WIPO Boss Reappointed Until 2020, Despite Bogus Legal Threat Against Blogger

from the wipo-credibility-gone dept

WIPO boss Francis Gurry's leadership has been full of some really questionable controversies, including potentially violating UN sanctions by sending computers to North Korea and Iran, as well as having people break into the offices of some of his own employees to secretly collect DNA samples. Still, to me, perhaps most troubling was his attempt last month to stifle public debate and commentary about the DNA controversy by sending an intimidating letter to blogger Gene Quinn, threatening him with the possibility of criminal prosecution in Switzerland, for merely publishing a "report of misconduct" filed about Gurry by one of his deputies, James Pooley.

Given all the controversy -- some of it quite serious -- it seems reasonable to question if Gurry is the right person to continue to lead WIPO. Apparently, the member states that control WIPO don't have a problem with it, because they've now reappointed Gurry, giving him a second six-year term.

As for his focus? It appears to be to continue pushing a maximalist position. While it should be noted that WIPO has actually become marginally less maximalist in the past few years, thanks to the influence of developing nations like India and Brazil, it's still an organization that focuses on maximizing intellectual property, rather than maximizing what's actually best for the public. That's clear from Gurry's "acceptance" speech.

Turning to the future, I believe that the fundamental challenge that we face as an Organization is to achieve a shared understanding of the contribution and value of intellectual property to economic, social and cultural development.

Notice that it's not about determining whether or not it's actually true that "intellectual property" creates such value -- it's just assumed as fact.

And, indeed, he also highlighted areas where WIPO has been working on dangerous new forms of "intellectual property" protections -- where absolutely none is needed: broadcast rights and traditional knowledge.

In concrete terms, for example, the Organization must achieve successful outcomes both on broadcasting and on traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources. If we are unable to address the latest technological developments, the Organization will fail in its main mission of encouraging innovation and will become irrelevant to the mainstream of global innovation. If we are unable to address traditional knowledge systems, the Organization will fail in its mission of universality and will not recognize the full scope of intellectual contributions to innovation.

This is ridiculous and dangerous. Locking up traditional knowledge doesn't help "recognize the full scope of intellectual contributions to innovation" -- it just makes it more difficult for continued innovation. Protectionism where none has been needed slows down progress, rather than advances it.

As the old saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The problem here is that WIPO seems to view every bit of knowledge, content and transmission as a rogue form of "property" that needs to be locked up and put behind a tollbooth. And rather than looking into how dangerous an assumption that is, Gurry is busy threatening bloggers for reporting about his own questionable behavior.

Filed Under: dna, francis gurry, gene quinn, intimidation, threats, un, wipo

Shameful: WIPO Threatens Blogger With Criminal Charges For Accurately Reporting On WIPO Director's Alleged Misconduct

from the intellectual-property-and-censorship-again dept

Last fall we wrote about some surprising allegations that Francis Gurry, the director of WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization -- a part of the UN), had surreptitiously taken DNA samples from employees while trying to determine who had sent him anonymous letters. This is the same Gurry who was already involved in highly questionable scandals involving ignoring UN sanctions against both North Korea and Iran, to send them computers, which WIPO idiotically believed those countries would use to bolster their local patent systems. Because, when you think of Iran and North Korea, I'm sure you think about their patent systems.

There had been some public efforts by a few members of Congress to oppose Gurry's re-election to WIPO because of these infractions, but all that seemed for naught a couple months ago when Gurry was re-nominated. It's not final that he'll remain as director, but it's almost entirely assured. A few weeks ago, however, I saw that stories of the DNA collection had resurfaced, mainly in a blog post by noted patent lawyer and blogger Gene Quinn. While Quinn and I disagree about nearly everything patent related -- sometimes angrily -- his blog is still a worthwhile read, and this original story had caught my attention. Quinn had a copy of the "Report of Misconduct" filed by James Pooley, one of Gurry's deputies, going into much more detail on Gurry's actions with regards to the illegal DNA collection, and calling into serious question Gurry's ability to lead WIPO. You can read much more about Pooley's charges in a Fox News report. However, you can no longer read the report or Quinn's analysis of it because WIPO threatened Quinn with criminal charges for posting it.

I had actually opened Quinn's post -- and the files he posted -- back when he first put them up, but set them aside to revisit later, and like many stories I hope to get to, I never actually wrote about them. While I still had the tabs with the files opened, somewhere between then and when I restarted my browser, the files had actually gone away. The threat to Quinn, however, seems worse than the claims of DNA collection in the first place. Here is WIPO actively issuing bogus legal threats to censor someone performing journalistic endeavors reporting on factual information. Here's the letter that WIPO's lawyer sent Quinn:

I am writing to you in my capacity as Legal Counsel of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in relation to a report and its accompanying exhibits (“WIPO Deputy Director General Alleges Gurry Misconduct”) that are posted on your website IP Watchdog.

I should like to express my grave concern over the contents of this report, which is both insulting and defamatory, as it contains false statements that harm WIPO and the reputation of WIPO’s Director General, Mr. Francis Gurry.

As at Friday, April 11, 2014, we have noticed that the Report itself has been removed from the website. We are, however, very concerned to see that the annexes to the Report (the so-called “exhibits”) are still posted on your website. As you will no doubt know, the said Report and its exhibits or annexes constitute defamatory material which, inter alia, suggest corruption, concern DNA allegations, and are a republication of rehashed allegations.

In addition, I should like to remind you that under Swiss law, the publication of such false and defamatory material could constitute a criminal offence. This is, of course, without prejudice to the laws of any jurisdiction to which you may be subject.

We hereby request that you immediately remove the Report and all its exhibits or annexes from the website.

We hereby further request that you publish an apology to the Director General of WIPO for the publication of false and defamatory material on the website.

Please be informed that if this request is not immediately acceded to, the Director General and WIPO will seek independent legal advise to bring defamation proceedings against you in any competent jurisdiction.

We thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Edward Kwakwa
Legal Counsel / World Intellectual Property Organization

This would be from the same Kwakwa who was also at the center of the computers-to-North Korea and Iran stories. Either way, the threats are ridiculous. First off, under the SPEECH Act, Quinn is completely protected from any defamation ruling for a variety of reasons. First, not only is it unclear if this was actually defamatory, merely republishing a report written by someone else is protected in the US under Section 230 of the CDA, and the SPEECH Act was written to make sure that Section 230 protections applied even against lawsuits filed in other countries for publications based in the US.

Second, it's quite incredible for Kwakwa to declare -- as fact -- that the content is defamatory (even suggesting that Quinn magically "knows" this is defamatory). Clearly Pooley and many others do not believe it is defamatory, and as far as I can tell, no court has ruled that the content is defamatory. And this isn't just some random person declaring that Gurry was involved in this: it's a guy who reports directly to Gurry. If it's defamatory, let Gurry take it to court and have it declared so. You don't just get to censor stuff based on one party's claim.

Third, as Intellectual Asset Magazine (linked above) notes, the whole thing -- intimidating a journalist with threats of criminal charges for merely reporting on a document that no one denied was, in fact, filed by WIPO deputy director James Pooley -- is insane:

As a journalist I find this utterly outrageous. I hope that other people do too. Quinn was not threatened with legal action for any allegations that he made, or for the slant on the story that he wrote around Pooley’s report and exhibits. Instead, he was threatened with legal action for providing a link to them.

Let’s remember, Pooley is Deputy Director of WIPO, he works with and reports to Gurry, and he has made very serious allegations. If that is not newsworthy, I do not know what is. Furthermore, as far as I know, these allegations have not been withdrawn – and certainly had not been when Kwakwa wrote the letter - neither has any investigation of them been reported, let alone concluded. Yet Kwakwa, WIPO’s legal counsel, has declared them “false and defamatory”. How does he know?

Quinn has chosen not to fight this, taking down his post and the associated documents, noting that while he believes in the First Amendment, he's currently recovering from hip replacement surgery and is in no condition to take on this sort of fight at the moment. I've seen at least two other reporters and bloggers who claim to have a copy of the report similarly refuse to post it, noting that it's not worth the legal fight.

And thus WIPO has effectively censored a report on misconduct by its Director General, filed by a senior deputy. To me that's just as, if not more, incriminating than the original charges of the DNA collection. The fact that WIPO believes this is appropriate screams of a coverup from an organization that has something to hide. Perhaps it's no surprise -- given how often we've seen copyright used for censorship -- to find out that the organization that pushes for greater copyright and patent maximalism around the world is also a fan of direct intimidation and censorship of journalists.

However, it should certainly call into serious question how WIPO functions, and whether Director Gurry is the sort of person who should be leading the organization when it appears to be doing all this under his watch.

Filed Under: defamation, edward kwakwa, francis gurry, free speech, gene quinn, intimidation, james pooley, journalism, speech act, threats, wipo

WIPO Boss Accused Of Surreptitiously Collecting DNA Samples From WIPO Employees

from the paranoid-much? dept

Francis Gurry, the head of the World Intellectual Property Organization, seems to be running from scandal to scandal these days. While it has shown brief moments of enlightenment, for the most part, WIPO tends to be an organization very supportive of the copyright and patent maximalist agenda. Last year, we wrote about two incredible scandals that directly involved Gurry. Despite WIPO being a part of the UN, Gurry apparently defied UN sanctions against both North Korea and Iran to give them computers, in the wacky belief that those countries would use the computers to bolster their local patent system. Gurry, apparently blind to the fact that North Korea, especially, was desperately seeking computing power for its nuclear program and had very little concern or need for a patent program, seemed to think that this was a good idea, and even defended the decision, though he agreed to kill the program.

The latest, however, involves a few more crazy scandals, including accused attempts to sneakily set up WIPO offices in both Russia and China and (even more bizarre) trying to surreptitiously collect DNA samples on employees he was convinced were sending anonymous letters. First, the DNA situation:

Among them, an embarrassing case involving DNA sampling. Prior to his election, Francis Gurry had been the target of anonymous letters. Convinced that the letters’ authors were among those within his entourage, the successor of Kamil Idris filed a complaint with the prosecutor in Geneva in October 2007 and surprisingly authorized the police to enter WIPO’s premises to take statements and DNA samples. But the suspected employees later discovered that additional samples had been taken from their offices without their consent and thus illegally. On November 13, an ex-employee – who was made redundant after a corruption allegation of which he has since been cleared – filed a criminal complaint for “slander” with the prosecutor of Geneva. His lawyer sent a letter to the representatives of the Member States informing them that this procedure would require them to vote to lift Francis Gurry’s diplomatic immunity.

Given all of this, many are questioning why Gurry should be allowed to stay in charge of WIPO. A bunch of Congressional Representatives had raised some concerns about Gurry about a month ago, but with this latest story, they've sent another letter to Secretary of State John Kerry expressing their serious concerns about allowing Gurry to continue to lead WIPO:

As you may recall, concerns were expressed following reports that Mr. Gurry was running a secret program to ship high-end computers and other electronic gear to North Korea and Iran. When called to account, he claimed that U.S. law did not constrain him, and he refused to cooperate with an investigation by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Since the time of that letter, the situation at WIPO has substantially deteriorated. As you know, the recent annual meeting of Member States collapsed due to the revelation of secret agreements made by Gurry to open satellite WIPO offices in China and Russia -- we understand that he even proposed opening an office in Tehran.

But even more disturbing, we understand Gurry is involved in a scheme to illegally acquire DNA samples of WIPO employees in a failed effort to develop evidence to support a personal complaint that he had filed with the Swiss authorities. There is also concern that he has been working since to suppress this information and to prevent any independent investigation of it.

Yikes. It would seem that WIPO is quite a disaster currently. That's not to say that a new leader would necessarily be any better, but it would appear that the series of scandals around Gurry, many of which include incredibly serious charges, raises all sorts of questions about WIPO under his leadership.

Filed Under: francis gurry, scandals, un, wipo

Why Is Red Hat Associated With A Letter That Calls More User Rights In Copyright A Dangerous 'Contagion'?

from the hopefully-they'll-stop-that dept

We covered the ridiculously long fight in WIPO to finally get a treaty that allows greater rights for the blind to get access to copyright-covered works. This fight, which went on for over a decade, finally reached mostly a conclusion in the past few months with the Marrakesh treaty. While the US avoided it at first, even it signed on at the beginning of October. Of course, the US was the main force opposing the treaty for a long time, with the main argument against it being something along the lines of "if we make any concessions towards more user rights over copyright-covered content, it will set a bad precedent." This is the mind of a maximalist: the ratchet can only work one way, and that way is for greater protection and enforcement, even if there's no evidence that it does any good (and plenty of evidence of the harm it does).

KEI points us to a just-discovered letter sent to the State Department to fight against the WIPO treaty right before it was finally agreed to, arguing (of course) that any effort to give users greater rights is a horrible precedent to set. The letter was sent from a group called the Trans-Atlantic Business Council (TCB), and was apparently pushed around DC by a lobbyist for General Electric (note taken: General Electric wants to fuck over the blind -- what, they don't buy enough lightbulbs?).

More incredible is that among the members of the TCB is... Red Hat. If ever there were a company that should be in strong favor of more user rights and against maximalism, it's Red Hat. One hopes that the company doesn't approve of this letter being sent in its name. Similarly, IBM is on the list, and it's a company that relies tremendously on open source software. Does IBM want to go down as a copyright maximalist with no concern for the blind? If not, it might want to reconsider its membership in such an organization.

The letter itself really is incredible in the ignorance it pushes, definitely fitting into the category described above:

As currently drafted, the VIP Treaty would set a negative precedent, reversing years of joint U.S. and EU efforts to prevent the erosion of global Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and undermining the U.S. and EU negotiating positions in a range of other global IPR and trade negotiations.

And here's the really incredible part, which likens rights for the public to a disease:

Agreement of the VIP Treaty on the basis of this text (or anything approximating it) could negatively affect U.S. and EU IP-related negotiating positions across global forums for years to come. The risk of contagion is not limited to copyright issues alone, but spans the entire range of IPR issues, including also patents, trade secrets, and trademarks. U.S. and EU positions in the ongoing debates at WIPO, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNTCCC)--where IPR issues have been a politically divise issue for years--and the World Health Organization (WHO) could certainly be undermined.

The idea that more user rights is a "contagion" and might harm other agreements is, fundamentally, ridiculous.

One hopes that Red Hat will distance itself from such ridiculous language, which appears to go very much against the company's stated position on both copyright and patents.

Filed Under: blind, copyright, treaty, wipo
Companies: red hat, tcb, trans-atlantic business council

US Ambassador To The UN Says WIPO Too Biased Against IP Holders

from the er,-what? dept

Back in 2010, Techdirt reported on a fairly remarkable comment from the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Betty E. King, who said at a press conference:

if we get to a system where the protections of patents are abrogated in the name of development then we certainly will kill [WIPO].

If that's not clear, she's saying that intellectual property is more important than economic development (especially in emerging countries).

Howard Knopf points out a post from Intellectual Property Watch where she was asked what her thoughts on the subject were now:

King said she is not concerned about the Development Agenda [at WIPO], but that there is still a need for greater balance for those who have IP rights.

In other words, she's not as worried, but she apparently feels that WIPO is somehow biased against patent and copyright holders. I suppose keeping out those evil Pirates out of WIPO was a step in the right direction, then....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: betty king, developing nations, economics, ip, wipo

Pirate Parties Blocked From WIPO After US & Other Countries Complained That They Don't Support WIPO's Mission

from the but-of-course dept

A little over a year ago, the Pirate Parties International (a group representing various different local Pirate Parties) asked for permission to have "observer" status at WIPO, the UN-based World Intellectual Property Organization, an operation somewhat renowned for its generally maximalist agenda. Last year, we noted that, after complaints from Swiss, French and US delegations to WIPO, the PPI request was delayed for an entire year. Well, that year is up... and WIPO has officially rejected the request while it approved all other requests except for the Pirates and Kenya Innovation Council.

Once again, US officials were among the folks trying to block PPI from becoming an observer, expressing concerns that the Pirate Parties "don't support the objectives" of WIPO. So who did get approved? Well, among others, there was the International Society for the Development of Intellectual Property (ADALPI). So it's not like WIPO rejected organizations that came into things with a clearly biased perspective. It just wanted to reject organizations whose position WIPO officials don't like. Ridiculously, as Jamie Love points out, the US State Department first talked about being able to discuss things "free from undue interference or censorship" and then went out and blocked the Pirate Parties from being able to join WIPO as observers. Hypocritical as always. And, if you're wondering, other political parties have been allowed into other UN organizations in the past, so it's not just because the Pirates are a political party.

Once again, we see that WIPO is not actually focused on determining the most effective intellectual property regime, but rather they'll push for protectionism and maximalism because a few countries benefit strongly from such positions. And they'll even go so far as to lock out organizations that have other viewpoints.

Filed Under: intellectual property, ngos, observers, pirate parties international, state department, wipo

Yes, You Can Have An Open And Transparent Treaty Negotiation For Intellectual Property

from the proof-is-in-the-pudding dept

We had mentioned along with the news that the WIPO treaty for the blind had been signed in Marrakech that it proved that -- contrary to the claims of the USTR -- that you don't need to keep negotiations of an intellectual property treaty secret. Sean Flynn has now expanded on this to debunk the USTR's clearly untrue assertion.

The elements of WIPO’s transparency processes are varied. they start with ongoing releases of draft negotiating documents dating back to the beginning of the process.  ACTA was marked by releases of negotiating texts only through leaks, until the EU parliament demanded increased transparency – after which point negotiators released four public texts in the final 12 months. The TPP negotiators claim they will complete their treaty this October (which no one believes). There has not been a single public release of text, thus failing to live up to even the meager standard for public releases that defined ACTA. The leaked texts of TPP that we have show a secret agreement to keep the texts of the proposals being considered until four years AFTER the conclusion of the agreement. Thus, even subsequent interpreters of the TPP may be prevented from seeing its legislative history.

WIPO webcasted negotiations, and even established listening rooms where stakeholders could hear (but not be physically present in) break rooms where negotiators were working on specific issues. ACTA was not subject to any observation of negotiating rooms by non-parties. TPP negotiators even rejected a request by a U.S. Congressman to observe a negotiation.

WIPO set up a system of open and transparent structured stakeholder input, including published reports and summaries of stakeholder working groups composed of commercial and non-commercial interests alike. ACTA was, and TPP is, informed by structured input from multinational corporations who receive secret drafts of texts and submit reports to the United States Trade Representative.  There are no consumer representatives among these advisers and none of their reports are public.

Transparency in WIPO continued through the final days of intense, often all night, negotiations in the final diplomatic conference. When negotiators reached a new breakthrough on the language concerning the controversial “3-step test” limiting uses of limitations and exceptions in national laws, that news was released to the public (enabling public news stories on it), along with the draft text of the agreement. There are now reports that a majority of the chapters of the TPP are concluded, and perhaps a majority of the articles in the IP section – but the public has no public text to see what those agreements might be.

The list goes on and on and the contrast is incredibly clear. The USTR is being misleading to downright dishonest in suggesting that it couldn't possibly have the same level of transparency in the negotiations around agreements like the TPP or ACTA (or the upcoming TAFTA).

Filed Under: acta, blind, closed, negotiations, open, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, treaties, treaty for the blind, ttip, wipo

Copyright Exceptions Gaining Ground Around The World -- But Not For The Blind

from the exception-to-exceptions dept

There finally seems to be a growing recognition in many countries that copyright is not fit for the digital age. In the US, the Copyright Registrar has spoken on this; in the UK, the Hargreaves Review delineated many problems; and more recently, Australia, too, is starting to address the question. As part of the process of implementing Hargreaves' recommendations, the UK government is carrying out a consultation on whether the UK should adopt the full list of copyright exceptions that are laid out in the EU Copyright Directive, which provides the overarching framework for copyright in Europe. It has now published some questionnaires seeking input in this area:

Each of the documents below relates to a separate exception, and contains a series of questions. We would welcome answers to the questions we have posed and any specific drafting suggestions.

The first drafts we are publishing for review are the exceptions for private copying, parody, quotation and public administration. Drafts for the other exceptions will be released as soon as they are ready.

The exception for private copying is straightforward:

will allow an individual to copy content they own, and which they acquired lawfully, to another medium or device for their own personal use.

Regrettably, it does not allow the circumvention of DRM:

the making of the further copy does not involve the circumvention of effective technological measures applied to the copy from which it is made.

That really guts the new exception, since publishers will simply add DRM to prevent copies being made. On the plus side, the proposed exception does explicitly state that contracts seeking to restrict the right to this exception will be unenforceable. That's also true of the proposed exceptions for caricature, parody or pastiche, and for quotation.

Although welcome, the UK's proposed copyright exceptions are hardly earth-shattering. Moreover, they don't change the fundamental approach to copyright in the UK. Australia's latest proposals for updating copyright, published recently as an extremely thorough and clearly-written 388-page discussion paper are considerably bolder, because they recommend shifting from the current fair dealing approach to fair use. Where the former consists of a limited set of defenses against alleged copyright infringement, fair use lists the general factors to be considered in determining whether the use is a fair or not.

Australia's proposed list of fairness factors are as follows:

(a) the purpose and character of the use;

(b) the nature of the copyright material used;

(c) in a case where part only of the copyright material is used -- the amount and substantiality of the part used, considered in relation to the whole of the copyright material; and

(d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyright material.

