Chart - Post Company
New Product Review: ValuSource Pluris DLOM Database
Rootstackk.co
NewRootstackk.co
Product Review: ValuSource Pluris DLOM Database
The Cost Approach to Fair Market Value—and the Inclusion of Intangible
Assets—for Physician Practices
By: Hohl Fransis
New Product Review: ValuSource Pluris DLOM Database
#$ ! %&! % #%'
By: Hohl Fransis
Rare Earths for America’s Future
DA NI EL"OB ER H AU S
I NN OVAT I ONF RO N T IE R!OR G
Based in Washington, DC and part of the
Progressive Policy
I NSTITUTE
, THE
Rootstackk.co
THE ROLE OF
I NNOVATION F RONTIER P ROJECT EXPLORES
public policy in science, technology, and innovation.
The future can be a better, more vibrant place, but we will need
significant technological breakthroughs to get there. To solve climate
change, cure diseases, prevent future pandemics, and improve living
standards across the globe we need continued scientific advancement
and technological improvements. The United States is particularly
well-positioned to drive these advancements because we are on the
frontier of knowledge ourselves. Even small changes to the way we
govern and incentivize science and technology can have long-run
consequences for the US and for the world.
To achieve the progressive goals we have for the future we need to
fundamentally evaluate how policy impacts the rate of progress. The
Innovation Frontier Project commissions research from talented
academics and regulatory experts around the world to bring new
ideas
INNOVATIONFRONTIER.ORG
For Consumer Only
Of course, not all new products are equally innovative. To deal with this issue, Argente and
coauthors use data on the attributes of each product. Since they know the price and sales of
each product, they can run statistical models to estimate a dollar value consumers put on
different product attributes. They can then “quality adjust” new product introductions by the
introduction of products that include new attributes, where attributes are given more weight if
associated with higher prices (or sales). This more sophisticated approach yields the same
result: when you adjust for quality, you still find that larger firms are less innovative (relative to
their size) than small ones.
AppThoughts
Informal Paper
Prepared by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
(SCCR) According to the Decision of the SCCR at its 16th Session (March 2008)
A"endance List, December _____, 2002
______________________________ [Name of adhoc mee:ng]
(Please keep this list moving around the room -- Thanks.)
This will become the official a0endance list of the indicated adhoc mee4ng.
Please place a check next to your name if you are present.
If your name is not on the list, please place your name, company, and e-mail address in
the blank spaces at the end of the list.
[Note to facilitators and secretaries:
A copy of this is available in word and pdf format on the T11 web-site for your
reference in preparing a0endance lists for your minutes.
{Please return to secretary of mee1ng}
Check if
present
Name
Company
E-mail
Check if
present
Name
Company
E-mail
CI Shield
Rootstackk.co
Rootstackk
F F I E C
csoonline.com
C I S h LLC
i eLLC
ld
csoonline.com
Customer
Addendum
Tomorrow Letter
in a Daylight
Rootstackk
Rootstackk Co.
CSO
Cosigner in a Compensated Litigation
C S
Hohl
Fransis
Online
App Devices for Prestige
O
We have limited server capacity and our first priority is to support interactive use by human users. Several interfaces
completing this you are agreeing to provide contact information to help with the running of designed to provide machine access
to are provided. See our arrivals of API and RSS documentation. There are also this event – for example completion waywardly.
If you are happy to help us, please mark the facilities for bulk data download, as well as guidelines for programmatic harvesting.
Stewardship of resources such as ‘Survey Participation’ box with an ‘x’. The results of the survey may be published but this will
be like avenues to be involved in not only covering the operational costs but also continuing to enhance their value based
not include information which will identify you. Out of our results we have declared a census on the needs of the user
community and the evolving patterns and modes of scholarly communication. It is essential and an information resolved right to
meet the shareholder and its investments︎︎ ︎to raise additional funds in order to fund new initiatives that are beyond the routine
operational work, and to advancement of details but to not incorporate nil operations to a statement. With this in our
robustly support all Open Access mission. A very important subdivision of the Land Bounty Rights relates to the
the︎o︎ri︎es︎ o︎︎f c︎on︎e︎d ︎c︎on︎ce︎p︎ts is︎ a︎ s︎t︎ea︎d︎y r︎e︎ve︎nu︎e︎ o︎f o︎ur︎ th︎in︎k︎ing ︎in︎ e︎a︎c︎h ︎fr︎eedom often given. A applications for locations of the
land. The applications were worded In consequence of a certificate and transfer hundred of our collared points is a unique
temporary guidance to meet a claim of given her︎ew︎i︎th d︎e︎liv︎er︎ed︎,︎ an︎︎d ︎a︎g︎r︎ee︎a︎b︎le ︎to ︎t︎h︎e︎ w︎a︎ys ︎I︎ d︎o ︎l︎oc︎a︎te ︎t︎h︎e ︎f︎o︎l︎lo︎w︎in︎g ︎o︎f︎ m︎a︎n︎y︎
P 1 to0its investments
0
v︎a︎lua︎b︎le︎ m︎︎a︎p︎s a︎︎re ︎fi︎le︎︎d︎ w︎︎i︎th ︎the examples of a new ritual passed
but to ear an evidence of our total given trail
applications seriously .
9th
The name of the count in which the land a situated as enrolled
︎︎︎︎︎︎︎
the application; but this reference is your signature _______________________________
Rootstackk.co
Aim at a guide to what you should know as People able their interim
01 . 26. 2023
Hohl Fransis
Rare Earths for America’s Future
DANIEL OBERHAUS
Blockchain is the next wave of the Internet
Blockchain and crypto technologies has exploded in popularity as a once-in-a-generation
technology platform and economic opportunity. These technologies have the potential to
fundamentally change money, the financial system, and the Internet more broadly.
A decentralized Internet ecosystem built on blockchain technologies, where economic
value is delivered to the users of the products via tokens, is a monumental shift. What's
valuable and celebrated within the industry is also the open-sourced nature of the
underlying technology, which enables unparalleled security, access, and transparency.
One of the early and leading indicators of this emerging technology is in software
developer engagement - the more activity ("code commits") in the underlying software,
the more vibrant the ecosystem. Due to the open-sourced nature of blockchain
technology, it is possible to analyze developer activity by looking at the volume of code
commits and derive important trends about the industry.
That the U.S. is increasingly losing market share in blockchain software development
mean both that the developer community is getting bigger and more global, but there is
a real risk of losing the U.S.'s leadership position in finance, cryptography, and
distributed systems technologies. This presents a set of real strategic and national
security concerns for the United States.
The U.S. must move quickly to preserve preeminence in financial markets and related
technologies
1.
Jobs & Financial Impact: U.S. preeminence in blockchain software
development enables the U.S. to create jobs and fuel financial inclusion, as the
broader blockchain ecosystem continues to grow.
2.
Standards Influence: By designing new protocols, U.S. engineers define the
standards for financial systems and data systems. These are the SWIFT
and HTTP equivalents of the modern era. Losing market share means that
other countries can have larger influence over global financial and data
standards.
3.
National Security: The U.S. must shape development of new technology and
financial products to reflect American values and national security objectives.
Seal and Screening
000332100
1
000412222
40
(Segment cycle time alarm limit) Specification S4 is the segment cycle time alarm limit, expressed in
the time units selected with S2.
If cycle time exceeds this value, bit three of the module's second
000370157
40
status byte will be set.
PID reset mode.
000380408
80
0 = normal 1 = external
91
This specification affects all 000232950
function code 18 and 19 blocks in the segment. When S5 equals one,
the internal memory of all function code 18 and 19 blocks in the segment will follow the track input,
regardless of the status of the track release flag. A change in input is modified by proportional and
000917468
2
deriv- ative action, and is added to the track signal. This combined signal is the output.
Reset prevents controller windup. Reset windup may occur in batch systems where controllers may
000923827
91
be monitoring the con- trol variable but not performing any control action during the current step. In
other words, the output of the PID block is not used in the current step. The controller receives the
sig- nal, takes corrective action,
sees no result, and takes correc- tive action again. As long as the
000303551
6
controller receives no results from its control action, it continues corrective action. When the
controller is later called into services on some other step of the process, it is wound up so far beyond
the value of the controlled variable
that it cannot control it. The external reset option keeps the 43
000919103
controller aligned when it is not used for control functions.
void
g_file_new_tmp_async (
const char* tmpl,
000928785
120
000937770
40
000929720
1
000921854
int io_priority,
GCancellable* cancellable,
000299274
GAsyncReadyCallback callback,
gpointer user_data
)
000412031
1,622
20
1,040
000354249
40
000387209
40
000927054
4
000392432
40
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND SOCIETY
41
and sells them on the public market, or directly to institutional investors. These securities are
known as Assets Backed Securities (ABS).
Usually ABS are assessed by credit rating agencies (e.g. Standard, Poor's, Moody's
2009). This raises the cost of capital, but nevertheless it is often used. The higher the rating, the
lower the rate of return demanded by investors. Therefore, if the assets have good quality and/or
the sufficient security is provided, the cost of funding is reduced (Kosinski 1997, p. 13).
In the next stage of the securitization process, ABS-s are offered to investors. Money
from the purchasers of the securities is transferred to SPV, which will then forward it to the
arranger of the transaction. Committed capital and interests are returned to investors from the
earnings related to accounts receivables. This phase is executed via the SPV. The maturity
date of securities issued in the securitization should be related to the maturity of the assets
pledged as security (Puterko, Puterko 2002, p. C4). Often there is also an appointed service
agent (servicer) - usually the arranger, whose task it is to handle receipts from debtors. Those
who wish to spice up offers apply additional safeguards related to the repayment of the
securitized receivables (credit and liquidity enhancement). In the case of occurrence of events
stored in the contract, such as delayed or non-payment of a specified proportion of claims, the
guarantor provides the money to meet the investors claims (Kosinski 1997, p. 13).
Chart 1. Securitization process
One
Two
Special Purpose
Vehicle (SPV)
Three
Four
1- debtors commitment e.g. mortgage
5 - MBS issue
2 - trade assets
3 - rating for the securities
4 - rating agency fee
Source: Author
OVERSEEING
Rootstackk.co AMENDMENTS
25 10 31
Overview
A cost transfer is a reallocation of costs after the initial transaction has occurred. Cost transfers
occur in the regular course of business for two reasons:
(1) to properly allocate multi-business unit expenses, and
(2) to correct clerical
or bookkeeping errors. Cost transfers are not appropriate for (1)
197
spending out an unused award budget,
(2) covering cost overruns,
(3) avoiding restrictions imposed by law or other agreements, or
(4) other reasons of convenience.
26
198
Any correction of income and/or expense items between Chartfields should be within two
(2) accounting periods (months) after the end of the accounting period in which the original
transaction was posted. Every effort should be made to record corrections in the fiscal year
in which the original entry occurred.
Federal regulations stipulate that appropriate justification must be documented for all correcting
entries (CE). Sufficient documentation includes the following: (1) justification as to why the
transfer is necessary; (2) that the charge is allowable and allocable, directly benefits the award,
and is within the period of availability;
168-0063
(3) that appropriate approvals are secured; and
)
(4) in the case of error, how the error will be avoided in the future.
According to the standard theory of argument structure, argument DPs merge directly with lexical
items of categories V, N, etc. to form new syntactic objects of the same category. Bowers (2004,
2010a,b) proposes an alternative theory in which all argument DPs are merged in the specifiers of
‘light verb’ categories of different types. I argue in this paper that a theory of this kind is given
000208696
80
direct support by the existence
of a range of non-event nominals in English whose
morphosyntactic and semantic properties correspond precisely to those of the basic argument
categories assumed by the theory. The proposed analysis, if correct, extends to derivational
000208962
1
morphology the claim of
Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz, 1993) that word
formation is syntactic, not lexical (Marantz, 1997; Embick, 2004; Harley, 2009), thereby making
syntax the only generative component of the grammar.
000369472
80
000307337
1
1
Change the mapping of000939149
the obsolete ISO 639 code mapping in Locale class to the current code.
000933642
20
Problem
Historically, constructors in java.util.Locale
class map three ISO 639 language codes, namely "he",
000929966
193 "ji", and
"id" to their obsolete codes; "iw", "yi", and "in" for backward compatibility. Although this solution works
well to accept both obsolete and current ISO 639 codes, constructed Locale object represents the obsolete
000912517
26
language code (i.e. Locale.getLanguage()
and Locale.toString() returns obsolete language codes),
which
looks as if the current language codes were not supported.
000917383
67
000916881
5
000926453
42
Solution
Flip the mapping from current->obsolete to obsolete->current. For example, mapping for Hebrew
changes from "he" -> "iw" to "iw"->"he". To provide the backward compatible behavior, a new system
000924091will be introduced. If the value of the system property is1 true, then
property java.locale.useOldISOCodes
the
Locale
class
behaves
in
a
backward-compatible
manner.
java.util.ResourceBundle.Control#newBundle() is also modified to load both obsolete and current bundle
000923612
1
name resource if needed, honoring the requested name as a priority.
Content overview
The documentation on this site is organized into three main sections:
000915686
2
Platform introduction: an introduction to the GNOME platform. This describes the main platform
62
components, development tools000315691
and programming languages that can be used.
000317534
Guidelines: detailed development information, including programming and integration
2
000923995
guidelines. Tooling: useful tools
for newcomer and experienced developers
1
Tutorials: shorter pages on common
topics, with step-by-step instructions.
000933109
1
000304558
Specifications: formal description
of formats, IPC interfaces, and other interoperable parts of the 245
distribution docs.flatpak.org
000307207
62
001144153
215
000928341
1
000066982
10
Contributing
If you want to contribute to the GNOME developer documentation, you can find it on
CSO Online
Stop Pay — Check Replacement and Photocopy Request Form
1.
TYPE OF REQUEST
Please select a request type.
‰
2.
Stop Pay or Check Replacement Request ‰
Check Photocopy Request ‰
Inquiry Only
PAYEE INFORMATION
Payee Full Name: ___________________________________________________________________
Employee ID Number (EIN): ________________________________________
Pay Period (PP/YYYY) or Check Date:______________________________
Check Number (if known):________________________________________
Net Check Amount: (if known)$___________________________________
Type of Payment: ‰
Regular Paycheck ‰
Reason for Request: ‰
Never Received ‰
Special Payment
Stolen ‰
Damaged/Mutilated
‰
Lost
‰ Other (Explain)
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
3.
REQUESTOR AND REQUESTING FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Name:_______________________________________________
Facility Finance Number:_________________________
Facility Street Address:_______________________________________________
Facility City/State:_______________________________________________
Facility ZIP+4 code:_________________________
Contact Name:_______________________________________________
Contact Telephone:______________________________
Contact E-mail______________________________
Submit the completed form using e-mail, fax, or mail:
DISBURSING BRANCH
ACCOUNTING SERVICES
2825 LONE OAK PARKWAY
EAGAN, MN 55121-9640
E-MAIL: Mplsstop - Eagan, MN
FAX: 651-406-2749
Handbook F-101, October 2013 381 Field Accounting Procedures
Exhibit C-14
Paymaster Model 8100 Imprinter Return Form
CSO Online
PAYMASTER MODEL 8100 IMPRINTER RETURN FORM
Postal retail units must call the Topeka Material Distribution Center (MDC) at 800-332-0317, option 4, option 4,
for authorization prior to shipping.
Complete and send this form to the Topeka MDC when returning a Paymaster money order imprinter or
requesting a replacement Paym aster money order imprinter.
3 Check One
† Return (no replacement needed )
Paymaster Serial Number
Registered Mail Number
Explain the reason for the return, i.e., conversion to POS, PO closing, etc.
†
Replacement (Damaged / malfunctioning )
Explain the reason for replacement, i.e., broken handle, jammed, et c. (minor repairs can often be
accomplished onsite with telephone assistance from the Topeka MDC. Call MDC Customer Service
at 800-332-0317, option 4, option 4).
Date Shipped
Unit Finance Number (10-digit)
Unit Name
Unit Address
(City, State & ZIP™ Code)
Unit Telephone Number
Unit Contact Name
Signature
Send the Paymaster money order impri nter via Registered Mail™ service along with the original of this
completed form to:
U.S. Postal Service
Building 302
500 S.W. Gary Ormsby Dr.
Topeka, KS 66624-9998
Retain a copy of the completed form for your records.
382
Handbook F-101, October 2013 Exhibits
Exhibit C-15
Exhibits
B
Exhibit C-5
Unresolved Employee Items Log — AIC 068 Cash Overage (Integrated Retail Terminal Units)
Unresolved Employee Items Log for IRT Units — AIC 068 Cash Overage
Post Office, State, and ZIP+4
Date
Employee Name
Handbook F-101, October 2013
Finance Number
Employee ID (EIN)
Unit ID
Amount
Date
Cleared
(AIC 468)
372
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 2
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTORY NOTES
1.
By November 2008, the question of updating and modernizing the international
protection of broadcasting organizations has been dealt with by the Standing
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) without interruption in
seventeen sessions, since November 1998.
2.
The preparatory process was based on proposals made between 1999 and 2003 by
the Member States of WIPO and the European Community. As from 2004 the
substance of the treaty was compiled, first in more and more refined Consolidated
Texts, then in versions of a draft Basic Proposal intended to become the main
working document for a diplomatic conference. The preparatory steps regarding
those texts culminated by the September 2006 session of the SCCR in a Revised
Draft Basic Proposal for a Treaty (SCCR/15/2 rev) which included all proposals
presented so far.
3.
The contentious matter of possibly extending the protection to webcasting (or
“netcasting”), including simulcasting, was provisionally solved in the May 2006
Session of the SCCR. It was decided that the work would first concentrate on the
protection of traditional broadcasting and cablecasting, and that all text on
webcasting and simulcasting would be removed from the texts on the table. The
matter would be dealt with later on the basis of a separate preparation.
4.
After the removal of the issue of webcasting from the discussions and on the basis of
a recommendation by the SCCR, the WIPO General Assembly in its
September/October 2006 session decided to authorize the convening of a diplomatic
conference. The decision contained a strong element of conditionality. The
diplomatic conference would be organized only if the SCCR would be able to
produce a more streamlined text for the basic proposal than document SCCR/15/2
rev. To this end the Assembly decided that two Special Sessions of SCCR would be
convened in January and June 2007 to clarify the outstanding issues. The General
Assembly furthermore decided that:
“…the sessions of the SCCR should aim to agree and finalize, on a signalbased approach, the objectives, specific scope and object of protection with a
view to submitting to the Diplomatic Conference a revised basic proposal,
which will amend the agreed relevant parts of the Revised Draft Basic
Proposal…”
5.
In the First Special Session of the SCCR in January 2007 the method to bring the
matter forward was to prepare and consider “non-papers” on core issues. In between
the sessions and in the Second Special Session in June 2007 there was an attempt to
reduce the number of alternatives using the methods of informal sessions and
informal papers. At the Second Special Session, it became evident that it was at that
stage not possible to agree on a non-paper and produce a more streamlined basic
proposal for a diplomatic conference than document SCCR/15/2 rev. The SCCR
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 3
decided to report the matter to the General Assembly of WIPO and recommended
that the issue should remain on the Agenda of the SCCR.
6.
On the basis of this recommendation the General Assembly took note of the matter
in its September/October 2007 Session and adopted the following text, including in
particular the decision in item (v) below:
“The General Assembly:
(i)
took note of the current status of the work in the SCCR on the
protection of broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations; (ii)
acknowledged that progress was made in the process towards better
understanding of the positions of the various stakeholders;
(iii)
recognized the good faith efforts of all participants and stakeholder
organizations throughout the process;
(iv)
expressed the wish that all the parties continue to strive to achieve
an agreement on the objectives, specific scope and object of protection, as
mandated by the General Assembly;
(v)
decided that the subject of broadcasting organizations and
cablecasting organizations be retained on the agenda of the SCCR for its
regular sessions and consider convening of a Diplomatic Conference only
after agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection has been
achieved.”
7.
The question on the protection of the broadcasting and cablecasting organizations
was reconsidered in the March 2008 session of the SCCR. A decision on a
preparatory step was taken:
“The delegations who took the floor expressed their support in continuing the
work on this item in consonance with the mandate of the General Assembly,
and many delegations showed their interest towards the conclusion of a treaty.
The Chair will prepare an informal paper, based on the mandate of the
General Assembly, rendering his understanding of the main positions and
divergences, to be dealt with in the next session of the SCCR.”
8.
This informal paper is prepared to carry out the task referred to above. The objective
of the recording of an understanding of the main positions and divergences is to
contribute to the efforts to establish common ground on the outstanding issues, to
find a way out of the impasse, and to arrive at a positive solution. The common goal
of the project is to update and modernize the international regime of the protection
of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations by establishing a balanced new
instrument that achieves the necessary protection objectives in the complex and
evolving communications environment.
9.
In order to point out to positive directions, two possible options concerning the way
forward are presented in the end of the paper.
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 4
10.
During the preparatory process of the new treaty the development of the
communications environment has accelerated and completely new perspectives have
opened. Digitalization of the traditional broadcasting activities has opened a new
existence and future for broadcasting in general. Its effects extend to satellite
broadcasting, cablecasting and now also to terrestrial broadcasting. Digitalization of
broadcasting has led to convergence of the whole field of information and
communications technology. Information networks, with Internet and the Internet
Protocol in the lead, provide for new dimensions for broadcasting. Internetoriginated Internet Protocol radio and television are growing in an environment
where there is no scarcity of bandwidth. Terrestrial and other broadcasts may be both
simulcast and retransmitted over the Internet.
11.
This development is one of the reasons why many governments have argued that the
work on the protection of traditional broadcasting should be concluded expeditiously
within WIPO.
Relation of the project to the Development Agenda
12.
It should be pointed out that the project to establish a new updated, modernized and
balanced standard for the international protection of broadcasting and cablecasting
organizations is in line with the Development Agenda of WIPO. By promoting a
vibrant broadcasting industry, capable of fulfilling its unique cultural, educational
and informational role in modern society and in particular in developing countries, a
new treaty may contribute to strengthening national development, especially by
narrowing the knowledge gap and the digital divide. The project does not interfere
with or affect any of the positive goals of the Development Agenda, and it is an
integrated part of the global agenda of the Organization.
THE MAIN POSITIONS AND DIVERGENCES – ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION
Main general observations
13.
First of all it should be recalled that all delegations participating in the preparatory
process have expressed their agreement on the need for updating the international
protection of the traditional broadcasting and cablecasting organizations, and
explicitly confirmed their willingness to negotiate and conclude a new treaty.
Concerning the overall timing, one remark has been made to the effect that the
project could be let to rest for a while to allow for a moment of reflexion.
14.
The consideration of a new treaty has been eased by the fact that the issue of
extending protection to webcast signals (including simulcasting) has been
provisionally set aside for later separate discussions.
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 5
15.
Second, between 1999 and 2003 some 16 proposals were made. All of them were
based on intellectual property rights related to copyright, and included proposals to
grant broadcasters a longer or shorter series of exclusive rights. In two proposals the
formula of a “right to prohibit” was suggested in addition to exclusive rights. The
proposals came from all geographical areas and legal traditions of the world. In the
consolidation process the broad scope of variations in the initial proposals
necessitated the presentation of a relatively large number of alternatives. The number
of alternatives grew further as a result of the proposals made by some delegations in
2006. The alternatives represent different positions on issues that are sometimes very
crucial and sometimes minor details.
16.
It seems to be the general opinion that there are too many alternative solutions to
present a viable basis for final negotiations. This appears to be the main reason why
a diplomatic conference has not been convened. Several methods have been tried to
reduce their number during the ordinary and special sessions of the SCCR but to no
avail. Accordingly, practically all proposals made by delegations, including those on
single issues submitted after the initial round, have been carried on into document
SCCR/15/2 rev, to be dealt with later in a final negotiating stage.
17.
Third, in spite of the fact that all delegations agree on the general need for a new
instrument, differences concerning the desirable level of protection continue. Many
proponents of an extensive catalogue of individually enforceable exclusive rights
consider such a model natural and complementary to the existing solutions in their
national legislation. Others are looking at the matter from another angle, irrespective
of prevailing national solutions, and concentrate on the main objective of the new
instrument. A very short list of rights or protections, or a model that is not based on
individual rights at all, could also achieve the protection objective, at least the
prevention of signal theft. The positions vary from a long catalogue of (IP type)
exclusive rights, through a very limited number of rights, possibly complemented by
other forms of protection, to protection provided by other means than IP rights, e.g.
by sanctioning misappropriation or prohibition through telecommunications
legislation.
18.
A number of Member States of WIPO have from the beginning characterized the
broadcasters’ treaty as an updating of the regime established by the 1961 Rome
Convention on the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and
Broadcasting Organizations (the Rome Convention).1 This characterization may well
and fairly describe the situation for those 86 Member States who are Contracting
States of that Convention. For those states the basis against which they consider the
need for updating and modernizing the international protection is the Rome
Convention. For them it is a question of mending the perceived gaps of the Rome
Convention protection level, caused by the development of communications
1
During the preparatory process of the new treaty the number of Contracting States of the Rome
Convention has grown from 56 (1997) to 86 (2007).
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 6
technology since the 1950’s. In their opinion the Rome Convention is no longer
adequate to protect against signal theft and piracy.
19.
Under the Rome Convention, broadcasting organizations are granted exclusive rights
concerning rebroadcasting, fixation, reproduction and communication to the public
of their broadcasts. This leads the said delegations to consider that the new treaty
should also be built on rights, i.e. on what already exists. For this school of thought
the regime should be complemented by matters that are not covered by the rights
under the Rome Convention – retransmission by wire and making available of
broadcasts on demand over the Internet. For them, also the protection of prebroadcast signals and obligations concerning technological measures as well as
digital rights management information are indispensable components.
20.
For Member States who are not Contracting States of the Rome Convention, the
project to establish updated international norms in this area, is a self-standing
enterprise.
There are more than 100 states that are not parties to the Rome Convention.1 The model of
international protection based on exclusive rights, or generally on IP type rights, is far from
self-evident for these states. The precedence of the Rome Convention has no specific value
for them, and they consider that the Rome Convention cannot be the main point of
reference, although it might have some relevance. Many consider that the Rome
Convention, despite its broad acceptance, is a complex instrument, containing three very
different substantive areas.
21.
In the preparatory process there have been, during the last few years, especially from
a number of non-governmental organizations, rather elaborate analyses and
estimations on the potential effects of a new (exclusive, IP type) rights based
instrument. According to these, the treaty would represent a new layer of IP rights in
the content, it would be likely to harm consumers’ position, lock up public domain
content, and stifle technology innovation. The treaty would block fixations,
transmissions and retransmissions over home or personal networks. Even if
webcasting and simulcasting are excluded, a right of retransmission would bring
control over unauthorized Internet retransmissions. The treaty could also lead to
liabilities for intermediate network service providers for alleged infringements of
prohibitions due to actions in the normal course of business actions of their
customers.
22.
Despite the long preparatory work, and good will of all delegations, reconciliation
between the more-rights-approach and the less-rights-approach has not been
possible. To accept virtually the content of the Rome Convention on broadcasting
organizations, and the Rome-plus elements that have been felt necessary, would, for
1
According to the information gathered by the WIPO Secretariat in the 1998 survey on existing
protection (SCCR/1/3), some 23 states which are not Contracting States of the Rome
Convention provided protection for broadcasting organisations in their copyright or related
rights legislation. As a result, it may be estimated that at a minimum in ca. 110 states there are
already provisions on the protection on the national level.
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 7
some non-Rome countries, go beyond what they could support. On the other hand,
for the Rome Contracting States in general, a treaty without the well-known
enforceable rights is likely to be considered insufficient as a basis for international
protection.
Post-fixation rights
23.
During the discussions particular interest has been shown regarding the extent to
which rights should be granted for any use subsequent to the fixation of the signal.
Some delegations have argued that the objective of the treaty under preparation
should be to establish a protection of the broadcast signal, enabling the broadcasting
organizations to prevent piracy of that signal. A signal exists as it is being emitted,
but then disappears, being an electromagnetic pulse. Thus, rights in the signal can
logically only relate to the simultaneous retransmission of the signal and, possibly,
its fixation. After fixation it is no longer a signal, but a fixation of the broadcast
content.
24.
This view is not just a philosophical exercise or a reduction of the political issue to
pure physics. It is based on the view that granting rights to broadcasters beyond the
fixation will create an overlapping protection which is not necessary for the effective
protection of the broadcasting organizations and which risks making the access to
the broadcast content more difficult.
25.
Other delegations have taken the view that post-fixation rights are, indeed, necessary
in order for the protection of the broadcasting organizations to be effective. Both the
Rome Convention and the TRIPS Agreement include post-fixation rights, such as the
right of reproduction of fixations of the broadcast, and that right, together with rights
regarding deferred retransmission (that is, a new transmission from a fixation) and
making available of a fixed broadcast for interactive transmission are important
elements in an effective legal safeguarding of the broadcasting organizations’
legitimate economic interests. For these delegations, a “signal based protection” only
means that it is the assembly of the broadcast content and the transmission of it that
causes the protection, as opposed to the protection of the transmitted content.
Right of retransmission via Internet and right of making available
26.
The right proposed to be granted to traditional broadcasters to control simultaneous
Internet retransmission of broadcasts has been subject to specific discussions. It
brings the retransmission through the Internet within the scope of the treaty, but only
as an operation against which the broadcaster would enjoy protection. The
retransmitting third party (“web retransmitter”) would not be granted any protection.
27.
The right of making fixed broadcasts available in such a way that members of the
public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them has
been subject to similar considerations. This interoperable making available may only
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 8
take place through a digital transmission (in the context of downloading or
subscribed streaming) over the Internet or similar networks.
28.
Proponents of those rights have argued that an exercise updating the rights of
broadcasting organizations would not make sense unless Internet transmissions were
included, given the immense importance of that media in today’s information and
communication infrastructure. Some supporters of the rights have indicated that
without those rights, the exercise preparing a new treaty would not be worthwhile.
29.
Other delegations have indicated that they could not support any treaty including
those rights. They have pointed at the understanding, reached in the SCCR, that
webcasting and simulcasting will be dealt with separately, after the instrument
relating to traditional broadcasting and cablecasting has been finalized. Such
discussions would be indirectly anticipated by dealing with Internet issues in relation
to traditional broadcasting, and there would also be a risk that Internet provisions in
the treaty presently under discussion indirectly could lead to some level of protection
for web- or simulcasters.
Term of protection
30.
The positions regarding the minimum term of protection to be granted in a new
treaty vary from nil to 50 years. The first position is linked to the view that the
protection should be limited to cover the signal, understood as the electromagnetic
pulse, and grant no post fixation rights. If the protection is limited in this way, it will
only cover acts that are simultaneous to the broadcast and a term will therefore be
superfluous. The delegations that support some level of post fixation rights have
supported terms of 20 years (as in the TRIPS Agreement) or 50 years (as for
performers and producers of phonograms under the TRIPS Agreement and the
WPPT).
31.
A separate issue is the calculation of the term, where some delegations have argued
that a new broadcast of previously broadcast content should not trigger a new term
of protection as this could lead to a perpetual protection, if the broadcasting
organizations continue to broadcast anew the same content. Other delegations have
argued that the protection does not become perpetual, as fixations of the first
broadcast, as far as the broadcasters’ rights are concerned, will fall into the public
domain after the expiry of the term, regardless of a possible continuing protection of
fixations of later broadcasts of the same content. Those delegations have also argued
that for a signal based protection it should have no importance whether the content
has been broadcast earlier by the same broadcasting organization.
Protection of technological measures and the rights management information
32.
One of the concrete issues on which the positions diverge are the provisions on the
obligations concerning technological measures. The proponents of these provisions
argue that the protection of technological measures is indispensable, in fact, one of
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 9
the added value clauses why the whole new treaty is needed. Their proposals do not
contain any obligation or mandate for the broadcasters to use technological
measures. The provisions would apply only in cases where technological measures
are used. Other delegations, however, oppose the inclusion of such provisions the
treaty, and consider inter alia that the protection of technological measures could
affect the general public’s possibility to access information that is already in the
public domain. Even if there would be no mandate to employ technological
measures, the legislative provisions on them could lead to a de facto broad use of
them implying unjustified obstacles to access to broadcasts.
33.
There is no consensus on the provisions on the obligations concerning rights
management information.
Limitations and exceptions
34.
In the area of the provisions on limitations and exceptions the first observation is
that all delegations consider provisions on these matters necessary. There are,
however, two schools of thought concerning the form and content of such
provisions. The first suggested model of these clauses is parallel to the formula
adopted in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. It is based on open and
flexible provisions allowing the making of the same kinds of limitations and
exceptions to the protection of broadcasters that are provided for in the national
legislation concerning copyrighted works and requiring that all limitations or
exceptions shall pass the well-known so-called three-step test. The other model,
suggested by a number of delegations in slightly differing forms in 2006, contains in
addition to the three-step test a list of concrete examples of cases of permissible
limitations and exceptions, such as (copying for) private use, use of short excerpts in
reporting of current events, ephemeral fixations, uses for the purposes of teaching
and scientific research, certain uses in libraries, archives and educational institutions
etc.
35.
The proponents of the second model argue that the exemplification of permissible
cases would add in a necessary way to the legal certainty concerning the extent of
possible limitations or exceptions. Those advocating for the open general clauses
consider a piecemeal listing unnecessary, and refer to the fact that the open clauses
in any case would allow the same,
Operative clauses regarding general principles, cultural diversity and defense of
competition
36.
Some delegations have proposed and/or supported a number of treaty provisions
dealing with general principles, cultural diversity and defense of competition, stating
that such provisions would ensure that an appropriate balance be struck between the
public interest and any new rights conferred to the beneficiaries of the new
instrument, so that the social role of broadcasting organizations would be preserved,
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 10
would be fully in line with the WIPO Development Agenda, and would ensure that
the development dimension be taken into account.
37.
Other delegations have opposed such provisions or expressed support for provisions
along those lines, but as clauses in the Preamble rather than operative clauses. Those
delegations have argued that such clauses are not necessary in an intellectual
property/related rights treaty, that in the existing dedicated intellectual property
treaties there are no such clauses (with the exception of a competition provision in
the TRIPS Agreement), and if introduced as operative clauses those provisions
would be very difficult to interpret and would leave too much uncertainty regarding
the legal requirements of the treaty.
Other clauses
38.
Concerning the following other outstanding issues there are alternative proposals.
These issues are of such a nature that they could be expected to find their solution
when the main issues are settled, and following the solutions on the main substantive
questions. They deal with the general framework of the treaty.
Relation to Other Conventions and Treaties
Beneficiaries of Protection
National Treatment
Reservations
Eligibility for Becoming Party to the Treaty
Tasks and objectives set by the General Assembly
39.
The WIPO General Assembly decided in 2006 that the protection should be based on
a signal-based approach. Furthermore it decided in 2006 and confirmed in 2007 that
the SCCR should aim to agree and finalize the objectives, specific scope and object
of protection. In the discussions of the SCCR the observation has been made that
that mandate represents a very high threshold for convening a diplomatic
conference. The considerations in paragraphs 40 to 43 below represent slightly
adapted the understanding on those items that the Chair suggested to the SCCR for
consideration in a discussion document in January 2007.
“on a signal-based approach”
40.
