker for broadcasting and cablecasting as compared to copyright groups and may not affect company revenue depending on consumer demand issues. This is an example of highlights from this study prompt us us to recall that anyone working the SCCR must be pursuing the line of mandate given to reach by the General Assembly.
The mandate of the 2007 General Assembly states that:
the subject of broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations be retained on the agenda of the SCCR for its regular sessions and consider convening of a Diplomatic Conference only after agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection has been achieved.