Interessante artigo sobre a batalha do interesse publico no desenvolvimento do tratado internacional para cegos
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Ahmed Abdel Latif <[email protected]> > Date: June 16, 2013, 7:06:12 AM EDT > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [A2k] To What Extent Can Global IP Rules Be Responsive To Public > Interest Demands? The Case Of The VIP Treaty, > > > To What Extent Can Global IP Rules Be Responsive To Public Interest Demands? > The Case Of The Treaty For The Visually Impaired. > Inside Views, Intellectual Property Watch, 14 June 2013 > By Ahmed Abdel Latif and Pedro > Roffe<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/06/14/can-global-ip-rules-be-responsive-to-public-interest-demands-the-case-of-the-treaty-for-the-visually-impaired/#bio>, > ICTSD > > To what extent can global intellectual property rules address in an effective > manner the needs of the most vulnerable members of society? This is the key > question facing member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization > (WIPO) as they prepare to meet next week for a diplomatic conference, in > Marrakesh, that might result in the adoption of a treaty to facilitate access > to copyrighted works by visually impaired persons and persons with print > disabilities. > > The Potential of a Win-Win Outcome > The treaty in question offers the possibility of a win-win outcome for all > countries and stakeholders involved. It would signal, among others, the > continued relevance of multilateralism. For WIPO, it would be an important > achievement after the adoption of the Beijing treaty on audio-visual > performances last year. It would also show that member countries can set > aside their usual differences and address in earnest public interest problems > of a recognized humanitarian nature. > > The Risks Posed by Unreasonable Demands > As the diplomatic conference unfolds the prospect for such a win/win scenario > seems, however, compromised. Powerful lobbies and special interests are > hardening their stances on some of the key provisions of the future > instrument regarding issues like technological protection measures, > commercial availability, the three step test, and cross-border exchanges of > accessible format copies. If heeded, such demands could considerably weaken > the effectiveness of the future treaty and its ability to address in a > practical manner the needs of visually impaired persons for greater access to > format copies of copyrighted works. It is not unusual that attempts at > striking a fair balance between effective protection and the larger public > interest end up including cumbersome conditions that make their utilization > difficult if not almost impossible. The example of the Berne Appendix (1971), > with respect to access to educational material, remains a compelling one and > should not be repeated. > > What is the Measure of Success at Marrakesh? > Against this background, the question of what is the measure for success at > Marrakesh becomes a pressing one. WIPO member states should be wary of > yielding to demands from special interests that could defeat the very aim of > the treaty being considered, particularly in terms of the system of cross > border exchange of accessible format copies it aims to put in place. > > One concrete proposal to give comfort to all negotiating parties would be to > include in the instrument a 'review' provision - in the vein of the TRIPS > Agreement (article 71.1) - which would result in a review of the instrument > in light of the experience gained in its implementation or in the light of > any relevant new developments. Contrasting with the TRIPS experiment in this > regard, the present case would be considerably more focused and compelling. > [Note: TRIPS is the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related > Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) > > Ultimately, there should be less concern about the extent to which an > international treaty on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired > persons would constitute a 'precedent' in international copyright law. The > central concern should be on reaching an agreement that effectively addresses > the needs of visually impaired persons without unreasonable conditions and > cumbersome procedures that would make it not work in practice. This should be > the sole measure of success of at Marrakesh. > > Lessons from Past WIPO Diplomatic Conferences > The holding of a diplomatic conference entails engaging in negotiations but > it doesn't necessarily mean that the conference results in the adoption of a > treaty. In several instances, past WIPO diplomatic conferences failed in the > conclusion of a treaty and this due to disagreements between member states > and not necessarily along North-South cleavages. For example, at the 1991 > Hague patent harmonization conference, the first-to-invent and the > first-to-file system was at the centre of the dispute. At the 2000 conference > on audiovisual performances, disagreement was on one single provision - > dealing with the transfer of rights- prevented the adoption of the treaty. It > took 12 more years to reach a consensus on this issue and the treaty was > ultimately adopted at the Beijing diplomatic conference last year. Going back > further in time, a major initiative to readjust the Paris Convention on > Industrial Property to the needs of emerging economies failed to realize its > objectives after six unsuccessful sessions. > The lesson for all those engaged in modernizing IP regimes is that failure in > such diplomatic negotiations is a real possibility and should be avoided. At > the same time, success should not be achieved at any cost, including by > yielding to unreasonable demands that might compromise the integrity and > effectiveness of the future instrument. > > An Important Opportunity that Should Be Seized > If the international copyright system does not get it "right" on this issue, > its credibility might be seriously compromised. It would also be difficult, > in practice, to move forward on any other front in WIPO's copyright agenda, > particularly the call to update the system to the imperatives of the new > digital environment. This is an important and unique opportunity for the > international intellectual property system to give a glaring demonstration of > balance and inclusiveness. > > Ahmed Abdel Latif and Pedro Roffe, are respectively, Senior Programme Manager > and Senior Associate, Programme on Innovation, Technology and Intellectual > Property at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development > (ICTSD). > > Link: > http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/06/14/can-global-ip-rules-be-responsive-to-public-interest-demands-the-case-of-the-treaty-for-the-visually-impaired/ > > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
_______________________________________________ okfn-br mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br
