SCCR 28 July 3, 2014 day 4 Plenary. 10am to 1pm
After 3 days of discussions on the broadcasters’ needs and wants, today, the Committee started to discuss “objective & principles” for exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives with a presentation by the delegation of the United States.
The first topic was national exceptions followed by research and human development (next blog). This afternoon the 3rd point will be exceptions and limitations in a digital environment.
According to the US plan, this is supposed to be only about principles and not specifically about whether there will be or even should be an international instrument. However, as one may conclude (by reading the interventions attached below), not all delegations agree that the discussion should only be about principles.
My summary and selected interventions:
Nancy Weiss of the Institute of Museum and library services (IMLS) delivered the US intervention describing the US submission at the SCCR regarding the Objectives and Principles for L&E for libraries and archives. Trying to remain at a high level of discussion to agree on principles… except for the “new” introduction of Museum work which here is a little bit like opening a pandora’s box (see the work of other committees on TK, Folklore etc). The discussions were lively and interesting.
The US presentation was immediately followed by Kenya then Brazil and many other delegations pointing out that national L&E are not always truly existing in many developing countries and that it is actually why they were asking for work on L&E at the international level at the SCCR to be precise.
Chile continued with a request for less “principles” and more specific issues (what about reproduction, orphan works and TPMs?). Indonesia specifically mentioned the need for and international agreement on L&E to correspond to the “international obligations” mentioned in the US paper.
Sudan, Iran and other delegations continue to comment on the US paper repeating that there is a need to promote L&E in the international context. Kenya explained that the US is a big market with many resources but not many other countries are so self sufficient in knowledge products. One of India’s brilliant delegates, a professor, described how 90% of the work he uses comes from other countries and why an international agreement is needed. In another welcome (by this blogger) intervention India also reminded the Committee that this being a UN body, it is also about finding international solution to international issues involving development.
While the US kept responding (see below) and explaining its presentation of principles, the EU (totally tone deaf?) kept repeating that they “recall [indeed] the conviction that the international framework already allows for enough flexibility”.
The 15 + representatives from libraries and archives (as well as a few other NGOs) are impatiently waiting for their turn which should be soon since Australia and Ecuador asked that the Chair invites comments from NGOs.
10AM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the opportunity to present our suggestions on objectives and principles for exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. We prepared this document last year to provide a blueprint for the approach that we had been recommending on this subject, seeking agreement on basic goals of international level and which to base further work on national laws.
Let me start by explaining what we mean by an objective or principle. An objective is a goal or what the Member States are hoping to achieve. Principles are further elaborations or key considerations to keep in mind in getting there. Of course, many Member States have already developed exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that meet their specific social, cultural and economic needs. In reviewing these, we realize that there are a number of shared objectives that form the basis for these exceptions. While the working document identifies a a list of specific issues we have organized our objectives and principles into overarching themes of particular importance to policymakers to enable libraries and archives to carry out their essential functions.
We think focusing on the intended outcomes at this level is the most effective way of organizing our thinking.
Yesterday, our Chair recognized that as a committee, in consensus that Member States should have appropriate limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives that enable them to carry out their public service missions, of course, always consistent with their international obligations including the three-step test.
First is to encourage Member States to adopt First is to encourage Member States to adopt exceptions and limitations in their national laws consistent with the international obligations that facilitate the public service roll of libraries and archives, maintaining the balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research, and access to information.
We then move on to specific objectives for library and archival exception, such as preservation, support for research and human development, including access and cross cutting relevance.
Our first objective is encouraging Member States to adopt these national exceptions and limitations. As we foe from our earlier work, the majority of Member States already possess some library and archive exceptions 128 out of 184 surveys indicating a strong consensus on the importance of this objective but we know that many others do not or have only limited coverage in their exceptions and therefore it is essential to develop a consensus on this at the international level.
The first objective in related principles provide foundational underpinnings for the other principles and objectives introduced. We then considered the different areas for which libraries have adopted exceptions, relying on the work of the SCCR. We won’t go into too much detail on two preservation now because we will be discussing it later, other than to say that this is an area where we have heard enormous support and as reflected in professor Crews study, at least 72 Member States have developed exceptions for this purpose. So two is enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of preserving works.
