[Ip-health] [A2k] New blog item on access to information for developing countries

Chris Zielinski ziggytheblue at gmail.com
Mon Dec 22 12:54:09 PST 2014

Thanks for your comments, Louis. The Berne Convention and its Appendix
(which was added during the Paris Revisions of 1971) are considered a
single entity. If you sign for Berne (as 168 countries have) you are also
agreeing to the Appendix. However, if you want to apply the provisions of
the Appendix and start issuing compulsory licenses in your country, you
have to pass through the Looking Glass (as you say) and in addition
separately sign for the Appendix. 16 of the 168 countries have taken that
step as well. So all 168 countries must allow the 16 the rights offered in
the Appendix, provided the complex and difficult conditions in the Appendix
are met.

<So, in effect, the provisions for noncommercial relicensing have not been
acted on?> Exactly.

And since re-opening the Appendix implies reopening the whole of Berne,
countries are not likely to move in that direction.

However, I wonder if it might be more feasible/less quixotic to reopen the
WIPO Copyright Treaty and add a new appendix to that, since what is missing
in the Appendix (apart from clarity and feasibility!) is an approach to
digital rights. This was an idea I suggested in my blog.



On 22 December 2014 at 19:36, Louis Suárez-Potts <luispo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris,
> 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?
> Thanks
> louis
> > 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.
> >
> > Chris
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2k mailing list
> > A2k at lists.keionline.org
> > http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

More information about the Ip-health mailing list