[A2k] Interesting, on the xcasters treaty

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Tue Nov 29 08:34:28 PST 2011


Recently finished discussion below.  Both options ("fixed signals" or
"period of enforcement") in the explanation by the South Africa
delegate at the end are about covering the "content" -- they aren't,
even in the "period of enforcement" approach, talking about how the
works within would be somehow distinguished:

[From where I entered the stream]
[. . .] You were saying the period would be computed from the end of
the year in which the broadcast signal was broadcast. I have the
impression that perhaps not in all national legislation would compute
it in the same way, calculate it in the same way, at least in the case
of Peru, I think, we compute protection as the 1st of January -- the
year following the broadcast.
So I would just like to ask the sponsors whether there was a specific
reason for having raised this way of computing or calculating the
protection period or if they had carried out consultations and if that
had been the result of these consultations or just an initial
alternative.
Thank you, sir.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Distinguished Delegate.
Mexico, Mexico like to answer or South Africa? Mexico has the floor.
>> MEXICO: This formula which we are handling for the term of protection is similar to what has been handled in the different treaties, particularly in WPPT and Article 17 on the term of protection. It has established that 50 years in favor of the phone no gram producer. Also making reference to the end of the year in which the fixation had been made. This does not prevent us from being able to establish the other proposal pointed out by the delegation of Peru, similar to what Mexican legislation contains.
Because what Article 8 says is a minimum period and then establishing
the next year that we are extending the term of protection and this is
beneficial to the broadcasting organisation. Paragraph.
>> CHAIR: I call on India followed by China.
India, please.
>> INDIA: Mr. , our delegation opines that the signal once it is for the public reception, it ends. Once it is, the reception for the public, the life of the signal is completed.
So the question of giving term is very doubtful; however, the term of
protection here is linked with the Article 6. The Article 8 is in
ex-trick kaly linked with Article 6. We would like to see how the
Article 6 shapes up and as I -- as the Indian delegation mentioned
earlier, I would like to discuss a few issues pertaining to Article 6
with our distinguished South African delegation and distinguished
Mexican delegation.
Once those doubts are cleared, we would like to come back, we reserve
the right to come back in the future. Thank you.>> CHAIR: Thank you.
I call on China. China has the floor.
>> CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our question is quite linked to the question asked by the Indian delegation.
We had the impression that the calculation of the term of protection
is the understanding as regards the method based on the signal and
that this is all linked. China's delegation would like to know the
fact that in our treaty you mean life signal when you are talking
about a signal?
Or the signals which are already fixed signals?
Because for us the 20 years of the term of protection, particularly
the way in which it's calculated gives us the impression it's fixed
signals.
Our question is for the South African delegation or from Mexico. Is
our understanding right or correct?
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, sir. I call on South Africa.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: I think the understanding is correct, it's that it really much depends on which alternative you select under Article 6 in terms of how you then approach the term of protection.
If you select alternative A which captures that fixation of the
broadcast signal, you would in terms of your terms of protection go --
explicitly state the number of years.
If it is alternative B, where you look more at the transmission of the
signal in terms of it being broadcast and then once it's broadcast
it's over, the term of protection would not necessarily be the same;
you would probably be looking more from a legal enforcement
perspective in terms of what period of time you'd want to give the
broadcaster to be able to enforce his right around his signal once he
becomes aware of it. I think that would be the aspect.
So it is correct it very much depends on the alternatives you select in 6.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I call on Senegal.
>> SENEGAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a brief concern I would like to share as regards the calculation
of the term of protection. In the calculation of this term of
protection, we only take into account the end of the year in which the
broadcasting signal was transmitted, but I do have concerns regarding
the legal status of this signal as of the transmission date.
We might find ourselves with a period which is not covered by any
protection whatsoever if we don't take into account the fact that it
might be useful as soon as the signal has broadcast it that the
protection starts as of that point in time when the signal is
broadcasted.
>> CHAIR: Any other distinguished delegation would like to take the floor on Article 8?
Then we'll move on to 9. Comments, questions on Article 9?




More information about the A2k mailing list