This is the document being discussed Thursday at #sccr30
Thanks to John E. Miller for the OCR version.
SCCR30 (Day 4): Discussion heats up on discussions on copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives
During WIPO's discussions of copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives at the 30th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR30, the Chair (Martin Moscoso) presented a non-paper, intended to guide discussions.
This is the prepared statement that Iran read on Wed, which was widely praised by access to known advocates.
Iran’s Statement on the limitations and exceptions
1 July 2015
The right to science, knowledge and culture is recognized in various basic human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
July 1, 2015 2d Morning Session
The morning started and ended with the clear impression that there was no consensus on whether definitions are needed or not regarding broadcasting organizations or broadcasting itself. Still, Romania and the Central European States and Balkans group as well as the Russian Federation were calling for text-based work and were talking about “a road map to a diplomatic conference.”
July 1, 2015 day 3
This morning, the SCCR continued with the discussion regarding two important definitions--definition of beneficiaries: who are they? How do you define a broadcaster? And also of course what is the definition of the act of broadcasting.
Attached are the three informal discussion papers distributed at SCCR 29, on the WIPO broadcast treaty. These papers were the product of member state negotiations. They include:
On day 2 at SCCR 30, Anne Leer tells delegates to make broadcasters happy, extend treaty to Internet
Anne Leer is the WIPO Deputy Director General for Culture and Creative Industries Sector, where she leads WIPO’s activities in the field of copyright and related rights. Not a familiar figure at WIPO, she joined the organisation in December 2014, coming from the commercial side of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). In addition to the BBC, she had previously worked for Paramount, Oxford University Press, and Financial Times/Pearson and Prentice Hall.
There is a very strong push for convening a diplomatic conference to approve the Broadcasting Treaty of the World Intellectual Property Organization at this week´s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in Geneva.
At stake is the freedom to share cultural material on the internet, the concentration of power of large incumbent broadcasters and in general opening up with yet another absurd layer of copyright protection of a pandora´s box of new abuses and threats to digital rights and access to knowledge.
The EU and the US have different approaches to the Broadcast Treaty. While the EU is pushing for the convening of a diplomatic conference to approve a Treaty with a broad scope, the US is in no hurry and would prefer an international legal instrument with a narrow scope. Most of the countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa are not at all enthusiastic about this treaty and instead would appreciate a Library Treaty to facilitate the public mission of lending, sharing and preservation by means of exceptions and limitations.
The EU represented by the European Commission is the main force pushing for a broadcasting treaty (despite the fact that practically no one in the European Parliament know even about the existence of this proposal) more than ever to add another level of copyright protection for “traditional” incumbent broadcasters from “piracy” of their programs, specially on the internet, including “deferred” or “post-fixation” use of any broadcast. This could mean opening up great threats for digital rights and access to culture.
The US only wants a “Single right” that protects broadcasters from piracy of direct “simultaneously or near simultaneous” broadcast signals, like a live sporting event. Which means no extra protection of later use of the broadcast on the Internet.
India is also against any attempt to include webcasting, simulcasting or anything that is not live broadcasting. Broadcasters should not be given any new rights in other platforms. They should not be given any “blanket rights” nor “post-fixation rights”. If we have a treaty India supports clear exceptions for education, non-commercial use and other public interests.
This is from the statement India read today at SCCR 30, on the topic of the broadcast treaty.
India is flexible in supporting the issue of unauthorized live transmission of signal over computer networks provided the broadcasting organization has rights over the content broadcast by it. India alternative proposals submitted at 26th session of SCCR are in complete conformity with the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly.
Not surprising: the European Union statement re the agenda:
Day 1 of SCCR 30 Information Session
Find a few Juicy bits from the long "Information Session on Broadcasting" that started this morning and was continued way passed the planned time of 4pm. It was also the least balanced panel I have ever seen at a WIPO SCCR. A handful of broadcasters, one media analyst, one journalist at the BBC, the WIPO Secretariat represented by Ann Leer (who worked for Paramount, Oxford University Press, BBC, and Financial Times/Pearson and the BBC).
Basically there was no one remotely critical of the proposed treaty nor any public interest representative.
Today we are in endless "informational" session, chaired by John Simpson from the BBC, and featuring big broadcasters from India (Zee Network), and Brazil (TV Globo), ABN Holdings Ltd (ABN) (A company headquartered England, about) and the Caribbean Communications Network Limited.
SCCR 30 Day 1 June 29, 2015
The SCCR 30 started with the same industry representatives we usually meet here: the MPA, FIJ, IAF, CISAC, Croplife, IFPI, ABA etc... There are also quite a large group of library and archives representatives (IFLA, eifl, Archives etc). However there are many empty chairs for the public interest or pro development NGOs. Some might arrive later?
EU TRADE DAY: Do trade agreements represent the forward march of “EU values” or are they “zombie deals” against the public interest?
EU Trade Day #EutradeDay took place on June 23rd organized by the Directorate General of Trade of the European Commission and attended by over 500 representatives of businesses, NGO´s, consumers and trade-unions. There was a plenary session led by EC Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmstrom and ten parallel break-out sessions that covered many diverse issues. Commisioner Malmstrom said that trade was one of the key ways the EU extends its social, economic and environmental values around the world and that these agreements should be carried out with a “bottom-up” approach with the wide participation of civil society. One of the main objectives of the day was to collect ideas for the EU´s new Trade Strategy that will be published in October of this year. (See BEUC position: http://www.beuc.org/publications/beuc-x-2015-060_consumers_at_the_heart_of_trade_policy.pdf )
The General Secretary of the Trade Union Council Francis O’Grady broke the ice by flatly stating that “zombie trade deals that are not in the public interest should be rejected” and concretely on the ISDS debate: “”The row in the European Parliament over foreign investor privileges in the EU-US trade deal proves that old-style Investor State Dispute Settlement is dead – no one supports it any more, on the left, on the right or in the Commission. And yet, zombie-like, it lives on in the Canada- EU deal, unreformed, unamended, and unacceptable.”
On the other side, the Eurochambre business representative and other industry leaders at the session on “How trade affects peoples lives”, insisted that “international trade has always been an important driver of progress by creating jobs, by benefitting EU companies and through promoting economic development in South.” Business Europe was convinced that “China has an increasing portion of world trade and as result is experiencing more evolution, more innovation and more competition.” Little mention was made by these representatives of how trade affects peoples lives.
French economist Messerlin stated that the “EU made a big mistake by putting talks over regulations under a trade agreement as opposed to direct ongoing transatlantic talks between regulators of US and EU”. He also said that many economists have doubts about including intellectual property protection in trade agreements because this means granting new temporary economic monopolies. He insisted that one thing was open trade and something else was regulatory harmonization, much of which will never happen between the US and the EU. One civil society attendee summed it up: “Today I learned that international trade is not about international trade.”
Many speakers voiced opposition to higher regulatory standards in trade agreements with countries of South because it would make it harder for them to compete on the world market. Many industry and Commission representatives referred to the trickle-down effect of international trade that ends up benefitting the majority by creating jobs.
Concern was expressed by some experts and Ngos of the possible regulatory chill effect trade agreements can have on public health measures to assure access to medicines, food safety and protection from toxic chemicals. In the case of locking in the high price of medicines the representative of Merck Pharmaceuticals responded that the principal problem was the lack of infrastructures and hospitals and not the high price of medicines often backed by rules included in trade agreements.
A number of civil society representatives and experts complained that while the purely economic aspects of international trade agreements and WTO rules had binding mechanisms for compliance while consumer rights, public health, environment and labour rights did not have equivalent enforcement measures.
In general, while many in the European Commission and industry representatives stated that the promotion of trade is usually a win-win situation in which the common good in health, environment and consumer rights are benefitted by expected economic growth and more jobs, there was also great concern among many citizens organizations that large economic interests influencing trade can easily trump greater public interest objectives.
EU Trade Day is the latest in a series of participatory events on trade as part of the recent “charm offensive” to show that the EU wants truly “bottom-up” approach to trade. But it still remains to be seen if civil society opinions will be decisive in the future of EU international trade negotiations and agreements.
