[A2k] The USPTO on the broadcasters' treaty today at WIPO

Manon Ress manon.ress at keionline.org
Wed Jul 18 10:26:45 PDT 2012


" In order to make progress, we do believe it's important at this
stage to take discussions forward from a single text as soon as
possible"  said the US administration.  The zombie treaty is back?

http://www.streamtext.net/player?Event=WIPO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The U.S. welcomes and appreciates the explanation of the new
proposals, both from South Africa and Mexico and from Japan. We also
found the comparative chart a very useful document.
Both of these proposals clearly involve tremendous work and represent
thoughtful and helpful contributions to the considerations of this
Committee. In order to make progress, we do believe it's important at
this stage to take discussions forward from a single text as soon as
possible. We hope that the proponents of the proposals can reach
agreement on what text could be used as the basis for our further
work. As to the contents of the proposals, we of course will be
studying the details very carefully and will provide specific comments
as this process moves forward but meanwhile a couple general thoughts.
First, we appreciate both proposals' references to the goal of a
signal-based approach as reflected in the General Assembly's mandate.
We are interested in exploring further the deletion of any rights in
already fixed signals as a technique for achieving that mandate.
Second, on the issue of the term of protection, we note the point that
has been made by India and the option in the South African and Mexican
proposal to delete any set term on the grounds that it may not be
necessary if only broadcast signals are protected as opposed to the
reuse of fixations.
And finally, the topic that has so far attracted the most attention,
the question of the application to Internet activities. We understand
and agree with the concerns that have been expressed by our colleagues
from India and Brazil about respect for the General Assembly's mandate
in this respect. At the same time, we note the distinction raised by
the Distinguished Delegation of South Africa between protection for
traditional broadcasting and limiting coverage of the treaty with
respect to traditional technologies that may be used. In our view, a
treaty that does not provide protection against signal theft using new
forms of technology would not be worth concluding in the 21 the
century. Any treat treaty should be technologically neutral in the
sense the piracy is accomplished. This is a different question from
which entities are covered by the treaty. The latter is an issue of
subject matter protection while the former is an issue of scope of
rights. Those delegates that are not yet ready to go beyond protection
for traditional broadcasters may nevertheless find it important to
protect their traditional broadcasters against unscrupulous actors who
stream their signal over the Internet.
We will reserve further comments to the subsequent sessions. Thank you
very much

-- 
Manon Anne Ress
Knowledge Ecology International
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20009 USA
http://www.keionline.org
manon.ress at keionline.org




More information about the A2k mailing list