SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Should WIPO Lead Creation Of A Global Repertoire Database?

    Published on 22 November 2010 @ 4:21 pm

    By and , Intellectual Property Watch

    To solve many of the dilemmas facing copyright holders in the digital age, some say the World Intellectual Property Organization must create and administer an international repertoire database, compiling information about who owns what rights related to specific artistic works.

    So said speakers at a closing panel at a WIPO symposium on the future of copyright in the digital environment, which took place 4-5 November. Speakers’ presentations are available online here. The symposium was held as part of the WIPO Development Agenda.

    Meeting the need for such a database would “represent an opportunity for WIPO,” which gets much of its current revenues from the patent database and registration process, said Phil Hardy, a music industry journalist from the United Kingdom. This would do a similar thing. And “who else could do it? We’ve seen various well-intentioned societies attempt to do it and fail, primarily because their interests are limited,” he said, adding that commercial institutions do it successfully “but only for certain narrow niche areas of activity,” so my request is “please WIPO come in the door!”

    This database should cover all known or copyright musical works, the writers of the work, the owners of the rights, the entity on behalf of those owners who can licence on a territory-by-territory basis, and all known sound recording data, said Hardy.

    Jane Dyball, senior vice president of Warner/Chappell Music Ltd in London, said music publishers are completely dependent upon licensing for their entire business model, as they manufacture no products. What they need from WIPO are best practice guidelines for copyright education and enforcement against “copyright theft,” she said. But she added that while enforcing against copyright theft, for certain types of use “we should perhaps be more free and easy with access to our copyrights.”

    The idea of a repertoire database “is that there is one source of truth for data which relates to musical works throughout the world,” said Dyball. This is essential for music publishing, music composition rights and collection society rights. For music publishers, if there is a correction in the division of rights related to a song, it has to be corrected several times across different locations, but a database would provide a “universal source of truth that would then send information out.”

    Bendik Hofseth, chairman of the International Council of Authors and Composers of Music in Brussels, emphasised that the database should be set up as a reference rather than a database aimed at direct licensing. Direct involvement in licensing would be a breach of WIPO’s mandate, he said.

    The question of ownership is “one of the most difficult questions to get over,” said Dyball, and one of the main factors in why a database has yet to be created. “Everybody wants to own data, so therefore there’s a reluctance to share data. And that’s something we need to get over in trying to build this,” she said, as “whoever ends up owning it, the most important thing is that people have access to it.”

    WIPO already has been looking at these issues, officials said. Trevor Clarke, WIPO assistant director general for copyright issues, said at the meeting’s end that WIPO is “prepared to facilitate” a blue sky commission, suggested by Larry Lessig at the beginning of the meeting, changes to licensing practices, a global repertoire database, and efforts to reduce antagonism between copyright and competition.

    WIPO Internet Treaties

    Implementation of existing WIPO treaties might also be of use, said another panellist. Dora Salamba-Makwinja, chief executive officer of the Copyright Society of Malawi (COSOMA), highlighted the so-called WIPO Internet Treaties from 1996: the Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

    Very few countries, especially in the developing world, have ratified them, she said, and WIPO has “so far not demonstrated how effective implementation of the two treaties can contribute to access to knowledge in the digital environment and how they can facilitate online licensing of copyrighted works.”

    These treaties ensure that rights holders can use technical protection measures to protect their rights, and call for member states to provide legal protection, including measures against circumvention of technical measures used by rights holders, Salamba-Makwinja said. Such measures often spark controversy in the developed world among digital freedom advocates.

    Access to Knowledge?

    Sisule Musungu of think tank IQsensato presented a paper arguing that the concept of access to knowledge can provide a basis for governments and international organisations to take action on licensing of creative works in the digital age. It suggests using the elements of legitimacy, creativity and innovation, and participation and collaboration to test different approaches to licensing.

    Musungu identified nine concerns related to access to knowledge. These include: social, economic and cultural development; enabling the largest number of people to participate in the creation of knowledge and knowledge resources: how to promote and facilitate new business models; protecting and supporting the interests of creative individuals and communities; and preserving and expanding the knowledge commons and the public domain.

    Other concerns are: anti-competitive practices; the effects of technological measures; the veracity of the evidence and justifications for new IP norms; and the level of participation by different actors in international policy and legislative processes.

    Looking Forward

    New thinking going forward is important, said Hofseth. “If we build our future on obsolete and controversial models of the past we will not get anywhere,” said Hofseth, saying that the current crisis for the recording industry also affects writers. On the one hand, multinational publishers or record labels “are inevitably pushing for a maximum return of revenue … serving their agenda of monoculture through a one-size fits all approach to the arts.” But on the other, a good publisher or label is “essential to us as artists,” as it allows for a focus on artistic work while freeing the writer from making business decisions. Labels also shoulder the financial risk involved in making music accessible, he said.

    Hannu Wager of the World Trade Organization afterward praised the WIPO event, which he said looked at how licensing works, impediments and current complexities. “It got to the core of copyright, how to make it work in the digital environment,” he said, both in terms of how to make service incentives function but also how to facilitate the widest access possible.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. IP Osgoode » ‘Global Repertoire Database’ Proposed as First International Copyright Compendium says:

      [...] system since 2008 given the existence of many collective societies in the European Union, and some have suggested that an alliance with WIPO would help extend the database’s reach. Deloitte estimates that it [...]

    2. Lessig Calls For WIPO To Lead Overhaul Of Copyright System | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] Should WIPO Lead Creation Of A Global Repertoire Database? [5] [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.