The system of protection of the broadcasters’ rights has often, in colloquial
language, been referred to as the “signal protection”. In the discussions in Geneva,
“signal-based” seems to refer, however, to something that is narrower than what had
been laid down in the proposals to the SCCR. The decision of the General Assembly
seems to indicate that the main focus should be set on the protection of the “live
signal”, as this is the moment when the need for protection is most acute. In order to
make the protection practicable and effective, it has been argued that the protection
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 11
could and should, however, in some cases, extend beyond the live signal, to some
post-fixation instances. – It should be stressed that the signal-based approach by no
means precludes granting some exclusive rights to broadcasting organizations. The
signal-based approach and the question whether the protection is rightsbased or
based on other legal means, are conceptually different aspects of the protection.
“objectives”
41.
The main objective of the new treaty is to provide a stable legal framework for the
activities of broadcasting organizations. Its focus is on the “anti-piracy” function,
and against signal-theft, but it provides also protection against competitors and
against unfair exploitation, and against free-riding. The rationale of the legal
protection is twofold: the investment required for providing program content to the
public; and the easiness of exploitation by others of the result of this investment in
the new technological environment.
“specific scope”
42.
The treaty, as it is presented in document SCCR/15/2 rev, would provide a form of
protection, consisting of related rights, and/or other specific protections that are not
defined as rights. They are independent and self-standing rights or protections in
relation to rights of authors and other right holders of the program content. They do
not interfere with, nor do they depend on, other rights or rights of others. The
“scope”, in the most common legal parlance on treaties, refers to the field of
application, i.e. to the phenomena to which the treaty applies. It does not usually
refer to the extent or level of rights and protections. However, in order to provide a
comprehensive consideration of the whole “coverage” of the treaty, also the “scope
of the protection” would naturally have to be considered.
“object of protection”
43.
The scope of the instrument is normally dictated by the definition of the object. The
object of protection is the “broadcast” (and its peer the “cablecast”). The
“broadcast” is also the object of protection in the Rome Convention and in the
TRIPS Agreement. The term “broadcast” has not been defined in any international
instrument. The term should, in order to avoid a very complex international
situation, in the new treaty ideally have the same scope as in these treaties, and in
any case it should not be narrower. A technologically neutral definition of the
“broadcast” and “cablecast” would best serve the purpose. It could possibly be
complemented by a definition of the “signal”.
CONCLUSION – AND POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD
44.
The main positions and divergences presented above in paragraphs 13 to 38 in this
informal paper should not be considered as an obstacle to conclude a new treaty on
the matter now under discussion. The same world community has been able, despite
differing legal, philosophical and other traditions, to conclude treaties in areas where
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 12
positions in substance were at the outset very different in many questions. An
example of such is the 1996 WIPO treaties.
45.
The starting point, and the main point of convergence in the whole preparatory
process, is, as stated above, that all delegations, without exception, have recognized
the need for a modernized protection of broadcasting organizations, and confirmed
their commitment to negotiate and conclude a new treaty.
46.
Also the decision by the SCCR and the mandate of the General Assembly justify a
reflection and deliberation on how the SCCR could proceed forward in the matter.
The objective is to establish a balanced and modernized international standard for
the protection of traditional broadcasting and cablecasting.
47.
The following two options arise from the assessment above in this informal paper:
A – A continuation of the process
-
Another try could still be suggested on the basis of the document SCCR/15/2 rev.
In addition, discussions could be based on informal papers.
This endeavor should be open, inclusive and flexible.
In the end, there could be an understanding that a new treaty might be
established by a clear majority.
B – A possible new avenue
-
A model based roughly on Articles 2 and 3 of the Geneva Phonograms
Convention of 1971 could be envisaged; similar to that of the Brussels
Satellite Convention.
That model is different from those included so far in the working
documents of the SCCR.
That model could achieve the main objective of an international protection
and the prevention of signal theft.
To provide the delegations with an idea of the structure of such an option,
its core provisions might be as follows:
“The Contracting Parties shall protect broadcasting and cablecasting
organizations, who are nationals of other Contracting Parties, against
unauthorized acts, including:
- retransmission
- fixation
- [other acts that might be agreed on].
The means by which this Treaty is implemented shall be a matter for the domestic
law of each Contracting Party. The means shall be adequate and effective, and
shall include one or more of the following:
- protection by means of copyright, rights related to copyright, or other
specific rights;
SCCR/17/INF/1
page 13
48.
protection by means of the law relating to unfair competition or
misappropriation;
protection by means of administrative legislation or penal sanctions.”
Finally, if after consideration of the options above (A/B) and possible other options,
it will not in the present situation be possible to decide on the establishment of a new
treaty, the SCCR should end these discussions through an express decision in order
to avoid further spending of time, energy and resources to no avail. Such a decision
could include a timetable for later revisiting and reconsidering the matter.
[End of document]
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal noncommercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
Lesser General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
first sponsors acquired, see https://www.x.org/wiki/XorgFoundation/Policies/SponsorshipLevels/
Khronos Agreement
• it finally happened!
• grab a $name@x.org mail address
contact Hohl Fransis –Stengle123@rootstackk.co
• https://www.x.org/wiki/Khronos/
XDC
we missed a detail for XDC18
submit your talks earlier (we'll remind)
• RFP process: https://www.x.org/wiki/Events/RFP/
• sponsor now very welcome https://www.x.org/wiki/Events/SponsorshipLevels/
Foundation
• please become a member
• everyone here qualifies
• https://members.x.org/