Comments on: WIPO Sees Progress On Broadcaster Rights, Library Exceptions; Treaty For Blind Readers Slips

By: The Berne ‘three-step test’: A Need for Clarification? « jake carberry

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:39:58 +0000

[...] (3) Article 13, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04_e.htm (4) http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/12/05/wipo-sees-progress-on-broadcaster-rights-library-exceptions-treat… [...]

By: Texts On Broadcasting, Copyright Education Exceptions, Metamorphise At WIPO | Intellectual Property Watch

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:24:13 +0000

[...] Both of these draft treaties were addressed at the last SCCR in December 2011 (IPW, WIPO, 5 December 2011). [...]

By: Canada’s bid to join TPP threatens access for blind, print disabled

Canada’s bid to join TPP threatens access for blind, print disabled — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:45:20 +0000

[...] All of this comes on the heels of difficulties at WIPO in the negotiation of a treaty for the blind and visually-impaired, where it se… [...]

By: IP Experts Focus On 3-Step Test In Copyright, Discuss Way Forward | teachipr.com

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:23:56 +0000

[...] work was conducted on defining copyright limitations and exceptions for various user groups (IPW, WIPO, 5 December 2011). From an audiovisual treaty to exceptions for libraries, a number of targeted treaties are in the [...]

By: International Publishers Demand Egyptian Government Stop Attacking Publisher | Intellectual Property Watch

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:22:31 +0000

[...] The IPA states that it “actively fights against censorship and promotes copyright, literacy and freedom to publish.” It has been seen as somewhat less supportive on promoting knowledge access in negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization aimed at opening cross-border flows of special texts for print-disabled and blind readers (IPW, WIPO, 5 December 2011). [...]

By: IP Experts Focus On 3-Step Test In Copyright, Debate Way Forward | Intellectual Property Watch

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:09:06 +0000

By: john e miller

john e miller — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:20:11 +0000

There is may be one key provision of the WIPO SCCR 24/17 document mentioned above that could prove pivotal and that is in Article C. ‘lawful access’ by an Authorized Entity. The provision says that at C.2.(A) especially at:

1. the authorized entity wishing to undertake said activity has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work;

That language suggests that once one AE anywhere in the world has obtained lawful access to a work and then made a Braille, DAISY, or other accessible rendition, *that* accessible copy can be sent to any AE anywhere in the world without any of those recipient AEs every necessitating their own lawful access.

In its statement related to Libraries the USA made the following observation:

34. USA (DRAFT COMPILATION ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES):

“Obviously when a copy of an entire work is being made, there is the question of substantially adverse market effects to the publishers and authors. It is also important that this type of activity not be done in a systematic way, but that it would be a single occasions at the requests of libraries. There is a danger that one library could end up making copies for all libraries, essentially taking away an author’s market to the entire country once one copy is sold to one library.”

So just how many copies are bought-and-paid for of the original published material or — if a digital original — licensed copy in each country might also prove significant in determining what

“does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work.”