WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)

File contents



>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. Last night many of you joined us in a meeting of the Friends of the Chair and we worked until reasonably late and then the Secretariat went back and tried to incorporate the discussion into the document before you, working document rev 2 starting off with actually taking the change that was proposed on the floor here in plenary which was to change the title to be the same title as that of the libraries document but substituting in the subject matter that's before us here in this body.
Unfortunately due to the timing, we weren't able to take the document back to the Friends of the Chair group to make sure that everyone was on the same page with the structure. So we anticipate that there may still be some further discussion and refinements but we thought it was important to offer to the plenary the opportunity to see the direction of the group's thinking.
And the other thing I would note before starting on this is that after the Secretariat finished it's work at midnight, the hard working African Group got us comments at 1 a.m. We actually were on our way home then. So those comments are actually not incorporated in the document before you. However, of course we understand that we would need to make those additions and substitutions in this working document and allow the plenary to review it before this document -- further action was taken by this committee on a final version for this meeting for this document.
So we are impressed with that hard work. And sorry we weren't there at 1 a.m. to incorporate those changes. But of course we understand that's something important that we need to do.
We still think it might be useful, though, for the whole plenary to see the structure of the document and the general organisation.
I'll start on Page 2 by saying the group had talked about not discussing at this point preambler and definitional provisions but rather focusing on substantive topics.
However, we understand that there may be a request to actually still put the proposed preambler and definitional language back in the document, which is something of course the Secretariat would be able to do. But there was discussion in the meeting about focusing on the broad topics.
We also have a note that if text is included under a particular heading, that text may also apply to other sections of this document.
So there are places where text is repeated. But this is a general marker that discussion may take place at a later time on some of the text related to a topic that might actually currently categorized elsewhere.
So the general structure that the group discussed and adopted for your consideration is to have two broad categories of topics with some subcategories beneath.
The first topic is uses. So uses of copyrighted works and works subject to related rights. And under that framework of uses, there are a number of categories we discussed. I'm told by a number of folks who were in the meeting that they don't think we intended to include Government. So assuming that everyone is agreeable to that, we can certainly delete that.
The next title or sub topic is institutions. And what's meant by there is actually the topic of the discussion for -- in the mandate, which is educational research and teaching institutions. So what uses can be made by those institutions in a Broadway?
Then we have classroom uses as a large category that was addressed by a number of the comments. Then uses outside the classroom. Then uses for distance learning and then uses for research. And as you can imagine, certainly for the broad institutional uses, classroom uses and outside classroom uses, in many situations the proposals for those might be the same. But there will be certainly places where the proposals may vary.

Then we have a broad topic called broader topics with implications for education. And that should also say and research. Broader topics with implications for education and research.
This is where we put a lot of the topics that apply across the board to whatever form this document ultimately takes. And that affect all of the uses in various ways.
So those topics are technology, orphan works and withdrawn or out of print works, public domain, contracts, ISP liability, importation and exportation. And public health or security.
Then there's another category currently reflected as H, I, J, and K of generally applicable considerations that apply across all of the uses that would be discussed probably within all of the uses. And it would be possible to break this out so we reflect that these topics would be discussed in a somewhat different way. They would be discussed as each of the uses is discussed. Those considerations are flexibilities, the Three-Step Test, obligations and proposals to update exceptions the ongoing WIPO Work Plan and best practices and experiences, how to come back to those at various times.
Then we go to a final topic which reflects the Work Plan for this meeting. And that is persons with other disabilities. And that's where we reflect the proposals that were incorporated in that section.
So that's the structure of this document. And I should note we didn't make any changes to the treatment of the comments. They are the same as they were in the working document that was before you yesterday. And I guess I would generally thank the group and say I thought the discussion was productive. Everyone got down to work. Had a very interesting discussion. And the framework reflects basically a structure that was proposed by the Nigerian delegation but as mot identified of the discussion of the Friends of the Chair Working Group on these particular topics. So maybe I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that presentation. Indeed, the document looks much neater than it was going into the fripdz of the Chair discussion. So I would at this stage open the floor for any comments on the work that's been done by the Friends of the Chair.
The floor is open. Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Mr. Chair, good morning. Just a matter of clarification about the comments, I'm assuming the comments are about the structure of the document since the document is incomplete currently?
>> CHAIR: Well, in the first instance I wanted to hear if there were any comments on the work that has been done by this group of Friends of the Chair. And then we can possibly move to other comments.
Peru.
>> PERU: Thank you. On behalf of the Peruvian delegation, we would like to express our thanks for the lengthy work by the Secretariat in compiling all of the suggestions that were made in the group of the Friends of the Chair yesterday. Yes, we did try and do work to simplify the document on the basis of the structure proposed. And the Secretariat has included the suggestions made. But just by way of additional explanation, I might add that the basic idea was to try and reduce the number of topics. As you can see from the final document and in the case of the broader topics, which are not exclusively related to education but which have implications for education and research. We've put these into a large basket under the heading which is Topic 2, broader topics.
I would also like to express my thanks for the contributions of all the participants in that Working Group. And we hope that this document be will be of use to the plenary.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Peru. India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Indian delegation would like to see the hard work done by the Secretariat in the last night in creating this document which is very acceptable. And it is in the proper format now. We can go ahead working on this document. But I would like to say that there's one mistake maybe in -- this is pertaining to the location on Page 13. Para 21 of reverse engineering. I think that should come under the research. So that should be mentioned under the research, reverse engineering.
And then one more important thing during the interventions the Indian delegation mentioned about the importance of a cluster, anthology cluster. So that has not been mentioned under the users. So in fact, I mentioned that one of the WIPO studies conducted by -- about -- Asia-Pacific countries they gave examples of domestic laws which included the use of works of anthologies collection of some excerpt from the works. In fact this was quoted by Finland, also, during the intervention. Thank you.
So anthology may be included under this.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. El Salvador.
>> EL SALVADOR: Thank you, Chairman. Yes, we agree with you that the document is more reasonably presented in this way. And it is more reader friendly.
We are grateful to the Secretariat for their work. And also to the members who took part in the group of Friends of the Chair.
Bearing in mind that the Secretariat recognizes that some aspects have not been completely reflected in the document, we would like to point out that compared with Rev 1 of the document, a number of topics have been lost or left out.
For example, there is the topic of information on rights management in Rev 1 of the document. That was on Page 14. And in Revision 2, it is no longer there.
It seems to me, to my delegation, that this topic could be included in the new revision under Topic 2. Under topics with implications for education. Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Chile to be followed by the U.S.
>> CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank everyone who took part in the Friends of the Chair group yesterday. Particularly the Secretariat. For their very good work.
I think that the document we now have before us is, indeed, much simpler and much easier to read and as such, will be much easier for readers. Much easier for readers to understand the various topics in it.
I would simply like to support the words of the delegation of India. When he spoke on the subject of reverse engineering.
From our point of view, this topic would be better included under F. On present Page 10. Under research. Because as our comments have been preproduced on Page 4 when we spoke on this, the essential element of this topic is research.
So without prejudice that it may have -- to the fact that it may have other aspects be, the main point of this topic is research so we would like to have it included under Section F under research.
>> CHAIR: U.S. to be followed by the EU States states thank you, Mr. Chairman. And like the Distinguished Delegate of Chile we too would like to thank the Secretariat and everyone who was involved in the Friends of the Chair meeting yesterday. In our eyes this is clearly a vast improvement in terms of organisation, in clarity and letting everyone in the committee under the various proposals and how they might relate to one another.
A question for you, Mr. Chairman, is whether we want to just contain comments on the form and structure that was produced by the Friends of the Chair's group. If so for us it's a great improvement and we are very thankful. Or when you wanted to move on to other discussions of it.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, U.S., as stated to Nigeria, I wanted to open the floor at this stage on the work that has been done by the Friends of the Chair. And then we can move to the other aspects at a later stage. I'll give the floor to the EU and then Zimbabwe.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me join the voice of the EU and it's Member States to praising the hard work done yesterday in the Friends of the Chair and its result. And commenting simply on this work as done yesterday as you have asked us to do, our position is that the structure is a great improvement. It will certainly help our discussions in its division as currently presented.
We continue to believe as we indicated yesterday that some of the issues or subjects which are placed under the topics, in particular some of those that you find under Topic 2, are not in our view related to our subject of discussion. And therefore, related to the mandate of the SCCR which clearly refers to educational teaching and research institutions and persons with other disabilities.
In that respect, as indicated yesterday, topics such as ISP liability -- but there are others -- are difficult to see related to education. Everything can be affected by something else. But in our view, when trying to get into this type of -- these type of subjects, we will be largely demanded we had agreed and we don't think that is the way to go. But besides that point in our view it's important to keep in mind the discussions stated, the work done and the resulting organisation is a great improvement. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Zimbabwe. To be followed by Kenya.
>> ZIMBABWE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to you. Good morning to colleagues. I also want to thank the Secretariat for producing a valuable document, a well-organised document. My delegation took part in this informal consultation and we engaged in constructive silence. But I can see the result of my constructive silence that it is now a more readable document.
In terms of content-wise, Mr. Chair, I believe you have had -- I mean your way of approach that we would discuss in detail the content at a later stage but I just wanted to observe that the Secretariat's basis of this document was the previous version of this issue. So it does not necessarily reflect accurately the position of the African Group as updated.
So we hope as we engage in terms of conversations regarding the document we can see a reflection of the current proposals of the of African Group in this document. Thank you Mr. Chair and I'll remain with my constructive silence in this meeting. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Zimbabwe. Kenya.
>> KENYA: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wish to join the other Distinguished Delegates in extending our gratitude to everyone who took part in preparing the Friends of the Chair's document and also the Secretariat for having spent a sleepless night to ensure that we have this document before us. However, I also wish to echo the sentiments from the delegation of Zimbabwe to point out that the current document as it is is incomplete as the updated African proposal has not been included and therefore, it is our humble request that this be done so we can have an all-inclusive document. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I think that Michelle had addressed the fact that has been raised by Zimbabwe and Kenya. In fact that was the submission from the African Group had been received at about 1 a.m. So it will definitely be worked on.
In the meantime I will give the floor to Ecuador and then we can open the floor to other comments on this document other than the work that was done by the Friends of the Chair. I give the floor to Ecuador.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I would like to associate myself with the congratulations and thanks expressed to the Secretariat team for their excellent work. It shows the willingness of the group to work on a document such as the one we have today, which is very easy -- very easy to read and I'm sure will help us make progress on the subject.
Just to make three specific points about Revision 1 and the revision we now have before us. First of all, as compared with Revision 1, we see that in Revision 1 on Page 6 under Item 11 there was a proposal from Ecuador. This is called Cluster 6 availability on an interactive basis and communication to the general public for educational purposes.
Now, that is not included in Revision 2. And I think it should be put under Topic 2. Sorry; correction, Topic 1 specifically when it refers to uses in classroom and classroom uses.
And then as regards to Revision 2, we had mentioned in this proposal from Ecuador through Uruguay this was entitled interpretation of the Three-Step Test. And in addition we made a proposal that was supported by Ecuador and the African Group to include a point entitled scope of the Three-Step Test. We wanted to mention that.
And in addition, we would like to express our support for the proposal by India about including anthologies and what what was said about information on rights management that that should be included as El Salvador said. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Ecuador. I now invite delegations that need -- wish to make any other statements apart from the work that was done or including the work that was done by the Friends of the Chair. Nigeria requested for the floor. Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: I think it's really difficult to make substantive comments since the updated proposal is not reflected here. And many of the comments that have been made by the Distinguished Delegates from Peru, for example, and some of the other Distinguished Delegates that have spoken are addressing issues that are covered already in the proposal by the African Group.
So I'm just wondering how the conversation can effectively and efficiently proceed.
>> CHAIR: U.S.?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In listening to the remarks of the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria, we would sympathize with the concerns she expressed that it's a little bit hard without the additional documentation from the African Group. And we are certainly sympathetic to the problem the Secretariat has receiving it late. And the Secretariat is always doing a Herculean effort to bring the proposals of Member States and make them available translated, integrated into documents.
We do have one comment. And that is to express the concern that the mandate that we are working under pursuant to the agreement reached at the conclusion of SCCR 21 was that we would engage in additional working days dedicated to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities.
And again, to read from that agreement, focus on limitations and exceptions and education on educational teaching and research institutions. And persons with other disabilities.
When one reads the topics that begin under Topic 2, broader topics with implication for education, some of these are written in a way that it does seem that they bear on and can be limited to the scope of our mandate. Again, educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. Or educational teaching and research institutions and persons with other disabilities.
On the other hand, many of these topics are written in a Broadway that they seem clearly outside the mandate of what we are doing. And subject to further study, it is a concern of our delegation that we're not just moving outside the mandate and moving outside the process we agreed to but also we are putting in front of ourselves a working document that it will simply be unable to move forward in a reasonable time and manner if it has too much.
It must be the experience of everyone who has been here for a while at WIPO that moving small things is easier than moving big things. And while much of the language proposed is very interesting and very reasonable language and very much resonant with what is familiar with American copyright experts, we are concerned at this time that much of what is under Topic 2 is moving beyond the mandate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any further comments? Pakistan.
>> PAKISTAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And a good morning to all of the colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking the Secretariat for their really Herculean efforts. We do understand that there are some comments left out from the African Group. But we do believe that they would be subsequently inserted. And we would have those insertions and the document with us.
Just one small thing. It's with regard to the Page 3 where we mention about beneficiaries. There's just a small insertion that we would request. This is as per the mandate.
It reads -- I'm reading beneficiaries. We can read from the second proposal, the proposal from India. Contracting Parties shall provide exceptions and limitations granted in this treaty for the benefit of Persons with Disabilities public and private educational and here what we are missing is the teaching institutions. It might appear a little odd that they are more or less the same thing. But in some of the systems there's a distinction between the educational and teaching institutions. We also have that in our mandate. And it has been reflected at various places. So maybe the Secretariat can add it as a new proposal from Pakistan having the same proposal from India but with additional teaching institutions or if the proponents of both of these proposals agree with that we can have this insertion in that way so we adequately reflect all of the institutions which would eventually form the beneficiaries. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Pakistan. Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Since the updated language from the Africa Group is not yet reflected it's not just comments that are missing but the entire proposal in the document is actually completely different. But I do want to echo what my Distinguished Delegate from Pakistan has said. I think that all of us who share the tremendous heritage and legacy of the United Kingdom have a system where educational institutions are in fact distinct from teaching institutions and we have many teacher training colleges in fact. So with the agreement of those who have proposed that language, I think that the insertion of the word teaching would be completely consistent with what the updated African Group proposal would indicate.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Niger are I can't. India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman: The ipdian delegation completely agrees with the proposal of the Distinguished Delegate of Pakistan and the explanation made by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria to include the separate word teaching institutions. It's like educational and teaching institutions. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: European Union.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have invited us to make other comments on the document that the Secretariat has presented to us this morning. Other than on the issues of the work undertaken by the Friends of the Chair yesterday. And we also understand that there are still proposals that need to be incorporated in that document.
But besides those issues that have been discussed so far, we still need to discuss and agree upon the structure of the document as such.
In that respect, the view of the European Union and it's Member States is that we need to strive at achieving a number of objectives.
The text needs to be, first of all, useful. The text needs to be inclusive of all views and the text needs to be respectful with all views.
It is our position that there shall be no hierarchy and all text-based contributions shall be treated on an equal basis. And ensure in that manner that we can have here a document that can be labeled a document of the committee. Otherwise, we will be talking about a document sponsored by some proponents only.
It is in our view at this stage for each member of the organisation to decide upon the form or shape of the written contributions. And what we will want is to ensure that they are reflected in the appropriate manner, i.e., all of them together depending on the topic and within the topic depending on the issues for discussion.
So in that respect, we have a very easy and clear precedent that this committee has already agreed upon. And that is reflected in the Document SCCR/23/8/provisional this is the document that we worked so hardly at agreeing on the last Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and therefore our suggestions would be when you complete and reorganise this document, it takes the same structure. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, EU. Any further comments? South Africa.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of the African Group. We would like to reiterate what we have said previously in terms of the format of the document. First and foremost let me thank the Secretariat for producing such a document which is available now. However we want to maintain that the comments should be separated from the main text. And for now I think we can work on the basis of what we have said yesterday that Pages 22 to now 35 should be annexed to that document. So they have to be separated. We just want to highlight that. Because our mandate is clear that we have to engage on text-based work and then again, Mr. Chairman, if we are to focus on precedence, we will have to take three texts and compare them. We have the VIP texts also exceptions and limitations we have a different format. We respect that. Libraries and archives, it hats a -- it has a different format and there are reasons for each and every document why it turns out like that so right now we are in a different setup, different discussions so we will appreciate separating comments from textual suggestions. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Any further comments? Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to everyone. I'm taking the floor on behalf of the Development Agenda Group. First of all I would like to thank the Secretariat for producing this document over night. It was of course a great amount of work. And also thank the delegations who participated in the meeting that decided this document. Of course they worked until late hours. And it's a very welcome effort. And it shows a lot of commitment to the result we want to achieve.
With regard to the structure of the document as we have said yesterday, we also favor to separate comments from text. I think the way the text is presented by now it makes it easier for comprehension for understanding and for those who want to understand the comments and reasons for some parts of the text, they can go to these comments made during discussions. And as we said yesterday, some comments are of general nature. So it may be difficult to try to link it exactly with a specific part of the text and keeping them separate is better for the readability of this text. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Brazil. Senegal to be followed by Sudan.
>> SENEGAL: Thank you, Chairman, I do thank you for giving me the floor. My delegation would like to take you back a little. Yesterday, along with other delegations, we indicated that we felt that there was a need for us to have greater clarity and visibility in the text. And we thought that the text as such should be separated from comments made on the text. I do still believe it would be appropriate to do that. That's the first point I wanted to make.
I also wanted to say that unlike certain delegations who have already spoken, we believe that Topic 2 is fully within our mandate. So we believe it should be left in the text and it should be discussed.
We believe that everything that has been referred are to here as part of Topic 2 is fully in line with our mandate. So if there are delegations that are of a different view, I think it would be better for us to discuss the issue rather than simply saying this is not in the mandate. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Sudan to be followed by Iran.
>> SUDAN: In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, Chairman, Dear Colleagues, I thank you for giving me the floor. And I would like to greet you all.
In this meeting we're talking about articles in the text also proposals and comments made by delegations with reference to limitations and exceptions. As things stand, however, matters are far from clear. The document is undoubtedly useful. We have been able to benefit, also, from what has been said here by experts from different states. But you know, sometimes if you have too much information, you actually kill the information itself and you kill the message. And I wonder if that might not be the case here. We have a lot of documents from previous years. Have we really been able to learn from them in making progress with our work? It's just a question that I throw out. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you, Sudan. I'm sure that other delegations will be able to address that question.
I give the floor to Iran to be followed by Ecuador.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We also appreciate the hard work in the Working Group of the Chair. And the now working document has improved. And it's reader friendly. In our previous intervention we emphasized the importance of being respectful to the mandate of SCCR 21. And keep the textual work nature of the document.
We believe that the text should be conducive to upcoming negotiations and facilitate our objectives in reaching international instruments. So for that reason, we still think that insertion of the comments is not appropriate in the text. And should be separated. And we believe that the only relevant comment in the textual format could be inserted as an annex. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Ecuador Followed by the U.S.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I have asked for the floor because I wanted to note a number of points. I think that a number of comments that have been made here are particularly relevant. And should be very much borne in mind. In particular I would like to highlight what has been said to the effect that we need to have a document that is better understandable and more easily readable. We need to have a document like that, part of which includes the actual text that we are going to work on. And the other part of which would be an annex. And in that annex, we would have all of the comments made by delegations.
Several delegations who have spoken here are have already made that point. And I do, indeed, think that this would be an appropriate way of working. It would allow us to be more systematic in our approach and to make headway. And afterall, that is what we all want. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S. to be followed by Angola. States state thank you, Mr. Chairman in listening to the comments that several delegations have made it does seem that we are two concerns about being expressed about staying within the mandate and honouring the mandate of the SCCR 21. One of the mandates is our commitment to engage in text-based work. And I take the remarks of the Distinguished Delegate of Iran quite seriously. And I think that that is a reasonable observation that we must in shaping the form of the document pay attention to our commitment to text-based work.
The other question that is arising is to pay attention to the substantive mandate in front of us to focus on educational teaching and research institutions and the needs of Persons with Disabilities. To answer the Distinguished Delegate of Senegal, our delegation would be very happy to have a discussion on both those questions of staying within the mandate and the proper form of the document. So that all issues can be heard and all sides can be heard and so that we can have a process that does honour the mandate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Angola.
>> ANGOLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman since this is the first time I take the floor since this session started, I would like also to join the voice of my delegation to commend the job accomplished and achieved by the Friends of the Chair by producing this working document which I think for -- from the point of view of my delegation is the first step to try to implement the mandate that the SCCR reached during the Twenty-First Session. -- twenty fourth session. I would like maybe to make a comment on this working document. The first one is on the title my delegation would like to suggest if it's possible to just state to say an appropriate legal instrument in whatever form.
I think since it's a working document we don't want to prejudge. So let us just delete whatever form. Because when we are here to negotiate and demand that it's clear is to negotiate in order to have an international legal instrument without any prejudice. So if we can delete in whatever form. So I think it can be a first step because it's a working document we still have a lot to discuss.
The second one is on the Topic 1 which concerns the use. I think on B, institution and beneficiary, I think here if you read very careful the proposal made by the African Group and the proposal made by India, at certain stages you can realise that it's quite the same. And I would like maybe to ask to the Chairman if it's not possible to merge the two proposals. One proposal by the African Group and also from India. Because if you read the two, the two proposals, in a certain stage you see the only difference about public and private and also non-profit we can try to merge and try to put brackets just to say this is the African Group and India proposal. So just to start to try to measure the text.
The last one is I think is the comment that most of the members have made -- have presented here. It's concerning the comment. I think I would propose to the Chair if it's possible we can just separate the comment here from the working document so the comment can be Annex 1, something like that. And then we just reproduce the verbatim comments made by all of the -- the document has to be supportive of the comment. So I would suggest these are my two suggestions that I have to present for the time being. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Angola. El Salvador to be followed by Ecuador.
>> EL SALVADOR: Thank you, Chairman. And I'm sorry for taking the floor once again on this subject. El Salvador would like to state that we are committed to continuing to work within the mandate. It seems to me and I would like to suggest on behalf of my delegation that I think the suggestion by Senegal was a very relevant one. I think that given that we're at a very preliminary stage at the moment, it's necessary to say that we need a more detailed discussion of topics that come under the mandate of this session. And referring to the introductory words by the delegate of Angola, our objective for this session notwithstanding the very constructive contributions from certain delegations would be to have a document that's easy to read and that would capture the status of the discussions at this session.
And I also think that it's very relevant in order to make the document easier to read. To say that the comments on the proposals should be kept in the second half of the document.
Now, regarding proposals for the text, as you will recall, when we put forward our two suggestions for clusters, you saw that we had a text for both clusters. But we didn't present it immediately. Because we were subject to your guidance as to when to present these texts.
So once again I seek your instructions as to when I can present this text and share it with the other delegations.
I didn't do this two days ago because we were discussing clusters. But if you would like the text to be incorporated, we could give you the text. But these are just a few suggestions in addition to the ones that have been made. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, El Salvador. You will note that the African Group had yesterday taken -- yesterday taken time to make their presentation on the text proposals that they had. So if you have text proposals, you can proceed and make those, as well.
So you still have the floor, if you're ready.
>> EL SALVADOR: Thank you very much, Chairman. Yes, as I was saying, we do have text for the two suggestions for are clusters. Well now they are not called clusters anymore. We all agree on that. Regarding rights management information, the text proposal that we offer for discussion in this committee would read the following way: Educational and research institutions, which apply the provisions of this instrument in good and without -- are not for commercial purposes will not be subject to legal remedies regarding information and rights management. I'll read it again slowly.
Educational and research institutions that apply the provisions of this instrument in good faith and without -- and not for commercial purposes comma shall not be subject to legal remedies relating to information on management of rights.
So this is our proposal on information and rights management.
And then the proposal on best practices and experiences would read as follows and it's in English so I'll read it in English. The Contracting Parties agree to Sharon a periodic basis best practices and experience on the effective implementation of the provisions of these instruments.
I'll read it out again rather more slowly.
The Contracting Parties agree to share on a periodic basis best practices and experience on the effective implementation of the provisions of this instrument.
Bearing in mind that there shb some suggestions from members that there will be a second phase where we discuss these proposals in substance within the mandate, we would leave our introductory comment to these proposals for this second stage.
And I shall send these texts via e-mail to Michelle. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Ecuador.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. Ecuador is grateful for the statement made by the delegation of the United States. But we would just like to ask a question. If you consider that this is the appropriate time to start discussing the contents, then this question could be answered by the U.S.
We would like to know what specific points under Topic 2 mentioned by the United States do they consider outside the mandate of the committee. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: If the U.S. is ready to respond, they could. But if not, we could do it at a later stage when you are ready. U.S., you have the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thanks. We may want to give a more complete response at a later stage. But the concern is a number of these topics are very broad topics that raise a lot of complicated issues. And go well beyond the scope of the specific concern about educational institutions. Many of them are things that could affect educational and teaching and research institutions. But only in a very specific way. And they are huge topics that many of us are grappling with in many other contexts that would include most obviously the topic of ISP liability and probably also just looking quickly at this public health or security. So those are the main topics I think I would stress right now. And we'll respond more completely at a later date, as well.
>> CHAIR: Are there any further -- Peru?
>> PERU: Thank you, Chairman. In connection with the question asked by the delegate of Ecuador, this prompts me to comment at this stage where we are simply working on the structure of working document -- of a working document on which when we discuss in detail each of the proposals at that stage the proponents will explain their proposals in detail and the plenary can take a decision with respect to each particular point whether this or that point is within the mandate. And it can decide whether it's necessary to change the scope of the proposals.
So I consider that to take a preliminary decision to delete a whole section due to the mere fact that it's not directly connected with educational issues, such as the case of other sections, the Working Group realised that. And that is why it called this section broader topics with implications for education.
So from that point of view without prejudice to inclusion in the document meaning we're going to develop something specific on that point, it just means that there will be an in-depth discussion when the appropriate time comes. I don't think we should limit the scope of these proposals. Or if we do, go through them point by point to decide whether they should be excluded or not. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We appreciate very much the intervention of the -- of our colleagues and the helpful clarification that this document represents a list of topics that people have expressed interest in and that it will require further discussion to determine which issues are to be taken further and which ones will not be when we have that opportunity at plenary. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, U.S. Are there any further comments from Member States? Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you very much. Chair, I'm obviously happy to be here today. And obviously congratulate the President and the WIPO Secretariat for organising this Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meeting. This is obviously an important issue from -- for all Member States. And I have noted that following discussions for all of the issues an agreeable text will be reached at the end of this session. If I may just respond to the U.S. obviously we certainly do not want to go beyond the mandate. Our idea was to consider the role of universities who act as ISPs. We are interested in the mandates and remain open to the discussion to determine what is relevant for education and what is not relevant.
So as I said, I'm hoping that we're obviously not going to go beyond the scope of our mandate here today. And hope that we can reach an agreeable text at the end of this session, thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Egypt to be followed by the U.S.
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The African Group would like to thank the Secretariat for preparing this Rev 2. And also like to understand that the Rev 2 will be I think reviseed because it contains old language and new language from the group. So we would like just to -- it to capture only the new language that was submitted yesterday.
The second point is that we also note that the title of the document is -- has been changed as of yesterday. And I think at this stage that we express preference that we use the title that was used yesterday. And not this one.
We also note that there is a note on Page 2 which actually excludes the group proposal regarding the preambler and definition parts. And we just wonder on the basis upon which this note has been inserted.
At this stage we would just recall that some of the textual proposals by the group included definitions and terms. We will be making other comments after getting clarification from the Secretariat.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Egypt. The clarifications that you are seeking were addressed at the beginning of the meeting. But I would invite the Secretariat for your benefit to offer another clarification. Further clarification.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. So with respect to the title, the Friends of the Chair had discussed and I believe it was also discussed in plenary simply taking the title that had been agreed on after extended discussion of the libraries document substituting in the topic from the mandate for the working plan for this meeting. And using that in hopes of avoiding a lengthy discussion about title again. Obviously if Member States want be to have further discussion about the title, we can do that. Or we could reflect alternative proposals.
With respect to the preambler and definitional clauses, we explained that we understand that the African Group is asking for those to be reflected again from the new proposal. And that we can do that. The discussion in the Working Group was that at this stage, we would probably not focus on those parts of the document for discussion. But would focus on the topics and subcategories of the topics that had been identified in the new structure for initial discussion because the members of the Working Group thought that the preambler language and definitional clauses might well evolve to reflect the discussion that took place later on the substantive topics.
And of course as we assured everyone we will incorporate the revised substituted language from the African Group text. Unfortunately we received it after we had completed work on this document and sent it for printing. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just wanted to acknowledge and express our appreciation of the comments of the distinguished delegation of Nigeria and his concern, also, that the committee stay within the mandate we agreed to in SCCR 21. For us to just reiterate we want to maintain and honour our commitment to in the words of SCCR 21 undertake text-based work on appropriate exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, educational, teaching and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. And we look forward under your guidance, Mr. Chair, to a discussion about how to achieve that.
The United States wants to make it clear that we do not oppose in any way the prerogative of Member States or groups of Member States to bring new topics on to the committee agenda. The issue is what the committee agreed to and maintaining within our mandate the scope of the document and the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I would like to hear -- are there any other comments from Member States? Egypt.
>> EGYPT: Thank you we would like to just thank the Secretariat for this clarification. At this stage we would like also to retain the other title until this issue is resolved and also to insert the preambler parts and definition clauses as well. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of the European Union and their Member States. Just to briefly speak to the title of the document, I would like to say that we strongly prefer the new title that was given us this morning in the new version, Rev 2. We consider that this title better reflects the contents of the document.
And in the case of the title in Revision 1 that Egypt proposals to re-establish, I think that in any Kay, it is missing an essential element. That is -- in any case it is missing an essential element that is the comments, the comments that might be made by delegations by way of contribution to the document. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Any further comments?
I see no further requests for the floor from Member States. I will then invite -- I do recall that undertaken to give the floor to LCA after we had received all comments from Member States. So you have the floor. Library corporate alliance.
>> LCA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the increasing impact of digital technology and education the Library Copyright Alliance recognizes the continuing need to balance rights holders and the larger public interest and access to information through all media formats. Exceptions for libraries and educational institutions are not abstract issues in the U.S. or Canada in the U.S. there are three ongoing copyright cases relating to library uses at educational institutions Cambridge versus Becker also known as the Georgia State university case regarding electronic course reserves Ambrose versus UCLA dealing with streaming and author's guild versus Holytrust earlier this month the Canadian Supreme Court held in Alberta versus access Canada that fair dealing applied to classroom use. To share my experience as a library Director in the United States, educational institutions do not pay for the right to screen films in their library collections and classrooms. Libraries do not pay for the right to provide accessible copies of works in their collections to print disabled students these rights are codified in our copyright laws limitations and exceptions. Some of our library and education exceptions predate the digital area while others had digital technology in mind fortunately the predigital concept of fair use applies well to the digital environment.
Contrary to suggestions made earlier this week, fair use is not just a defense. It is a right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as one of copyright laws built in commodities to the U.S. Constitution's right of freedom of expression. The argument for licensing digital works for educational uses that already are covered by limitations and exceptions when in analogue format emerges from a desire to create secondary markets. That market is predicated on the ability of some entity to pay the monumental cost of licensing of vast number of works. Already unable to afford rising journal prices and to pay for existing services it's unlikely libraries will find funding to pay license fees for the right to make convenient course compilations of materials they already purchased to stream video they already purchased or to index the books already purchased for their collections.
Regarding our experience with technical protection measures, the librarian of Congress has reported certain things for the purpose of using film clips in higher education the exemption has not been extended to elementary or secondary education and process is expensive and time consume.
In summary the Library Copyright Alliance is encouraged by the discussion of Member States to update carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws and device new limitations and exceptions that are appropriate to protect educational and research activities. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. Senegal, you are requesting for the floor.
>> SENEGAL: Chairman, I do apologize for taking you back. But I would like to go back to something that we considered to be rather fundamental and this rather's to Egypt's proposal on the title.
There seems to be a question now about one word that was not in the title as proposed yesterday but is now in the title as proposed today it seems on the basis of that people are saying they want to keep today as's title but we have to bear in mind what happened yesterday and what the dynamics of the discussion then were. Most of those who spoke wanted an autonomous self standing text in which the text would be separate from the comments and if we're going to stick to that then it would be wise to stick to yesterday's title also because in fact most of those who spoke were in favor of separation that is to say at the very minimum they were willing perhaps to accept the comments in an annex but not as part of the same actual text and that is the point of view that was expressed by most delegations and if we're going to take that into account then I think that yesterday's title is preferable to today's. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Any further comments? Czech Republic.
>> Czech Republic: Thank you very much, Chair. Just to come back very quickly, we have said it the SEPS group said it several times during the proceedings of this week so I do not feel obliged to repeat. But I guess I do need to. We feel that if there are specific comments and they are specific to the topics, they should be included under topics. That seems logical to me. -- seems logical to me and just to remind delegations of the horrible discussion of not -- not horrible. Lengthy and --
(Chuckles).
>> Czech Republic: Just to remind delegations of the discussion that we had on the title last time. I don't think we want to get into it again, into the discussion without objectives. So I think using the title from last time would be beneficial. Thanks.
>> CHAIR: I note that there are certain requests for the floor from the NGOs. I do recall that I had given a slot to NGOs to speak and there was only one that had left out on that list. So I would want to request the NGOs that have statements to make to send them through to the Secretariat.
Colleagues, the Secretariat have noted the comments that have been made by various delegations on the document before us. The Secretariat, of course, working with the Friends of the Chair, will do another attempt to consolidate the texts that have been submitted by various delegations.
As to the issue of the title. You will recall yesterday -- and I mentioned this today. But the Friends of the Chair were invited from each group, two from each group. And they worked together and agreed on this title.
I thought that that was a step forward. Because everybody was represented.
Now, I know that there's a historical issue to this title. And I'm sure you will be gracious enough to exclude me from that debate again. And I would prefer that we move on the basis of the consensus that had been reached in the previous discussion.
So I think this will help us move forward without having to reopen that sort of discussion.
Now, going forward, what I suggest is that there are some textual proposals of course that have come through from the African Group. Those will be, of course, taken on board. Ecuador has also made submissions. And we expect these in writing. sent to Secretariat.
Now, in respect of the statements that appear from Page 22 I would want to address delegations who have statements in that section.
I would propose to those delegations that they should between now and Monday try and give us textual proposals speaking to each topic so that we can include them in the various topics. So you will have to go to your statements and try and decipher that. Because I don't think that the Secretariat would be in the position to do that for you.
So between now and Monday, if you can do that exercise, then we can include those on various topics.
I propose that the Friends of the Chair do meet and we will announce that they have a further meeting set on Monday. So that they can do a further revision.
Once this revision is done, we are going to have an opportunity on Tuesday so we can look at this document and so we can have consideration of this document and make a decision as a committee on the revised document.
That is my proposal to the committee.
India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an excellent proposal from the Chair to deal with the comments mentioned beyond Page 22. I think the countries should respond in a positive manner to follow your suggestions. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, too, are prepared to follow your suggestion as an approach and to take our previously submitted comments and divide them by subject matter in an attempt to help move this forward and follow the structure that was agreed.
The one question or request would be some of our comments were general comments about the whole system in our country for dealing with educational and research uses and so we would like an opportunity to have a paragraph on general overview comments as well as the specific ones that related to the topics identified by the Friends of the Chair last night. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: There's already a place for general comments. And they are at the back of the document. So if you give us the ones that relate to -- the text that relates to each topic, then we will include it. And the general comments will remain where they are. EU. No?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: You've replied to the question I was going to put to you, Mr. President, thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. So that's how we are going to proceed. I see that we still have some 30 minutes.
United Kingdom, you are requesting for the floor, you have the floor International Telecommunications Union thank you, Chair, dealing with your --
>> United Kingdom: Dealing to -- with your last comments the United Kingdom comments are currently found on Page 35 we would suggest the most appropriate place for those comments is on Page 11 below Paragraph 18 which is headed access to publicly funded research. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thai, United Kingdom, I've been very clear on my structure and let's just do what the Chair has advised and then we will make progress.
I see no other requests for the floor. What I suggest is I want to utilize the rest of the time and convene the Friends of the Chair that worked on the text to immediately work on the text that we already have, save the ones from the African Group at least we can start those and the ones from Ecuador that we already have -- sorry from El Salvador that we already have. So we will break off now. Allow for the Friends of the Chair to convene in the next few minutes to start that work.
Any announcements from Secretariat?
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes, Mr. Chair, there are two announcements. Regarding lunchtime activities. There as we said yesterday will be a lunchtime programme put on by IFRO FIA and IPA on seam the access to copyright works in education. That will take place in Room B starting at 1:15 p.m.
Then we have also been asked to let Member States -- sorry; I'm just looking for the message we received here. To remind Member States that the Standing Committee on trademarks will be along with the chief economist of WIPO presenting the study on the potential impact of the SCT work on industrial design law and practice which it conducted upon the request from the SCT today at 1:30 p.m. in Room 3 of the new building. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Any announcements from group coordinators? Egypt?
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman African Group will meet at 1 p.m. in the Bilga Room.
>> CHAIR: Italy.
>> ITALY: No, my simple question, the Friends of the Chair group meeting now, what is their task, immediate task
>> CHAIR: The immediate task is for them to start incorporating the text proposals that have been received yesterday and today.
>> CHAIR: Any announcements from coordinators? I see none. The meeting is adjourned. We will convene at 3. EU?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: I'm sorry. I'm sorry; Mr. Chair. I had an announcement to make for a meeting of the EU and it's Member States at 2:30. But unfortunately we do not know the room yet. It will be sent to Member States. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
>> SECRETARIAT: And the Friends of the Chair will go to the Bilga Room. Thank you.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: The EU meeting will be in Uchtenhagen
Copyright © 2012