Heise: Keine WIPO-Verhandlungen zur Patentrecht-Harmonisierung

“Das Patentrecht kann nicht harmonisiert werden, wenn es nicht im Interesse der Mehrheit der (WIPO-)Mitglieder, besonders der Entwicklungsländer, geschieht”, sagte dagegen der brasilianische Regierungsvertreter. Er wies darauf hin, dass Studien zu den Folgen des Patentsystems für die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung zu durchaus gemischten Ergebnissen kämen. Der Forderung nach mehr Qualität bei Patentanmeldungen hielt er entgegen, für Regierungen in den Entwicklungsländern gehe es erst einmal um die “Lebensqualität” ihrer Bürger. Die Entwicklungsländer wollen daher auch Wettbewerbsfragen und besondere Regeln für “traditionelles Wissen” behandelt sehen. Weiter diskutieren wird die WIPO im kommenden Jahr denn auch die so genannte entwicklungspolitische Agenda der Organisation, in deren Rahmen die Entwicklungsländer einen eigenen Völkerrechtsvertrag für den Zugang zum Wissen fordern.

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Two Victories at WIPO!

The negotiations have been tough (we hear), but the 2007 WIPO General Assemblies have come to a close with two huge victories for the public interest. On the Broadcasting Treaty, while the GA agreed to convene a Diplomatic Conference in November/December 2007, we now have two welcome safeguards in place (document after the jump).

Heise: WIPO Broadcasting Treaty: Schutz vor Signalpiraterie

Die Vertragskonferenz zur Verbabschiedung neuer Schutzrechte für Rundfunkunternehmen, das sogenannte WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, soll erst im November 2007 statt finden. Das beschlossen die Vertreter internationaler Regierungen bei der Generalversammlung der World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) gestern in Genf. Damit wichen die Regierungsvertreter vom Vorschlag des zuständigen Ständigen Ausschusses für Urheberrechte und verwandte Rechte (SCCR) ab, der das Abkommen bereits im August 2007 unter Dach und Fach bringen wollte.

iRights: WIPO-Rundfunk-Vertrag rückt näher

Eine diplomatische Konferenz soll im Sommer 2007 über der Entwurf eines WIPO-Vertrages über exklusive Rechte für Sendeunternehmen entscheiden. Das hat der Urheberrechtausschuss der WIPO Mitte September in Genf beschlossen. Eine breite Front aus Kritikern kämpft weiter gegen den Vertragsentwurf.

Golem: WIPO-Rundfunkvertrag rückt in Reichweite

TheDigitalMusicWeblog hat ein interessantes Interview mit Gwen Hinze von der EFF zum WIPO Broadcast Treaty: Digital Music Profile: The EFF’s Gwen Hinze.

[TDMW] Could you briefly explain how you believe that the broadcasting treaty will work/not work alongside the existing law of Copyright?

[GH] The treaty would create a new layer of rights that apply over, and in addition to, copyright. The treaty also requires signatory countries to provide legal protection for technological protection measures (TPMs) used by broadcasters. The new rights, backed by legally-enforced TPMs, would allow broadcasters and cablecasters to restrict access to transmitted information even where a work is the Public Domain, licensed under a Creative Commons licence, or where use would be permitted under national copyright law.

The treaty allows, but doesn’t require, signatory countries to create exceptions that parallel those in national copyright law. So for end users, whether you’ll be able to make use of transmitted material the same way then comes down to the political will of your national government, and the strength of domestic broadcasting lobbyists when national implementation legislation is debated in parliament.

Die WIPO tagt wieder in Genf und die Electronic Frontier Foundation hat ein gemeinsames Statement zum Thema Podcasting & den “Wipo Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations” verfasst, was im Rahmen der 15. Session des “Wipo Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights” übergeben werden soll.

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, representing the views of thousands of individuals who create audio and audiovisual podcasts and make them available on the Internet for others to listen to and enjoy, are extremely concerned about the draft World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations (the Treaty) and its proposed extension to the Internet.

The rapid adoption of podcasting by groups and individuals, both commercial, semi-professional and non-profit, for political commentary, news reporting, music distribution, and other important information dissemination is testament to its effectiveness. The Treaty proposes to create new rights that are not only unnecessary to sustain novel forms of online communication such as podcasting, but will also inhibit their growth.

The Treaty will stifle innovation in podcasting-related technologies because the Treaty would require signatory countries to provide legal protection for technological protection measures (TPM) and is likely to lead to technology mandate laws controlling the design of broadcast-receiving devices. The Treaty will also inhibit online communication by impeding access to and non-infringing use of copyrighted content. At the same time, where podcasts are made available under a Creative Commons licence, the Treaty could allow subsequent casters to make podcasts available on more restrictive terms, overriding the wishes of the podcast creator.

We oppose the extension of the draft Treaty to the Internet for three reasons.

1. There is no need for the proposed new rights. Webcasting, podcasting, and myriad other forms of online distribution have flourished without the sort of rights this Treaty would grant. Though podcasting is only in its infancy, tens of thousands of podcasts are already being made available, reaching an estimated total audience in the millions. To the extent this Treaty would grant rights to podcasters who also stream their content, including many of the undersigned, we have no desire for such rights.

2. Innovation in podcasting and other new Internet distribution tools will suffer. Podcasting came about because of the widespread adoption of general purpose portable audio players like iPods, as well as use of web syndication technologies like RSS. Had these novel tools been hampered by the secondary liability concerns that the treaty’s overbroad intellectual property rights pose for technology developers and manufacturers of devices that could be used to infringe the new rights, podcasting might never have flourished. This Treaty would hinder innovation in future tools by forcing technology developers to obey government TPM mandates over device design. Along with increasing the potential financial costs for innovators, the TPM mandates will limit the types of features on new devices.

3. Extending the Treaty to the Internet will harm the flow of information and free speech online. Podcasters’ freedom of expression is likely to suffer as a result of reduced innovation. Moreover, the treaty will impede podcasters’ access to and non-infringing use of copyrighted content. Podcasters can currently rely on national copyright laws to lawfully include copyrighted materials in their programs, whether for news reporting, education, or other permitted uses. The proposed Treaty would undermine those uses by layering a new and overbroad set of rights on top of copyright. This will require a second layer of rights clearance for transmitted materials. This will increase transaction costs for podcasters, who already face significant hurdles in obtaining necessary copyright clearances due to undeveloped licensing markets. But it will also give broadcasters the ability to silence podcasters who depend on use of copyrighted materials.

Hier ist ein kurzes 2,5 Minuten langes Statement von Cory Doctorow zu dem Thema zur Verwendung in Podcasts, was ich vor zwei Monaten in Rio aufgenommen habe. Steht unter CC und kann gegen Nennung der Quelle zu kommerziellen und nicht-komemrziellen Zwecken verwendet werden.

Update: Bei Heise gibts jetzt auch einen Artikel dazu: WIPO startet weitere Verhandlungen zum Schutz gegen “Signalpiraterie”.