WIPO

The following interviews were recorded during the 24th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). Most of the interviews are focused on the negotiations on a new WIPO treaty for persons who are blind or have other disabilities. The time of the videos varies from 16 seconds to more than 18 minutes. They are organized by the type of stakeholder, and the date of the interviews. This page will be updated during the meeting as I add more videos. Continue Reading →

Below is the statement that Shira Perlmutter of USPTO delivered for the US government on July 18, 2012, at the WIPO SCCR 24 meeting in Geneva. As noted in the statement, the United States is calling for a “single text.” The nature of the instrument is “a treaty.” The U.S. wants the treaty to cover the “signal” without a set term (some earlier proposals had called for 20 to 50 years of protection). The treaty would protect “traditional” broadcasters, defined as over the air, satellite and cable broadcasting. Continue Reading →

This statement was delivered by Brazil on 19 July 2012 in the plenary of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). In this statement, Brazil stressed that negotiations on a Treaty for Visually Impaired Persons not be linked to discussions on a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations.

Mr Chairman,

Continue Reading →

WBU: we look forward to the revision tomorrow and we will study carefully. We see ourselves as technical advisors and we are available today and tomorrow for consultation.

STM (publishers); we have been supportive. But framework should not undermine publishers ambition….a legal instrument should be limited where there is no existing …it has to be limited to the essential. Should also be mindful to respect flexibilities. Authorized entities can be trusted By all stakeholders. that could be provided if operationaly prepared and ….

Continue Reading →

ARTICLE F1 OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES

Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means to enjoy the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.

Continue Reading →

During the three hours of informal negotiations, I am told the discussions focused on among the definition, the first paragraph regarding “authorized entity”

[in SCCR23/7 Auhtorized entities]

means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or non-profit organization that has as one of its activities to assist persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access needs, in accordance with national law.

Continue Reading →

The WIPO SCCR 24 delegates are still meeting behind closed doors (no NGOS and no streaming nor recording). I heard they are still talking about the definitions (see below) and that the 5pm plenary is delayed. Yesterday and this morning we heard quite a bit about “works” and “authorized entity”. If they agreed on these maybe they are now arguing over the meaning of “reasonable price for developed countries” and “reasonable price for developing countries”

SCCR/23/7 ORIGINAL: English DATE: December 16, 2011

ARTICLE A DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of these provisions
Continue Reading →

Today the discussion on the definition of “authorized entity” has started. It is one of the important and technical issues that could make a treaty good or bad, useful or ineffective.

An “authorized entity” or AE is the institution that provides the works in accessible format to the people with visual impairments who are the beneficiaries of the future treaty. Depending on how broad or narrow or inclusive v. restrictive the definition gets to be by the end of the negotiation, access is conditioned.

Some of the questions this morning:

Continue Reading →