Subject: Finnish WIPO Meeting 3 October
From: Heikki Poroila (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: ma 07 loka 1996 - 11:14:13 EEST
Finnish Library Copyright Group
CONSULTATION MEETING ABOUT THE WIPO TREATY PROPOSALS IN FINLAND, 3 October 1996
This meeting was organized by the Ministry of Education and chaired by Jukka Liedes
himself. Over fifty representatives attended the half-day meeting, among them at least
4-5 people from the users' side. The following remarks are personal ones and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of other Finnish library copyright activists.
1. The proposals had been written during the summer months in the Ministry of Education
in Finland. It was a decision of the Chairman Liedes to present three different
2. Jukka Liedes presented the articles and allowed the listeners give their comments.
The discussion was not lively, since only few participants were interested in standing
up. I was almost the only one making critical questions. The Finnish Library Copyright
Group also gave a written statement about the proposals, three pages.
3. Jukka Liedes let us know, that of the three proposals only the first one (CNCR/DC/4)
has been prepared well, the two others are quite open in many questions. He seemed to be
quite sceptical about the possibilities to get those proposals passed in Geneva. This
led myself to think, whether this has been intentional or not. It could be easier to get
the copyright proposal through if the two others could be sacrified.
4. Jukka Liedes pointed out, that these three treatys cannot change anything in Berne
Convention, their are just adding something. He also mentioned, that if some country now
not a member of the Berne Convention wants to sign these new treaties, this country also
has to accept and adopt the Berne Convention. In other words, you cannot get one without
5. Article 3 contains a new definition for electronic network publications. This article
and it's notes should be read carefully in libraries, too.
6. Quite surprisingly Jukka Liedes told us – smiling –, that the article 6 about
"Abolition of Certain Non-Voluntary Licences" is something that the "Rich Countries"
will give to the underdeveloped countries as a price for something more valuable.
7. Jukka Liedes did not accept the interpretation of article 7 as a critical one for the
user's rights. He tried to convince us that it is not possible to accept – on
international level – any exceptions to the exclusive right of authorizing any temporary
reproduction of works. He did admit, that it is essential to build these exceptions on
national level, but he failed to explain, how it will be possible to communicate
internationally, if the national legislations allow different things in the electronic
world. The only thing he could say was that he trusts in the wisdom of national
8. Article 8 (about the right of Distribution and importation) seemed to be something
that Jukka Liedes was not so sure about. Finland and the other Scandinavian countries
have supported the international exhaustion, and this might explain, why Chairman Liedes
has been forced to give the diplomatic conference alternatives A and B.
Jukka Liedes mentioned, that this article 8 only deals with physical, hard copies of
works. Anything in electronic form and distributed in network goes under article 10
9. Article 10 (Right of Communication) seemed to be quite problematic to present. Jukka
Liedes had to repeat, that this article does not really change anything, it only
guarantees for the electronic publications what the righ owners already have with other
publications. He denied the possibility that article 10 could lead to unfair situations.
The only argument here was again "You have to trust in your politicians, they won't
allow such things happen".
10. Jukka Liedes did not pay much attention to article 12. He simply convinced that in
the end nothing will be too different on national level. He did not want to remember the
tight three-step-test mentioned so many times in his own notes. Neither did he admit,
that leaving any limitations or exceptions on national level only could produce any
major problems even in the electronic world without traditional boundaries.
I was quite dissappointed with this meeting. Chairman Liedes made his best to give an
impression that these proposals are an important and complicated matter which will,
however, change nothing in real life. Chairman Liedes did not present any national
guidelines, though he was speaking as a Finnish copyright official. One was left to
wonder, what will be the Finnish opinions in Geneva. I am afraid that we have to
continue the discussion.
Vantaa City Library
Fax 358-09-873 6471
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : ma 10 elo 2020 - 01:20:12 EEST