Manon Ress on Day 3 of WIPO SCCR

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Random-bits] CPTech and UDP summaries of day 3 of WIPO
SCCR
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:28:54 -0500
From: James Love <[email protected]>
To: Random-bits <[email protected]>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Ecommerce] Notes from Day 3 Now Available]
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:28:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Manon Ress <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]

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:    [email protected]
Date:    Fri, November 19, 2004 12:15 pm
To:      [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------

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
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/broadcast-discuss


_______________________________________________
Ecommerce mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce

-- 
James Love | Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org | mailto:[email protected]
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176
_______________________________________________
Random-bits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits