[A2k] KEI Statement on Broadcasting Treaty Proposal at SCCR 38

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Mon Apr 1 07:20:49 PDT 2019

https://www.keionline.org/30244--KEI Statement on Broadcasting Treaty
Proposal at SCCR 38

Posted on April 1, 2019 <https://www.keionline.org/30244> by Manon Ress

Day 1 of SCCR 38.

There is definitely more support for the broadcasting treaty, “a momentum”
said a delegate, and it is difficult to find a delegation that would
oppose, at least publicly, this 20 year old effort.

NGO observers were given the floor for 2 minutes. This is the KEI Statement:

KEI would like to make a few points on the Broadcasting treaty negotiations
related to its substance as well as process.

1 We are concerned about the Term of protection 20, 50 or X? which implies
post fixation rights and thus involves rights on copyrighted content.

2. The Limitations and Exceptions are insufficient to maintain existing
freedom to use content for information, news, documentary, preservation and

3 .There is no satisfying language to protect public domain works or works
freely licensed by creators.

4. The list of ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries which include
traditional and not traditional broadcasters is threatening copyright
owners, performers, consumers and many small and local providers of content.

5. Streaming on demand is not the future. In many member states, It is now,
and it is included in an “agreed statement” from last sccr that states:.

[2 Agreed Statement concerning “equivalent deferred transmissions” and
“other deferred transmissions”: Equivalent deferred transmissions include
online repeats, on-demand catch-up services and previews. Other deferred
transmissions include parallel sport events, extra footage on news or
programs, additional interviews, behind-the-scenes programs, pure on-demand
streaming channels and on-demand catalogues.]


6.We are concerned that consumers AND creative communities will have to pay
the price of discriminatory and unreasonable licensing terms that will only
benefit large internet companies.

Finally, point 7. For quite a while now, at SCCR meetings here in Geneva,
public interest organizations such as KEI have not been allowed to truly
participate or discuss the text that is being written in secret
negotiations. Again, the lack of transparency does not bode well for the
public and seems to take this WIPO Committee backward. One has to ask why
the Chair is not willing to share the work of the committee with the world
until after it is done. This could only result in bad outcome, either a
failed diplomatic conference or an unbalanced treaty favoring specific and
narrow interest.

Either way this reflects poorly on WIPO, a UN organization that can and
should do better.

Now the secret negotiation will start. We are not allowed to share what we
can hear.

Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International
41 22 791 6727
thiru at keionline.org

More information about the A2k mailing list