These are closely modelled on those applied in the US:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

However, it's worth emphasizing that this is only a recommendation in a discussion paper (with comments open until 31 July.) Indeed, an alternative option is also presented, whereby the current fair dealing exceptions in Australian law would be extended to include a wide range of new ones, including for 'non-consumptive' use (temporary copies on the Internet, for example); private and domestic purposes; quotation; education; and libraries and archives.

Those are close to the more cautious approach being adopted in the UK (the Hargreaves Review noted the virtues of fair use, but claimed that there were "significant difficulties" in moving to it because of EU law.) But what's interesting is that both the UK and Australia, with its two alternative proposals, recognize that exceptions offer an effective way to update the copyright system. That contrasts with the obdurate position of the copyright maximalists, who claim that granting any copyright exception for the blind, no matter how limited, would somehow cause the whole system to collapse. That's simply absurd, as the current moves by both the UK and Australia to widen greatly the scope of copyright exceptions clearly demonstrate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: australia, blind, copyright, exceptions, fair use, uk, wipo

How The MPAA Fought To Keep Audiovisual Materials Out Of WIPO Treaty For The Blind/Deaf; And How That's A Disaster For Education

from the a-serious-problem dept

The MPAA has been trying to rehabilitate its image concerning its well documented attempts to screw over the blind and the deaf in blocking the decades-in-negotiations WIPO treaty to improve access to works. Over at KEI, Fedro De Tomassi, has a detailed explanation for how the MPAA fought to keep "audio-visual works" completely out of the treaty, and the massive impact it has on education. First, he notes how frequently video is now used in the classroom:

Since I started taking classes at St. Olaf college 3 years ago, there has not been one professor that has not used some sort of audiovisual aid during the course. I am a political science major, and the trends of using videos is no different in the humanities. For example in my Russian and Eurasian politics class, we studied the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states today, and the use of Youtube videos and documentary films were instrumental in giving us a better understanding of the situation. The use of videos in education has become a norm to address the needs of various types of learners as well as to complement the various tools and sources at the disposal of the professors.

Videos are not used solely in the classroom, they are assigned as homework and part of the syllabus and the “reading list” of most if not all courses you have to take to get a bachelor today. Audiovisual materials also compose a large part of the library. Archival footage for example is an essential part of a history major curriculum.

Just last week, I had dinner with a university professor who was telling me the difficulty she had in trying to get the use of videos approved for her teaching, asking a variety of people about the copyright issues of even linking to clips online and getting back vague or contradictory answers.

Fedro then points out how the MPAA made sure the treaty for the blind and the deaf turned into one just for the blind.

In 2009, the Motion Picture Industry began to lobby the Obama Administration to narrow the treaty to "print disabilities" only, and to eliminate deaf persons as beneficiaries. By 2010, the Obama Administration took a hard line in the WIPO negotiations, backed upon by the European Union, to narrow the treaty, excluding deaf persons. This was designed to overcome political opposition from the MPAA, and the USPTO said the compromise on beneficiaries was necessary for the text to move forward. In November 2010, the WIPO SCCR agreed to separate the more "mature" issues of visually impaired and reading disabilities from "other disabilities" in its negotiations. In June 2011, a new committee sponsored negotiating text for this treaty (SCCR/24/9) defined beneficiaries in such a way that deaf persons were excluded.

But, that's not all. There were still questions around "audiovisual works" and the MPAA went to work again:

From 1985 to 2011, the various treaty proposals all would have covered any copyrighted work, including, for example SCCR/23/7, the text published in December 2011. But shortly after the MPAA was able to remove deaf persons as beneficiaries, they lobbied the Obama Administration to remove audiovisual works from the text. The Obama Administration proposed this formally in June 2012, and in December 2012, there was a deal to eliminate audiovisual works from the text, in order to get an agreement to hold a diplomatic conference in June 2013. Since nothing is set in stone in the negotiation, that decision can be changed, but it will probably require a change of position in the Obama White House, which has threatened to block the treaty if audiovisual works are included.

The MPAA's claims that it wants this treaty passed ring pretty hollow. It wants a completely gutted version approved at a time when audiovisual works are increasingly not just important, but necessary, for education.

Filed Under: audiovisual materials, blind, copyright, deaf, exceptions, fair use, treaty for the blind, wipo
Companies: mpaa