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

by Prasad Krishna last modified Jul 25, 2012 03:36 AM
This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.

Plain Text icon 2012-07-20_sccr24_pre-lunch.txt — Plain Text, 62 kB (64,293 bytes)

File contents

 .
>>.
>>
(Standing by)
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
24th session
Geneva, Switzerland
20 July 2012.
>>.
>>
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
24th segs
Geneva, Switzerland
20 July 2012
(Standing by).
>>.
>> CHAIR: Colleagues good morning. If we may settle down and commence our
proceedings. Yesterday we had I think started our discussions with reasonable momentum
and it will be good to maintain that today. So that we can make progress on this very
important document.
We were able to cover proposals from Delegations on the preamble. And we did also have
a discussion on the definitions part precisely on work. As I indicated yesterday that
Secretariat would produce a document capturing the proposals that we have put forward by
Delegations for textual revision. That document has been prepared and I hope that you have
it on your desks.
Has it been distributed?
>> Secretariat: It is being copied right now.
>> CHAIR: It will be with you in a short while. If you see that document it will be
document capturing the textual suggestions that were made yesterday. Yesterday there was
a request from some Delegations to have 23/7 on the screen. And that has been arranged.
So we are going to have that on the screen.
Now in terms of how we are going to proceed, I think that it is important so that we do not
take away valuable time in going in to discussions on what we do, how we do it, and so forth
process issues, when we are faced with very important substance issues to deal with. We are
going to have the screen up and like we proceeded yesterday Delegations that have textual
suggestions propose amendments to 23/7 may present those. However you should not expect
that the Secretariat will be doing the typing of those suggestions in the plenary. That will not
happen because it will slow us down. That will not happen. We will receive those textual
suggestions and the Secretariat is going to capture those and we will do a document as they
have done on the preamble part and part of the definitions.
At a later stage when we have covered sufficient ground and I am hoping that we can run
through the document the whole day today. I intend to have and I will be suggesting at the
end of this meeting again, that I have informals to start cleaning up the text on those issues
where there are differences in proposals.
I also do not discount that we may have some weekend informals to try and clean up this
document. So that is the process. We ended at work and I would want to now open the floor
on authorized entity and receive textual suggestions and I would encourage Delegations to as
much as possible contribute to making textual suggestions to 23/7. The floor is open on
authorized entity.
Colleagues, I had opened the floor on authorized entity and it is up on the screen there.
May I once again invite suggestions on authorized entity unless there are none? India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. The definition of oral it is
acceptable but a small correction is there. In the second sentence it is activities to assist
persons. Instead of persons with print disabilities beneficiary persons to be added. Persons
with Disabilities should be replaced with beneficiary persons. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. EU.
>> European Union: Thank you Mr. Chair. And this issue as I think that everyone knows
is an issue that is very important to have successful outcome to our discussions on this text.
There are a number of suggestions that had been made and that should be in that text as well
by the European Union and its Member States and by other members of this organisation and
they are reflected on that same page in the footnotes. In any event, our thinking of this
matter has evolved as we have been working for the last six months to try to get to a sensible
definition that on the one hand allows for an effective means for the organizations
representing the blind to serve the con sti wentsy and at the same time have a level of
security in the activities of these organizations, in particular when we will be talking about the
export and import closers in the Articles D and E of the text.
We have been working as you know on a tentative text with an increasing number of
countries over the last few weeks. And we have a proposal which deals upon that text. It is
going to be a bit complicated for me to tell you exactly what it replace. What I will do is read
it slowly and there are elements which is in the screen. There are elements that you will see
in the footnote if it was possible to see the footnotes. And there are new elements that you
will recognize in part because they come from some of the other work done from other WIPO
states. Ways basically the definition of authorization means a Governmental agency in a
non-profit entity or a non-profit organisation. That is as you have in the first line in the screen
there and then you will have a legal aid that says has as one of its primary missions or
activities to assist beneficiary persons by providing them with services relating to education,
training, adaptive reading, or information access needs; and then you will add and and you
have a little b and that little b there will be the sentence establishes and follows rules and
procedures. And the explanation as to the objective of those rules and procedures comes
after in hyphens or little ii or ii. So it will be under that b establishes and follows rules and
procedures. You have first to establish that the persons it serves are beneficiary persons.
Second to limit to beneficiary persons is distribution and making available of accessible format
copies. Third, to discourage the reproduction, distribution and making available of an
authorized copies and when necessary to address it, in particular by stopping the supply of
accessible format copies to authorized entities and/or beneficiary persons.
After that to maintain reasonable care in and records of his hand in copies of works and
finally to enable the traps transmission of anonymous and aggregated data of records of
rightsholders on requests. We have tried to build upon the emerging Consensus that we had
with a number of countries during our informal work and try to streamline, make as clear as
possible what we think is the role of the authorized entities while making sure that not -- it is
either not justified or not possible for them to meet is imposed. We think these text achieves
that balance. But, of course, we are willing to discuss with others to explain further or
consider a tentative proposals.
>> CHAIR: Thank you EU. Nigeria to be followed by Iran. Sorry I didn't -- Nigeria you
still wish to speak?
>> NIGERIA: Good morning, on behalf of the Africa group we want to offer a revised
definition of authorized entity. And this is the result of work done by 55 countries and agreed
to by those countries. Authorized entity means a Governmental or non-Governmental entity
and organisation, educational or teaching institution including organisations enabled by
Governments that assist persons with print disabilities and providing them with services
related to instructional training adaptive training or information access needs.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Nigeria. Iran to be followed by India.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To start my delegation would like to support the
suggestion by the Distinguished Delegate of India of replacing persons with print disabilitieds
with beneficiaries we think that paragraph 2 and 4 of the text is not related to definition. So
we will ask for their deletion. Regarding the proposal of the Distinguished Delegatation of EU,
we also think that describing the rules and procedure of authorized entity is not related to the
definition.
And it would be remind by international law. And if there was a need for defining in such
procedures it would be -- should be removed to another part of this document, not to a
definition. And regarding the proposal of the Africa group, I think it is a good proposal. And
you could consider it. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. India to be followed by Argentina.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Distinguished Delegate of Iran the leader of
Asian group has accident Ali explained the definitional part of this term authorized entity.
Indian delegation in total agreement with the explanation that definition should be only
definition. Any explanation about the implementation like rules and procedures should not be
part of the definition. That should be elsewhere. And then Indian delegation in total
agreement with the proposal made by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria on behalf of the
African group and as regards the definition proposed by the EU, we have a little discomfort in
accepting it, especially because of the term primary use. If the term primary use it will be
very restrictive. Definition would exclude educational institutions and other organizations.
Under take the provision of accessible formats to the visually impaired and other print
disabilities. Because I studied in law school and law school did not have the primary objective
of providing accessible form malts to blind students. Instead the facility they have been --
which provide the accessible formats to cater the needs of blind students. So that will create
a problem. It means the school where I studied law will be out of the purview of the treaty.
So we ought to be very careful so that the word primary is not acceptable. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you India. Argentina to be followed by the EU.
>> Argentina: Good morning, Chair. Argentina has a specific exception in its legal
system relating to the definition of authorized entities. And so our intervention would be to
propose an amendment to the definition. Unfortunately this has come after India's
introduction but to be consistent with the structure we have in place in our country we should
substitute activity by primary mission in the first sentence. Primary mission. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Argentina. I give the floor to the EU to be followed by the U.S.
>> European Union: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to react to the remarks by the
Delegate from India and from Iran I fully agree with the comment by the Delegate of Iran, we
should not mix the definition part of an instrument with a normative part but we have had
that problem with this Article and definitions in this instrument since the start. There have
been text and there is text not only in the definition of authorized entity. You could also see it
in the definition of accessible copy which have a normative role even if they are being placed
in the definitions. Indeed it is not the nicest cleanest classical drafting. We have considered
nevertheless that provided it is clear as to the objective of what we are trying to achieve here,
it will be more effective in having rapid progress to continue working on the definitions part
than to try to create new Articles. That, of course, the European Union and its Member States
will not oe pose the idea of translating some of the conditions read in our definition of
authorized entity to a separate Article. That is just a matter of drafting technique.
As regards the definition -- sorry the intervention of our Indian colleague, just to explain to
him that in our view his university in India which I assume may have a department that takes
particular care of those students that have a print disability, it is as regards the primary
mission or activities of that department of the whole entity of the university that we should be
looking in to in order to determine whether it is or not an authorized entity. There is another
element as well that needs to be kept in mind. Authorized entities are going to play a
particular role in our view as regards the Cross Border of files of accessible format copies.
Member States and those that will want to implement the principles in this include remain free
to have national exceptions and limitations for the benefit of the print disabled in which they
were not under Article C. Conditions imposed on the function of authorized entity that do not
need to affect the domestic situation and the functioning of the local bodies which are taking
care of the population there. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: U.S. to be followed by Egypt.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the suggestions and
comments that have already been made on the definition of an authorized entity. We concur
completely that one of the important things that we must all discuss together is the question
of how to formulate the issue of a primary mission or one of the primary missions or primary
activities. This in the discussions both today and over the past two years has clearly emerged
as something we can work on together but something we will have to sort out. For this
delegation it is the perfect kind of subject for informal discussions that have been so fruitful in
the past. We also think that that, of course, impacts how the authorized entities include
schools and the degree to which they include schools and this delegation is very sensitive of
reaching the right result on that.
In addition we do note that I think the United States concurs with the sentiment expressed
by the Distinguished Delegate for the European Union, we agree with the Distinguished
Delegate of Iran speaking on behalf of the Asia group that you have to be careful that you not
insert too much normative material in to a definition statement. Although when one looks
around the world at treaties and national legislation, it is hard to draw a line in this respect.
We would only point out to the Committee and I think it is important to remember that at one
point in our deliberations we considered that Article C which is a definition and/or a definition
of a beneficiary person should be in the definitions in Article 1. And we all made a decision I
think collaboratively, I think there is Consensus, that because of the importance of this
instrument for persons with print disabilities that it should be in the distinct Article of its own
Article B. For this delegation we have no problem discussing with everyone the idea that the
description and definition of an authorized entity and how an authorized entity works should
move elsewhere also. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Egypt to be followed by Brazil.
>> Egypt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Egypt also recalls the discussion yesterday that
like many Delegations have the view that we need to have this treaty as a flexible like a legal
framework that would basically allow and give benefit, like rebenefit to the beneficiaries to
have access to such work. And in this regard Egypt would like to support definition for
authorized entity that is workable and flexible and this would not restrict or narrow down the
ability of the beneficiaries to have access to the work. In this regard we would like to support
the proposal made by the delegation of India, delegation of Nigeria of the the African group
and to say that some of the concept that are captured presently in the document indicate the
need for -- I mean like institutions to have as part of their charter this concept of primary
mission or mission the need to establish specific rules and procedure, and I mean this can put
additional burden and would exclude many existing institutions that can effectively assess
beneficiary person to have access to works. So in this regard we would like to support a
workable flexible definition in this regard. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Brazil to be followed by Nigeria.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, to everyone. Our delegation
appreciates the textual suggestions made by several Delegations so far regarding the
definition of authorized entities. I would like to comment on the suggestions made by the
delegation of the European Union. Basically our Delegations amen able to general instruction
presented there but would like to point out two things that to our understanding it is to be
more discussed. There is a mention to primary missions which has already been commented
by India. We have a similar situation in our country, for instance, universities has obligations
to provide services to the blind community and they do so but we cannot say it is their
primary mission. So we think that we should have a conceptual discussion on this issue and
agree that also this could be a very interesting topic for informal consultation. So that we can
arrive in to a language that takes out this realities in to account. And the other comment I
would like to make is regarding rules and procedures that would apply to authorized entities.
We have some concern that we should not create reasonable responsibilities on authorized
entities. In this regard we could also work on language that can be agreeable to all.
Especially regarding item C which is to discourage and address the making and distribution of
authorized copies. So we think that these two points they deserve some attention and we are
ready to contribute to this exercise, this SCCR to arrive to an agreeable solution. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria to be followed by bar bay does.
>> NIGERIA: I want to add on behalf of the delegation of Nigeria comments to the
importance of this definition and in particular taking in to account the institutional realities on
the ground in many developing and least developed countries. I think in this regard it is
instructive to take note of something that was done in the TRIPS agreement which was to
make clear that a reorganisation or establishment of new institutions simply to address or to
fulfill a particular substantive requirement would not be necessary and I think that if you have
an institution that does not maintain a separate department to take care of people and
persons with print and visual disabilities or impairments, that such an institution should not
have the obligation as a result of anything we might come to in this definition to create such a
department or to create such an institutional bureaucracy. In fact, the discussion within the
Africa group in the proposal which Nigeria completely supports was to either eliminate the
rules and procedures paragraph, which would be paragraph 2 or to substitute the word "may",
an authorized entity may maintain rules and procedures in particular because of the large
numbers of rural educational and teaching institutions in countries like India, Nigeria, South
Africa, Pakistan, et cetera. For those institutions any sort of administrative burden would
simply make this an unworkable and unaccessible treaty which would be an irony.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I have Barbados and Czech Republic and then the EU and Peru.
I would want to close this list so that we can give direction on this on how we are going to do
this issue to move forward. Barbados, Czech Republic, EU and Peru. Barbados you have the
floor.
>> Thank you. Paragraph 3 should be deleted. Replace by clear statement of duties and
responsibility by the authorized entities. How do Government agencies go about getting the
trust of Copyright holders? What if the Copyright holder is against improved access to
Copyright works for the print disabled? . Then the entity as legitimate as it is cannot be
authorized. What if the Copyright holder is on sabbatical and cannot be located. For an entity
to go ahead and perform its functions would be to render the provision luctory. Are we saying
it is some sort of fiduciary duties. I don't understand what it means by authorized entity has
the trust. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Czech Republic to be followed by Peru and then the EU.
>> CZECH REPUBLIC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CEBS group would like to thank
you for the able leadership that is bearing some fruits. We hope to continue in the same vain
today and beyond. In this regard the EU proposal on the definition of authorized entity
including the further suggestions that the EU made is close to our understanding and the CEBS
group would like to support it. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Peru to be followed by EU.
>> Peru: Thank you, Chair. We would like to express gratitude for the work that has
been done by various Delegations on the proposed texts. We would like to endorse the
statements made by India and Brazil in that in our countries many of these services are
established by entities whose primary mission or primary activity is not to serve this important
community of our populations but as part of an inclusion policy. And in not establishing
ghettos so that they include Persons with Disabilities but rather to assist public libraries and
educational institutions with shared services which facilitate access to information.
Those general services and so we would like to express concern about the term of primary
mission or activity but we do also understand that there is a legitimate concern to try to avoid
a generalized uncontrolled use of works which are put in circulation which are circulated. So
we are flexible that if we have a proposal that indicates that there is a primary mission or
activity this would have to be supplemented with inclusion of another authorized entity
indicating libraries or educational institutions which have as one of their activities to assist
persons with print disabilities.
Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> European Union: Thank you Mr. President. Just very briefly because I would like to
address the concerns just expressed by the Delegate of Peru and priorly to all the Delegates
such as the Nigerian Delegate because fblg, of course, we will be doing a very bad job here if
the result was to make it more difficult for schools or public libraries to assist the persons with
print disabilities. That is not the intention of the proposals that we are looking in to. And in
that respect I think we will have to be mindful of the fact that the way we have so far
structured this document clearly leaves all the freedom necessary in Article C for the Member
States to decide on how to implement a limitation or exception for the benefit of the visually
impaired. If you look in to Article C it is paragraph 1 says it very clearly as to the provision in
a national Copyright Law of limitations and exceptions and it is for the Member States to
decide how to implement it.
And it is in Article C that an example is given as to how these types of exceptions and
limitations could be implemented. But it would be totally understandable if a member state
decided to impose certain limitation as to the function of public libraries or schools or
universities. Not something required by the text. The only thing this text requires is that this
is done in accordance with international obligations. Where authorized entities plays a role is
when we are talking about Articles D, the exportation of the access format copies and Article E
and it is in that respect where one can assume there is a greater need of care and one can
also assume that school -- small schools, small libraries are not going to be playing the role
and if they want to play the role, they can then give themselves the required rules and
procedures to be sure that there is a minimal degree of responsibility in the handle of that files
and being able to do such transfer of files in a manner that is not prejudicial for the
rightsholder. So again to reassure those who would be concerned to the affects, small schools
or big universities when they serve their local community or their national community, this
does not necessarily need to have an effect.
>> CHAIR: Thank you EU. I still see two flags up. Ecuador and Nigeria. You recall that
I did announce the list and I did close the list in accordance with rule 17 of the general rules of
procedure unless you want to exercise the right of reply. Nigeria right of reply.
>> NIGERIA: I guess I am just perhaps slightly confused by -- thank you Mr. Chair --
the Distinguished Delegate from the EU. I understand the comment to say that the definition
is important primarily to deal with two provisions Article C and Article D. But if you look at
Article C which talks about national law exceptions, and I am sure there will be comments on
how to, you know, add or supplement to this, that Article actually talks about limitations and
exceptions by Member States. It makes no reference to the exercise by authorized entities.
So I fail to see the link. So I may be missing something. And with regard to Article D it is
really dealing with import or export licenses which strikes me as even narrower than the
definition of an authorized entity. So I just -- I am slightly be Fudd Delled of the definition
between authorized entity and these two Articles as currently configured.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Nigeria. EU I know that you are ready to respond. What I would
suggest is that there is obviously some more conversation that needs to take place on this
issue. And I would advise that we leave this issue to a more -- a much more in-depth
discussion in the informal setting because we will not be able to resolve these questions that
have been raised and suggestions that have been made. We have taken note of the textual
proposals that have been put forward on this matter. And we will deal with them as we have
dealt with the other parts of the text.
May I now request for guidance from members as to whether we should proceed to address
the issues of definitions on page 23 because I do recall that there was some intervention I
think it was from the U.S. yesterday that that particular part may be -- has an impact with a
discussion in other parts of the text. So I seek the guidance of the members to now give a
direction. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This delegation is happy if the room
wants to go through the rest of Article A. I think what you will hear from some of us is that
we should not waste our time on things that we may later propose to be deleted. So reiterate
what you Mr. Chairman correctly characterized as what we said yesterday a few of us will
propose a formula for Article C and D that makes it unnecessary to have a definition of
reasonable price. We should only have definitions where they are needed in other places in
the Article. So as we go through the instrument, as we go through the text, should we find
places where new definitions are needed we should come back to Article A and add them and
our own point we will make a proposal later on where we believe that we can safely eliminate
the definitions of reasonable price and still achieve the end that everyone wants. Thank you
Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you U.S. Barbados.
>> Thank you, Chair. Barbados would like to make a statement on this heading of
reasonable price in the event that later on when the U.S. proposed a deletion certain Member
States are against that deletion. So we would like to articulate our position at this point in
time your hand. Thank you. Barbados supports the deletion of reasonable price for
developing countries. The definition speaks to prices that are affordable in that market. How
do we determine what is affordable in the differing markets of developing countries. Do we
look at per capita income with its inherent inequities. What is it the affordable level in one
market is lower than the cost of production. Who will pay the difference. The blind people in
small high income countries in the ka ka rebee yan know this will be inequitable. When the
proposal is made for deletion Barbados would support it.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any comments on reasonable price? (Caribbean. )
Egypt.
>> Egypt: Mr. Chairman, the African group has proposal for the definition of reasonable
price for developing countries. And we would be willing to submit them. And also we have a
proposal for the definition of work and would also like to submit them and we think that
regarding the definition of Member States we also need to add constructing parties because
your intention is to make sure that the treaty is not like other instrument. Thank you.
(Instructing parties).
>> CHAIR: Egypt would you want to speak to the proposal you have on reasonable price
at this stage so that at least you can move to the notice of other members? Nigeria you have
the floor.
>> NIGERIA: The Africa group thank you Mr. Chair, the Africa group would like to
submit a proposal for the definition of reasonable price. Reasonable price for developing
countries is a price at which the accessible format copy of the work is available. Under
conditions and prices that reflect national economic realities.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair with your permission I would also like to introduce the
definition of work. Do I have your permission Mr. Chair?
>> CHAIR: Yes. Go ahead.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to bring to the recollection of the
Distinguished Delegates the comments of our Distinguished Delegate from Senegal yesterday
when he mentioned that the definition of work was actually a description of a definition and
not a definition as such. In response to that comment and after some deliberation the Africa
group would like to propose that work be defined as meaning a creation of a lit tear artistic or
scientific nature proteked by Copyright. Thank you Mr. Chair. (Literary).
>> CHAIR: Nigeria or Egypt are you also ready to give the definition -- sorry I will come
back to you. EU.
>> European Union: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to follow on the concern
expressed by the distinguished representative of Egypt as to the need to have as well a
definition of contracting party, what I think we should do at this stage is not to have a
definition neither of Member States or of contractual party. While should still open and in in
any event if one wanted to indicate here a binding nature of the instrument, you do not have
normally in treaties a definition of a contracting party on the part of definition. So at this
stage probably to address the concerns as to give an impression one way or another what we
would suggest is basically to eliminate the definition of Member States from the list of the
definitions and to even help you more in the cleaning of the text we also think that you can
quite easily delete as well the reference to in the definitions the definition of Copyright. So
basically the last two definitions that you have in page 23 of the SCCR/23/7 could be quite
nicely deleted at this stage. And you have a cleaner section of the definitions.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any further comments unless the African -- Egypt and African
group would want to propose or still maintain to propose language on contracting party.
>> Egypt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we would be flexible as the EU would like
to delete the definition of member state, then you can -- I mean like go along with this.
However if the definition is retained would like just to propose to add slash contracting parties
and then comment on it later on.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Iran to be followed by India.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to retain reasonable price
for developing countries in the definition part. And also we would like to see the last part of
the definition taking in to account the needs and disparities of the persons be added to the
definition proposed by the African group. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. India but before I give you the floor, those that are making
textual suggestions, if you may in the meantime please send them electronically. I know you
can send them while we are still having discussions so that can facilitate our work. India to be
followed by Nigeria.
>> INDIA: Indian delegation joins the delegation of Iran in supporting continuation of
the definition of reasonable price. And also Indian delegation supports the new formulations
just suggested by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria on behalf the Africa. And as regards
deletion of the definition of member state and Copyright, the suggestion of the Distinguished
Delegate of the EU in this regard our delegation is flexible. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Nigeria to be followed by Senegal.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I want to lend my support and our
support as a delegation and on behalf of the African group to the remarks made by the
Distinguished Delegate of India with respect to the proposal by the Distinguished Delegate of
the EU that the definition of Copyright could easily be removed from the document we would
certainly be completely open and accepting of that.
Let me also say that on behalf the African group we welcome and accept and agree with the
friendly amendment of the Distinguished Delegate of I ran and would like to see the new
language amended in that way. Thank you very much Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Senegal to be followed by Ecuador.
>> SENEGAL: Thank you, Chair. We support the proposal made by India regarding the
definition of reasonable price. Bearing in mind, of course, disparities according of states. We
are pleased with the new definition given to the concept of work following the proposal we
made on behalf of the African group. So we thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Ecuador.
>> Ecuador: Thank you, Chair. With regard to the proposal to withdraw the definition of
Copyright proposed by the EU, the Ecuadoran delegation does not share that opinion because
by making a reference to a Copyright and specifically in this document we understand that it
was included for this clarification with regard to Copyright be included for Copyright as well as
related rights. So we do not think it would be appropriate to delete as the EU proposed.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Senegal, are you still requesting for the floor? Iran.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We share the opinion of Ecuador on retaining the
definition of Copyright. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I think we have exhausted comments on this part. We move to
Article B, beneficiary persons. The floor is open for any textual suggestions on this part of the
text. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES: I thank you Mr. Chair. The U.S. just wanted to recommend a small
cleaning up. We believe that a perceptual disability is the same thing as a print disability. So
right now we have a perceptual disability, a reading disability or any other print disability. We
are happy to have this discussion with other Member States. We have studied this very
carefully with our experts. We believe that just the phrase has a visual impairment or a
perceptual or reading disability captures the entirety of the world we are trying to work on.
So we would recommend or any other print disability be deleted. So that's our only
recommendation. Otherwise we think it is an excellent definition. But we are happy to talk
about that and explain what our experts tell us in terms of visual irm pearments, perceptual
disabilities and reading disabilities. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you U.S. Japan.
>> JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding Article B paragraph C, Japan needs
consultation as to the beneficiary person who has disability and we would like to require to
admit the most disability in interpreting beneficiary person. Taking in to account of the
domestic situation. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a query to the Distinguished Delegate of
the United States, U.S. on the deletion of any other print disability. We are wondering
whether deletion of any other print disability will take care of those deletions, those categories
which are included in the reading disability. It means that reading disability and print
disability are the same. Because if I go by these standard definition on print disability, it
includes visual, physical, perceptual, developmental, cognitive or learning disability, print
disability. It includes all these categories. I am wondering whether reading disability includes
all these categories. Of course, perceptual has been covered. How about developmental,
cognitive, or physical disabilities and learning disacibility and all that? I don't think this -- all
these categories are delete means. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Senegal.
>> SENEGAL: Thank you, Chair. Senegal would like to make a textual proposal on
Article B on behalf of the African group. I am going to read the text out in English. Please I
would like to apologize for my accent. A beneficiary person is a person who is blind. Has a
visual impairment and perceptual or reading disability and so is unable to read works to the
same degree as a person without an impairment or disability. Is unable to physical disability
to hold or manipulate a book, to use it or access the world. To perceptual the same degree as
a person without an impairment or a disability. D a person who assists in facilitating the Act
tifrs under subsection A and C for disabled person.
I will transmit the text in English to the Secretariat for inversion. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Senegal. If you could do that as soon as possible so that we can
quickly incorporate it in the proposal text. Any other comments on beneficiary persons? I see
none. Now on page 27 there was to be a proposed text. I think there was something from
the African group on the scope for new Article X. So would the African group like to address
that portion of the text in the first instance? Egypt.
>> Egypt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The exact textual proposal presented by the group
is captured in document SCCR 23/7 page 26. Do I have to read it?
>> CHAIR: Thank you Egypt. I take note of that. So it is actually on page 26. Any
textual suggestions on that provision? U.S.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States doesn't have any
textual suggestions at this time. We were very appreciative of the Africa group of
recommending this and just to tell the Committee back in the United States our interagency
discussion has certainly looked at this. We may have some small tweaks and suggestions but
capturing the spirit and intent of the Africa's group proposal we look forward to formulating
the precise decision to do that. We think this is a good idea.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU.
>> EU: We want to indicate that we are open and flexible to discuss this proposal by the
African group. We have hardly had any occasion to discuss it in detail and to understand
some of the ideas behind it. We would at some point appreciate having those discussion with
them. And then take a decision as to whether it is something that we can support. But our
willingness to understand and positive appreciation of the proposal is here. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Any further comments on this Article? India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Indian delegation is flexible on the proposal
of the Africa. We will come back later once we digest the ingredients of this proposal. Thank
you.
>> CHAIR: Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brazil also thank the contribution of the Africa
group and we revert to comments if any at a later stage. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Brazil. There have been no further requests for the floor on this
Article. We will move to Article C on page 29. National law exceptions on accessible format
copies. Any suggestions proposed amendments to this part? I recognize India to be followed
by Nigeria and then the U.S. If we could address, you know, sequentially. Article C is quite
lengthy. India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a slight modification we are suggesting
in the paragraph 1 of Article C. It is in that third sentence, third line. Available to public, as
defined in Article 8 of the WCT. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Nigeria to be followed by the U.S.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a slight modification on the second line of
Article C first paragraph. To the right of reproduction the right of distribution, and the right of
performance. Suggesting including the right of performance.
Mr. Chair, with your indulgence if I could actually add one additional suggestion, proposal.
>> CHAIR: Please go ahead.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. As I had mentioned yesterday in some jurisdictions
the making available right to the public has not been endorsed by the courts. I wonder if we
could entertain a proposal on behalf of the distinguished delegation of Nigeria to include the
phrase where applicable after the insertion by the Distinguished Delegate of India. So it
would read as follows: "A member state/contracting party should/shall provide an its national
Copyright Law for an exception or a limitation to the right of reproduction, the right of
distribution, the right of performance and the right of making available to the public, as
defined in Article 8 of the WCT where applicable, to facilitate the availability of works an
accessible formats for beneficiary persons. ". Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. U.S. to be followed by the EU.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a very small point in that the title
of this Article does not have limitations and it should say national law exceptions or limitations
and or the phrase we should settle on a phrase whether we say exceptions and limitations or
limitations and exceptions but just a consistency point. Later when we get to informals the
United States delegation would like to ask the distinguished delegation of Nigeria in there is a
star sub standtive limitation of -- said beneficiary persons full stop. We don't see any
difference or any reason why not to safe as defined here in. But that is a question we can all
handle in an informal discussion. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU.
>> EU: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just to say that we will appreciate having the opportunity
to discuss further with the delegation of India and the delegation of Nigeria as to the specific
proposals and reference to the Article 8 of WCT or the adding of where applicable which in our
view could introduce a degree of uncertainty which is going to be difficult to resolve. That we
are very much looking forward for such discussion. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Egypt to be followed by India.
>> Egypt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Egypt would like to support the proposal made by
Nigeria on behalf of the African group and would also like to ask adding directive translation to
Article C and consistency with last request. We think this is an important addition to the
Article. And it would greatly enhance the opportunity by the persons to access the work and
to have real benefit of the work accessed because it might be useful. If you access the work
but I mean you are unable to -- I mean benefit from it. So I would like to request addition of
the directed translation. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. India to be followed by Nigeria.
>> INDIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. Inned yan delegation appreciates the textual
suggestion made by of the Nigerian delegation on behalf of the Africa. And the Indian
delegation supports the new formation of the paragraph 1 of Article C. And the Indian
delegation also in favor of the intervention made by the U.S. delegation suggests that
inclusion of word limitations in the title. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Nigeria and then Argentina.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. The Nigerian delegation and on behalf of the Africa
group would support the consistency point noted by the Distinguished Delegate of the United
States. And would also not be opposed to restoring as defined here in to Article C 1 so that
the informals can be used more productively. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Argentina to be followed by Ecuador.
>> Argentina: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, Argentina is considering with great
interest the Nigerian proposal. The proposal made by Nigeria in their first intervention. We
are certainly considering this very interesting because we think that this issue of making
available to the public is not necessarily something included in all legislation. We have specific
provisions on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons. We do have that but
the question of the right of making available to the public as such is not included in our
regulation or legislation. In Article 6, I am now talking about the WCT. WCT Article 6 the
whole concept of making available to the public is indeed included and spelled out. I would
like to conclude by saying that we are certainly more than ready to give further thought to this
legal issue and we stand ready to cooperate with all other interested members in that regard.
Further, we are more than ready to hear other viewpoints on this and we eagerly await the
views of other Delegations as to the need as they see it to include this reference that is to say
the right of making available to the public in this Article. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I have Iran, EU and Venezuela and then we discuss paragraph
2. Sorry, Ecuador. Sorry. Ecuador to be followed by Iran.
>> Ecuador: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, the delegation of Ecuador has asked for
the floor because we wish to refer to the inclusion of two specific points here and here we are
taking up points already made by the Delegate of Egypt. The points we are referring to relate
to Article C the right to translation. We think that this is something that should be referred to
and also the right of adaptation that we propose that be included in this Article also. Thank
you.
>> CHAIR: Iran to be followed by the EU.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation supports the suggestion of Nigeria
and we support the suggestion of Egypt. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. EU and then Venezuela.
>> European Union: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just to react to the proposal made by the
Distinguished Delegate of Egypt and then supported by the Distinguished Delegate of Ecuador,
and to express my concern we have been hearing this phase negotiating for quite a number of
years now to address what we thought was the problem we needed to address which was the
lack of access to special format copies for persons with a print disability or a visual impairment
and we are working with phase to try to resolve and put a means to that end and I fear that
by introducing at this stage of the discussion request such as inclusion of the right to translate
we will be putting ourselves in a situation where much more discussion, much more time will
be needed in order to try to finalize our work on this. So just to flag participation as trying to
enhance the scope of this instrument which seems to be a tendency we are following in the
discussions that we are having this week in the SCCR. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Venezuela.
>> Venezuela: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I would like to make a general
comment at this stage. I would like to share with you a concern that my delegation has. It is
my impression that we are back to where we were in 2010. At that time we had an Article
that appeared to be very mature but it seems to me that we have not made any progress
whatsoever since then. GRULAC I believe Chaired by Panama at that time had stated that we
wish not to reopen discussion on this because we then might end up taking one step forward
and three steps back if not in fact, 24 steps back. So it seems to me that that is what we are
in danger of doing now. Going back from where we were. There are those who would appear
not to want to make too much progress on this. And whenever a text is submitted then these
people take the floor and say that there is something that they are not happy with and I really
think there comes a point that you have to draw a line and you have to say stop. I think this
has to be reflected in national legislation so we can work on the basis of these texts. We need
an international instrument that is sufficiently open to allow naft legislation to be inspired by
it.
We are not talking here about trying to agree on every dot and comma, every word one
after another. We are trying to agree on a basic minimum which would go in to an instrument
and then leave a certain amount of leeway for different which is kris to refrek it in their
legislation as they see fit. Otherwise we are going to go in circles here and end up with
revision 3, 4, 5 and 6 and next meeting we are going to reopen the same discussion on the
same thing. We need to draw a line and organize informals but we do have to take a decision.
Have to say look this is how far we are going. Otherwise people are boycotting the text as
they have been for many years. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Egypt.
>> Egypt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The delegation of Egypt would like, of course, to
engage in discussion the delegation of EU to understand a reason for concern to the right of
translation but this has been consistently asked by delegation of Egypt. This is important to
be added if we are seriously talking about benefit for IP persons. That access, of course, and
direct benefit from the accessed work. So this is the premise and I would like to suggest on
and VIP persons have rebenefit of access. Thank you. (VIP. )
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES: This delegation would like to offer a brief comment on comments
by Delegations in Article C 1. The question of a right of translation has been discussed by this
room informally among Delegates for a couple of years. We would like to emphasize that our
objective here is to ensure that a person with print disabilities has the same access as a
sighted person does so the world's store house of information and materials and expression.
If a right of translation is given to the print disabled person that is not held by the sighted
person, then it is not the same access. It is a different form of access. So we are happy to
have that conversation but for us that is a different form and a different approach than we
have been taking.
Now for this delegation we listen very carefully even when old subjects are brought up that
we thought had been discussed and decided and the question of a right of public performance
is an interesting one. For example, we could imagine an argument being made by someone
that is a audz yoe book when it is speaking is engaged in a performance. Personally I am not
sure it is a public performance but for our delegation we are certainly willing to have those
discussions. So again Mr. Chair, we think this is something that could be discussed by
Member States informally. It is worth pursuing. But we do agree with the Distinguished
Delegate of Venezuela we have had a fairly stabilized text. If we start adding a lot of new
things to it we risk taking us backwards and not forwards. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you U.S. We move to paragraph 2, page 31. Paragraph 2 A and B.
Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just with an introductory point that depending on
the outcomes of the informal sessions over this content of Article C 1 this particular proposal
on behalf of the Africa group may not be needed. Nonetheless I will proceed with the
proposal. Article C 2 A the opening paragraph authorized entities shall be permitted without
the authorization of the Copyright rightsholder to make an accessible format copy of a work.
And the proposal is to delete the next phrase right after the comma obtain from another
authorized entity a work in accessible format. So in other words, simply deleting the phrase
between the commas. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Nigeria. Any other proposals on this text? The floor is open to A
and B. Paragraph 3, EU.
>> European Union: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the work we have been doing with a
number of other -- of the WIPO Member States we have had discussions and exchanges of
view of how to articulate these paragraph 3 best. And we were still discussing two possible
options which I will explain to you and should be in our view an important element for trying
to advance this work in the informal discussions at some point. At the moment you have in
paragraph 3 a single paragraph which those have been ingaged in to the informal work
considered to be place retained there as an option. So there will be an option A under that
paragraph 3. And then there will be an option B which will be related to a subsequent change
that we will explain to you as we advance in the text and that will rate as follows: Option B
there for paragraph 3 saying a member state/contracting party may fulfill Article C 1 by
providing any other limitation or exception in its national Copyright Law pursuant to Article
EDS. I am sure we will get to that Article. We will send this drafting to the Secretariat.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you EU. Any other proposals for 3? 4? Egypt.
>> Egypt: Thank you. Just kindly request the delegation of European Union to read the
proposed Article EDS.
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> European Union: Thank you Mr. President. If you allow me to do the jump in the
text for the clarity as to the ask of Egypt I am happy to do that. And this is a possibility again
which comes from the informal discussions that we have had in the intersession of work in the
last six months. That new Article EDS will read as follows: . All exceptions and limitations
provided for in this instrument shall be limited to certain special cases which do not conflict
with normal exploration of the work and do not unreasonably presentation the legitimate
interest of the rightsholder. I think the text is quite familiar to many of you in this room.
Thank you. (Prejudice).
>> CHAIR: Thank you. To follow that language you may note that it is footnote 32 on
page 43. Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a question to the Distinguished Delegate from
the EU, I am curious as to why that is Article EBIS rather than remaining within the Article C3
or separate provision. Is it meant to link directly to the right of importation? (EBIS).
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> European Union: Thank you Mr. President. The intention here is to have a clean text
that clearly indicates something which is obvious which is whether within the framework of the
international obligations we already have as a matter of technique we thought it was cleaner
to have it in a separate Article at the end of the proposed text. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: U.S. Egypt.
>> Egypt: Thank you. Just seeking a point of clarity, because as far as we heard the
proposal for Article C paragraph 3, to read that member state/contracting party may fulfill
Article C 1 by providing any other exception or limitation in national Copyright Law and we
understand any exceptions and limitations that is included in Article C 1. However the
information presented for EBIS 3 all exceptions and limitations provided in this instrument.
So this means that also those exceptions and limitations provided to Article C 1 I see there
may be inconsistency between the two form mu leagss.
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> Thank you I am happy to discuss with the Egyptian Delegate to show how there is no
inconsistency. There is also nothing new. There is no intention to impose any new obligation
that those countries or most of these kris in this room have at the moment and there comes
under a number of international instruments. So no intention to create anything new in terms
of obligation.
>> CHAIR: U.S.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you Mr. Chair. We were actually having our flag up for 4,
Article C 4. So we will defer to you and come back.
>> CHAIR: You may proceed.
>> UNITED STATES: All right. Thank you Mr. Chair. On C 4 the informal group that had
been meeting in March and May were looking at ways to simplify this while still taking account
of the fact that different markets have different conditions and persons with print disabilities in
different markets have different conditions. Both economic and social. And we wanted to
represent -- we wanted to put a possible idea on the table for a new 4. And I will read it and
then provide it to the Secretariat. A member state may confine limitations or exceptions
under this Article to published works 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 that market. And let me explain a little bit, I am
sure as when we get to informals the Secretariat will have the language written out to see.
First of all, in the present language it says in the applicable special format. And we wanted to
refine that a little bit for the benefit of persons with print disabilities by saying in the particular
accessible format. So that we wanted to clarify that even if a version had been made
available in an audio book, that might not be it had been made available in Braille. Certainly
very, very few works will ever be made available by publishers in Braille. So we wanted to
clarify in the particular accessible format should be the condition if a member
state/contracting party wants to use this market availability. Instead of saying reasonable
price which is a defined term we think we can eliminate that completely and say cannot be
object teabed commercially under reasonable term including price of beneficiary persons in
that market. We would be happy at least for one idea to be considered to simply say cannot
be obtained under reasonable toerms and then some language that appropriately identifies the
needs of visually impaired people. Thank you Mr. Chair and we look forward to that
suggestion being made available on paper for everyone.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you. Simply to say that we would like also to discuss with Egypt on
behalf of the African group and the European Union on implications of the new Article EBIS. I
think it is interesting to have this conversation Intersessionally and also thank the contribution
made by the Distinguished Delegate of United States and we are ready to discuss the
language he has proposed for Article C 4 and he also said we need to discuss this language
and also to contribute to that. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. C 5. C 5? Article D 1. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For our delegation we would actually be
happy if we could have a discussion now about whether it would be good to go to informal
discussions or when to go to informal discussions. We are not sure that going on further, we
already have much to discuss in informally and how that impacts D and E and EBIS onward.
We would appreciate the Chair sharing his thoughts and other Delegations sharing their
thoughts on when we might have informal conversations.
>> CHAIR: I will be making my announcements on the meetings of informals at the end
of this meeting later on. India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indian delegation has slight modification
suggestions to paragraph 1 of Article D. In the second line exception or limitation or export
license are otherwise. So insert the word are otherwise in accordance with the national law.
And at the end member state would permit that beneficiary person full stop. To make or
import that accessible copy I think that's the attend anted that can be deleted. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: EU.
>> European Union: Mr. Chairman just to come back on how to try to make our work
most effective and I think there are a number of Delegations that from different angles have
expressed concern as to are we going backwards rather than forward if we continue like this.
We have had very many, very important ideas being discussed. We have been now discussing
them here for the whole of the morning. It is getting to a level of complexity that even those
of us who are quite familiar with the text are starting to find it difficult and in a way probably
we will all be well advised to just be able to look at what we have obtained so far, see if we
can advance and get points of convergence and the many questions I have input forward and
back woord and that are open for discussion and try to consolidate in order to be able to
advance instead of having a more and more open text. So joining that respect, the implicit
suggestion that the U.S. Delegate was trying to make to you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Nigeria to be followed by Ecuador.
>>.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you Mr. Chair. I think that on behalf of the delegation of Nigeria we
ared a no, sir stick as to whether we continue here and continue on to informals. I agree with
the comment from the Distinguished Delegate of EU and the Distinguished Delegate of United
States that there is a level of complexity that has entered in to the discussions. But perhaps
also some level of disunity in terms of the question of what it means for a work to be
accessible at the same or in the same way that it is accessible to a sighted person. But
perhaps more importantly Mr. Chair, my concern is that some of the provisions that we have
discussed thus far hinge particularly on Articles D and E. Particularly as we now have also the
introduction of Article -- of proposed Article EBIS. So Mr. Chair I want to add my voice to the
comments about perhaps taking a moment to consider whether continuing with edits and
proposals is appropriate at this time. Or whether considering informals might be appropriate
given where we are thus far. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Ecuador.
>> Ecuador: Thank you, Chair. We would like to support the proposal made by India to
include the phrase and otherwise. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Ecuador. There has been a suggestion in the room that we take a
moment at this stage to convene in informal setting so we can try and harmonize our positions
on the text this far. So I want to just confirm if that's a direction that the Committee wants to
go. Zimbabwe.
>> ZIMBABWE: Thank you Mr. President. Good afternoon to you. Good afternoon to
colleagues. In the way of any suggestion that is going to come out but I think everything we
have been following very closely. I have observed a trend. I am not a Copyright expert but
so far we have been making progress understanding each other's proposal. So this suggestion
to go in to informals what will be discussed in informals? Are you going to focus on those
submissions that have been made earlier on because the document as far as I read this
process we have not gone through the entire text. I know certain issues that are to be dealt
with at a later to be dealt with in the first section. But I think makes sense that you complete
the entire document, have all the inputs on the document, then people can break in to
informal consultations to work on the language aspects and the technical issues to be
discussed among Delegations. It would not make sense to break halfway the process because
some Delegations feel uncomfortable to the way the discussions are heading. I said yesterday
my constructive silence should not be misconstrued to ignorance. I have been observing
carefully some Delegations even in their statement never make reference to a treaty. They
just put statements. So let's be clear with intention of some suggestions Mr. Chair
transparentance is key to everything. Everyone has the right to know who proposed what.
The dynamics of the actual negotiations of the content of the document yes, we cannot all
negotiate here. The respective proponents can sit down and negotiate the specific text but for
the purposes of transpaintance we want to know who proposed what and who objected to
what. But halfway process you go to informal consultations to consider what. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: May I just have a moment with the group coordinators. If you can just come
up and then we can consult quickly. Let me consult and then I will get back to the plenary.
Coordinators please.