blog

Being steeped in WIPO stuff for the moment (I think there's IP on my shirt), it happened that the topic of the prospective Broadcasting Treaty came up in a number of conversations.

Coincidentally (I swear), BoingBoing has an interview with a US Copyright official. Until now, the US have generally shown themselves strongly in favour of the Broadcasting Treaty, which would add another layer of copyright-like rights for the act of broadcasting a work. This would instantly send podcasting and a lot of other "web 2.0" type down the tubes. The US were claiming that the creation of such rights was universally popular.

Now, BoingBoing.net quotes the official as saying:

...I think the most controversial piece is the scope of the right that's
being created. The position that the US took is well, if you're going to
give that type of a right to a broadcaster -- theft of a signal -- then
you should look at all people who are similarily situated, including
webcasters. Now, that has been totally rejected by the rest of the
world."

Coincidentally, I was chatting with a senior WIPO figure today. Apparently, there is very little actual support for such a treaty. That person was at a loss to say which countries were pushing for it. Supposedly, parts of the broadcasting industry are in favour - but then there are substantial parts of that industry which reject such a treaty.

They have probably realised that any revenue from such a new right would end up with their legal department anyway, as broadcasting anything would become horrifyingly complicated.

Now Brazil is taking apart the US proposal, and sparks are certainly flying. Where the proposal waxes lyrical about economic growth, the Brazilians remind the delegates that economic growth is not really within the mandate of WIPO. This is a nice twist on the well-established US tactic of claiming that development issues in copyright and patents are none of WIPO's business.

Picking apart the proposal one by one, the bottom line is that the US have simply not understood what the Friends of Development are really onto. The US proposal

The US proposal also claims that illegal copying is "endemic" in developing countries. Brazil criticises this implication of general lawlessness, remarking that copyright and patent violations are not unheard of in developed countries either.

The US database suggestion is described as "a kind of match-making enterprise" and a shot at the "outsourcing of technical assistance". Member states want more say, not less, about the type and quality of technical assistance that WIPO provides to them.

WIPO's role in development: While some have claimed that WIPO already has an extensive role in development, and it is claimed that this is borne out by the 300-page compilation of "computers that were bought and consultants that were hired" for developing country IP offices.

This kind of WIPO micro-management is not what the Friends of Development are looking for. They are not into the details of technical assistance, but rather seeking an adjustment of the gist of all of WIPO's activities.

National surveys for economic growth: Where the proposal says that developing countries should review their IP rights system. The Friends of Development initiative is not about the problems of each national IP system, but rather about the deficiencies of the international IP system.

Transfer of technology: The IP system should promote transfer of technology. The proposal's suggestion that the problems to technology transfer is merely rooted in the individual national systems is erroneous.

Where the US proposal calls for WIPO to participate in copyright and patent enforcement, it ignores some basic facts: "IP is still territorial in nature, and countries have national jurisdictions about the enforcement of rights"

Later, the proposal calls for WIPO to conduct economic surveys. This is outside the scope of WIPO's mandate.

Even though this is a lot of criticism, Brazil is only half-way through the US proposal. We'll hear more tomorrow.