Manon Ress's blog
ARTICLE F1 OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES
Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means to enjoy the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.
During the three hours of informal negotiations, I am told the discussions focused on among the definition, the first paragraph regarding "authorized entity"
[in SCCR23/7 Auhtorized entities]
means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or non-profit organization that has as one of its activities to assist persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access needs, in accordance with national law.
The WIPO SCCR 24 delegates are still meeting behind closed doors (no NGOS and no streaming nor recording). I heard they are still talking about the definitions (see below) and that the 5pm plenary is delayed. Yesterday and this morning we heard quite a bit about "works" and "authorized entity". If they agreed on these maybe they are now arguing over the meaning of "reasonable price for developed countries" and "reasonable price for developing countries"
SCCR/23/7 ORIGINAL: English DATE: December 16, 2011
ARTICLE A DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these provisions
Today is day 5 of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights which for over 2 years has been discussing the first ever treaty that would involved a limitation to copyright, in these case to benefit blind people as well as people with other disabilities. It is day 2 of plenary discussions regarding the treaty for people with disabilities.
Late morning at WIPO SCCR 24 meeting regarding the treaty for people with disabilities.
The US is asking now to go into "informal" discussions.
Today the discussion on the definition of "authorized entity" has started. It is one of the important and technical issues that could make a treaty good or bad, useful or ineffective.
An "authorized entity" or AE is the institution that provides the works in accessible format to the people with visual impairments who are the beneficiaries of the future treaty. Depending on how broad or narrow or inclusive v. restrictive the definition gets to be by the end of the negotiation, access is conditioned.
Some of the questions this morning:
Earlier this month, the European Parliament and the European Commission released a new compromise text on orphan works.
The Compromise Text is available here:
KEI sees the text as a step backwards for access to knowledge. The proposed directive makes far too many compromises, is too limited in terms of the beneficiaries and uses of works, and creates complicated, burdensome and costly procedures and record keeping requirements.
Background on earlier EU consultations
Clearly WIPO could teach a few things to many agencies --other UN bodies but also for example the office of the US Trade Representatives-- regarding transparency and accessibility for all stakeholders.
Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante has made public the "priorities and special projects" of the US Copyright Office from October 2011 to October 2013. The ambitious work plan sets 17 priorities in the areas of copyright policy and administrative practices, and 10 special projects "to improve the quality and efficiency of the U.S. Copyright Office’s services."
Here's a quick outline:
|Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy, March 14, 2011|
|President Obama and Mark Pekala, June 6, 2009, Paris|
France gets an A+ from the US for its anti consumer intellectual property related policies
KEI comments to UK Consultation on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities under discussion at WIPOSubmitted by Manon Ress on 6. September 2011 - 15:20
The proposal for a WIPO treaty for persons who are blind or have other disabilities moved forward at the last SCCR meeting in June 2011, when a wide collection of high income and Latin American countries endorsed a joint paper that could serve as a basis for a diplomatic conference. The fact that Brazil, the US and the EU were among the countries endorsing the paper was very significant.
As part of the American University hosted Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the public Interest, I participated in a panel on the positive agenda for intellectual property. These are notes from my talk.
Presentation by Manon Anne Ress, Knowledge Ecology International
August 26, 2011, at American University in Washington, DC
The EU position came out in a proposal for a Joint Recommendation with 9 articles in 11 pages. It is hard to believe but it is worst than the US proposal and it is even worst than nothing. It is an outrageous "roll back" recommendation. It does make clear who's the boss in the commission. The publishers apparently. Their proposal is bold. Here's a quick read: