WIPO SCCR 25 Day 3, November 21, 2012 (Full Text)

by Prasad Krishna last modified Dec 05, 2012 12:45 AM
Rough transcript of proceedings from WIPO SCCR on Day 3, November 21, 2012.

Plain Text icon 2012-11-21_sccr25_full-day.txt — Plain Text, 51 kB (52,401 bytes)

File contents

Colombia.
>>.
>> CHAIR: (Standing by. No audio).
>> CHAIR: Good morning, colleagues. So Chair could not join us this morning. So he
requested me to replace him for this plenary this morning. The plan for the plenary today
would be to have a presentation of the result of the consultation we had yesterday during the
full day. It will be done by the Secretariat. And we will allow NGOs who want to speak about
the question of visually impaired to be able to do it this morning.
We will then break the plenary and go back to consultation in the small group as we have
done yesterday from 2 o'clock until 9 tonight. So this is the schedule for today.
To start with so I will now pass the floor to the Secretariat to introduce the new document.
Thank you.
>> SECRETARIAT: Good morning, and Thank you, Chair Vice Chair. Well, changes have
been distributed and we started with the preamble. We have one new paragraph of courses it
is paragraph 12. As you remember the previous paragraph of this paragraph was proposed --
had been propolesed by the African group with some comments from the European Union and
its Member States and we have a table or class No. 12 in the preamble.
Moving to Article A on definitions, there is a small change which is the removal of the
brackets, square brackets in the chapter of authorized entities, definition of authorized
entities. This is something that we have done on a preliminary basis. The African group is
still consulting or considering this change. And we should expect some additional changes in
this first paragraph.
Then we move to Article B biz and we see that the text of this Article hasn't changed. It is
on the nature and scope of obligations but we have a text that is not basically a provision, a
draft provision as such but it is a group of principles of application of the future instrument or
treaty.
Member States will also have consultations regarding this principles to develop later a text.
Then we move to Article E on the importation of accessible format copies and the change is on
the word a beneficiary person in the last line of the provision. Now we find this word in plural.
It says beneficiary persons.
Article G on relationship with contracts has been deleted. Unanimously the group decided
to delete this draft provision. And finally on Article J cooperation to facilitate cross-border
exchange. As you see previously the title of this provision was list of authorized entities. The
text or the title has changed and also the text as such as well. It is still in a square brackets
because it is also a matter of consideration by some Delegations. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for this presentation. Perhaps I can pass the floor to Secretariat
for some further information concerning the document.
>> SECRETARIAT: We wanted to let everyone know that we recognize it will be helpful
for everyone as we go forward to have a single document with the current state of of the text
on all provisions, whether or not there have been changes. So we are working on inkoorPting
the translations of the changes Heidi just went over with you and before this afternoon's
consultations at 2 o'clock we will have those complete versions available outside this room.
We will probably have the English version closer to noon for those who find that helpful and
we will get the others printed as quickly as we can. So we just wanted to let you know that
that will be coming. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Is there some intervention from delegation on the text?
Venezuela.
>> Venezuela: Thank you, Chair. Just a suggestion on authorized entities in the two
versions, English and Spanish, with the idea is to simplify and it says and authorized entities
this means all authorized entities and it sounds a bit redundant. I think you can leave that
out because we all know that means that they are recognized by the Government. There is no
point putting it is the same in Spanish and in -- Spanish and English. Authorized entities is
understood as such. There is no need to repeat it. It is actually complicates the text in my
opinion.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of Venezuela for their comments and I give the floor
to India.
>> INDIA: Thank you Ms. Chairperson. This is regarding the definition of authorized
entity in Article E. Yesterday during the informal discussion the Indian delegation expressed
concern over the word of the primary expression primary activities. And also the other
concerns that whether it satisfactory includes all educational institutions. And -- irrespective
of what has been the main objective or primary objective of the other things mentioned in the
definition. Finally there was agreement that an agreed statement to be attached to that
Convention of law of treaties. Hopefully that will be done and then we will be circulating draft
agreed statement in this regard. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the delegation of India for the comment and the precision. That's
exactly what was discussed yesterday. So thank you for this precision. Is there any other
delegation who wants to take the floor at this stage? I don't see any. So I will -- so I will now
pass the floor if there is no other delegation to the Deputy Director General who wants to
make a comment.
>> Deputy Director General: Deputy gives me a promotion. So I hope the DG is
listening. Thank you Madame Chair. As you know the Deputy Director General and there are
assistant Director General. And I am an assistant Director General but thank you. That's just
by way of bringing a smile to your faces and I hope that you will listen to me carefully so that
tonight we will all be able to smile. We are all well aware of the objective, what we are trying
to achieve today. The objective of these three days is for you to advance the negotiations on
this visually impaired instrument in the interest of these millions of visually impaired persons
around the world. Some of which are very well represented in the back of the room and has
been for the last few years.
I thought I would make the point now because all of you are not sitting around the
negotiating table. But all of you have a stake in the outcome of the process today. So first
point I would like to ask you to give to your negotiators maximum flexibility in order for them
to make decisions to make the compromises that are tut slooutly necessary to achieve the
agreement to move to the extraordinary General Assembly in December. So first point I am
asking you to give to your negotiators maximum flexibility in order to reach decisions and
compromises today.
Secondly, there are interests of rightsholders that have to be taken in to consideration. I I
am asking you to bear that in mind and I am asking you to bear in mind the objective of this
treaty is to do something in the interest of the visually impaired persons. So with those two
issues, the interest of the rightsholders and the interests of advancing this instrument in the
interest again I use the word twice, in the interest of the visually impaired persons there has
got to be some compromises. We are running out of time. Even today we have to give way
to some time for the African group to have a separate meeting with their ambassadors which
is all part of the process of trying to reach the compromises that are absolutely necessary.
So when we resume the negotiations at 2 o'clock and the Chair I hope he is better by 2
o'clock, that's still 2 o'clock today p.m., the intention is for us to work up to 9 o'clock tonight.
So that was 7 hours? With a coffee break and maybe some other breaks for consultations but
it is critical that we use this 7 hours whether there are around the table or outside at the
coffee bar to find the compromises that are absolutely necessary. Okay?
So let me thank you for hearing the assistant Director General and in the words of the
Director General don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have an opportunity to
do something good for the visually impaired. And the only way we are going to achieve that is
if we bear in mind the need for flexibility and compromise. Madame Chair thank you.
>> CHAIR: I would like to thank you for these comments and just want to add some
further words that the Chair requested me to pass to you. Exacting the same line as
mentioned by the assistant Director General he also wanted you to be fully aware that he said
the last day of this consultation. So what he would also really appreciate is that you use the
time as effectively as possible also until 2 o'clock. The idea was that the delegation use this
time to have con sulation among themselves and arrive with some new compromise idea on
the point we have highlighted yesterday. So he is really waiting for this result by 2 o'clock so
we can start effectively our work by that moment. Yes. So I think this were the main
messages that he wanted to pass to you. And so really be aware that we need to really to
have the result by tonight. This is really the time pressure we have now.
So if there is no other delegation -- yes. We will now make the list of the NGOs who would
like to speak on the issue of visually impaired. We will request you also to make your point
but to be also brief because I imagine you will be many trying to intervene on this point. And
some delegation have to leave by 11 because they have as it was mentioned there will ab
meeting of African group. So it is good also if the colleague from the African group can also
hear your comments before they leave.
So now we make the list.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thanks. I am going to read the list to make sure we have got
everyone. So please only put up your flag if we miss you on this list. FIJISOC, IFLA, ICLA,
KEI, TAKI, SIIA, ULAC, IBF, ACB and WBU and I see IFRO and sorry at the end we can't quite
see. It must be an NFB, of course. All right. So the additions are IFRO and NFB. Anyone
else? Okay. I think that's it.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. So the list of NGOs is closed. And I will now start with the first
one, FIG. You have the floor.
>> FIG: Good morning. The international federation of journal lists congratulates the
Chair and jek for their excellent work on this progression and we welcome an instrument
ensuring fair access to creator's works by people with print disabilities worldwide. The
international federation of journallists represents other than 600,000 journalsists and 134
countries. I am one of those journal ahhses. I am an author with author's rights. We recall
WIPO's mission to administer a body of law what rewards creativity and stimulates innovation
and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest. That
economic development depends on ensuring that fair reward is given not just to the
intermediary to distribute authors and performers work but to the humans that do the creative
work. Furlt and centrally to WIPO's mission there is some survey evidence that public
perception of the legitimacy of author's rights legislation is dependent on members of the
public feeling confident fair say of what they use to pay for kre atit works goes to authors and
perform ars. National and international legislation must recognize the huge number of
individual citizens who are now published creators thanks to social media. In this connection
the countries with deter legislation can and should take pride that theirs is the appropriate
model to be developed for the online age. But even if jurisdictions individuals creators face
pressures to sign unfair contracts. In all countries whether they are sighted or less so. In
particular these contracts hand over to the intermediaries that distribute their works all rights
to payment for sengd dear uses. In Copyright countries they frequently allow publishers and
broad kaser to claim assignment to be the author. These unfair contracts are incompatible on
which the information economy is founded.
In the case of journallism they refer the crittal reasons for defending the independent
reporting that is essential to holding states and corporations to account which depends on
independent reporters economic survival. The international sfed ration of journallists believes
in the case of limbations to author's rights and extended collective licenses given the
imbalance of negotiating power between the individuals we represent the protection of an
inalienal ribls to equitable renum mer ration is merited. And then I have that of the
Netherlands is debated this year.
This raises challenging legal issues in some jurisdictions. They are not insuperable
anywhere. It is worth exploring ideas such as a fair trade where work is distributed in
akoshdance with the code of good practice and we invite to work together on proposals such
as this. IFJ welcomes the contribution I which have made progress towards ensuring that
people with print disabilities can access creative works while respects the needs of creators
while sights or blind.
>> CHAIR: I would thank you. You have the opportunity to give the statement in wiPten
to be collected in report. And perhaps it is good and especially some Delegations have to
leave soon that you really focus on the main messages you wanted to pass concerning the
negotiation on VIPs. It will be helpful to them. You can give in written your statement. I now
pass the floor to NFB.
>> NFB: Thank you Madame Chair person. On behalf of the national federation of the
blind of the United States we want to congratulate the Chair, the Vice Chair and the seblgt
yacht for what appears to be a had historic meeting. It appears that there is enough spirit
and determination in the room to finally get this deal done and open up at the flow of books
and information throughout the world for blind and visually impaired and otherwise print
disabled individuals. We really feel this. This is not an issue that is something we would like
to have. It is something we must have. And we want to echo the words of the assistant
Director General this morning and encourage all of you to figure out what you must get done
here today and what you must get done to allow you to go to your capitals and get the
authority you need to negotiate a treaty. Certainly there are other issues text based issues
that will continue to be of some issue. And will continue to be in need of further definition. It
is our view though that many of these can be taken care of in the intervening time period from
the extraordinary General Assembly through the time period of the diplomatic conference and
the national federation of the blind of the United States will indeed offer comments on many of
those details and will put a statement a written statement in to the record.
There is just one other thing I do want to say however, when you are working on the
definitions of authorized entities, please keep in mind that many of these authorized entities
are non-profits. Are organizations without great resources. And therefore the more burden
you put on those AEs the less likely it will be that the actual flow of information that we seek
and we must have the less likely that flow of information will be. There seems to be this
presumption sometimes that if we do not closely monitor and put all kinds of limitations on
authorized entities a great wave of piracy will occur. In the United States now since 1996 we
have had the Chafi amendment. You all know that the Chafe amendment is many ways is
much less restrictive than currently what is in this Working Group and there has not been a
wave of piracy. There has not been a flood of elicit works making their way through the world
because of our Chafe amendment and we doubt very much that the same will happen if we
are allowed to export and import books across international borders.
We would also like very briefly to endorse the statement of DAISY which should have been
shared with many of the Member States this morning. I think the WBU President will address
that a little bit more detail but the NFB of the United States supports that statement. Thank
you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for this comment. And I pass the floor to ISOC now.
>> ISOC: Thank you Madame Chair. On behalf the Internet Society I would like to
congratulate you for your ongoing leadership and to thank the WIPO Secretariat for ongoing
work and this opportunity to deliver a statement on limitations and exceptions for visually
impaired persons and hearing impaired persons. We have undertaken work on the issue of
accessibility and were committed and continuing to work toward this goal. We are of the
opinion that Governments and policymakers have an important obligation to use the political
legislative and regulatory tools at their disposal to address accessibility for persons with
disabilities. We believe that governments and other key stakeholders need to make
accessibility a priority in their ongoing work individually and collaboratively. To this send we
join the voices of those that WIPO should call for a diplomatic conference for persons with
print disability the leading to a much needed treaty and we understand the issues Member
States are facing are complex and sensitive. In this regard we would encourage Member
States to also have regard to case law which has established and continues to affirm the
position that limitations and exceptions for people with disabilities constitute part of Copyright
Law and the necessity additionally justifying Copyright's additional purpose. The United
States Congresses has recognized that technological advances may require public
accommodations to provide auxiliary aids in the future which to youed would not be required
because they would be held to impose burdens on such entities. The Internet Society believes
addressing these issues in a way to seek vulnerable communities by allowing them easy and
inexpensionsive access to Copyright material does not go against the essence of Copyright.
To encourage and allow easy access to Copyrighted material by visual impaired persons and
persons with print disabilities. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I pass the floor to IFLAC.
>> Thank you Madame Chair. I speak on behalf of I International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions. IFO, ICA and the German library Association. We have from its
inception supported the proposed treaty for the visually impaired that many Member States,
World Blind Union and related organizations are seeking. We believe that it is right, fair, just
and long overdue. We are therefore pleased that the Committee is making a concerted effort
at this meeting to satisfactory conclude agreed proposal for a treaty that meets the Human
Rights of visually impaired and print disabled people to equal access to information. We urnl
this Committee on Friday to make its long awaited recommendation to the WIPO General
Assembly which is to reconvene in 22nd extraordinary session here next month to sum
Monday a diplomatic conference to negotiate the treaty in 2013.
Libraries and archives have three particular concerns about their current text. First is the
definition of authorized entity. Libraries and archives everywhere are major providers of
assisting the blind and print disabled people to access to information. They are a core part of
our mission to serve all members of our particular constituency and we believe the definition
treaty must explicitly and definitively recognize this core responsibility of all libraries and
archives. Second we believe that the treaty must not be used to expand or privilege the reach
of the three step test but should include a balancing statement affirming the public interest in
the application of the three step test to avoid restrictive interpretations and third we believe
that the treaty must include provisions establishing the prima of limitations and exceptions
over contracts and Technological Protection Measures. Thank you for your attention.
>> CHAIR: I thank you and I pass the floor to LCA.
>> LCA: Thank you Madame Chair. The LCA represents three major U.S. library
Associations. I would first like to draw the Committee's attention to recent decision in the
United States author's guilt versus Hati trust where a court found that fair use allowed the
digitization of 10 million books and making available of those books to the print disabled. The
court also found that the University of Michigan was an authorized entity under the Chafe
amendment.
My other remarks echo statements made by IFLA and NFB. So I will keep them very brief.
We are happy to see the progress being made here on this very important issue. We however
do have some concerns. We are concerned about the deletion of Article G concerning the
relationship of this treaty with contracts. At the very least in our view the treaty should
explicitly give Member States the right to decide whether they want to nullify contracts that
are inconsistent with the treaty's provisions. If a right holder by contract can prevent the
making available of an accessible copy then the treaty will have accomplished very little.
Also I want it echo the statement made by IFLA and NFB concerning the definition of
authorized bit tiffs and the burdens placed on authorized entities. We are concerned about the
record keeping requirements, they can be burdensome and there is no other community in the
world where users exceptions need to -- where users need to keep records concerning their
use of exceptions and there is no reason for this community to have to keep records of its
uses of Copyright exceptions. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank you you for this comments. And I pass the floor to IPA.
>> IPA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you very much for the
opportunity to talk here. Just one word to the assistant director general I don't think in your
title the word assistant is the most important. I think it is the word general which is the most
important. And we take your guidance on that. And your leadership and I therefore I will try
to be brief and to the point.
I would like to make comments on two particular issues, one is the issue of commercial
availability. And the second one is the issue of authorized entities and their duty of care.
I have not had a chance to see the statement of the DAISY con sortion shum but I am sure
it will be completely consistent to what they say to us time and again in public record and
private. The most important thing is the that publishers share the common goal with the
visually impaired community to provide content at the same time and place and same price
and we have a common goal and publishers support this fully.
Since 1st of October 2011 we are also technically able to now provide digital formats which
are fully accessible. Since then we have standards in place global standards and they make it
possible to universally accessible books. Study the royal National Institute for the blind in UK
in 2011 76% of the top 1,000 titles were available and accessible through touch and hearing
and vision includement and enlargement and for people who have low or no vision. Comergs
availability is important qualifier for this instrument and we believe it should be mandatory for
the international exchange. Some Member States here have told us well, isn't this already
included in step No. 2 of the famous 3 step test. You can assure you that I care deeply about
the three step test and it is a very, very important clause for all of us in this room and it
merits inclusion and important debate. It is also deeply discussed in the courts among
legislators and in unfortunate cases in front of the WTO. We need a clear statement in this
text that incentivizes publishers to provide accessible formats from the outset at the same
time and Sam place and price. I would like to say something about price. Does that mean if
something is available comergsly globally at a price appropriate in the United States, that
would mean it would be commercially available in developing countries and we have a clear
answer and this is no.
We understand that works must be available to persons with print disability in particular in
developing countries at prices or using business models which reach out to them and put
those works within their reach. That, of course, includes the use and inclusion in libraries
which we believe must continue to ser eve the visually impaired at low or no cost. I know
some Member States here are worried about mentioning price in any instrument and we
understand that. But we believe this is an issue of clever wording and IPA would be happy to
share textual proposals which hopefully can address both the issue of appropriate price in
developing countries and the concerns of those Member States who don't want to hear the
dirty word price mentioned here at all.
Determining commercial availability is not an issue. It is actually quite easy because we
are all aligned. Visually impaired people want to have this content visible to them and
publishers if they make something commercially available want visually impaired people to
know about this.
In conclusion on this issue the book famine can only be addressed through collaboration. It
can only be atreasurered if the publishers actually provide the visually impaired what they
need. And one final point on the issue of authorized entities, we do not expect
overburdensome record keeping. We do not expect terrible huge burdens on all those things
but digital files are important to us. They have an economic value and all we are asking for is
that there is reasonable care being taken. We do not believe this is burdensome. We believe
the wording that can be chosen here will be light touch and simply tip the hat to the legitimate
concerns of publishers where their full digital works are being circulated around the world. So
again let me conclude, to incentivize publishesorors to make works available around of the
worm at the same time and same place and the same price and to address the book famine
we believe commercial availability must be an important qualifier within this instrument.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for this comment and I pass now the floor to KEI.
>> KEI: Thank you very much. I am going to go through five bullet points of issues we
are concerned about. One is that KEI's disappointed that deaf people were left out of the
treaty. Secondly, we are disappointed about the decision to eliminate the provision on
contracts. I agree completely with everything that Jonathan band just say on behalf the
library Copyright alliance. What's happening with electronic works but also with libraries and
other things and authorized entities is that the contracts are being used to kill exceptions. So
I think it is important, it would have been -- it is an opportunity in this agreement to have a
provision which deals with that issue. So that exception killing contracts can be overwritten
by governments. No. 3, the three step test is an important topic and it is important that
nothing be done this week that undermines the current national flexibility there is to fashion
exceptions.
If it the three step test is already part of international law it does not need to be included
here. If it is not required then why include it here. It is an effort to restrict the freedom of
countries to write national laws to address the public interest. The three step test under some
brermentations is a restrictive one strike and you are out. The fair practice standard in other
countries -- some publishers want a restrictive three step test as a way of eventually
eliminating as many exceptionses as possible even where exceptions serve the public interest.
The Berne Convention provides for many types of exceptions outside of the three step test.
This treaty should not undue that flexibility. Four, I would echo the certains that was raised
by Scott la bar on behalf the national federation of the blind. You should avoid excessive red
tape in the provisions. The appendix to the Berne is widely considered a failure because it is
complicated provision after complicated provision after complicated provision. And it ended up
not working. It is an embarrassment to the Copyright provision. Paragraph 6 implementation
of the Doha declaration on access to med sin was the same problem. #240uds of word
provisions that were considered complicated and unworkable. I don't want to ke sign
agreement that doesn't get beyond the photo op and doesn't actually work on the ground. So
avoiding excessive red tape I think should be a priority and when you are talking about these
nonentities, as the NFB said it is not really the case there is this roord of abuse of the
exceptions. It is not like countries pass too liberal of exceptions or the authorized entities
abuse them. That's not part of our history. No. 5 and this is my fooinl point, for non-profit bit
tiffs I think there should be no requirement regarding commercial availability. It leads to am
by git and litigation and delays. If the treaty is extended, such as when the case in Google in
the United States wants to make works available to blind people and that's part of mass
digitalization projects that's different. For non-profit entities there is no case to be made.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I pass the floor to IFRO.
>> IFRO: Thank you Madame Chair. IFRO the International Federation of Reproduction
Rights Organizations has asked mooey to read some out of the statement. The balance of the
statement will be handed to the Secretariat. IFRO is a collective management network that
represents RROs which are collecting societies in the text and image based work sector for
creators and publishers. I if, RO has 138 members in 75 countries all around the world.
IFRO appreciates the objectives expressed by representatives of the print disabled
communities to be allowed access to Intellectual Property on basically equal terms with other
reader groups. Exceptions in favor of the print disabled should be made subject to copies not
being commercially available. This would also stimulate the publishing industry to consider
more actively the print disabilitied as a consumer group that is very attractive. To this end
enabling technology framework has been developed jointly by the print disabled and the
rightsholders organizations which allows more cost efficient production of works for the print
disableded and with that consumer group in mind. WIPO Member States can support this
development further by allowing copies of Copyright works to be made under an exception
subject to copies not being made available by the rightsholder already in accessible format
built in. Alternative is also the use of collective licensing to further permit a wide usage in and
around in a cross-border way of accessible format files that pre-exist.
Finally, as a last resort IFRO supports a balanced instrument that takes in to account the
interest of the print disabilitied and the rightsholder in promoting access through exceptions
and limitations. Thank you Madame Chair.
>> CHAIR: I thank you IFRO for their comments. And I pass now the floor to TACD.
>> TACD: Thank you very much. We should not leave this room this week without a
clear text that's prepared for diplomatic conference that is willing to take on the task of
signing an international binding treaty. Anything less than that will be seen as a failure by the
opinion all around the world not only of Civil Society, the opinion of the European Parliament
and of other bodies. So I hope that all the Delegations are conscious of that responsibility
here. For example, the U.S. delegation I hope they are conscious that tomorrow is
Thanksgiving and I hope they would be -- we would have a lot to thank for for their giving and
giving flexibility on this issue.
The international Copyright system depends on legitimacy. It depends on the legitimacy
and the social acceptance of the system and I think this international Copyright system needs
very much needs robust clear exceptions and limitations to Copyright.
Many of the Delegations here see this treaty not as an exception and limitation treaty but
more of a treaty on licensing or more of a treaty that's not about exceptions and limitations.
More beyond the name. So I think we could rejoice today that there is a good ambience but
that good environment has to be translated in to the text. Just like we could rejoice that the
European union has come out with a binding treaty responding to the opinion of the European
Parliament which is very positive. But at the same time we would ask blocks like the
European un yoon to show the same positive attitude in the text related negotiations and we
feel this is not the case because they are showing a lot of foot dragging and a lack of
flexibility. On the other side the blind organizations led by the World Blind Union have shown
great flexibility and have shown great negotiating powers to give in on certain issues but I
wouldn't want that to be turned in to the cutting of the salami and you keep on you the
canning the salami until there is very little left in the way of a robust clear exception and
limitation to Copyright that would be worthwhile on the ground. So let's be very careful with
us cutting and dep fending certain rights with so much consciousness. I think that many
people consider, consider and -- I know the European oun yon said this is no, the the case but
the main danger of exceptions and limitations is piracy. Piracy on the basis of blind
organizations, non-profit, universities, nevertheless much stronger exceptions and limitations
to Copyright inside the European Union and inside the United States have not resulted in
widespread piracy. So I really don't know where this worry or where this motivation is coming
for. So we need more flexibility to reach a-agreement determination. But there are concrete
issues. The issue of overregulation I am a bit surprised that in our political sphere in the
European Union in the United States the issue of overregulation is a big one. We don't want
to overburden companies and businesses who want to promote our economy. So should we
overburden non-profit organizations that are exercising basically a human right of the right to
read because that's the case of the burden we are trying to overburden authorized entities
with record keep, about bureaucracy and exporters. Making demands on exporter sz that are
not made on E poertors of conventional books. When we speak of commercial availability can
we really condition the exercise of a human right as reflected in the Convention of the rights of
disabilitied persons. Two, commercial availability or prices can commercial availability be a
prerequisite of an exercise of a human right. We are not talking about a licensing right alone.
We are talking about an exercise of human right which takes preference according to
international law over the other issues. So I think this has to be taken in to account when we
speak about commercial availability. In any case I will end that obviously we need the
publishers and the business world voluntary collaboration but that can in no way be a
substitute for international law and mandatory international law that takes us towards the
fulfillment of the human right of an access to reading material. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for your comments and I pass now the floor to SIIA.
>> SIIA: Thank you Madame Chair. Members of the software and information industry
Association continue to be committed to making their products and services accessible to
people with print disabilities so that those with print disabilities can make use of Copyright
wornings as all consumers. Many of us address the needs of People with Disabilities during all
phases of product planning development and support. This includes working with the print
disabled community and external accessibility experts to solicit and incorporate feedback when
designing and publisheses products and services to ensure mainstream access. These
commitments are driven by the desire to meet all needs of all persons. We recognize that that
is a the objective of the members of the SCCR in seeking Consensus on a WIPO instrument
and we support that objective. To ensure the WIPO instrument is successful in achieving its
important objective we urge the members of SCCR to consider the following three critical
issues. One, it is important that the provisions in this instrument not apply to printed works
that are already being made available to the visually impaired community in an accessible
form mat. We understand and concur with the objectives of the visually impaired comunt to
have access to the same extent as those who are not visually impaired and to get mainstream
marketplace access. However if the Copyright exceptions that are even tatly codified in this
instrument do not exempt printed works that are made available to the visually impaired
community and accessible format by rightsholders or licensees the instrument would have the
preverse effect from making print #d works available to the visually immeared. Two it is
essential provisions in this new instrument be vut slooutly clear that the act sections enacted
by Member States be compliant with the -- and numerous other international bintding
agreement such as TRIPS Agreement WCT and the WPPT. This will insure that the Copyright
protections are not weekened in ways that undermine the incentives that benefit all people
including the I have that willy impaired. Three it is important that the instrument include an
appropriate rules and procedures to ensure that affective and transparent mechanisms are in
place to ensure that any digital files created by authority entities are distributed to the visually
impaired and there ary simple and yet effective mechanisms for kreking failures of authorized
entities who do not comply with appropriate safeguards. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. And I pass now the floor to ULAC.
>> ULAC: Can you hear me? I am speaking on behalf of the Latin American blind yun
won which represents more than a hundred institutions of or entities relating to blind people
throughout Latin America. I would urge everyone to reach a concrete outcome. So we
encourage flekability among all Delegates. It is important to find a simple text that we can
apply in different contexts. We need to be very careful not to introduce obstacles or excessive
requirements. Because in developing countries our organizations can't use these tools in that
case. We are interested in using this tool without causing any harm to the rightsholders. We
want to ensure that the material is used exclusively by the beneficiaries. By beneficiary
persons.
We shouldn't foer get that we are talking about different formats and different sizes of
organizations throughout the world. Not only in large organisation of blind with large libraries
but also about voluntary organizations and those do not have sufficient resources or public
libraries that supply services for the blind to universities.
A lot of attention has been made on to digital formats but there are other formats, too.
Particularly in the developing countries where we need exceptions to get the material to
people in other formats. Other than electronic formats because they still don't have access to
that kind of format. To don't let us forget the purpose of these negotiations which is to
facilitate the production of books using the resources for production of these books rather than
wasting it on bur ra kasy and red tape.
And it is to facilitate access to books for those who do not have libraries or even services
which would give them access to libraries. And this would enable them to improve their
access to reading materials or even to have access for the first time to them.
There are a lot of people who still have no access to books either commercially or through
exceptions and the objective is to achieve that here. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for your intervention. And I pass now the floor to MPA.
>> MPA: Thank you. The MPA is a trade Association representing the major
international producers and distributors of audiovisual works. We thank the Chair WIPO and
the Member States for their efforts to achieve a balanced result on this important subject.
Indeed we are supportive of the objectives of the VIP instrument that improves access to print
materials in a manner that is consistent with the international Copyright framework.
Copyright which is also a fundamental right is the driving force behind the production of new
works.
We must be very careful not to upset the balance and disincentivize creativity and
investment in the content sector. In this regard we are concerned about inclusion of reference
to national doctrines that are not defined at the international level. Rather like many others
we are supportive of an I proech that allows Member States to maintain their own flexible
approaches. This indeed is the strength of the international Copyright system. This is not
about extending the reach of the three step test which already covers all general and specific
exceptions. And indeed imbus them with flexibility. Instead it is about reaffirming the test
while facilitating access to books for the visually impaired. Digital Copyright exceptions do not
exist in a vacuum. They need to be accompanied by digital rights and other protections
including those related to text logical measures which are driving the launch of new business
models that are delivering these works. Member States have always been free to develop
balanced approaches to the interface between exceptions and technological measures and we
have many national examples of that. There is no need to address this issue in this
instrument.
Thank you very much Chairman and I wish you all peace, love and Copyright.
(Laughter).
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I pass now the floor to FIAP.
>> FIAP: Thank you Madame Chair. I promise this will be a short statement. The
international federation of film producers Association, FIAPT welcomes the progress achieved
by Member States this week by the shift of business on this Committee's agenda. And
international norm for access to text based publications by the visually impaired and the print
impaired. Once again we call on Member States to ensure that the test be limited in scope.
We also urge you to ensure that a test be consistent with international legal framework for
Copyright and in particular the three step test be specifically affirmed in the substance of the
test and that a standard regarding the legal protection of technical protection measures be
upheld.
FIAPF also strongly believes the exceptions as defined in the text should not undermine the
spoke solutions deployed by the publishing industry itself. These should always take
precedence. The use of the exceptions should be allowable only to subject to the
nonavailability of a version of the work enabling access to by the print impaired community.
Finally, we urge the authorized entities to wish the special format files covered by the test will
be interested should operate according to high standard of reliability, safety, and
transparency. This need not be on orous or bothered some. We create a condition to be in
support of this worth while undertaking. We thank you for your attention.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for your statement. And I pass now the floor to ACB.
>> ACB: Thank you very much. I want to begin by thanking all of you for your very
hard work this week. We appreciate the spirit of dedication to this cause that has been
making itself known to us and we are grateful for the progress that has been made. I want to
make a few comments though because I know that you are all eager to get back to work. And
I don't want to keep you from that for any longer than possible than is necessary. So here are
a few key concerns that I would like to share with you at the moment. First, this document as
others have said needs to be balanced. It must acknowledge the interests of rightsholders,
none of us would disagree with that.
But it must also be clearly understandable and useable by the real people all around the
world who will work for the organizations that produce accessible format books. And would
like to share them with individuals around the world who have print reading disabilities.
I appreciated the words of the gentleman who spoke earlier and said that the provisions
must be simple yet effective. I think that very well expresses what we all believe. Because
ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't matter how well you make books in accessible form mat. It
doesn't matter how many accessible format books you produce. If an entity is prohibited from
sharing those accessible format copies by either the onorous nature of the regulations that it
needs to follow in order to share them or the fear with which the -- the fear of violating those
regulations and thereby suffering adverse consequences. The fear that could be created by
people not understanding or being afraid of violating regulations could be just as much a
barrier as the regulations themselves.
We believe that the rights of authors and publishers and other rightsholders can can
protected by a treaty that will at the same time provide a meaningful process by which
authorized entities can clearly know how they need to share documents and also that they
have the ability to share works in accessible formats with those who want to read them.
