[A2k] [WIPO-BT] PK Intervention(s)

Rashmi Rangnath rrangnath at publicknowledge.org
Tue Nov 29 05:43:48 PST 2011


Here are the other interventions we made on Saturday:

On scope of protection.

Thank you madam chairperson.

The scope of protection should not extend to rights, such as fixation,
reproduction, and performance, that properly belong to copyright holder.
Providing such rights in content is inconsistent with a treaty that seeks
to provide protection to the signal. We agree with the delegation of India
that the treaty should focus on preventing misappropriation of the signal.

In the US, for example, providing broadcasters with exclusive rights in
content would interfere with various relationships between over-the-air
broadcasters, cablecasters and other entities that have not been fully
discussed here. In addition, in the US current mechanisms, like
retransmission consent provide adequate protection for broadcasters. This
kind of narrow protection is consistent with the GA mandate to this
Committee.


Intervention on TPMs arguing that:


Member states should tread cautiously while adopting TPM provisions. IN the
copyright context, these provisions have resulted in many adverse
consequences. This same flawed regime should not be adopted in a new
instrument.


Rashmi


On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM, John Bergmayer <john at publicknowledge.org>wrote:

> Public Knowledge presented the following intervention today during the
> plenary discussion on the BT:
>
> "Thank you Mr. Chair. We appreciate the effort by member states,
> particularly Mexico, South Africa, and India, to constructively engage on
> this issue.  However, we are still concerned that the text prepared by
> South Africa and Mexico contains language which could be construed as
> granting copyright-like rights to broadcasters, and does not focus narrowly
> enough on granting broadcasters protection against the misappropriation of
> their signals, in line the the General Assembly mandate.  Preambular
> language is not enough to ensure this focus, when substantive language
> moves in another direction. In particular, Alternative A of Article 6
> grants a bundle of rights to broadcasters that are unnecessary for a
> signal-based approach, such as fixation, and Alternative B grants
> broadcasters rights over public performances.  Many of these rights seem
> aimed at providing broadcasters means to prevent content piracy.  But it
> would be better, instead, to look to solutions that enable copyright
>  holders to address the infringement of copyrighted works.  Despite
> preambular language to the contrary, granting new content-related rights to
> broadcasters could interfere with the rights of copyright holders as well
> as frustrating the needs of consumers."
>
> Also, we made a few interventions during the Saturday informal session.
>  This was our first one:
>
> "Thank you.  We would like to thank the delegations of the United States
> and India for their view that the object of protection should be the
> signals of broadcasters, and these discussions should be not be closely
> linked the Rome Convention.
>
> We are not convinced that an instrument is needed, because the harms that
> have been identified in the record are generally harms to copyright holders
> and not to intermediaries like broadcasters.  That said, we are interested
> in engaging on these issues and we think that the best way forward is to
> limit the scope of consideration to the wholesale unauthorized
> retransmission of broadcast signals, rather than to the infringement of
> individual programs or works. For that reason we object to language that
> suggests that the object of protection is "works" or "programs," as this
> seems to go beyond a signal-based approach.
>
> We note that there is a distinction between allowing broadcasters to
> enforce the copyrights of works they have licensed, which is a procedural
> issue that does not create new rights, and granting them new rights in and
> of themselves.
>
> In short, if there is an interest in protecting broadcasters in a specific
> instrument, they should be protected in their role as broadcasters and not
> granted new rights in programs, works, or content."
>
> --
> John Bergmayer
> Senior Staff Attorney
> Public Knowledge
> (202) 861-0020
>
> _______________________________________________
> WIPO-BT mailing list
> WIPO-BT at lists.publicknowledge.org
> http://lists.publicknowledge.org/mailman/listinfo/wipo-bt
>



-- 
Public Knowledge
1818 N Street NW
Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20036
202 861 0020
rrangnath at publicknowledge.org

2011 IP3 awards and 10th anniversary roast on October 13th -
http://publicknowledgeroast.eventbrite.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



More information about the A2k mailing list