(Geneva) The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) wrapped up its 12th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights (SCCRR) last Friday amid a controversial (and possibly invalid) decision by the committee's Chairman to convene a series of regional meetings to conclude debate on WIPO's proposed treaty to create new rights for broadcasting companies. 

Developing countries, including Brazil, India, Egypt, Argentina, and others had asked the SCCRR Chairman to next hold inter-cessional meetings in Geneva where all Member States would be present to discuss the proposed treaty's provisions.  Because inter-cessional meetings would provide both developed and developing countries with an opportunity to discuss their differences together and allow for the input of public-interest organizations in the debate, an inter-cessional meeting was recommended by these countries as the appropriate next step.  Despite these requests, the committee's Chairman recommended instead to send all further debate on the proposed Broadcasting Treaty to regional meetings, where WIPO can more easily pressure individual countries into accepting the treaty through a "divide and conquer" strategy.  WIPO regional meetings take place completely outside of the public eye, and accredited NGO's, such as IP Justice, are not permitted to attend regional meetings.  In the past, however, the US and the EU have been allowed to participate at other region's meetings, such as the African Group's regional meetings, to help convince African countries to pass WIPO treaties.

Despite proper SCCRR procedure and promises that all views expressed by Member States would be reflected in the Chairman's Draft for consideration, only certain proposals are in fact included in the Chairman's Draft.  For example, at the last SCCRR meeting in June 2004, several of the world's most populous nations, including India and Brazil, asked that the next Chairman's Draft include an option to delete the "anti-circumvention" provisions that would forbid consumers from bypassing technological restrictions placed on programming by broadcasting companies.  These "digital locks" would allow broadcasting corporations to lock up and control public domain programs and prevent lawful fair uses of copyrighted programs.  The Chairman refused, however, to include this possibility in his latest Chairman's Draft.

Frustrated by the repeated unwillingness to incorporate developing countries' proposals into the Chairman's Draft or as part of the meeting's official recommendations and conclusions, India and other Member States noted that WIPO procedural rules were being violated.   WIPO rules do not allow a single delegate to act as SCCRR Chairman in back-to-back sessions, yet the Finnish delegate had served as the Chairman for the 7th session in a row, completely controlling the substance of the treaty drafts and excluding certain proposals.

A number of developing countries argued that the unilateral decisions of the Finnish delegate sitting in the Chair were invalid since he was an illegitimate Chairman.  WIPO rules require the committee reach consensus on important decisions, but the Chair opted instead to take a straw poll on whether to convene regional meetings.   The Chair's straw poll voted for regional meetings, but Delegates pointed out that his straw poll was illegal since he was an invalid Chair and because WIPO rules require a consensus that was no where near being reached.

Throughout the course of the meeting, delegates from developing countries complained to NGO's of WIPO "bully tactics," including one-on-one arm-twisting sessions, and WIPO attempting to go over the delegates' heads, by contacting Member State headquarters to pressure countries into withdrawing opposition to the proposed Broadcasting Treaty.

Besides ignoring developing country concerns, a number of new WIPO rules have had the effect of severely restricting civil society participation in the debate as well.  Opportunities to take the floor and speak were shortened and WIPO stated it will no longer photocopy issue briefing papers provided by public interest organizations for Delegates, who have asked for their input.  WIPO also announced the cancellation of all coffee breaks during the three day meetings, which had previously provided civil society representatives with an opportunity to speak one-on-one with Member State Delegates about the treaty's harmful provisions.  NGO briefing papers were stolen within minutes of being placed on the designated table three days in a row at the SCCRR meeting.  Some of these documents were eventually recovered in restroom trash cans and behind desks at WIPO.  When civil society representatives informed WIPO of the theft and requested assistance, WIPO Deputy Director General Rita Hayes (US) said she could not provide security or assistance since she was unhappy about the Internet publication of daily reports from civil society representatives on the substance of the debate during the meetings.

In addition to developing countries and public interest organizations, artists also oppose the proposed Broadcasting Treaty because it would subvert the rights of creators to the newly granted rights of broadcasting companies, and performers would be required to obtain permission from broadcasting companies in order to use their own broadcast performances.  And despite overwhelming opposition by Member States to the US' proposal to regulate Internet webcasting by extending the scope of the treaty beyond traditional broadcasting, the Chair concluded that webcasting will remain in the next version of the draft treaty (although countries may opt of it).

But due to the illegitimacy of the SCCRR Chairman and thus his invalid conclusion to send debate to regional meetings, it is unclear what the next steps will actually be for the Broadcasting Treaty or the SCCRR Committee.

For more information, see:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO

IP Justice Statement to 12th Session of WIPO Copyright Committee:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/november04stmt.shtml

IP Justice Analysis of the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty
"Excessive Rights for Broadcasting Companies Threatens Public Domain and Technological Innovation":
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/broadcastingtreatyreport2004.shtml

Development Agenda:
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.pdf

"Geneva Declaration" on the Future of WIPO:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/genevadeclaration.shtml

Alternative NGO Proposal for a Broadcasting Treaty:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/NGO_Treaty_Proposal_v2.8.pdf

Joint Statement by Artists and NGOs Opposing WIPO Broadcasting Treaty:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/Joint_Statement.pdf

IP Justice Top 10 Reasons to Reject the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/Top_10_reasons_WIPO.html
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/Top_10_reasons_WIPO.doc

WIPO Draft Broadcasting Treaty:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/sccr_12_2.doc

Detailed Notes from 12th Session SCCRR Meeting:
http://www.public-domain.org/node/view/66

IP Justice Press Release of 17 November 2004
WIPO Steps Up Pressure on 'Special Interest' Broadcasting Treaty:
Ignores Concerns of Developing Countries and Artists:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/release20041118.shtml

Statement from Civil Society on Stolen Briefing Papers:
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/NGO_stmt_stolen_docs.shtml

IP Justice is an international civil liberties organization that promotes balanced intellectual property laws.  IP Justice defends consumer rights to use digital media worldwide and is a non-profit organization based in San Francisco.  IP Justice was founded in 2002 by Robin Gross, who serves as its Executive Director.  To learn more about IP Justice, visit the website at http://www.ipjustice.org.