Uma transcrição
impressionista foi publicada por Cory
Doctorow e Wendy Seltzer,
da Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF),
e por David Tannenbaum,
da Union for The Public Domain (UPD).
Abaixo registramos alguns posicionamentos marcantes da representação
brasileira que, como em outras
oportunidades, se destacou juntamente com a delegação
da Índia e as ONGs presentes na defesa dos princípios
básicos do livre acesso à informação.
Na questão
envolvendo a proposição americana de incluir webcasting
no tratado sobre broadcast, o que colocaria esta nova e democrática
forma de comunicação sob princípios regulatórios
inteiramente inadequados (veja posicionamento da EFF
no evento):
*
Brazil: - Webcasting: completely unacceptable that
it be included. Note high level of overwhelming opposition in previous
meetings in this committee. Resolve this quickly, because we won't
go into a draft treaty that includes webcasting.
[ed - the economics of broadcasting and webcasting
are completely different -- webcasting is unicast and asynchronous;
broadcasting is multicast and synchronous.
Sobre o
Artigo 16, que introduz as Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) no tratado,
e significa "um eco da "Broadcast
Flag" concebida pelo FCC americano, que vai requerer a
permissão dos gigantes do copyright antes que qualquer nova tecnologia
possa ser apresentada ao mercado, e que irá banir o software
livre do contexto de uso da TV digital":
James Love - Note
on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for Broadcasters, Cablecasters and Webcasters
*
Brazil: - Concentrate on Article 16, TPMs. Brazil
is concerned with proposed inclusion of TPMs in proposed new treaty.
Aware that similar provisions are in WCT and WPPT, but it's important
to recall that those treaties were negotiated and adopted when there
was little awareness regarding potential implications of use of TPMs.
Since then, some years have gone by, and there's a growing widespread
awareness that use of such measures can be quite detrimental to rights
of consumers and public at large. Significant concern that anticircumvention
has significant negative for exercise of rights exceptions and limitations
in national laws. Important obstacle to access of public to public
domain materia.
Inconsistent with necessary free flow of info so important to encourage
innovation and creativity in the digital environment. All of Art 16
counters stated objectives of new treaty as referred to in preamble.
Para recognizes need to maintain balance between rights of broadcasters
and larger public interest.
This entire article should believe this entire article should be deleted
from the text. Other delegates argue that e fact that we have these
provisions in WCT and WPPT mean that we should include them in this
treaty. We disagree. Not pertinent to rights of broadcasting organizations.
[ed. Brazil is very courageous. -dt]
[ed. See EFF's Unintended Consequences report for some of the specific
harms to which Brazil alludes that result from adopting anticircumvention.
Brazil recognizes that previous treaties offer opportunity to learn
from mistakes, not just blindly follow existing language. -ws]
[ed This is the best statement I've ever heard at a WIPO session.
-cd]
Recomendações
Consolidadas
Final
Text of Recommendations Showing FIRST ROUND and +[SECOND ROUND]+
changes. Changes in ALL CAPS were made by Chair and circulated
after lunch; +[bracketed]+ -[changes]- were made during afternoon
session.
The
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights:
A. BROADCASTING
ORGANIZATIONS
1. The
WIPO General Assembly
the WIPO
General Assembly IS RECOMMENDED +TO CONSIDER BEGINNING+ -[TO MAKE
PROVISION, at]- its September/October session in 2004, FOR THE -[POSSIBLE]-
+POSSIBILITY OF+ convening, AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME, of a diplomatic
conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations;
2. Twelfth
Session of the Standing Committee
the Chair
of the present session of the Standing Committee will prepare, for
the Twelfth Session of the Committee, a revised version of the consolidated
text in which the possible protection of webcasting organizations
and other proposals having received very limited support will be indicated
in square brackets. The Twelfth Session of the Committee will take
place from November 17 to 19, 2004,
3. ASSESSMENT
OF THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK
AT ITS
TWELFTH SESSION THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE WOULD BE
BASED ON THE REVISED CONSOLIDATED TEXT AND THE COMMITTEE WOULD ASSESS
THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK. IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND THAT
ASSESSMENT, THE COMMITTEE WOULD -[DECIDE WHETHER TO DETERMINE]- +RECOMMEND+
THE DATES, AND THE NECESSARY PREPARATORY STEPS FOR A DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE,
+including the possibility that the Chair prepares a Basic Proposal
for this diplomatic conference.+
-[4.
