Personal tools

You are here: Home / WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)

# WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)

This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.

2012-07-20_sccr24_post-lunch.txt — Plain Text, 52 kB (54,271 bytes)

## File contents

 Start

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY

DATE
TIME

Services Provided By:

Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132
1-877-825-5234
+001-719-481-9835
Www.captionfirst.com
* * *
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * *

ROUGHLY EDITED COPY

DATE
TIME

Services Provided By:

Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO 80132
1-877-825-5234
+001-719-481-9835
Www.captionfirst.com
* * *
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * *

(Writer standing by, waiting for audio and the session to begin, thank you)

(Standing by)
>>
(Gavel)
>> CHAIR: Good evening, colleagues. As I had indicated in the afternoon before the lunch break, we had informal consultations on the definition of "Authorized entity."
Delegations Worked in a very constructive manner and were able to reach some alternative language that is up on the screen. In trying to start to define "Authorized entity."
The language is still not clean language, as you can see, there are brackets within that language, but it gives us the basis on which to try and move forward.
The rest of the document which is on the screen, if we scroll down, constitutes the proposals, tentative proposals, we had received this morning.
So the only language that was worked on during the informal consultation by Delegations Is the language which appears as new alternative. Delegations Will still continue to work on finalizing the definition of "Authorized entity" so that is what we have at the moment.
Now, in terms of going forward, in this Plenary, it was hoped of course when we were adjourning that once we work on the definition, we would have meaningful discussions on the rest of the text. That not being the case, and still recognizing the need to make progress, it is my view that we should still proceed with the rest of the text and I propose that we receive textual proposals without having to engage in discussions of questions and answers and clarifications.
Let's receive the textual proposals on the rest of the text. That will give opportunity for informal discussions and negotiations to be held. At least it will give the Plenary the opportunity to receive all of the textual proposals that Delegations May have on the rest of the text.
So I propose that we proceed in that manner.
As announced, we have interpretation up to 9:00 pm.
The last...
(Pause.)
(Silence.)
We start from page 35 "Cross-border exchange of accessible format copies."
I do recall that there was already textual suggestion from India, which we took note in the second sentence.
So I open the floor for textual submissions. Those that will submit text, please send them electronically as soon as possible. So that we can assist the Secretariat. The floor is open.
(Pause.)
(Silence.)
We had input on D 1, so we go to D2. United States?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The informal meetings that were held by interested states in March and May did focus on D 2 a little bit vrjts. In trying to find ways to simplify it and at the same time to create the proper balance that would allow "Authorized entities" to operate effectively while creating the right kind of environment of accountability.
To be very honest, those interested countries who informally met never quite settled on a final formulations for our suggestions for Article D 2.
So I am going to read a suggestion from the united states and I have several pieces of paper in front of me, so I do not want to represent this as a suggestion from a group of countries or anything; I just want to put this out as language that we believe would be a good starting point to simplify the language but maintain a balance.
So to replace the entirety of D2, and we believe this is shorter. This is replacing Dd 2 up through the end of B, so until we get to the last lines that are available on the screen, the Member State contracting party may limit.
So this language would say. ""A Member State contracting party may fulfill D1 by providing a limitation or exception in its national copy law such that an authorized entity shall be permitted, without the authorization of the rightsholder, to distribute or make available accessible format copies to, a, an entity or organisation in another Member State contracting party that the originating authorizing the entity has identified as another authorized entity as described in Article A; b, a recipient person in another Member State contracting party, where the authorized entity has established the individual is a beneficiary person as described in Article B, and then a final sentence which would apply to the entirety of 2, that would say "Provided that prior to the making available or distribution the originating authorized entity did not know or have reasonable grounds to know that the special format copy would be used for any purpose other than the needs of beneficiary persons."

And let me explain so that when people receive this language on paper, what we were grappling with as the United States Delegation and we had discussions with many of our stakeholders, was how to ensure that the authorized entities and blind organisations do not have an undue burden put on them, and yet there is some accountability in the system if it turns out that there is some cross-border exchange that is leading to the misuse of special format copies.
And so in trying to seek a compromise, instead of creating obligations and duties on authorized entities, beyond the identification of each other, we opted for a formula which can be found in other international agreements and many domestic laws to say that the cross-border exchange was appropriate between authorized entities or from an authorized entity to a beneficiary person unless the authorized entity knew or had reason to know that the special format copy would be misused.
And so we are hoping that that kind of formulation bridges the gap, to produce a system that is adequately accountable but does not prove to be so burdensome that we don't get effective exchange of special format copies.
We look forward to getting this language to the Secretariat for distribution.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to the Distinguished Delegate from the United States.
On behalf of the Africa Group, I want to echo both the concerns and the rationalizations for the proposals to change Article 2 -- D 2.
Let me first say, Mr. Chair, that under D1, in light of those same concerns, the Africa Group has some language which it will forward to the Secretariat but in the interests of transparency, I wanted to read that out and then explain why D2 was also edited.
We propose for Article D1 a contracting party shall provide that if an accessible format copy of a work is made under an exception or limitation, import or export license in accordance with national law, that accessible format copy may be distributed or made available to a beneficiary or authorized entity in another Member State."
Consistent with the explanation given by the Distinguished Delegate of the United States, the discussion within the Africa Group was to ensure that beneficiaries could make cross-border exchanges and that authorized entities could do the same, and that those two groups could interact across with each other as well, across borders.
We thought it was important that beneficiaries be able to receive or send to another beneficiary or authorized entity or vice versa.
In terms of the burden, we have the same concern and under Article Dd 2 the Africa Group had proposed to substitute the word "Verified" with the phrase "A good faith reason to believe."
We are certainly open to the language proposed by the Distinguished Delegate from the United States. I believe that those two phrases actually come from the same jurist prudence and look forward to discussion business which would be more appropriate for this treaty.
Thank you so much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any other textual? EU?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President.
If we are talking at the moment on Article D .2 and following also the proposal by the Delegation of the United States, we will look at this proposal with interest as we are mindful of the fact that we need to get to a solution that does get the right balance between accountability and lack of burden. Why it is important in the view of the EU and its member states is that these specific parts of the instrument where we are engaging into the international transfer of special formats remains within authorized entities.
In that respect, it will be important from the point of view of the European Union and its Member States to restrict this Article to the change between "Authorized entities" themselves which means that we will have to request further relation in Article D.2, the subparagraph B

If I can continue speaking on Article D, there was further work which was undertaken by the group of countries that met informally in March and in May and indeed we made progress in our discussions, although we had to leave a number of things open so I will reflect in my intervention now but the European Union and its Member States will propose having based themselves into the work of this group of countries, but not reflecting totally what we had advanced, the different options.
Basically what we will suggest is in this same Article in the Paragraph 2, in the last paragraph to include a different wording, which I will read and I will send after to the Secretariat, which will be as follows: A member state/contracting party should/shall confine said distribution or making available to published worked which, in the particular accessible format, cannot be obtained commercially under reasonable terms. Including at prices that take account of the needs and incomes of beneficiary persons in the country of importation."

This was a text as I said that we were working and had gotten to when we stop in our informal consultations in May. I must say that there were different views in the group so for some groups, for some of the groups participating the EU and its Member States in ticket was important to assure these export/export possibility kicks in when there is a market failure
(Import export)
Ie when the particular accessible format cannot be obtained commercially under reasonable terms in the market whereas for other countries that were participating in these discussions, these options should remain a possibility oops and not an obligation. But the position I put on the table now on behalf of the EU and its Member States will require that the Articles D and E kick in when there is a market failure.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU. Any further textual proposals.
United States?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We had not commented on the last sentence of the last provision there and in addition to the suggestion of the European Union, we wanted to suggest some language at the very end that says "In the country of importation as well as the cost of producing and distributing the work."
So it would just be an addition to the end and we are happy to provide that to the Secretariat, just... thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Iran.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to put in the court that we are in favor of the original format of the text as contained in page 37. Thank you.
(27 or 37?)
>> CHAIR: Nigeria?
>> NIGERIA: On behalf of the Africa Group I just want to express my appreciate to the Distinguished Delegation of the United States for the last edition that was made to the last line of that paragraph in fact, I think that it very usefully gives language perhaps for other parts of the document that have to do with the question of availability in the market based on conditions in the country that is -- in which the beneficiary resides. So thank you.
>> CHAIR: Colleagues, may I repeat the direction that I proposed which did not receive objection. But let me have the Delegations That have textual proposals to put forward in Plenary do so and I suggested and there was no objection that we will not engage in discussion, because we need to go through this text and receive all the textual proposals.
Those that have textual proposals, specifically propose them, and then we can move on.
So we have dealt with D.2.
D.3 EU?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President. Very quickly, because this is the same point that was raised when we were discussing the Article number, Article C, what we would propose and is again on the basis of the informal discussions we had in March and May is to have there the language in Article D Paragraph 3 replaced by the following wording which I will read now and we will send to the Secretariat. "Any member state/contracting party may fulfill Article D 1 by providing any other limitations or exception in its national copyright law pursuant to Article Ebis. Which is the Article that we have already read out and sent to the Secretariat this morning. Thank you very much. .
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any other textual proposals? I see none.
Page everyone. Article E. Importation of accessible format copies. Textual proposals? European Union, to be followed by Nigeria.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Mr. President, if you would not mind to give the word, the floor first to the Delegation of Nigeria, I need to find something in my papers. That will give me 30 seconds.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Simply that on behalf of the Africa Group, the comment on page 40 E.01 from the Distinguished Delegation of Japan, we want to note that it needs to be encompassed within Article E and that is to say that import and export do not usually mean the exchange of intangible goods. So we want to be clear that Article E does in fact permit the exchange of digital files in terms of importation.
Mr. Chair, I would welcome and ask for your guidance, whether that is simply a question of fixing the title in terms of importation, or whether we do need to in fact be very explicit and include wording within the Article itself that for these purposes importation includes the exchange of digital files.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria, are you in the position to make a proposal in this respect?
>> NIGERIA: Yes, Mr. Chair. It would be the African Group's preference to include language that makes explicit that the exchange of accessible format files in digital format is included in Article E and I can read language out to that effect if my Distinguished Delegate from the EU would go ahead with her language so that I can quickly put the language together on this end.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Yes, there seems to be a neutral helping to gain time!
Which probably reflects that it is late and we are tired.
What happens, I have the possibility in case I make a mistake to correct myself when I send it to the Secretariat but what we would like to change here is in Article E at the beginning it reads "To the extent national law permits an official person and authorized entity acting on on beneficiary person's behalf to make accessible format copy of her work, then there are the words the national law should help remain and we believe that the words the national law should be replaced by the words "A Member State/contracting party."
We will send this to the Secretariat. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
U.S. and then Nigeria.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We know you are just looking for textual suggestions. We would take note of Japan and Nigeria's exchange on the word "Importation" and we think we could certainly find the right formula now or down the road but we don't have text right now.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Mr. Chair, we would come working with the Distinguished Delegation of the United States on this. The proposed wording currently to keep things simple, the last line of Article E after "Copy"and the comma would read "Including digital files," and thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
>> ECUADOR: Do we have a translation or okay so speaking Spanish since the textual working on...
(Changing captioners)
suggestion in relation to Article F for new text to replace the entire Article which is represented now in footnote 33 and in comment F .01. We would like to reiterate that we think that change should be made.
Chair, I'm in your hands whether you would like me to read that out or leave that to be incorporated.
>> CHAIR: Unless there are any more duplications. Otherwise it is noted.
India to be followed by Iran.

>> INDIA: There is a slight modification our Delegation is suggesting. In Article F, first line starting from the first line, Member States shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C, here we are to delete have the means to, just to delete "have the means to" and replace it with" are not prevented from."
Are not prevented from enjoying the exception where technological protections matters have been applied to a work. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Iran, to be followed by Egypt.
>> ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My Delegation would like the deletion of the first two lines of the second paragraph. Also we have the textual suggestion. I will send it to the Secretariat.
That there is nothing in this Article that prevents the contracting party from adopting effective and necessary measures to ensure that the beneficiary would enjoy the limitation and exception provided in its national law where technological measures have been applied to a work and appropriate and effective measures have not been taken by rightholders in relation to that work to enable the beneficiary to enjoy the exception or limitation under its national law. I will send it to the Secretariat.
>> CHAIR: Secretariat would like to address.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. I would like to ask all Delegates if you can send the suggestions to my personal WIPO e-mail supposed to the copyright dot e-mail account which I won't have access to, so I can get the suggestions and things ready, Michelle with 1L woods at woip.INT. If you need me to write that down for you, I'm happy to do that when we wrap up. Thanks.

>> CHAIR: United States to be followed by Switzerland.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. United States has been looking a little bit at Article F. We do not want to make any textual proposals at this time. We just want to point out to the Committee one reason the U.S. isn't is because since the Beijing treaty so successfully concluded just a few weeks ago and since it does have an agreed statement on technological protection measures, we are keenly aware that from a public international law point of view we want to study what we do here in relationship to the language that was just done in the Beijing treaty and those of you who are students of public international law know that if a body or bodies with largely the same membership at the same time write a similar provision, future commentators will attend very carefully to any differences in the languagement for that reason we have been looking at this very carefully and we just wanted to flag for the Chairman and the Committee we may come back with some very precise
proposals along the Beijing treaty lines. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Switzerland to be followed by Ecuador.
>> SWITZERLAND: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I would like to thank the U.S. Delegation for the comments made. I would like to express support for their comments on this subject. Having said that, the Swiss Delegation would like to make an editorial suggestion. We suggest that the words "in particular" be added to the second paragraph. So it would now read: In particular, in the absence of voluntary measures by rightsholders at the beginning of the paragraph.
The Swiss Delegation, however, is ready to accept the solution that was found in Beijing with with reference to the audio visual measure on the same issue. We can put the paragraph as we have it now into a footnote and take it out of the body of the text itself. We are also open to other suggestions that people may have. Thank you.

>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chair. This Delegation would like to propose that we delete the first two lines of the second paragraph so that the second paragraph would start with "Member States."
Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any further textual proposals on F? Peru?
>> PERU: Thank you, Chairman. Peru on behalf of its own Delegation would like to say that with regard to the solution found in Beijing, this was determining to achieve this treaty. We think we should follow along the lines of the consensus achieved on this same issue and we should perhaps take the approved language from Beijing on this issue which already reflects consensus and there was consensus achieved on that same writing which we can translate to the Secretariat. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Article G? Page 47. Textual proposals, Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the African Group we would like to propose some text for Article G and just by way of explanation, the current Article G we felt did not really establish any principle. As written, it simply stated that contracting parties could address the relationship of contract law and statutory exceptions for beneficiary persons. That's a statement of fact. So if that was all that it was doing, it really didn't need to be in the text, was our feeling about the matter. Indeed, we do have concerns given the movement in the field to use contracts to override or preclude access to works under any limitations or exceptions, including even limitations and exceptions under either fair dealing or fair use or other traditional copyright boundaries.
So on behalf of the African Group we want to propose new language for Article G and I would just read that language. "Contracts that override the exercise of the provisions herein specified shall be null and void."
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria. Any other textual language on G?
Now H, page 49.
Textual proposals? None?
Article I is the proposal that is appearing on the left from Venezuela. Any textual language proposals on I? European Union?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President. Before you close the discussions, the European Union and its Member States would like to propose an Article which in the current order you could call it J, but we believe that it might be placed easily someplace else. So I'm just explaining it at the end. But we are flexible as to where it is located.
It will be related to a voluntary registry of authorized entities. The logical thing would be to help authorized entities in particular in the context of the Article D to identify each other. So in a way it is a voluntary transparency measure that without consideration of an obligation for the authorized entities could help facilitate their task when they engage into the transfer of files. And it will read as follows: Member States/contract can parties shall/should set up a voluntary registry of authorized entities which may be used by authorized entities to identify one another for the purposes of Article D."
Again, this could be easily placed as well in Article D. We just mention it here at the end. We will transmit it to the Secretariat.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, European Union. Are there any Delegations that have additional text to make? Ecuador?
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I've asked for the floor just to request a point of clarification. What is the status of the Venezuelan proposal on the triple criteria? In other words, is this a proposal as such? Submitted by Venezuela for this new Article I? Or is it a proposal under Article I? What exactly is the status of this Venezuelan proposal?

>> CHAIR: Well, I can't see Venezuela here. Venezuela is not in the room.
Now, as you can see they made it as a comment. It is also in the footnote. So it is part of the text as it appears on the footnote.
But Venezuela needed to be here to confirm whether they are still pursuing it here or not.
>> Thank you, Chairman. If you would allow me, I would like to take the floor at this stage. I want to be absolutely clear about this. For Article I we would like to put forward the original Venezuelan proposal an put it in the form of the proposal from Ecuador. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: So what you are saying is that you want to put this as a proposal by Ecuador?
>> CHAIR: Are there any further textual suggestions? At this stage I would invite NGOs that would want to make statements on this work.
Well, what we will do, I will ask the Secretariat to read out the list of the speakers that we have from the NGOs.
>> SECRETARIAT: Okay. We have WBU, STM, KEI, FIA, IVF, Internet society, THEAB, CLE, EFRO, CIS.
IPA.
CCIA.

>> CHAIR: And that is the list that I have. The list is closed. I invite NGOs to restrict their statements to exactly three minutes.
If you don't wish to be interrupted in the statements, please keep to the time. I will invite WBU.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am speaking on behalf of the WBU and its nine regional and national members present at this meeting. We note with appreciation the hard work that has gone on since yesterday afternoon and we look forward to the revised, the revision which will be made available for the latest text inputs tomorrow when obviously we can study it in detail and use those new texts to advise, because we see opposition here as technical advisors to the Member States on the views and the needs of the visually impaired.
We will be available to any informals throughout tomorrow and/or Sunday just as the Member States might need to consult with us. So we will be here.
Work in progress, sir. We appreciate that it is hard work. We all hopefully are working together for a successful conclusion at SCCR 24. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. STM?
>> STM: Thank you, Chair. From the outset, STM has supported the creation of an enabling legal framework with the potential to increase dramatically access to copies of books, journals, and other published text-based works across borders for the benefit of blind and print disabled person and make this access more secure. And for stakeholders to play a facilitating role.
The ambitious goal for publishers is to mainstream and approximate as near as possible the experience of accessing literary works for persons with print disabilities to that of sighted persons. STM's view is that any enabling legal framework must not undermine the ambition of publishers and instead maintain the incentive to provide mainstream access to work,ie to the extent that the accessibility features are already built into the format available from the publisher or distribution platform making the instrument. A legal instrument needs to be limited to situations where there is no commercial availability of an accessible copy on cash commercial terms. STM is encouraged by the momentum gained and would urge Delegations to keep the positive and constructive spirits in the interests of steady progress. Momentum can be maintained by remaining focused on and limited to the essentials of this instrument addressing a link singular issue in a way that does not put into
question existing -- an instrument should be mindful of not becoming prescriptive and would seek to preserve the flexibility existing in international treaties especially where national measures are concerned that are aimed at increasing access. Be such measures exceptions or alternative measures as long as they are keeping in keeping with international obligations. STM believes at heart a legal framework must create conditions under authorized entities which wish to act as gateway for crossborder copies can be available to all stakeholders. This can be the case if they will predict services in an open an transparent authoring and these authorized entities acting as gateways are operationally prepared and equipped as well as motivated to take corrective and remedial action where warranted. STM is willing to work with all stakeholders in whatever form may be appropriate for a viable definition of this key piece of an enabling legal framework. STM's view
is that this is key to success for these deliberations. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. KEI?
>> KEI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We probably agree with part of what STM just said. I just want to make a couple of quick points. One, we think it's important that the works that are digital are included. Print disabilities for some people is a little confusing to people because they think it's about works printed on paper being converted in some way so people can use them in readers.
Since everything is, a lot of things are going to be moving to electronic formats, you can't just, it should be more obvious. I'm not sure if you really, the instrument is really well served by picking a legacy format as kind of a high level label for the agreement. You may want to just disregard or get rid of the term print disabled at some point and talk about some other expression of disabilities for people who are visually impaired or have other disabilities or something.
I think it's important to make sure that the flexibilities in the agreement are without prejudice to other flexibilities under the burn or the TRIPS. You're not actually trying to confine what is possible under international law but to provide a particular mechanism that you think would serve the needs of people, but even today people use mechanisms outside of the system that you are seeing with authorized entities and things like that. They should essentially not be taken off the table by this instrument. It should add to the flexibility, not subtract something from it.
I think you have to deal with the elephant in the room. Is this a treaty? Or something else? In other words, it makes a big difference whether you're talking about a treaty or some other soft recommendation even with the wording the way the thing is. After four years, this is the last SCCR for thebaum administration's first term. It's time to fish or cut bait on these things. Maybe you can do that Monday if you can't do it today, but at some point people need to come to grips with this. Maybe the EU and the United States have to kind of figure out this thing is as important as the billion other things they support as binding instruments.
And we support what is now the Ecuador proposal for Article I. We believe this reflects state practice of the U.S., EU and finally, I just want to mention that I think that the print disabled term initially was lapped on to by the U.S. to keep the motion picture industry happy so it wouldn't extend to films because the motion picture industry was concerned they might have to deal with this as it relates to exceptions for people who are deaf. I don't know even want to get into that -- don't get me started on that one.
Just to say again, I'm not sure that the term print disabled really kind of helps people understand an agreement that is going to be implemented through the digital age. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: EU?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chirm. The strairmt is taking the floor for the first time this week. Allow me to start by could be congratulate lating you and your Vice Chairs on your election. All creativity relies on strong incentives for creators to create. Adding to the educational fund available to individuals and society at large.
These incentives for ours and other industries are contained in copyright and related rights. While we wholeheartedly support the aims of the proposed instrument under construction we are concerned that requisite flexibilities remain firmly in the sight of this Committee and in particular that the exceptions under consideration here be submitted to the three steps test under the international copyright framework. Mr. Chairman, the instrument under consideration here would envisage and conceived from the outset as one of an array of solutions alongside those conceived and promote bid the industry in fruitful dialogue with other stakeholders to address the shortage of formatted books or text based publications for use by people with reading disabilities.
FIOPS believes strongly that this proposed instrument stands a strong chance of success if it remains focused on this singular and singularly important issue. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we rish wish you will and all Member States here a focus on this important discussion over the next few days and express a wish that the agreement be found in a limited instrument that would uphold the existing copyright framework whilest adding to opportunityings to disabled people at world over to enjoy works tailored to their specific disability. I thank you for your attention.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. IVF?
>> IVF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The international video federation supports the expedition conclusion of an instrument to increase the availability of books in specialized formats for print disabled persons in the developing world. We appreciate the dedication of countries trying to come closer on a text on this important issue. In order to succeed, these efforts must truly focus on improved access by reading disabled persons. We stand ready to support an international instrument that is consistent with and does not prejudice the international corporate hierarchy, including the next best reference to the three step test and appropriate flexibility for compliance through commercial availability, licensing alternatives, or exceptions matched with and subject to the protection of corresponding rights. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. ISOCC?
>> ISOCC: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Since this is the first time we are taking the floor please allow me to congratulate you on your election. The Internet society welcomes the opportunity to deliver a statement on this 24th session on the Standing Committee on Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organization. We welcome the commitment of WIPO Member States to address the needs of visually impaired persons and people with print stroalt. This is related to --esh persons with disabilities and has created a disabilities chapter. ISOC is a in profit organisation founded in 1992. Its mission is to promote the open development of use the Internet around the world. With he facilitate the open development of standards, protocols and technical infrastructure of the Internet. ISOC will supports developing country Internet instruction. Forming the Internet technical community such as the Internet engineering task force, the www.consortium
and ICANN. We work with snarl organisations, civil society and the private sector to pursue our objectives in a collaborative and inclusive manner. This is what we call the multi-stakeholders model of the Internet ecosystem. ISOC supports open will source platform for all includes including Intellectual Property. We believe that provides the appropriate means of will informment such used as the main fora for future curing's. Working on the visually impaired persons and print disabilities, much multi-stakeholders frameworks could be helpful for all future discussions but at the same time legal international and binding solutions are necessary. The Internet society believes that solutions for accessibility are necessary as they could allow the delivery of any product or service over the Internet. To the same barriers, be they legal or technological need to be overcome as to persons with disabilities could contribute value to the Internet. We believe that anything which
relates to interests pertaining to the Internet, directly or indirectly should respect the Internet's open nature as well as its open architecture. Any issues with respect to the Internet should be deliberated under a multi-stakeholders environment as established by the Internet society Agenda. We hope the discussions within WIPO will be conducted under a similar multi-stakeholders approach. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, FIA?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Expect on behalf of the international federation of library associations and institutions and IFO, electronic, these firms are of the firm view now is the time to send a recommendation to the next WIPO General Assembly that it convene a diplomatic conference in 2013 on a treaty for visually impaired and print disabled people and we are heartened by the text based discussions on that goal today in SCCR 21. The governing bodies of UNESCO and WIPO created, visually and auditory handicapped to materials produced by copyright. Here we are 31 years and technology revolution later, yet WIPO still has not produced a copyright treaty that provides equal access to information for people with disabilities.
Distinguished Delegates will find on the table outside this room a recent letter from the Chair of the U.N.'s Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities addressed to the Chair of this Committee and in support of WIPO's achieving an international instrument which would ensure that copyright is not a barrier to information, culture and information for persons with disabilities and confirming that a binding treaty of this nature would be in conformity with the spirit of the U.N. convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
Now is the time to act. The need is urgent. Visually I am pairpd and print disabled people are derived of the basic human right to read because this Committee has not been able to agree. The library community which is the major provider of services assisting blind people to access information believes that the proposed treaty that the world blind union and other organisations is seeking is right, fair, just and long overdue.
The Beijing spirit of action that the Committee exhibited only last month must now be directed to addressing the compelling needs of visually impaired and print disabled people as your top priority. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. C -- to be followed by EFRO.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking on behalf of the Canadian library association. This is the first time we've taken the floor at this meeting, so please accept our congratulations on your election. CLA urges Delegates to move expeditiously to finalize a recommends on a treaty for the visually impaired and print disabled. The time is now to address this need. We are encouraged by today's deliberations realizing there are still important issues to address. For libraries, educational institutions, government agencies and charities providing direct service to the visually impaired and print disabled it is imperative that there be an international treaty that permits the cost effective delivery of alternate formats. Crossborder movement of legally produced alternate formats is essential in achieving the affordable and timely delivery of these formats for those who need them. As I said previously, the time is now for direct constructive action. Visually and
