You may remember that WIPO co-organized an event in Barcelona entitled “From the Rome Convention to Podcasting” on June 21. Despite the title, there was apparently little discussion of podcasting. Here’s notes of the meeting from Michelle Childs of CP Tech, who was a panelist at the meeting:
We’ve been waiting for a new draft of the treaty to be released by WIPO. That happened on Wednesday. The new draft is at:
At the last WIPO meeting in May, it was agreed that “webcasting” would be taken out of the new draft, and put into a separate instrument. It was also agreed that “simulcasting” (meaning simultaneous transmission of broadcasts and cable transmissions) would be taken out and put into the 2nd, separate instrument. The new draft has removed webcasting, but not simulcasting.
This week the US delegation submitted a new definition of “netcasting” to WIPO so it may well be discussed at the next meeting, even if “webcasting” (as previously defined) is not in the new draft of the treaty treaty.
WIPO has set the dates for the next meeting. It will be at WIPO HQ in Geneva on September 11-13 (not 11-15 as previously thought). We received the formal invitation today. This will be the last meeting before the treaty is put forward to the WIPO General Assembly on September 25-October 3, and member countries will be asked to vote to convene an inter-governmental diplomatic conference in early 2007. The treaty would be formally agreed and adopted at that conference.
The concerns that we UKPA members have :
– Not wanting to be regulated in the same way as broadcasters, and wanting to ensure that broadcasters could not use the treaty to use and obtain rights over podcast content. The treaty states that it is not intended to interfere with existing copyright rights, but because of the unclear drafting and the overlap with copyright, there’s some concern about how this will work in practice.
There’s also concern that Creative Commons-licensed podcasts could be restricted by later users including “webcasters” under the Treaty, particularly if these use “technological measures” or DRM.
Thanks to Gwen Hinze from EFF.