We have no interest in promoting piracy or protecting anyone who is guilty of it. What we
have an interest in is making sure that our right to read doesn't get pirated. And we thank
you for remembering that as you work during the rest of this week. And I appreciate the
opportunity to share my comments with you at this time. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for your comment. It is really important that we have this view
expressed now. We can fully take them in to account this afternoon. Thank you for this
comment. I pass now the floor to IEVF.
>> IEVF: Thank you Madame Chair. The International Video Federation represents
companies and individuals involved in all areas of the film and audiovisual sectors.
Development, production, distribution and publishing of film and audiovisual content. Some of
our members are entities dedicated to and specialized in publishing audiovisual content on
digital media and/or over digital Networks including the Internet. IVF supports an instrument
to facilitate visually impaired persons access to print materials in harmony with and without
prejudice to the existing international Copyright framework. In order to facilitate access
without on undermining incentives to create and make works accessible the instrument must
be one consistent with international Copyright Law. Two, narrow in scope. Three, reaffirming
the three step test. Four, flexible. Five, conditional and commercial unavailability and six,
ensuring appropriate care of digital files.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for your comments and I pass now the floor to our last speaker,
WBU. You have the floor madam.
>> WBU: Thank you, Chair. And we have been coming here for many years
representing the 295 million people in the world who are blind. I will not restate comments
made by my colleagues but to say that I endorse them. As stated by the Director General on
Monday there are high expectations of blind people around the world to what is happening
here this week. We congratulate Member States for their willingness to work hard and their
attempts to reach abrement this week. And we are here to offer advice on what some of the
things might translate in to on the ground. We understand the need to compromise and
negotiate as stated by the assistant Director General this morning. So I want to let you know
about a major issue for us as a practical means for working a treaty. And that is the fear of
overregulation in regard to import/export. What is included in the treaty must work
practically. The exporters are not in a position to know, to verify who is a bona if Ied recipient
and to verify if a book is available in a country. The responsibility must rely within the
exporter. I would like to comment on something that my colleagues from IPA stated and that
is the same book same day, same price and we look forward to that being routinely the
situation by publishers and I would like to also comment on the statement made that the
research in the UK last year saying 76% of the top 1,000 books were accessible. That is
totally true. But the overall number of books produced in the UK in accessible format was 7%.
So the top popular 1,000 yes, it is terrific but overall it is not much better than it has been for
many years. I would like to remind you that many member states in this room have signed
the CRPD and everything that we are asking for in this treaty is consistent with many Articles
in that Convention.
I wish you good luck for the rest of the week. And please I urge you to make it work, make
us get to the situation, the timetable that we agreed to in SCCR 24 so that we could have the
extraordinary general meeting in December calling for a diplomatic conference in 2013 to
adopt this long awaited important treaty for the blind visually impaired and print disabled
community around the world. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank you for these comments and this finishes the list of the observer for
today. I don't know if the Secretariat has some announcements. I will pass the floor and
then we may conclude the meeting.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you Madame Chair. Two brief announcements. English
version of the complete working text as it stands right now is available outside the room and
we will work on getting other language versions available as soon as we can.
Second, there are two side ebts this week as previously announced. The one today is by
the international center for trade and sustainable development. It is a panel discussion on
Copyright and access to education a light lunch will be served before it begins at 1:15 p.m. in
room B here in this building.
The second event will be held tomorrow. It is the event being organized by the Association
of Nollywood core producers in a-Association with the international federation of film producer
Associations and there will be a panel discussion on Nollywood at the cross roads, Copyright
and growth in afray ka's most proly fibbing audiovisual industry and that event will also take
place in room B starting at 1:15 p.m. tomorrow and it light buffet and refreshments will be
available at 1 p.m. outside room B. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I will now pass the floor to the delegation who has an announcement to
make for coordination immediating and I recognize European Union.
>> Thank you Mrs. Chairperson.
>> The EU and Member States will meet at 12:30 in room Octanhagen which is on the
>> CHAIR: I thank you. Is there another announcement? I do not see anybody. So I
will now sus pend the blen naer. We will be back here tomorrow at 10 o'clock and according
to the plan we decided on Monday tomorrow we will start with broadcasting and the other
exceptions and limitations. Sear. So tomorrow morning broadcasting and tomorrow
afternoon the other exception and limitation. Just to mention so that at 2 o'clock we will be
consulting again in the same room as yesterday afternoon in the new building. So there will
be this consultation in the same format as yesterday from 2 o'clock until 9 o'clock tonight.
And also the delegation can follow as yesterday also the discussion we have in this
consultation in room B. So the same arrangement as yesterday will be made for the
consultation today. Thank you very much for your attention. See you this afternoon for the
consultation and if not tomorrow morning at 10 here. Thank you.
(Session concluded)

Document Actions

Filed under: ,