Like many readers, I am now an official fan of Zach Carter. Mr. Carter just wrote a timely and intelligent article regarding the SCCR24 and the treaty for the blind and visually impaired persons:”Obama Administration Blocks International Treaty To Benefit The Blind”
The Blind people want a treaty:
On Monday, 23 July 2012 the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released the latest text on an instrument for copyright exceptions and limitations for disabilities entitled “Proposals for revised text for document SCCR/23/7”. This document is the result of both formal discussions in the plenary of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) held on Friday, 20 July 2012 and informal negotiations held on Saturday afternoon on 21 July 2012. Once this text is available electronically, KEI will publish the full text online. Continue Reading
The following interviews were recorded during the 24th meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). Most of the interviews are focused on the negotiations on a new WIPO treaty for persons who are blind or have other disabilities. The time of the videos varies from 16 seconds to more than 18 minutes. They are organized by the type of stakeholder, and the date of the interviews. This page will be updated during the meeting as I add more videos. Continue Reading
Once again a diverse group of NGOS spoke clearly against the treaty for broadcasting organizations. To quote CCIA “While the world’s governments can certainly create legal instruments with any language in them that they wish, surely granting copyright in objects that don’t exist would be difficult to justify to the wider public”. Well, the delegates are now back into informal sessions so the public in fact does not even know why they still work on more rights, (more road blocks) to solve signal piracy, already a crime I believe in most countries!
July 23, 2012. Broadcasting organizations (and MPA) views why they need a treaty
I am not sure if the best film analogy here would be Groundhog Day or The Bridge on the River Kwai but the following NGOs are re-affirming that they need a treaty because:
1. there is a piracy problem that can be fixed by giving them more exclusive rights for 20 years
2. the Internet treaties trilogy: there is a WCT and a WPPT so there has to be a WBT. To be fair.
July 23, 2012. The plenary at WIPO has started again briefly before lunch. While there is not much progress on a text about broadcasting protection there seems to be consensus among governments regarding the nature of the instrument: it has to be a treaty. No one seems to be talking about a soft recommendation for broadcasters!
Below is the statement that Shira Perlmutter of USPTO delivered for the US government on July 18, 2012, at the WIPO SCCR 24 meeting in Geneva. As noted in the statement, the United States is calling for a “single text.” The nature of the instrument is “a treaty.” The U.S. wants the treaty to cover the “signal” without a set term (some earlier proposals had called for 20 to 50 years of protection). The treaty would protect “traditional” broadcasters, defined as over the air, satellite and cable broadcasting. Continue Reading
This statement was delivered by Brazil on 19 July 2012 in the plenary of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). In this statement, Brazil stressed that negotiations on a Treaty for Visually Impaired Persons not be linked to discussions on a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations.
Mr Chairman,Federal Circuit Oral Arguments in BRCA Gene Patent Case (Round 2)
On Friday, July 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again heard the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office. The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the ACLU and PubPat, while the primary defendant in the case is Myriad Genetics.
Case History
Quick Notes from NGOs intervention from the floor during SCCR24
WBU: we look forward to the revision tomorrow and we will study carefully. We see ourselves as technical advisors and we are available today and tomorrow for consultation.
STM (publishers); we have been supportive. But framework should not undermine publishers ambition….a legal instrument should be limited where there is no existing …it has to be limited to the essential. Should also be mindful to respect flexibilities. Authorized entities can be trusted By all stakeholders. that could be provided if operationaly prepared and ….