Quotes taken from the WIPO Reports of the 10th, 11th and 12th SCCRs. The full reports are online here.
Twelfth Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Geneva, November 17 to 19, 2004, (SCCR/12/4)
34. The Delegation of Algeria "It was important to reiterate that the scope of protection for a possible treaty should not cover webcasting and that it should respect the rights of authors and performers."
46. The Delegation of Bangladesh "At the international level, it took the view that webcasting should be excluded from discussions on the scope of protection."
47. The Delegation of New Zealand: There remained significant opposition to the inclusion of =93webcasting=94. The Internet had created many challenges for copyright systems around the world. At the international level, however, it was perhaps prudent to clarify and update the rights of traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, a matter long outstanding, and deal with webcasting at a later stage so that further discussions could be undertaken on that technology."
50. The Delegation of the Russian Federation: "The scope of protection should not cover webcasting."
51. The Delegation of Colombia: "Webcasting was an important issue in the present technological environment. At the international level, however, it was perhaps premature to deal with it at present. It would be better to address that issue at a later stage and concentrate now on more traditional issues. Moreover, regulation of webcasting could imply the necessity of dealing with the status and government regulation of webcasters, which greatly differed from those of traditional broadcasters."
52. The Delegation of Zambia "supported the statement made on behalf of the African Group by the Delegation of Egypt. [...] The role and importance of new technologies, such as webcasting and simulcasting, was fully understood in some countries, but in Africa those issues were not ripe for legislation and it would be counterproductive to anticipate how those technologies would develop. Therefore, the Delegation could not support the inclusion of any of those alternatives in the treaty as further information and awareness were necessary."
53. The Delegation of China: "The protection of webcasting raised some concern; the priority should be to regulate the behavior of webcasting organizations, since webcasters' rights had impinged on the rights of content owners. The issue had to be left aside, or, at least, the protection should not been made mandatory. The issue could be dealt with at a later stage."
54. The Delegation of Togo: "The protection of program-carrying signals could be supported, whereas the protection of webcasting organizations required further study since it was an emerging activity in developing countries. It would be premature to legislate without knowing the full implications of that activity."
184. The Delegation of Mexico expressed "could not support the inclusion of webcasting as an object of protection."
Eleventh Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Geneva, June 7 to 9, 2004 (SCCR/11/4)
27. The Delegation of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of GRULAC, noted the need to agree on a framework for the final treaty, and identified a number of issues for debate. Webcasting was a complex matter from both technical and legal viewpoints, and as recent technological developments were not sufficiently developed to be regulated, that issue should not be included in the Text of any draft treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations. More time was required to analyze the economic and social implications of a specific protection for webcasters.
28. The Delegation of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African Group: "It would not be appropriate to include webcasting in a possible instrument, as this raised complex issues with technical and legal implications under constant change, and their impact was therefore not yet fully understood by many Member States."
33. The Delegation of Norway: "The issue of webcasting should be left out of the instrument, in order to focus on the imminent needs of traditional broadcasting organizations and the issue should be further analyzed."
46. The Delegation of India "said that the Consolidated Text ignored the consensus reached by many delegations in previous sessions with regard to the inopportune inclusion of webcasters in a future treaty. Protection for webcasters as well as cablecasters was far beyond the necessary legal protection needed for neighboring rights holders."
50. The Delegation of Egypt stated "The Delegation was against the inclusion of webcasters in the treaty."
51. The Delegation of Brazil "It found that the inclusion of webcasting in the Consolidated Text was unacceptable. It recalled that the level of opposition among delegations in previous SCCR sessions had been overwhelming. Excluding webcasting from debate would be a significant contribution."
52. The Delegation of Argentina "supported the statements of previous delegations regarding discussing protection of webcasters."
53. The Delegation of Australia "The Delegation was not in a position to support the protection of webcasters."
54. The Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran "was in favor of the inclusion of broadcasting and cablecasting and opposed to the inclusion of webcasters in the future treaty."
55. The Delegation of Chile "said that some of the fundamental pillars of copyright were its limitations and exceptions, as well as the public domain. It was of the view that the protection of cablecasters and webcasters, apart from being a serious risk for the protection of other stakeholders, might cause considerable damage to the aforesaid pillars. It noted that the impact that such additional protection could have in developing countries had not been sufficiently analyzed by the Committee."
56. The Delegation of Egypt "clarified what might have been a misinterpretation of its previous statement. It said that it fully supported what the Delegation of Brazil had stated regarding the protection of webcasters. The Delegation of Egypt was opposed to the inclusion of that category of beneficiaries in a future treaty too."
57. The Delegation of Singapore "clarified that webcasting had not been included in its proposal."
Tenth Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Geneva, November 3 to 5, 2003, (SCCR/10/5)
The Delegation of Senegal "It recalled the concerns it had expressed during the previous session of the Committee with regard to the proposed protection for webcasting organizations. That particular issue required more information and analysis in order to allow delegations to establish a better-informed position." 13 p.4
The Delegation of China: "Referring to the scope or objects of protection, the Delegation concurred with the statement of the Delegation of Australia, in particular as to the exclusion of webcasting from any protection to be granted to broadcasters. In the Delegation's country the Internet was a new media, and webcasting was in its early stages of development, such that the issue of its protection needed further review and consideration. It noted that copyright and performers' rights were regularly infringed on the Internet, although it was not yet clear how to ensure their protection. While its country was committed to active involvement in the discussions, it was also important to study the issue of webcasting further, and to regulate any protection of webcasters in a separate instrument. Encryption and decryption were technological measures that were adequately addressed by the WCT and the WPPT, and should otherwise be regulated by domestic law. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to discuss such issues as separate rights of broadcasting organizations." 23 p.6
The Delegation of New Zealand: "[...]the best way to proceed at the international level would be to first concentrate on the protection of traditional broadcasts and, as the Delegation of Australia had indicated, deal with webcasting at a later stage. 25 p.7
The Delegation of Brazil: "[...]for some of the new issues introduced in the discussion, such as webcasting, the social dimension was far from evident. Information and communication technologies could play an important role in narrowing the digital and knowledge divide, but existing asymmetry would be exacerbated if rapidly evolving issues such as webcasting were dealt with hastily. Before establishing a timetable for future discussions, it was necessary to clearly assess areas in which progress could be made. The Delegation opposed the inclusion of webcasting in a future Treaty on broadcasting. " 26 p.7
The Delegation of Bangladesh: "shared the view that webcasting should be dealt with in a separate treaty." 27 p.7
The Delegation of Kyrgyzstan "supported a new treaty limited to traditional broadcasting" 28 p.7
The Delegation of Mexico: "[...]webcasting was an issue that deserved to be dealt with in future discussions and not in the present framework." 29 pp.7-8
The Delegation of Egypt "[...]stated its reservations to expanding protection to include webcasting. In accord with the position of the African Group, it noted that the situation with respect to webcasting raised complex technical and legal issues that were under constant change, and therefore required further discussion. A balanced position required that protection be given to the signal and not the content of broadcasts. The Delegation stated that any future agreement or treaty instrument should be based on proposals that met general agreement and not those that remained controversial." 33 pp.8-9
The Delegation of India: "The Committee would have to firm up on the definitions of new words and terms relative to the broadcasting issues, such as webcasters, cablecasters, etc., so as to make things clearly understood and these would only enhance the public interest and its right to access information." 34 p.9
|Return to: CPTech Home -> Main IP Page -> CPTech Page on WIPO -> Broadcast/Webcast Treaty|