WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)

File contents


Testing.
Testing.
Testing.

(Standing by for audio)
(Standing by for audio)
(Standing by for audio).
(Background talking.)

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Twenty-Fourth Session.
(Standing by)

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Twenty-Fourth Session.
(Standing by)

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
Twenty-Fourth Session.
(Standing by).
>> CHAIR: Colleagues, we are 45 minutes behind time. Shall we settle down and proceed?
Good morning, colleagues. And welcome back to continuation of our session.
As this is a Monday, I thought that I should start by reporting on the work that was done over the weekend.
As you recall, we had to have informal consultations on broadcasting in the morning of Saturday. And informal consultations on VIP in the afternoon of Saturday. Both informal consultations were held on Saturday Saturday. And on broadcasting of course we will be reporting in detail soon. On VIP we have continued to try and agree on some aspects of the text which are of course is work in progress. It is suggested that we continue these informal consultations this evening from 6 p.m. And of course we have the option to go to 9 p.m. So for VIP we will continue informal consultations this evening.
In terms of how the work looks like from today to Wednesday, of course we have broadcasting today. It's a full day for broadcasting. And then as I indicated we have VIP consultations in the evening from 6 p.m. That is today.
Tomorrow we have libraries and archives as well as VIP in the morning. And broadcasting is in the afternoon.
Now, there's a possibility of continuing informal consultations on VIP from 6 p.m. tomorrow. We have yet to confirm this the in the course of today, but that's the possibility which is on the table.
Then on Wednesday we have libraries and archives. On this day I would also want to deal with the provisional working document on education. And I'll come back to this in a while as to how we are going to move to this stage. That is Wednesday.
Of course conclusions will be dealt with in the afternoon.
Now, on education, you recall that I had requested that those delegations that had made comments on the text on the provisional working document to submit texts by Monday. I must emphasize that the submissions have to be made latest 6 p.m. today. Latest 6 p.m. today. So that it would give opportunity to the Friends of the Chair to meet tomorrow at lunchtime to try and put that working document, provisional working document, together. So that on Wednesday in the morning we can deal with that document.
So this is how the rest of the work of the following days look like until we conclude on Wednesday.
May I now turn to the agenda item on broadcasting.
On Saturday the consultations had given the mandate to the Chair to produce a Chair's test for the consideration of this committee. This was in recognition of the fact that they were proposals and we needed -- they were, -- there were more than one proposal and we needed to get to the single text. So the Chair was given this mandate.
In accordance with the mandate given by the informal consultations on the protection of Broadcasting Organisations held on 21st, during the SCCR 24, the Chair has prepared the following non-paper which will be presented which is already with you. Which is now submitted to the committee for it's consideration and discussion.
The focus of the non-paper is -- which of course is as you recognize is a first draft. This was work that was done over the weekend. The focus is on the provisions that are relevant in the light of the objectives, specific scope and object of protection of the treaty and the preparation. The new draft non-paper has been prepared respecting the proposals made earlier by members and with the objective of moving work forward on the basis of a single text. The non-paper is based on this signal-based focus set by the WIPO General Assembly while providing for a technology neutral approach. It endeavors to recognize the various positions while also suggesting options for moving the process forward. The draft includes a limited number of rights and protection clauses to provide meaningful functional protection for Broadcasting Organisations against signal piracy.
My intention is to break very quickly to start with group consultations and informals to advance discussions and report back to the committee -- to report back to the committee in plenary. The objective is to advance the work on the basis of a single text with a limited number of alternative proposals. I will repeat that aspect. Because it's important.
The objective is to advance the work on the basis of a single text. With a limited number of alternative proposals.
While drafting this paper, I noted that there's already significant convergence on many substantial aspects of the text which makes me confident that we can further narrow down the outstanding issues.
I would also like to explain that I have retained in the footnotes alternative textual proposals from members which diverged from the text in the body of the document. The objective was to demonstrate the major alternatives on each issue while avoiding a document that is simply a compilation of proposals. Because that would not have facilitated the progress of our work.
There is agreement that the objective of the treaty is to update the protection of Broadcasting Organisations in relation to an author -- unauthorized use of broadcast signals and that the objective of protection is the broadcast signal. However, in relation to the Scope of Protection, the positions still differ as reflected in the two most recent proposals on the table, namely South Africa, Mexico on one side and Japan on the other.
As I indicated, since this document has been released only this morning, I think that we should give time for consultation before we engage in discussion. It is my view that we should allow for regional group consultations firstly for about an hour. And then we will return into plenary when comments are on the documents can be made. After the comments are made and I intend at that stage to also give opportunity to NGOs to speak after the Member States have spoken of course. And then we will have informal consultations in the afternoon. This is how I that we proceed with the meeting.
When we do return back in plane NER, it will be an ideal time to -- when we return back in plenary it will be an ideal time to run through the document and explain the positions that have been made and where they are coming from and why certain positions have been made.
So at this stage I would like to invite the Vice Chair who will stand in for me for the morning session. And I will return for the 15 hours consultations and the rest of the programme. Secretariat will announce the rooms for regional consultations.
>> SECRETARIAT: The Asian Group will meet in room 13.1 the African Group in the bill ga room GRULAC in the Boma Room and Group B in Room B. If there are other needs for rooms conference services will be happy to try to assist.
>> CHAIR: Let me just have the Vice Chair take over and then you can proceed with the meeting.
>> SECRETARIAT: If subs would like a room, we will work with conference to find one. Thanks.
>> CHAIR: Good morning, everybody. Is there any delegation who wants to take the floor? I recognize the delegation of Japan.
>> JAPAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Japan delegation, Japanese delegation would like to thank the Chair and the other members and Secretariat for their great effort over the weekend. But fowl it is very us to find this text on broadcasting in front of us as Chairs and on paper. We want to express our concern over this text which I believe enables each group to have fruitful discussion after this session. Because Japanese delegation believes we reached agreement on make a single text-based -- as a Chair's text-based on all proposals including ours. Instead of single text-based on only one proposal. But this text is not what we agreed in the informal consultation last Saturday though we need more time to further examination the detail of this text.
But at the first sight, we easily recognize the fact that our proposal is treated as if it was just a comment to proposals -- to other proposals.
Especially the most important issue for us is the scope of application and related definitions. But they are just a footnote and no alternatives in Article 2 definitions.
At first Japanese delegation hopes that we can discuss substantial issues based on this text. However, we cannot accept treating this text as a base for further discussion. So definitely we need to discuss the format of this text first although it is very hard for us to spend time on this kind of formality. But we would like to keep constructive contribution on this issue and the Chair's instruction. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I would like to thank the delegation of Japan for this intervention. Just to mention that what was produced what we understand as being the result of the consultation of last Saturday. As said, this is just so -- a non-paper from the Chair that will be discussed. So I don't want to enter into the substance now. So really the idea is to have a change of view on this non-paper. And receiving comments from your side, from all delegations, during the consultations this afternoon. Some preliminary view that we have during the plenary that we will start probably around noon yes if I look at the watch now. We worked as the Chair has said because I also helped him doing it this weekend in trying to see all of the submissions that were made. So definitely also we take into account the position of Japan. And as said, the scope is open, the still not decided where we are. So it's a matter of negotiation. And we are starting these negotiations. So really you need to see this paper as a way to try to have a single document work on a proposal as such it's really a document to try to work together on the same document as we have in other issues like visually impaired. Now we have a single document and this helps a lot during this committee.
So unless there's another delegation that would like to take the floor and I recognize there is one. So I will then break for regional group meetings so you can have a read through the text and then we come back in plenary and we can have a first change of view.
As mentioned nothing is new in this text. It's all from previous submissions on consultations that were made last year so really in an attempt to try to move the process forward.
Okay. So there is no delegation wanting to take the floor at this stage. But the Secretariat wants to make -- sorry; European Union.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mrs. Chairperson. It was just for an announcement. Just to announce that the European Union and it's Member States will meet immediately at 11 in Room B. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I recognize the delegation of Italy.
>> ITALY: Yes, Group B and SEBs will meet at 11:40 in Room B.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Italy and I give the floor to Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually the comment on the text, should I do it now or --
>> CHAIR: I prefer after when we come back. Because I don't want to open a discussion on the substance now. So thank you. Okay. So I don't see any more asking for the floor. But I will give the floor to Michelle.
>> SECRETARIAT: SEBs will have Room 1.24 which is the room you were meeting in before, earlier this morning.
>> CHAIR: Czech Republic, you have the floor is.
>> Executive Board republic: Thank you very much we will have joint coordination with Group B but we thank you for making available 1.24 if necessary we will use it. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Okay. So I thank you all for your attention now. Still a group. Sorry. Peru.
>> PERU: Thank you. 11:00 o'clock in the Boma Room for GRULAC.
>> CHAIR: The meeting is now ses spend and we come back at 12 for having preliminary comments and comments by NGOs on this, broadcasting. Thank you.
(Break.)
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
(Standing by).
>> CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody. So as announced before we suspend the meeting, if you have at this stage some preliminary view on the text that the Chair presented to you on broadcasting. So it's the a non-paper, as it was said. This non-paper was mandated -- the Chair was mandated to produce this non-paper during the consultation we had last Saturday. And the way he worked based on the result of this consultation and I wanted to make it clear to everybody is that he looked to all the documents that were presented because this was the mandate that he received. So all of the previous contributions.
He takes into account the result of the consultations that we had in the past and in particular also the one we had last year so it was a moment when things were are starting to be more active in this committee, also. He took into account, also, all of the submissions since the last meeting. And then he came with his own proposal for this non-paper.
So it's not that he took one proposal of one group or another proposal. What he tried to do here is really based on all of the submissions what can be the way forward. And because it was repeated in the plenary and in the consultation that what we are looking for is to make a treaty that corresponds to the current meeting to have an updated protection, he definitely chose this signal mutual based approach technology based approach in his text. But what you need to look for definition for instance as on protection, there are really the two strongly views expressed at this stage that are there.
So it's not on the main point where this is discussion like the Scope of Protection, there's only one opinion expressed in the main text but the two views are expressed.
You will see also in the footnote there is also alternative language and so this is to help the consultation also this morning -- this afternoon, sorry. In this footnote you have drafting suggestions that were made by different delegations and at this stage they are in the footnote but we will need to see how the text will evolve and if some of these drafting elements will be put in the main text so is I think these are all of the discussions we need to have this afternoon to see how to make this text evolve in order to take into account the position of the delegations and have a text that is workable for this committee. So never we received -- the Chair never received a mandate to make a mere compilation of all that was done and said until now and if we go back to mere compilation I think it will be really difficult to move forward the work of our committee.
So the idea is to have the main elements in the documents that will then launch a proper negotiation in order to see what is a solution on the points that are open.
So I hope I was clear with this preliminary comment in order for you to understand what is behind this text, what is also important for you to know is there's a big square bracket from the very first article until the very last at this stage. Nothing is agreed at this stage. It's really to try to have a text streamlined that will help the discussion to move on.
So I will now stop at this stage and give the floor to delegations who want to take it and I recognize the delegation of Iran.
>> IRAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm taking the floor on behalf of the Asian Group. We would like to appreciate the tireless effort of the Chair to come up with a consolidated text in such short time. And over the weekend. We are committed to establishing a treaty on the basis of the General Assembly mandate in 2007. We are also committed to preparing a single document to be the base of any negotiation to move forward and expedite the process.
However, the group does not feel comfortable with the existing format of this proposal. It would like to request clarification on the value of the footnotes in the text.
To our understanding they should have the same value as the main pavt text and reflected in the main text as an option or alternative. We are flexible on how to produce a single base as producing the General Assembly on the basis of SCCR 21 recommendation we also are committed to work on the base of this single text in informal consultations to find convergence. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Iran. Is there another delegation who wants to take the floor at this stage? Czech Republic, you have the floor.
>> CZECH REPUBLIC: Thank you, Madam Chair on behalf of the SEBs regional group I would like to remind this committee that the issue has been is and will be high on our list of priorities we therefore obviously appreciate steps forward in the right direction. We would like to thank the Chair for the hard work that was put into this document. We consider the fact that we now have a single document to work with in advancement. At the same time we believe that this document constitutes a basis for further intensive work and for such we reserve the right to contribute to the text.
In the same vein we appreciate constructive suggestions and proposals past as well as future from other delegations.
Chair, the SEBs group is looking for to the mentioned intensive work starting now and to be finalized by delivering a treaty in the near future having in mind that we have been working on this doseier for many years now, thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the citizenship republic and give the floor to -- for -- I thank the Czech Republic and give for floor to Peru.
>> PERU: Thank you, Chairman. I do thank you for giving me the floor. I am speaking on behalf of GRULAC and in that capacity I would like to make the following comments: We have considered this paper very carefully. We would like to thank the Secretariat for all the effort that went into producing this proposal. We think this is indeed a working paper, a working document for us.
At first glance and as I say having considered the document, we think it is indeed an inclusive document. Nonetheless we would like it to include all of the proposals that have been submitted including those submitted by members of our group so that we can work on a single text. That is what we all expect.
It's very important that we have a basic document we can all use.
>> CHAIR: Sorry. Yes, please. You've finished your interventions? Sorry because I was reading -- I was hearing in Spanish and then I heard you were not finished so there was some misunderstanding here on the podium.
Is there another delegation who wants to take the floor. I recognize the delegation of Japan. You have the floor.
>> JAPAN: Thank you, Madam Chair as I mentioned previously we don't think all proposals we have is not treated -- is treated equally unfortunately. So in that sense we have the same feeling as expressed by the delegate of Iran so at this stage we cannot accept treating this text as a formal text for further discussion. But taking the fact into account that it is the non-paper of the Chair, we can discuss how to modify it, including by putting proper alternatives maybe informal consultations. So we still want to keep a constructive manner in those -- in the further consultations. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Japan and I think you also properly understood the way we think to work this afternoon so it was really just now a presentation of this text and the consultations are definitely aimed to discuss the text and see what should become of this text. I recognize the delegation European Union.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I -- Madam Chair I do have the full statement again where we highlight the importance of work on a area broadcasting has for the European Union and the Member States. You have heard us saying this many times. So I don't think I need to repeat it. But rather at the stage we are and as regards our preliminary reaction to the Chair's non-paper that you have put on the table, we first of all clearly want to thank the efforts and to reaffirm the will of the European Union and it's Member States to progress rapidly on this issue. That is why we have, for instance, shown large flexibility by saying that we were willing already to work on proposals that have been put but others recently on the table so as to avoid the effect of having a non-manageable text on the table due to the accumulation of proposals over the years. Obviously we keep our right and our intention propose modifications and suggestions when we get to points we believe are important and we need to change.
Having said that, we understand the concerns expressed by Japan and that have been echoed by Iran. We need to find here in whatever the form the document is going to take a balance between a mere compilation on the one hand which you said you want to avoid and you're right to want to avoid. But we need a text that reflects all of the positions that were discussed at the informal on Saturday, which in our view and after having looked at these quite rapidly is not necessarily the case in this text.
It might be that the solution going forward -- and this is not a compilation, will be in the same manner you have Options And B you have options A and B for the definitions as the key of what we are discussing here we are willing and flexible to discuss with the delegation of Japan and others how to have a text that faithfully reflects the results of what we have discussed so far. We understand it is a -- we believe it is not seen by all of us that need to negotiate it as a balanced one it's going to slow again our process rather than help it going forward. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the European Union for these comments. And I give the floor to Nigeria.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me on behalf of the Africa Group express a deep appreciation for the work that's clearly gone into this document converging any number of proposals is no easy task and doing it over a weekend is even harder so let me say thank you and much grad tut from the -- gratitude from the app can a group. Let me echo both what the Distinguished Delegate of the EU and the Distinguished Delegate of Iran and the Distinguished Delegate of Japan have all said. I think for the purpose of ensuring the integrity of discussions and making sure that there is a common -- a common foundation for work it is important for this document to reflect the views and perspectives of other delegations that may feel that it does not currently do so. So we do believe in the interest of progress it makes sense to have alternatives even if they are in a condensed form so that the issue where there are significant or even material differences are shown as alternatives and perhaps limit the footnotes to issues that are more incidental for which there may be easy agreement.
So we would like to encourage perhaps the use of informals to get that work done so that what is produced is accepted or agreeable by all in principle as a Chair's non-paper or a working text.
Of course we will reserve the right to come back with significant textual language. But we are committed to seeing that this process go forward given the amount of time it has spent on the agenda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Nigeria and give the floor to the United States.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Madam Chair the United States would also like to thank the Chair and the Secretariat for their hard work on this document. We continue to give you weekend and late-night homework assignments and we realise it's not always easy to satisfy everyone at the same time. We do recognize the desire of all delegations to maintain all of the proposals that they have made at this stage in the document and we also appreciate the flexibility that we're hearing on all sides to agree to work with this text on the basis that it is not a formal text but just a non-paper from the Chair to help us move along.
The United States, of course, along with the others who have spoken reserves our right to make future suggestions for text and for language going forward.
But we agree that we need to move this forward. And we just would like to make the point that at some point soon we need to move beyond a mere compilation of everyone's proposals on all issues.
So the task before us perhaps this afternoon will be to agree on how we can consolidate some limited number of options before we get to the point of the discussions to choose among them. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of the United States.
Is there anything who wants to take the floor? Brazil.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to everyone the delegation of Brazil thanks the Chairman for having prepared the Chair's non-paper. We acknowledge it's a huge amount of work done in very short time over the weekend we reserve the right to come back later in the process of technical comments so that we have the text by our experts who unfortunately couldn't come to Geneva at this time.
However we would like to make some preliminary comments on the process without prejudice to other comments we may add in the future.
It's the understanding of Brazil that the work being carried out in the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights based offer preliminary sessions and consultations shouldn't depart from the guidance provided by the General Assembly. The General Assembly's mandate should maintain the work being carried out by WIPO. We first should look forward to agreeing on objectives, specific scope and the object of protection. Following a signal based approach and confining the instrument of a Broadcasting Organisation in a traditional sense.
It may sound repetitive but I would like to recall what's been decided by this committee in the conclusions of the 23rd session it's Paragraph 11 on Page 2 I quote the committee reaffirms it's commitment to continue work on a signal based approach consistent with the 2007 General Assembly mandate towards developing an international to update the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting of organisations in the traditional sense. End of quote.
This should be reflected in any working document that needs to be balanced and to reflect the positions of Member States on the issues especially on the mandate.
Finally, Document SCCR/15/2 needs to be taken into consideration for it has contributions made in the past in particular with the Brazilian delegation. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Brazil and give give the floor to Zambia.
>> ZAMBIA: Thank you, Chair my delegation joins others in commending the members for the work done thus far on Broadcasting Organisations and the convergence of views to move towards a single text as a basis for continued discussion I therefore would like to thank you for coming up with this non-paper which in my delegation's view forms a good basis for us to advance our work and recommend the to the October 2012 assembly the diplomatic conference we share the common objective of ensuring the protection of Broadcasting Organisations is to ensure challenges arising from advances in technology particularly piracy be dealt with my delegation believes that a signal based technological approach to this problem is the best way forward my delegation notes the single text contained in the Chairman's non-paper addresses several of these aspect and therefore forms a good basis for us to advance our work in fulfillment of the General Assembly mandate. I thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Zambia and I give the floor to the delegation of Mexico. 
>> MEXICO: Thank you very much, Chairman. We are extremely grateful for the document which has been prepared by the Chairman. My delegation is of the opinion that a very considerable effort has been with it by the Secretariat and it was an excellent initiative that the Chairman took. We acknowledge the very considerable amount of work that has gone into enabling us to have this document in front of us today. I would like to tell you that the Mexican delegation has absolutely no problem with this document being formally adopted as the document for the work of this committee. Thank you very much. 
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Mexico and I give the floor to South Africa. 
>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We really thank the Secretariat and the Chair for putting together this document. Without a doubt it isn't an easy task putting together  various positions. It is not a perfect text. But from my delegation's point of view we feel that we can work together and maybe in an effort to accommodate the other viewpoints that have been -- perceived not to have been accommodated my delegation is prepared to work with the Chair in ensuring that all of the views are accommodated. I think for us the text provides a stepping point, a stepping point in the right direction ensuring we have a single text. Therefore, we are available to work with the Chair, the Secretariat and all of the Member States to ensure that we have a text that includes the views of everyone. Thank you very much. 
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of South Africa since I do not see any other delegation wanting to take the floor I would just like at this stage to thank all of you for your comments. As it is said it's really the discussion we will have this afternoon in order to continue to see how to make this text evolve in order to make it a single text if this committee decides to adopt it as a working basis for the next meeting. So this will be a discussion for this afternoon. What I would like to request for these consultations this afternoon just to remind that it will be the same format as we have followed on Saturday. So the meeting will take place in the Uchtenhagen Room if I'm not mistaken so what I want to ask you in taking into account the comments you have made, it would be very useful if you can come after this an -- if you can come also this afternoon with clear points that you think should be better eded in this text as said the idea is not to make a full compilation because this will not make the text evolve but if you can with very clear that are missing, this will help the Chair reto see how to make this text evolve. 
Yeah I think at this stage I will finish here I recognize here the delegation of Kenya and -- who wanted to make a point and then I would like to let the NGOs make some points because it was the idea to give them some tim.
>> KENYA: Thank you Chair lady I would like to thank the Chair and the Secretariat for the document that was put before us my delegation wishes to support the submissions that have been made. And we also note the case for the updating of the broadcast is right the exclusive rights have been recognized by the Rome Convention and extending them to the current environment wouldn't be invention will. They cannot consider pyrery effectively if they are not given exclusive rights over their broadcast obviously this should be done keeping in mind the guiding principles and aligned telepresence which includes striving -- intellectual property which strives for the balance of these rights in conclusion my delegation calls for a collaborative spirit through which we shall be able to constitute a document that's acceptable to everyone to enable the committee to carry out it's mandate as given by the General Assembly. 
In furthering this end my delegation is ready to actively participate in the activities which this committee may deem necessary to achieve it's goals. Thank you. 
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Kenya. I would now give the floor to the very last speaker from Member States. I thank you all for your comments you I would really like to give the floor to NGOs before we break and we have just interpretation until 1:15 so if you can be brief please. 
>> Thank you, Chairman. My delegation would like to endorse the statement which was made a few moments ago on behalf of the African Group. We have been monitoring the discussions which have been held on an international centre to protect the Broadcasting Organisations with very great attention. We would like to thank both the Chairman and the Secretariat for the efforts they have made over the weekend in order to prepare this document for our consideration. The delegation of Burkina Faso believes this document can be improved to ensure it reflects all viewpoints. But we also consider it an excellent basis for discussion we hope that our common efforts will make it possible for us to bring our viewpoints closer together so that we can agree on a single text. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Burkina Faso for that statement. I would like now to give the floor to NGOs so if you can raise your flag so we can start to make a list of speakers 
>> SECRETARIAT: Okay. We think we got everybody but -- oh, actually. We think we got everyone but please raise your flag if we did not -- if we don't read your group's identification out. 
JBA, CRIC, euro, EABA, EFF, C CIA, FIA, APA, IFLA, KII, CCI, Internet Society, ABU. Anyone else wave your flag. Okay. 
>> CHAIR: So thank you, Michelle. So the list of NGOs are closed now. I would like you because of the time to really stick to the main point and if you have a more detailed klebing ration we can  definitely include it in the report of the committee I will give the floor to the first speaker on my list it's GBA.
>> GBA: Thank you, Madam Chair. The protection of Broadcasting Organisations we were required to converge views to deepen the discussion of this standard committee. And here we have the Chair's non-paper which was supposed to be inclusive and well balanced. But unfortunately, it seems that was not the case. Now to move the discussion forward, we should focus on the issue of scope where there is a big difference among Member States that must be solved. 
Up to this point JBA the Japan commercial Broadcasters Association has a view that the new treaty should protect only traditional broadcasting as a first step not other activities even if they would be conducted by traditional Broadcasting Organisations. 
An international treaty sets a minimum standard which should have a common denominator among all Member States and that is to protect the traditional broadcasting of traditional broadcasters. 
Therefore, the Scope of Protection should be only traditional broadcasting at this stage. 
Of course we can think of protecting other activities done by Broadcasting Organisations soon after establishing the protection of traditional broadcasting. 
Last month Beijing treaty on audiovisual performances has been established and the only work left to finish the Internet treaties is that of protecting Broadcasting Organisations. We have to make steady progress to move the process forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. 
>> CHAIR: I thank GBA and I give the floor to CRIC. 
>> CRIC: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to express my pleasure for the establishment of audiovisual performances treaty, Beijing treaty now we should accelerate our discussion on broadcasters treaty that is the last one to be updated for the protection in copyright and the related right fields corresponding to today digital and Internet involvement. 
The key issue is to promote our discussion, the key issue to promote our discussion is the scope of application. That is whether transmission over the Internet done by traditional broadcasters should be protected or not. I should say without observing this issue we cannot make substantive progress. As to the scope of application, although we find only one proposal submitted by South Africa, Mexico joint proposal in the Chair's non-paper, now there are various proposals not only Japan's proposal but also EU proposal and so on on the tab. We have to focus our discussions on this important issue based on various proposals, concepts, not only one proposal. And also the -- that an international treaty is to provide a minimum criteria by consensus not the maximum. I hope constructive discussion on this point would bring us harmonization to our establishment of broadcasters treaty. Thank you, Chair. 
>> CHAIR: I thank CRIC and give the floor to euro Katra.
>> Thank you, madam the Chair since it's the first time I take the floor I would like to congratulate you for your election and for the work undergone here. As produced our association we fully support the signal based approach of this draft treaty. In today's debate not to say dispute raising between broadcaster and some digital platforms, one should pay great attention to the definition of communication public. As some of you may know, some platforms are challenging to the very heart the fact that broadcasters are still making communication to the public in the new digital environment. 
Therefore, maybe we would recommend to the -- to define communication to the public as the transmission retransmission of a broadcast signal or fixation thereof intended for reception by the public. And so the prebroadcast will not be in terms for reception by the public. That would be the distinction. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you and I give the floor to NABA.
>> NABA: Thank you, I will be brief Madam Chair NABA on behalf of Broadcasting Organisations in the United States Mexico and Canada commends the Chair on it's non-paper it's an excellent proposal for this meeting as well as documents from the past it efficiently reflects positions with broad support in the text while noting provisions not consistent broadcasters believes it provides the basis for formulation of a treaty that meets their needs a key element of a  forward-looking treaty that will stand the test of time is inclusion of technologies broadcasters must have the needs to protect against unauthorized signals on the Internet protection of traditional broadcasting in accordance with the mandate of the General Assembly in 2007 does not preclude protection in relation to new technologies for traditional broadcasters. 
In attendance at this meeting are representatives from Broadcasting Organisations from many regions. We're willing to work with delegations to assist taking this paper with the next level of support with a view towards moving towards a final negotiation of the treaty for the diplomatic conference in the future.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I give the floor to CCIA. 
>> CCIA: Thank you, Madam Chair for an opportunity to be heard on this issue and we would like to also stand with others in thanking you all for the amount of work that you have done on the non-paper and generally. We have heard for years in this chamber of how there's rampant piracy of signals despite the case of every fact of infringement we have heard about has relied upon the contents rights in order to handle the infringement. 
More fundamentally Madam Chair we're reliably informed that signals cannot be fixed that it's a simple physical impossibility. The signal which carries the programme irrespective of the medium through which that carrier signal travels no longer exists once a device capable of making the programme perceptible receives it. 
To grant copyright in fixations or anything which requires a fixation such as reproduction distribution making available or rental is therefore to grant a right in an object which does not exist. 
While the world's governments can certainly create legal instruments with any language in them that they wish surely granting copyright in objects that don't exist would be difficult to justify to the wider public. We have heard calls by many to have technology neutral protection. We can understand how this might sound ll to some but we can -- logical to some but we can ensure it will create a number of unintended negative effects for example is it really useful to have international norms that turns any person who wants to stream something live on a platform like YouTube to a broadcaster with many decades of protection of their quote-unqoute signal? Madam Chair even in an entirely signal based Brussels Convention style approach this is a treaty in search of a problem. In a rights based formulation it's a treaty that in many proposals extends copyright protections to fixal objects which aside from it's logical indefensebility will lead to negative consequences for public domain as well as giving incumbents in delivery of programmes to the public. Thank you once again foreyour indulgence.
>> CHAIR: Thank you I give the floor to EFF.
>> EFF: Thank you, Madam Chairman EFF welcomes the opportunity to give a statement on the WIPO broadcast treaty long-time followers will remember that EFF has opposed the WIPO broadcast treaty since 2004 because it harms journalists innovation and the free flow of information on the Internet since 2006 EFF and a broad coalition of public interest groups, libraries, creative industry members as well as the telecommunications and technology companies have explained how granting broadcasters and cablecasters tup envis angioid by a -- intellectual property rights would envisage on the free and Open Internet specifically the preferable model for addressing these issues through the narrow signal based approach outlined in the satellite Conventions broadcasters claim that a treaty is needed to protect against signal piracy and the broadcast treaty is simply updating the rights for the Digital Age but what's really at stake here is something more far reaching. This treaty will set the legal rules that will govern the distribution of information on the Internet the current treaty has been exclusive 50 year intellectual property right to the distributors that apply in parallel with copyright protections even when they had no role in creating the content being distributed although it's not entire clear the new South African proposal and the non-paper and elements for our new treaties to contemplate intellectual property right for broadcasters and cablecasters this will raise the same set of public policy concerns rather by the existence of the draft treaty which has different innovations of anyone working without a visual content on the Internet. 
The key issue here is the scope of the treaty. Broadcasters claim that they need the new treaty to deal with signal piracy the question here is the problem can be addressed in a way that does not infringe on citizens rights and all other stakeholders in the Internet economy. No empirical evidence has been presented that demonstrates what exactly harms will be interested but existing copyright regime and international laws and why broadcasters need intellectual property rights to deal with signal effect. They -- the issue is the narrow signaling based approach in the Brussels Convention but broadcasters look for intellectual property rights that will overlap these rights this will signal treatment of consequence for freedom of expression in the Internet economy at a time when the future of the broadcasting is already unclear giving broadcasters a set of legal privilege is a surefire way to damage speech and innovation in the global Internet again granting broadcasters and cablecasters rights to authorize transmissions of broadcasts over the Internet we allow them to block competition and innovation by allowing them to control the types of devices that can receive transmissions and will create risks for the Internet. Thank you. 
>> CHAIR: Thank you, there is really limited time so I really ask you to focus on the main point and then send it in written. 
I just would like to pass the point to one or two last NGOs. 
>> Chairman your interpreters are going to have to leave in one minute I'm afraid. Thank you. 