The next objective, three, enable libraries and archives to carry out the public service role of advancing research and knowledge, reflects a number of areas. This objective reflects the roles of libraries and archives in providing access. We have talked about preservation. This is access to the works that comprise the cumulative knowledge and heritage of the world’s nations and peoples. In order for libraries and archives to fulfill the role for the gateway to knowledge, they must be able to provide access to their materials as appropriate. In this regard, update and tailored exceptions and limitations establish a framework enabling libraries and archives to supply copies of certain materials to researchers and other users directly or through intermediary libraries loan.
We recognize that authors and creators depend on robust library and archive exception in order to perform research and perform access to work including those that may not have enjoyed commercial success. Libraries and archives provide access to their collections in a variety of ways including digital means. Updated and tailored and limitations enestablish a framework allowing libraries and archives to supply materials.
We will also not go into depth on objective four, legal deposit or encourage the adoption of national legal deposit laws and systems as, again, this is discussed in the working document.
Since SCCR 23, we have heard about many challenges of preservation and access in the digital environment which is why we prioritized our fifth principle which reflects that Member States should enable libraries and archives to carry out the public service mission in the digital environment.
Digital technologies are changing all aspects of our society, including the ways in which libraries and archives obtain, preserve and provide access to their collections. And the libraries and archives have a particularly critical role in the development of our 21st century knowledge ecosystem. Accordingly, limitations and exceptions must ensure that these institutions can continue to carry out their public service mission in the digital environment, including preserving and providing access to information developed in digital form and through a network technologies.
Moreover, we note that in the digital era, there’s much more pressure on library and archives for them to make their collections accessible online, which on a single user basis or broadly by sharing on a website. Library and archive exceptions should recognize this need for increased digital access.
The United States recognizes that researchers are using new tools and methods to support research outputs and appropriate copyright laws and corollary exceptions and limitations can help to facilitate this activity.
In the same vein, we acknowledge that libraries and archives provide research collections for the research and the study of increasingly sophisticated disciplines of all kinds and customized exceptions and limitations can be a powerful means on building on existing knowledge.
Finally we Roy other general Finally we Roy other general principles, other does not mean that they are not important. Each could have been its own benefit but we thought that they were cross cutting or supportive of other objectives. For example, err types of exceptions — (No audio) exceptions as well as general use exceptions should be consistent with Member States international obligations.
The second principle relates to limitations on liabilities. This is discussed further in the working document and so I won’t go into it in much depth here, but we do think that libraries and archives and their employees and agents acting in the scope of their employment should have some limitations on liability.
The third principle recognizes the stakeholder solution. It it’s important that rate holders have a critical role in both developed and developing nations where rapidly changing technology requires flexible solutions, Member States should encourage collaborative and innovative solutions among all stakeholders.
Our next principle relates to museums. Museums often share many of the same public service role as libraries and archives Museums often share many of the same public service role as libraries and archives and Member States should consider the extent to which the same or similar exceptions and limitations should apply to museums when they perform these roles.
The final principle is safeguards for ensuring responsible behaviors by users of libraries and archival services and we really mean in this one the users of library services. The specific principle is that libraries and archives should have adequate safeguards in place. These institutions provide access to many works for members of public and can play an important role in providing the nature and extent of their uses.
We appreciate WIPO states’ members attention. We believe that they are a useful tool for continued discussion and we look forward to hearing other delegates’ reactions and comments as we discuss each topic.
Thank you> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate from the United States of America. Thank you for your presentation, this detailed and very clear presentation of the document, going through all the topics which are proposed here and explaining briefly the rationale for these topics, as well as the vision that they have about their general or specific application to the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.
Now, following our program, I would like to invite the distinguished delegations to start a process of holding discussion, constructive discussion regarding the general topics which have been put forward in the presentation of the document by the delegation of the United States as well as to the general principle itself — the general principle itself.
Now, these general topics include the following list, adoption of national exceptions, then support for research and human development, then exception limitations in a digital environment and then finally, a reference which could be made regarding other general principles, which is contained in the document which has just been submitted.MEXICO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Can I be heard?
Yes, sir. First of all, we would like to thank the Distinguished Delegate of the United States for having prepared this document and regarding the indication within this document of other general principles.
My delegation would like to know what is the relationship or what is the link between the topic of libraries and archives with the topic of museums. We would like to explore this further. We would like to hear what is the idea behind this link between topic of libraries and archives and also the issue of museums and include that in this same.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you once again to the delegation of the United States.
>> CHAIR: Thank you Distinguished Delegate from Mexico.
Just a question, perhaps United States is invited to reply immediately while we then hear other questions or comments regarding their proposal.
We invite the Distinguished Delegate of the United States to see whether she could have an immediate response concerning that there are no other requests for the floor at this point in time. Delegate from the United States?
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you very much — can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and thank you very much to Mexico for the question.
In the last several years, the United States has in its Section 108 Study Group. Section 108 being the specific exception under US law for libraries and archives, there’s a Study Group that has looked at various issues and ways to update that section of our law. When the Section 108 Study Group issued its report several years ago, one of the areas of general agreement was that museums might become part of this libraries and archives group under certain circumstances. So adding museums to the mix is something that we are looking at and considering and we understand that other jurisdictions are doing the same.
Thank you>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, United States, for that comment and reaction to the comment by Mexico.
Are there any other comments? Any other comments on the proposal that we have heard?
Guatemala has the floor.
>> GUATEMALA: Thank you, Chairman.
Perhaps the United States could go into a little more detail than it did in its reply, because, in fact, it didn’t give us a specific approach. It said that there was a study, but it didn’t give us details of this link that was requested by Mexico. That is the link between libraries and archives and museums.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Guatemala.
So there is a kind invitation to the US to give us more details. So I address them on that invitation and I’m sure they will accept it. The US has the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Chair. Yes, we are happy to explain. We don’t have a specific approach. We are looking at this in general, but we do note that museums perform many of the same public service roles in preserving materials and making their collections accessible to the public for research and educational uses, among others. So we are seeing that there’s a relationship there and perhaps a need to benefit from some of the same types of exceptions for the same objectives and principles that we have discussed with respect to libraries.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, United States.
But in addition to your reply, perhaps we might hear other views relating to the
Kenya has the floor.
>> KENYA: Thank you, Chair. And the after reincarnation began group would like to thank the US for its proposals and for the presentation they have just made. I think we think we agree with the general framework, but we just want to note that our idea really, finally is to have, exceptions and limitations at the national level, and as has been said by the US delegation, we are taking into account our obligations at the international level. That would mean then the current framework, which we have, does not allow us to have exceptions and limitations which take into account the issues ably raised like in research and human development, the digital environment, and that’s why we need action at international level, because we recognize that the action would be at the national level but we need an enabling environment. That enabling environment has to take place at the international level because whatever will be done at the national level has to be — has to take into account our obligations at the international level.
So what we are saying right now, we need this discussion here and we agree with some of those principles and the action lies here at the international level to provide us with the framework so that we can be able to undertake those activities or permit those issues at the national level.
I think if we are in agreement with that kind of framework, I don’t think — I think we are in the same boat and I think we just to move forward and have the necessary changes in the international copy right system to enable libraries and archives to undertake those activities which we listed here as needing some action.
Thank you, Chair
> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Kenya, for your views on the adoption of exceptions at the national level, and their link to the enabling environment, in order to do that.
Canada?
>> CANADA: Thank you, Chair, I wanted to raise the issue from the delegate of Mexico, about museums. I would like to echo from the delegate from the US that the museums play a similar role to the libraries and archives role. We intervened open this Canada does include museum and libraries and archives in our law with respect to certain exceptions in the functions that they play. So we are definitely a proponent of continuing to reflect and encourage other jurisdictions to reflect exceptions and limitations in respect the important role that they play as well, and, you know, preservation, for example, is one area where museums would play a similar role as libraries and archives.
I also wanted to take this opportunity just to make some sort of general comment and to echo what we seem to believe everybody in the room about the importance of the topic of limitations and exceptions, particularly for libraries and archives and the role they play, and how this helps us to maintain some balance in the international copyright system. We think that this is a valuable exercise to go through these principles and objectives. I know these discussions have been going on for a while and they are not — you know, we are not at a place where we have a significant amount of consensus in respect of the details, but I think what this exercise could allow us to do is to reach some consensus on what we think are the objectives and the principles that we should — we can all agree on. And this will aid us in helping to find common ground regarding what we all think is important and we can build from there and it will provide a solid foundation, which we consider what our shared obstacles and challenges are in achieving those objections in principle. And what may be needed to fulfill those shared objectives and principles.
It provides a solid foundation. I think it provides a solid opportunity to find — to find common ground on what are the exact things that we think we all need to do here and we can build from there. So I just really want to port that this discussion is important, and I hope that everybody can engage in it and see it as an opportunity for actually finding some common ground and we can then build from the common ground.JAPAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I don’t intend to disrupt this substantive discussion, but I would like to recall, and remind you of what I said in our group statement on the methodology. I said that the general subject should be dealt with in a separate manner, which means that each general subject should be discussed one by one, not everything at the same time. So I would like to ask you to structure the discussion in that way, in line with our understanding.
Thank you very muc
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Japan. That was what was said, but as is customary, Distinguished Delegates can refer to other issues, however, we are discussing national exceptions and we are discussing comments on that.
Thank you for reminding us of the compromise agreement.
The European Union has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: I was about to make — to provide an example to the room of practice related to museums, but I actually support what the — the remark that has just been made by the representative of Group B. So I will make it when we get to the point following the order that was decided. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, European Union. So we retain your example for subsequent discussion.
I will continue the discuss the national exceptions which the delegations are commenting on at this point.
Brazil has the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Chair, we are glad to finally start substantive discussions this morning. It’s 11:30. So as a first remark, I would like to thank the US for preparing this document that they present us, the blueprint of objectives and principles to foster discussions which we are having.
As the first comment regarding the proposal of overarching principles, I would like to comment and make a specific comment on the principle of national exceptions and limitations, encouraging Member States to establish national exceptions and limitations is a good step forward. Nonetheless we would like to highlight that in the international system, it should not be considered as the overarching principle in our discussions.
Brazil understands that our discussions should be guided by an overarching principle of fostering international and cross border cooperation towards efficient and effective implementation of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. These overarching encompasses the proposal of adoption of national exceptions and limitations and should be the basis for our discussion. Thank you Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Brazil, for those comment
Chile has the floor.
>> CHILE: Thank you. We are grateful to the delegation of the US for the presentation of this document. It is a contribution to the discussions and in general we support what they have set out in the document, however, it doesn’t develop all the topics that appear to be essential. For example, reproduction, orphan works and technological protection measures.
Regarding the adoption of national exceptions we agree with the objective. We believe it’s important to bear in mind all international commitments and obligations on the matter, including reference to — access to essential knowledge as developed by UNESCO. If we understand that this objective should be an obligation for countries.
What the US is saying its principles is something fundamental. It will be of benefit to the citizens if these exceptions and limitations were granted to libraries and archives and we agree with that.
Second, as we said, through the role of libraries and archives, it’s possible to guarantee human rights such as freedom of expression and the right to education.
Third, the role of preservation is to safeguard our cultural heritage, heritage mankind, today, especially in developing countries, especially in those like ours, that have a complex geography. It’s very often these bodies that are the only access to knowledge.
Fourth, we agree that only a system that guarantees protection to authors and access would lead to the greatest social benefit.
Thank you.CHAIR: Thank you very much, Chile, for your views.
Indonesia has the floor.
>> INDONESIA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We also would like to thank you for the US delegation for submitting the proposal here. Let me provide my comment on this proposal, Mr. Chair. We would like to second the motion on the statement made by the coordinator of African Group, Kenya and also Brazil. And we also want to ask a question or confirmation from the US delegation about the proposal here.
