[Ip-health] [A2k] New blog item on access to information for developing countries
luispo at gmail.com
Mon Dec 22 11:36:01 PST 2014
Thanks for the heads up; the post is interesting indeed—as are other of your posts. You mention that only 16 of the 168 signatories to the Paris Act have also signed on to the Appendix and that you have found no trace of the Appendix’ provisions being applied. These, presumably relate to the broad conditions under which developing countries can issue compulsory licenses for noncommercial purposes? But, as you nicely point out, that generous provision is only feasible after we’ve gone through the Looking Glass—yes?
So, in effect, the provisions for noncommercial relicensing have not been acted on?
Also, you mention at the end that amending (or redacting, in the old sense) the Appendix so that it conforms to present-day reality (and language) would necessitate re-doing the Paris Act altogether. But how is that the case if only 16 of the 168 signatories to the Act have also signed to the Appendix? Does this mean that all the rest are not bound to it? And what then does it mean to be bound to it?
> On 20 Dec 2014, at 17:24, Chris Zielinski <ziggytheblue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have just published and item on "An Information Gap in Human Rights",
> which might be of interest to readers of this list. It is at
> http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com - a simple registration is required, and
> access is free.
> The focus is on the Appendix to the 1971 Paris Revisions of the Berne
> Convention, which is the only part of copyright law devoted specifically to
> developing countries, is the only bit of Berne that escaped updating for
> the digital age during the WIPO Copyright Treaty process.
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org
More information about the Ip-health