>> Chairman, thank you, I'll be very quick. After quite a few years in which the rights of Broadcasting Organisations have not been dealt with to be in step with the current digital environment, we have noted that various seminars and sessions of informal consultations and various types of discussions have been held but the result has always been the same that it is necessary to give more modern updated protection to the signals issued by Broadcasting Organisations. We are no longer in a position where we have more time for discussing the difference between content and signal we don't want to gain to seek confusion for the rights for copyright orders per se and the rights of those who have related broadcasting rights. We invest a great deal but you lose the most as a result of the unauthorized use of signal and/or piracy it is essential that further protection be given today to the signal that's used by Broadcasting Organisations the document presented today by the Chairman very clearly reflects that we need to include all of the positions and we believe that the document would be a great source of support to continuing the work so that we can finally achieve what we're trying to achieve. Thank you. 
>> CHAIR: Thank you, now interpreters are leaving.
>> They are, Chairman, yes.
>> CHAIR: Reps one point for me and if it's final also for everybody also I think we can finish in English to we have the rest of the statements and it will be good to have them on record and also for delegations who want to hear them before we go into consultation but we have no more interpretation.
>> Thank you, Chairman, your interpreters are now leaving, thank you.
>> CHAIR: We made the final announcement and then we continue with this intervention by NGOs. 
>> SECRETARIAT: Okay Secretariat announcements quickly first there's a side event with South centre in Room B this lunchtime and so everyone is invited to that that's in Room B here at lunchtime south centre and then also at 3 p.m. we will continue in the Uchenhagn Room with regional coordinators plus three for informal consultation on the subject of broadcasting and that will be with the Chair. Thank you. 
>> CHAIR: Thank you, I would like to continue with statements made by NGOs and I give the floor now toal lert.
>> Hello, thank you, Madam Chair we present the Brazilian broadcasting association and we are three representatives here we have been attending the meetings for three years now and would like to state that we fully support the need for a treaty and hope progress can be made at this meeting quickly. We are happy there's a single text that the delegations can now work on, thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank Abert and I pass the floor to FIAS the.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair and Distinguished Delegates. FI AP has considered with interest the discussions that have taken place here on the protection of Broadcasting Organisations in many parts of the work broadcasters are an important market outlet for films and audiovisual works in general and our members always seek to work with broadcasters collaboratively on the financing and dissemination for the projects developed and made by our production companies FIAPE believes a treaty focused exclusively on the protection of broadcasting signals and fully compliant with the international copyright framework would add substantially to the legal toolkit which supports the important contribution of broadcasting to economic and social development worldwide. 
In particular as many delegations have pointed out through the course of these discussions it's important that whatever the rights granted to broadcasters with respect to their legitimate demand for legal protection these must not impinge on the rights of content owners we invite all of the delegations present here to work on the now very creditable spirit of Beijing in an effort to achieve substantial progress on this matter we look forward to providing further input as discussions progress at this sashing and further along in the -- SCCR and thank you for your attention.
>> CHAIR: Thank you I give the floor to MPA.
>> Thank you, Madam Chairman. The MPA would like to reiterate it's support for a balanced approach to the legal broadcast organisations. At the international level. Broadcasters and indeed Webcasters already enjoy a significant level of balanced process for example at the EU level and indeed in other countries EEDC through related rights or other forms of protection. By way for example this protection along with the protection established for underlying content has co-existed at the EU level for a couple of decades at least and it's coincided with the development of strong audiovisual broadcast sector in Europe and by the way the Internet is flourishing there, too it's also driving the launch of new services moreover this protection does not appear to have interfered with the rights held by other rights holders in the underlying content indeed they generally benefit from it. Consumers benefit from new services and wider choice. In our view the treaty should lead to protection in countries where it is lacking. This is not about transplanting systems of protection the treaty should permit Member States to take different paths to achieving that protection however it is indeed needed. At the MPA we are struggling still with traditional TV piracy in some regions in this regard we share the desire of Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and indeed the African Group as well as other Member States to move forward on this dossier. The absence of a specific cause of action in the hands of Broadcasting Organisations does seriously constrain our ability to address signal theft issues in many places around the world. To the extent that there is movement forward on this treaty it must take place in a manner entirely consistent with the international copyright key the treaty also needs to be fit for purpose in the Digital Age. Broadcasting Organisations require protection on the Internet but merely updating protection for traditional organisations while neglecting new players does seem short sided as a general manner Member States should have room to maneuver in determining how to provide adequate and legal protection for the signal while at the same time protecting the underlying content in accordance with the relevant treaty. Thank you. Peace, love and broadcasting rights. 
>> CHAIR: I thank MPA and pass the floor to EFLA.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair I'm speaking on behalf of the International Federation of Library Associations and institution electronic communication for libraries and Library Copyright Alliance. We continue to believe that there is no compelling public policy reason for an international instrument on the protection of broadcasting signals we believe enforcement measures under existing laws and treaties adequately protect the piracy of broadcast signals. We're concerned that an additional layer of rights in this area distorts the balance between adequate rights for creators of content and fundamental rights for libraries archives the visually impaired and people with print disabilities and educational institutions to make use of and provide access to content that we have also been discussing during this meeting nevertheless since discussions are continuing we wish to raise our concerns again regarding the protection of rebroadcasts we note that Article 3 of South Africa and Mexico's updated proposals in SCCR 24/5 indicate that's mere retransmissions of broadcast signals are not covered we maintain the scope of application of any treaty should explicitly state that protection of broadcast signals extends only to the first transmission of content. Otherwise Broadcasting Organisations may renew protection over a work simply by rebroadcasting it in this way Broadcasting Organisations may acquire control of works that outlasts the protection given to authors and performing artists libraries have practical experience of this programme and at SCCR 23 we gave an example of this. 
We have heard the committee talk about a treaty for the protection of broadcasting signals for over ten years. Yet discussions on an instrument ensuring ac to -- Access to Work to the visually impaired began over 30 years ago at WIPO it's now 2012 and agreement on ensuring access for the world's blind is close we urge it the committee to make it a priority to present a recommendation for the diplomatic conference in 2013 on a treaty for visually impaired and print disabled people to the General Assembly we understand that this session's focus should be to progress the instrument for the blind and visually impaired diverting time for discussions from libraries and archives however we hope and fully expect the committee will safeguard substantive time to discuss this at SCCR 25. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank and I give the floor to CIS. 
>> CIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. The centre for Internet Society would like to thank the Japanese South African and Mexican delegations as well as the Chair for the hard work on this text before us we wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided in the 22nd SCCR by many Civil Society NonGovernmental Organisations, cablecasters and technology companies opposing a rights based Broadcasting Treaty and we would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by CCIA, IFLA, IEFL and KEI I have a longer statement which I'll mail in. But will deliver a shorter one right now. 
Broadcasters make three kinds of investments for which they are protected they invest in broadcasting infrastructure, they invest in licensing copyrighted works and at time they invest in created and copyrighted works the first investment is protected by broadcasters rights and the latter two investments are already protected by Copyright Law and need no treaty protection the investments to be made in infrastructure for 
Based transmission that is Internet Protocol based transmission is insignificant and hence IP based transmission even if it is retransmission should not be covered by this treaty unfortunately the non-paper right now does seem to cover it. 
Technology neutrality should not be taken to such an extent as to forget why we are granting additional protection to broadcasters in the first place. The MPA mentioned cause of action. The fact is, most legal systems already allow for licensees like broadcasters to have cause of action for copyright infringement. A global treaty is not needed to grant them this cause of action. 
Lastly, there are many inconsistencies in the Chair's non-paper. While it proclaims that it is only extends protection to broadcast signals and not the subject matter carried by such signals the rest of the document does not do so fixation cannot be covered in a signals based approach nor does it make any logical sense to provide 20 years of protection for a signal that lasts mere milliseconds as the delegates would recall the General Assembly's mandate was for a signals based approach and not a right based approach. Thank you, Chair. 
>> CHAIR: I thank CIS and pass the floor to ICEI Sorry it's KEI.
>> KEI: Thank you. Congratulations Madam Vice Chair on your election. I'll send something in in writing. I'm just going to highlight a couple of things. I think a lot of people have highlighted this and that is what is the problem you're trying to solve with the broadcast treaty? It's confusing to a lot of us because we assume that all of the different copyright treaties and related rights treaties that have been passed make it illegal to do piracy of like HBO shows and sit coms and telephones and things like that we already assume if everybody is broadcasting copyrighted content it's -- you go to jail or pay a fine if you pirate it it's almost as if this treaty is being presented if there's some problem in the enforcement area and maybe there is. So we would invite MPA and other people that have expressed some concerns about this somehow explain it to us what problem they are trying to solve because I think that would be kind of important for us to know. We just don't really like the idea of creating the opportunity where lots of people with sue us and we have to go to lots of people to get permissions to do things and you -- and you can't blame us as the user and not really enjoying that environment so if there's a case to be made it hasn't been made in a way that we understand it yet. 
Secondly the Japanese broadcasters they said it's all about consistency we have to update treaties for the Internet because we have done it for some other issues and I think that's kind of a bogus argument because no one has bothered to update the Berne appendix to make that relevant to the Internet it doesn't seem to bother everybody so I don't think you have to just update something because it's out there even if you do update are you going to update the Brussels Convention or Rome Convention because they take really different approaches on things. 
If -- the proposal for 20 year term for the signal just doesn't make sense to a lot of us. Lastly, I think what we came up with is economic rights in the thing like the 20 year term suggests or earlier proposals and I don't know if it's still there because we don't really understand it well but in the old days what was happening was the people that packaged content like the Disney Channel or the Discovery Channel or ESPN or things like that, they were the primary beneficiaries of new money out of this agreement. It wasn't the people who would run cables to your house or build towers but people that packaged the channels together if so it would be good to know how much money will be transferred from pocket A to pocket B because of the new right and who would be paying money and who would be receiving money. Thank you very  much. 
>> CHAIR: I thank KEI and we arrive to the last speaker Internet Society and then ABU I give the floor now to Internet Society. 
>> Internet Society: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Internet Society welcomes the opportunity to deliver a statement on this 24th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of theWorld Intellectual Property Organisation we welcome the ongoing work for the protection of Broadcasting Organisations we would like to stress at this point in time it's critical to take into account new economic social and technological development such as the Internet Revolution ISOC is a non-profit organisation and embedded in the fabric of organisations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force the Worldwide Web Consortium and ICANN we work with governments national international organisations Civil Society and the Private Sector to pursuit out objectives in a collaborative and inclusive manner this is the multistakeholder model of the ecosystem the Internet Society recognizes the work that both WIPO and Member States have put on the issue of protecting Broadcasting Organisations and appreciates any initiative that seeks to inhibit things through signal theft we also understand the proposals of this new treaty focus on recognizing new rights to broadcast organisations to 
Event is not active
Copyright © 2012