print disabled individuals have waited too long. Thank you for your productive deliberations to date and best wishes for success in the up coming informal meetings and next week.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. EFRO to be followed by CIS.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of EFRO, the EFRO representative had to leave. We acknowledge the will efforts to reach a consensus solution regarding a WIPO instrument to enable effective access to copyright works by persons with reading impairment. In respect of the text of the instrument, EFRO would like to reiterate what we consider to be among the key elements to be observed. One, the text should clearly link the to the birn convention and Article nine 9.2 and the three step test which needs to be maintained as a general basis for the establishment of any exception in national legislation.
Two, works to be made available under an exception in national legislation should apply only to works not made accessible by publishers or authors or their representatives. Three, crossborder transfer of files in addition to being made subject to some form of approval mechanism by rightsholders or their representatives must be limited to works lawfully published domestically before any reexporttation since it would otherwise conflict with the normal exploration of the works and prejudice the rights of the rights holders. Four, entitied should follow rules and regulations engaged in the international exchange of copyright works to ensure accountability. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. CIS, to be followed by IPA.
>> CIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to associate CIS with the statements made by the WBU, IFO, ISOC and CLE.
We have been making statements on this particular topic since 2009 now. In this room there are a number of organisations that work with and for persons with disabilities which come here to Geneva SCCR after SCCR. They do not come here to watch the enactment of an elaborate ritual but to seek solutions for the very real knowledge drought that is being faced by the reading disabled everywhere, and particularly in developing countries. The way to work on this treaty or rather this international instrument has been stalled by some Member States to date is a matter of shame. In India our parliament recently passed an amendment to our copyright law that grants persons with disabilities and those working for them a strong yet simply worded right to get equal access to works as sighted persons. An instrument that lays down detailed guidelines on rules an procedures to be followed by authorized entities will not work. An instrument that subjects the enjoyment of fundamental
freedoms by persons with visual impairments to market forces and bureaucratic practices will not work. Importantly an instrument that ignores realities of the world, that the vast majority of persons with visual impairment actually live in developing countries, an instrument that ignores this will not work.
I implore the Delegations here to keep up the constructive spirit that I have seen most of them display in the past two days and ensure that the 2012 General Assembly convenes a diplomatic conference on this topic. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. IPA? To be followed by CCIA.
>> Good iching and thank you, Chair for giving me the flor. Rather than read out my presentation I will just highlight a few points and send in my document to the Secretariat. I can do that because I agree with so many statements made just before me. For example, I can agree with IFL about the importance of the international convention for the benefit of persons with disabilities and the fact that it gives us lots of flexibility on what kind of instrument we can choose to resolve the issue of access to content. But it is clear, very clear that one thing is forbidden. That is to do nothing.
I also concur with KEI and others that flexibility is an important issue. If we had enacted an instrument in the 1980s following what we knew then we would be allowing tape recordings and phone owe recordings and something that allows the technology of then. Where would we then be here? Where would we be now? We certainly wouldn't have an opportunity to revisit this instrument.
The last five years have been a tumultuous time of change and of improvement for many persons with print disability. We have new technologies, iPhones, iPad, E public three daisy, book share international and many, many, many more.
However, these improvements have reached some but not many. For the vast majority of persons with print disability in developing countries there has been no change in the past five years. How cab we address a world in which there are so different developments with some having the opportunity to access content at the same time at the same place sometimes even using the sale devices as persons without any disability; whereas in other countries nothing is available. Flexibility is the core issue here.
We have heard from several sides issues around technical abilities of managing digital files. IPA is aware of the different technical abilities of organisations and entities around the world and in particular in the developing world.
We are also aware that the same computers that enable the reception and distribution of digital files also easily and conveniently enable the kind of security tools and recording facilities that are part of standard digital asset management.
But this brings me to a final and I hope new issue and proposal. The issue of capacity building. The instrument will not be able to assist persons with print disabilities unless they have some kind of computer not too far away or can use it themselves. And unless resources are invested into capacity building in least developed countries, WIPO has a long track record of supplying services to patent offices. It would be easy for them to make those services and other things to ensure that these materials reach those with visual impairments where it is immediated most. That way this instrument could strengthen WIPO's Development Agenda. IPA includes you to include provisions on capacity building in the instrument. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. CCIA, to be followed by TACB.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We congratulate you on your election and extend our compliments to the Secretariat for their excellent work in facilitating this session at considerable cost to their sleep habits.
The computer and communications m strow the represent a broad cross-section of the communications technology industries. Our members have a substantial stake in the effective operation of the international system of copyright and related rights as substantial IP owners and foe vatters. We ploors he had to see there is real process on the visually impaired instrument at this session. We are also glad to see instead of weekend sessions dealing with the protection of signals we now see that the focus of those intersessionals has changed to prioritize the visually impaired. We agree strongly with those who said that the linking of the froes, needs to broadcasting or any other issue would be infamous. We are glad to see the risk of such linkage has to receded and we hope been eliminated. We strongly believe that this house and this institution should clearly commit itself to effective and binding solution for the visually impaired before impleting work on any other issue.
The court of public opinion will not forgive any other outcome.
We hope, Mr. Chairman, that this concept is something to which this house will collectively commit the self as an outcome of this meeting.
With respect to the text, Mr. Chairman, it seems to become longer and more complex rather than simpler and more straightforward. With regard to authorized entities does anyone seriously believe it is essential to build in such elaborate safeguard Mick nymphs that the difficulty and expense of compliance could surpass the capacity of even a well funded organisation? All in order to prevent the visually impaired from wantonly sending digital books to those outside of their community? No, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately recent proposals seem to us to far exceed any test of reasonableness and to border, frankly, on being insults to the very community we are all trying to help. Copyright needs many things in the digital age to be more relevant, Mr. Chairman. Additional complexity is not one of them.
Mr. Chairman, the credibility of the international copyright system depends upon this institution developing effective solutions for such humanitarian needs as that articulated by the visually impair. We bee search and seizure this house, Mr. Chairman, do not allow anything to prevent this session being in a position to conclude with a recommendation to the General Assembly to convene a diplomatic conference in order to conclude a comprehensive and effective instrument for the visually impaired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. The last speaker is TACD.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Darlington Chair. We are making real progress. It seems that the future has arrived. And the future is now. We are not at a point where we used to be where we were just satisfied with making a bit of progress. No, this SCCR is the time to finish work on the text. I think we have momentum and I hope that will really happen.
When this issue of access to reading material of the visually I will pared comes out into the open we get unanimous support. We brought this issue to the European parliament and the democratic representatives of the European Union are in favor of an effective binding international treaty for the visually impaired persons and other print disabled. There was a unanimous vote of the European parliament on February 14th of this year in Strasbourg of the Plenary session in favor of a binding treaty. Those are the democratic representatives of Europe. European citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of this treaty.
Unfortunately, it seems not to be the case of the EU representatives here today. It is a pity that the EU spokesperson, Maria Martin Pratt levels the room when civil society is about to speak.
Oh, she's there. I'm sorry, I take that back. I'm sorry
(Laughter.)
>> I take that back.
She has been sitting right there the whole time and now she's up in front. I'm very sorry.
This unanimous vote took place and Michelle betternier, the commercial of internal market who previously had been written in response to dozens of members of the European parliament that he was against a treaty in favor of a recommendation, stood up in front of the parliament and committed hill self to fight for a treaty to get a mandate from the European excision which we have already, and to work on it with the 27 Member States.
Now I think since there is this large majority in favor of this position, we are sure that in the near future it will become the position of the EU council and its Member States because in the history of the European Union there is not one case where there has been a union mouse vote of the European parliament of all the groups and the council has taken the opposite position. It would be a travesty of democracy if that really happened.
Nevertheless we are saddened that in the internal meetings and in the informal meetings in this building the EU representatives fight tooth and nail against any mention of a treaty and they make unrealistic demands on them.
So I think that we have to say the same things in Geneva as we say in Brussels and the last week in the petitions Committee of the European parliament, MEMs from different political groups strongly pressured the European commission and the European council Cypress council at WIPO to convene a diplomatic conference and put this on the Agenda of the General Assembly next week. There exists and I have legal opinion on this, no legal impediment according to the EU's Lisbon treaty for the EU to ask the treaty of the visually impaired to be placed on the agenda of the next General Assembly an convening of a diplomatic conference in probably 2013, obviously before this diplomatic conference to negotiate the final details of a treaty, the European council will have ample time to formalize its mandate to seek a treaty in accordance with the overwhelming demand of its democratic representatives.
Otherwise, I think it would be a democratic travesty if the EU's representatives here today pose any problem to a clear roadmap for a binding international treaty. I don't mean instrument, I mean treaty, especially if they pose unrealistic proposals with regards to issues such as authorized entities and other issues that are objected to very clearly over years of the visually impaired community.
Thank you very much. I think the future is here today. Let's seize the moment. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Colleagues, Secretariat will make announcements about our meetings tomorrow, but for me I just want to say that I think that we have reported good progress and we should keep this momentum. The submissions that have been made, the textual submissions that have been made will be captured by the Secretariat on paper. And they will be used in our discussions in the informals.
Secretariat, you can make the announcements. Then those groups that want to make announcements can make them thereafter.

>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. So tomorrow we will start with informal discussions on broadcasting at 10:00 a.m. That will go until 1:00 p.m. In the afternoon at 3:00 p.m. we will convene in formal discussions on visually impaired persons and persons with print disabilities, on the proposals. And we actually have lined up support from interpretation until 9:00 p.m. Unfortunately we are only able to provide interpretation in French and Spanish and English. We hope everyone is able to work with us on that.
We have also been -- and these two informal meetings will take place in the oche ten hag enroom. We have been asked to ask everyone not to eat, could be assume food and dispose of it in the room because we have not been able to contract for cleaning services over the weekend. Anything you leave in there on Saturday will still be there when we come back on Sunday.
If we come back on Sunday.
(Laughter.)
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you.
>> CHAIR: So I would like to thank all of you for this commitment and staying on. Until this time and a big thanks to the interpreters for the work in supporting the meeting. The meeting is adjourned.


Filed under: