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 education.
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.]
(https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_37/sccr_37_8.pdf)
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.