“Twenty one EU member states now agree to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty under EU competence and with a few more countries favourable there will be a qualified majority for the EU Council to ratify.”
This was the most important news given by the European Commission in the European Parliament on Wednesday speaking at an event sponsored by a cross-party group of MEPs and co-organized by the European Disability Forum, the European Blind Union, the World Blind Union and the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue. Two years after the international agreement was reached on a text for the Marrakesh Treaty for the Visually-impaired and while many countries around the world are already ratifying, EU ratification is blocked in the Council due to the “usual political power fight” among member states, according to Jazmin Battista, member of the Cabinet of Andrius Ansip, Vice-President of the European Commission for the Digital Single Market.
On Wednesday, June 24th over 50 people from blind persons organizations,
NGOs, members of the European Parliament and the European Commission. MEPs from all the major political groups, Koch (EPP from Germany), Gasbarra (Socialist from Italy), Andersson(Green from Sweden), Girauta (Liberal from Spain) and Kuneva (Leftist from Greece), have committed themselves to act in favour of EU ratification both within the Parliament and through pressure in EU member states. MEPs also referred to an amendment in favor of swift EU ratification of Marrakesh in the Reda report on copyright that will be voted on in the Parliament´s July plenary session. Commissioners´ Ansip and Oettinger sent high-level members of their Cabinets to show their support for swift ratification and their commitment to guarantee the right to read of visually impaired persons in Europe and around the world. Maria Martín Prat, the head of the EU´s copyright unit also took an active part in the meeting.
The presidents of the European Disability Forum (EDF) and the European Blind Union (EBU), Yannis Vardakastanis and Wolfgang Angermann, respectively, explained the importance and the legal context of the Marrakesh Treaty within the long fight for the rights of persons with disabilities. They both stressed that the great effort invested in getting the Treaty could not be wasted now due to political in-fighting and procedural delays. The EDF´s president said in was unacceptable and against international law that important legislation for persons with disabilities such as the Marrakesh Treaty “was sleeping in the EU Council”. The EBU‘s president said that blind persons could not wait any longer to have access to 95% of the books which today are still un accessible and would start to be available with the treaty.
The representatives of the European Commission, without supplying any details, mentioned that they had proposed a “compromise” to EU member states to achieve swift EU ratification and that 21 countries had accepted the proposal. It is known that Germany and Italy have not accepted the proposal due to a rejection of exclusive EU competence to ratify the Treaty (despite the fact that almost all legal experts confirm there is no doubt about this).
The meeting concluded with the determination to take the ratification campaign to the national level, in particular to Germany and Italy, and to prepare a specific resolution on the issue in the European Parliament.
Among House Democrats supporting Fast Track, 24 of 28 received money from drug and medical device PACS
I spent a bit of time to look at the contributions from selected drug and medical device Political Action Committees (PACs) to the 28 House Democrats who voted for fast track on June 18, 2015.
We just received a reply from a September 17, 2013 FOIA request KEI filed with USTR, asking for correspondence involving General Electric's efforts to block the WIPO Treaty for the Blind. USTR provided 24 pages of documents, available here:
Norway delivered the following statement on non-violation and situation complaints at the June 2015 meeting of the WTO TRIPS Council.As delivered
TRIPS COUNCIL MEETING 9 AND 10 JUNE 2015
6. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS
Statement by Norway
- We would like to join the overwhelming majority of members that have intervened today.
TRIPS Council June 2015: Norway provides unequivocal support of LDC Group request for extension of the transition period
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015, Norway - a high-income member of the WTO with a GDP per capita of 100,898 USD- (Source: World Bank, 2013) delivered this powerful intervention supporting the LDC Group request for an extension of the transition period for pharmaceutical products. On the LDC Group's specific request on extension until graduation, Norway said,
Today the Legal Affairs Committee approved an amendment in favour of a copyright exception for text and data mining with the Reda Report on copyright.
Stresses the need to properly assess the enablement of automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’ or ‘content mining’) for research purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;