Basic Proposal
based
on the discussion AND RECOMMENDATIONS at the Twelfth Session of the
Committee, the Chair shall prepare the Basic Proposal for the _POSSIBLE_
diplomatic conference,]-
5. Regional
Consultations
depending
on the decision of the WIPO General Assembly under Point A.1 above,
the International Bureau shall organize regional consultation meetings
+WHERE APPROPRIATE AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE RELEVANT REGIONAL GROUPS+
-[in Africa, the Arab countries, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America
and the Caribbean and in certain countries of Eastern and Central
Europe, and CIS countries]-, and consultation meetings at the location
of the diplomatic conference immediately before its commencement.
B. DATABASES
The issue
of protection of non-original databases will be included in the Agenda
of the Thirteenth Session of the Committee and thereafter at appropriate
intervals, +[AT THE REQUEST OF INTERESTED DELEGATIONS]+.
Electronic Frontier Foundations
Cory Doctorow´s Presentation
We believe
that the technological measures in Articles 16 and 17 are not required
for the protection of broadcasters' signals and thus should not be incorporated
in the proposed Treaty. EFF is a co-signer to the NGO statement of principles
on the proposed treaty and has submitted a Floor Statement to the Secretariat
detailing its views, and will briefly outline its concerns here.
1. Article
16 opens the door to an unprecedented range of technology mandates which
will constrain technology development
Article
16 requires Member Countries to adopt extensive mandates over everyday
technologies like televisions, and radios. It envisions broadcasters
"marking" broadcasts, cable transmissions and webcasts with
something like the American "broadcast flag". All signal-receiving
devices -- even personal computers -- will be required to detect and
respond to the flag.
Imposing
this kind of sweeping government mandate over emerging broadcast technology
is bad for innovation and it's bad for competition policy. In the US
context, these measures restrict private, non-commercial uses of broadcast
programming that today are reserved to the public, under our existing
national laws.
A technology
mandate here is premature: there is simply no evidence that non-commercial
uses harm broadcasters.
2. Article
16 is not a good way to protect broadcasters rights and will harm the
public domain
Technological
measures have failed to protect IP. However, technological measures
*have* imposed punishing collateral costs on the public interest. In
those countries which have implemented the similar provisions in the
WCT and WPPT there has been significant harm to competition, technological
innovation, scientific research and freedom of expression.
Article
16 gives broadcasters greater rights than creators over the content
of broadcasts. Under the proposed Treaty, available by its creator.
Indeed, in national implementations of the WCT, technical measures have
done all these things.
Despite
the best intentions of treaty-drafting committees, national implementations
of technological measures undermine or eliminate altogether the public's
access under existing copyright laws.
There is
no reason to grant legal protection for a further and broader layer
of technological measures for broadcast signals, cable transmissions
and webcasts.
3. Broadcaster
Technological Measures are Unnecessary
Article
16(1) is based on similar provisions for rightsholder technological
measures in the WCT and WPPT. At the time, rightsholders argued that
they would have no incentive to release their works digitally absent
a strong legal ban on circumvention.
The same
is not true for broadcasters. There has been no credible evidence that
broadcasters under-invest in technology. Broadcasters broadcast, notwithstanding
the possibility for signal theft.
The stated
objective for the proposed Treaty is to protect broadcast signals, not
content. Rightsholders and holders of related rights can already use
technological measures to protect their content in broadcast signals
as a result of the 1996 Internet Treaties.
Alternative
V - Article 16(2)
Finally,
Alternative V of the proposed Treaty poses a grave threat to consumers,
scientific research and technological innovation.
Article
16(2) bans general-purpose computers, creates a strict liability offence
for the public and imposes a technology mandate for encrypted signal
receiving devices.
For these
reasons EFF strongly supports Alternative W in Article 16, which would
not require adoption of Article 16(2), if Article 16 is retained at
all.
Thank you
for your consideration of our views.