I think the logic of our colleague from Kenya has expressed — it makes sense for us. We need international instrument in this regard to regulate the exception and the limitation. And I read on page 2, it’s mentioned to adopt exceptions and limitations in their national laws in their obligations.
The question of course, if there’s an international obligation this should be international exception and limitation. If you want to talk about international obligation, then we should also talk about the exception and the limitation, because it’s — it’s a cross border. Not only Indonesia’s interest, but also it can be cross cutting, cross border from one country to another country, whether it’s regionally or globally.
So I think there should be also international rules on the exception and limitation and we are now here to discuss about that. We would like to reserve our rights for giving our comments for the principles, the preservation and objective in the next stage of our negotiation.
Thank you, Mr. ChairCHAIR: Thank you very much, Indonesia. I give the floor to the United States.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A few responses to some of the questions that have been raised and we really appreciate the thoughts that’s going into everyone’s questions and comments.
So first, both Kenya for the African Group and Indonesia have asked about the reference to encouraging Member States to adopt exceptions and limitations in national laws consistent with their international obligations. So let me clarify what we mean by that.
Consistent with international obligations does not mean the same thing as specifically required by international obligations. Rather what we mean is consistent with the existing general legal framework of rights and exceptions in international law, which includes the outside limit or boundary of the three-step test for measuring the scope of exceptions and limitations.
We are firmly convinced that there is sufficient room and flexibility under that legal framework, including the three-step test to implement all of our objectives and principles through the existing framework.
We also think that gives us the desired ability to adapt laws as appropriate to our own particular legal and cultural conditions.
And in the US, for example, we believe that we already have implemented all of our objectives and principles in our national law, with the exception of the museum issue, as we just discussed, and we are also completely convinced that we are doing so within the boundaries of our existing international obligations. So that’s what that reference is intended to mean, and in our view it does not require that there be new international obligations. We are simply saying that everything we do at national level should be consistent with that existing framework.
The delegation from Chile also raised an interesting point which was to say that there are a number of other specific topics that are not mentioned explicitly in the US document, and I just wanted to make the point that we are not intending to omit those topics or to say this they are not important topics but in our view, all of them can be seen as falling within one or more of our overarching objectives and principles. So to give some of the examples, orphan works, for example, could fall under at least two of our objectives, one of which has to do with support for research and human development, and one of which has to do with preservation.
Technological protection measures could fall under the objective dealing with exceptions and limitations in a digital environment.
So we don’t see our articulation of these objectives and principles as being more limiting than the other document. We just see them as a more high level general policy statement that can encompass the specifics of some of — of all of the topics, in fact, in the other document.
Thank you very much.CHAIR: Thank you, United States, for your initial responses and comments on the statements by delegations.
Sudan.
>> SUDAN: Thank you, Chair. Allow me to express my thanks to the United States for their proposal.
I wish to draw your attention to the third paragraph of the principles, which refers to the fact that exceptions and limitations for research and for publishers, we find that this is in harmony with the three-step test of international obligations. This takes us back to the terms of the Berne Convention. We also draw your attention to the results of the Crews study which pointed out that many nations do have exceptions in this field, however, the exceptions cited by the study seemed to be diverse and contradicting.
So we find as the African Group pointed out, international obligations would enable direct access to information. The document further referred to an national instrument, one that would allow for a wider compliance and benefits for education and access to information. This could be through libraries, national archives, education institutions or other methods which would take into account the three-step test and which has goal, education and information. This is one of the main founding principles of this organization, namely development in general. The first role of development and surprise is to provide access to information benefiting from the output of the human intellect in general.
In the Sudan, we adopted legislation in early 2013. This national legislation in Chapter
Chapter 4 provides for a group of exceptions and limitations, such as use for educational purposes.
In Article 26, this article in subparagraph c does not impinge on the rights related to works or the author.
In another article, this same legislation requirer refers to mandatory licensing. Article 37, paragraph 2 states that any decision to issue mandatory licensing must be related to educational purposes or research and it must determine the time and the place and the material compensation to the author.
We sincerely hope that should a study be undertaken, there are more than 30 different articles relating to exceptions and limitations, which are directly relating to our discussions. In the 26th session of this committee, we had urged, as other groups, we had urged WIPO to undertake a detailed study which would draw our a roadmap, which would enable research and access to information at the regional level or in regional organizationssuch as the European Union which has provided in its legislation such rights.
In the US, we have the teach legislation. So all this indicates that there is wide spread awareness and objective to determine these exceptions. These must be circulated widely on the regional level, at least, which would break down barriers.
The digital environment and smart technology have provided great opportunities to undertake such goals and objectives, however, it has also given rights to certain problems which Member States cannot solve on their own. We therefore, hope that WIPO will, in fact, undertake in a serious manner an attempt to solve such problems.
Another point I wish to raise deals with the legal deposit, and as we see in document 23.2, says the speaker, this deposit must respect international criteria and standards and must include bar codes, which would enable us to link between the various conventions and treaties. Because when application and practice are concerned, we encounter, in fact, problems related to TRIPS or to the impact on culture and cultural industries.
We also encounter problems related to trade and TRIPS rights. So we find that to facilitate greater and better definitions and references, this would help the harmonized implementation of international conventions and agreements.
We should return to the scope of exceptions and limitations at a later time. I thank you for your attention.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Sudan. I would simply repeat that we are > IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In line of the views expressed by some distinguished delegations, namely Kenya, Brazil and Indonesia and Sudan, I would express the importance of exchange of views to have a recommendation for the States to improve their national laws and regulation regarding the limitation and the exception, but we should bear in mind that the mandate and the purpose of this committee is to promote limitation and exceptions in international context.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Iran.
Kenya, you have the floor.
>> KENYA: Thank you, Chair and I would like to thank the Distinguished Delegate of the US for reply. I just want to note that I think different situations obtained in different countries and I understand the US economy is a big one, advanced, and is almost self-sufficient when it comes to research and education, and could therefore easily provide exceptions in the national legislation.
We know that we are not equal. We are very different. Some of us — some of our countries, especially African countries, do not have that advanced economies which could support of development of education and publications and therefore, we depend a lot on other countries.
So I have a sense from the perspective of the US, according to what happens there and the advanced level their education and research institutions which are able to produce quite a bit in terms of relevant materials for the economy, we are not the same. We are dependent and we need each other.
And, therefore, for us to be able to interact and make use of whatever expertise exists in different countries, we need to have a framework at international level. So our situations are very unique. They are different, but I think we need to have that understanding that when the majority — we should not deny them because we are self-sufficient. I think that’s really the issue here.
They may not need acceptance at an international level, but other countries need them. We want that understanding to be –They may not need acceptance at an international level, but other countries need them. We want that understanding to be — as for everyone to bear in that in mind that the reason why we are asking for this exception is because we want to benefit from each other to develop synergies with each other, to collaborate and that is really the issue of why we have international organizations, to foster an international understanding, cooperation and to be able to benefit from what each other have.
So I think the point that is been made, they are okay. There are substitutions and we agree. I know it’s true, but I also studied in Kenya and the situation is very different and we are asking for the understanding that while we understand the situation, we should understand the other situation in the developing countries and therefore we need the international exceptions.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Kenya.
Ecuador, you have the floor.>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Distinguished Delegate of the United States for providing this paper which I think will be extremely helpful when we discuss the specific issues and it will give us food for thought on other issues.
On the question of national exceptions, there is a possibility for flexibilities within the international system which allows countries to have specific flexibilities as to libraries and archives, however, that international framework should be borne in mind by each country and they should base their decisions on the fact that each country has — every country, rather, has a different degree of development, and it is extremely important to bear in mind the problems of libraries and archives.
For example, on the level of exchange of information or of knowledge, particularly since the — a lot of information has now been digitized and this needs to be considered in international legislation which is specific to libraries.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Ecuador. India, you have the floor.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chair
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chair. As expressed by many members, the points — many of the issues and the principles raised by the United States is a welcomed thing, and especially very progress about museums, which I just wanted to make a point that in India’s context, many of the temples contain very old documents. We don’t formally call them as museums but many people refer to this — they call it as pamaraleaf in the documents, and so we are in tune with that.
At the same time, the United States experience is very self-sustaining.
It has a good publishing industry and probably one of the space where is a strong limitations and exceptions is part of it. But that self-sufficient is not in other countries. As a professor, when I prescribe backs in intellectual property, it’s outside. It raises many issues which brings the limitations and exceptions not contained within the national boundary, it’s in the cross border and especially digital environment, and it deficity in necessity international cooperation.
If people study the experience of other countries this could be a lot of reasoning. As we are moving into other areas like we do talk about changing in time and tune, when we talk about broadcasting. Exceptions and limitations can be another area to look. We urge other members to be expanded from international cooperation point. It should be that and because many of the principles or many of the points raised is more or less similar of what India has raised or Brazil has raised of any other points.
But the question here is about limiting ourselves to national exceptions and that seems to be a concept.
Thank you.>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. Brazil?
>> BRAZIL: Just briefly to reiterate the issue in the last point, and was well presented and defended by India and Ecuador. Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you.
Yemen, you have the floor.
>> YEMEN: Good morning, everybody. Thank you Mr. Chair for giving me the floor. The question of exceptions and the restrictions we feel that we should have an international law which clearly has these exceptions for libraries and for archives, and particularly, since these have included in national laws, including my country, however, as the developed countries have these, but they can use them with greater flexibility than we can do at the present time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Yemen.
United States, you have
United States, you have the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize if our prior intervention led us into an area of discussion we didn’t intend to enter. I wanted to just clarify our first objective does not say anywhere that there should only be national exceptions. It’s not limitative. It says there should be good national exceptions. I this we want to make sure that we have good national laws that appropriately address these issues. So I think our hope in how we structured the conversation ago to be able to start by finding areas of agreement and then, of course to the extent that people think there should be things other than good national laws, there should be international obligations. I think that’s an area of disagree and we have a fair sense of where many of us stand on that. I don’t think the question whether there should be good national laws is one we should disagree on.
What is a good national law may vary from country to country in part depending upon their economic circumstances and that would be a very fruitful line of further discussion at the appropriate moment.
But only to say, you know, please, if you read this carefully, we are not saying this particular object — this particular objective does not say it should only be dealt with at a national level. It says there should be good treatment of libraries in national laws and I believe everyone in this room would agree with that.
Thank you.CHAIR: Thank you, United States, for that clarification regarding your proposal for national exceptions and limitations. I’m sure that will be very useful.
South Africa.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We support the interventions made by Kenya on behalf of the African Group as we have previously statemented, South Africa is in favor of an international framework for libraries and archives. We believe the current system is unbalanced and unfair. While copyright is protected through international treaties, many limitations are left to national law. This is not conducive to development and access to knowledge.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, South Africa for your brief but substantive intervention.
Brazil?
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair. Well, I would just like to react to the — some of the statements that were made, specifically the remarks made by the delegation of the United States. I believe the delegation of the United States has a very strong point, that there is actually no position to this principle and the idea that we should foster the — having the exceptions and limitations on the national level.
But there’s an agreement regarding whether this should be an overarching principle, whether this should be the framework of the discussion that we are having here, and it’s — I believe it’s clear from the statements that were made, that were delivered that the international cooperation and the international cross border and working towards effective implementation of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives is broader principle that encompasses this push of fostering national exceptions and limitations. And for that, perhaps we could have — we could find some place, some area of agreement that the principle itself is agreeable and in the consensus.
Nonetheless, we don’t — we don’t — there’s no agreement that that would be an overarching principle that would limit the discussion that we have here.
Thank you, Chair.>> CHAIR: Thank you, Brazil, for expressing that view and which is — which seeks to find an area of compromise.
United States, you have the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Yes, we very much appreciate the intervention by the delegation of Brazil. Thank you. Just to clarify, to the extent we use “overarching” which we used in our intervention, that was not what we were intending to convey by it. We meant rather that these were essentially more high level and general objectives rather than having the specificity of some of the other topics. So we would be quite happy to have each one just taken on its own without any implication as to how they relate to each other or to other topics.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, United States>> CHAIR: Thank you, United States, for contributing to the consensus on this particular issue.
I’m I don’t think sure that we are, indeed, — I’m quite sure that we are, indeed, making progress towards a consensus. Indonesia, you have the floor.
>> INDONESIA: Regarding our discussion for today, I think it’s very beneficial for our negotiation, but regarding the explanation from the United States delegation, we appreciate the explanation, especially in explaining the initial aim of having this proposal regarding national law and international law.
But allow me, Mr. Chair, to be more critical in this matter. When you say urge Member States to adopt exception and limitations in their national laws, I think we need international law which stipulates that national, each nation’s — each nation should develop the exception and limitation in their national laws. That’s the — I think that’s very logic that we need international law to develop national system. That’s one point.
Second point, I think we have our talk and discuss this issue quite long and I look forward to get your guidance and your wisdom how we can proceed our next stage of discussion. Are we going to discuss this until the break — the proposal until the break or maybe you have another thinking.
Thank you>> CHAIR: Thank you, Distinguished Delegate of Indonesia for that observation.
As you know, I’m in your hands. A number of delegations have made some very useful observations. I don’t think we are wasting time, and once we conclude discussion of this point, we will move on to the next item.
Nigeria, you have the floor.
>> NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to support the intervention made by Kenya and South Africa. We believe that for the developing countries, good national laws on the exceptions and limitations is not enough to support the work of libraries and archives in this age. Therefore, an international solution is also required.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria.
Trinidad and Tobago, you have the floor.
>> TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wish to also — my delegation, we have been listening very carefully to the interventions this morning, going into this afternoon and I just wanted to thank, again, the US for their document on their objectives and principles and to us, no doubt, they provide an invaluable source to our discussion today, bearing in mind that this is, indeed, a complex matter which is under discussion in this committee.
After listening to the proposal of the United States and also other delegations who took the floor, we indeed have come to some sort of understanding and a better degree of understanding and, of course, information with respect to the link between library and archives and museums. And, of course, we would like to take it debate further, and perhaps solicit further views from our capital and stakeholders.
Just with respect to the point raised by the delegation of Ecuador, it’s something which we think is a very important point, which was raised and that is with respect to every country, in terms of library and archives, especially, we are at a different stage of development with respect to this issue. So the way matters are treated may, of course, vary across different jurisdictions. I say this specifically in the cross border discussions in the new digital world.
In these circumstances and as state earlier before, yesterday in plenary, Trinidad and Tobago. Notwithstanding that we see the objectives and the principles as laid down, as not being inconsistent with our own vision on this topic but we see it as mutually supportive and something that we can further debate as we move forward into this committee in terms of setting the foundation for international framework on this area.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair.
On behalf of the European Union and its Member States, I would like to thank the United States for their very clear presentation, and I would also like to thank those delegations that in discussing this point have put forward and shared with the room their national experiences, which I would like to recall is the approach that the European Union favors in these discussions.
We hope that we will have time to discuss the various points on the table, that enough time will be devoted to all of them. As regards the specific matter at hand, the point — the objectives set out by the United States refers to the national adoption of exceptions this allows me to recall that assisting Member States of WIPO with the implementation of their exceptions in the national legal framework should be the objective of discussions in this committee.
And I would also like to recall our conviction that the international legal framework already allows for enough flexibility for this to be done meaningfully.
As to the substance, the point made under this theme by the United States refers to the articulation between the rights of authors and other public policy objectives, and to the importance of maintaining proper right balance. And this context, it’s worth to recall that the benefits of copyright protection are not only — do not only accrue to authors and right holders in general, but also to users buzz copy right protection is at the basis of the supply of creative and intersection content and this is a principle that we believe should be kept in mind.
More broadly, there are two elements that are at play, when discussing national exceptions. On the one hand, the need for high level of protection of copy right and on the other hand, the effectiveness of the exceptions themselves. And both of these principles have. And both of these principles have been recalled a number of times, for example, by the code of justice of the European Union.
I would also like to point to another aspect that has been raised by the United States under this theme, which is the consideration of the precise role and mission of libraries in their communities.
Having clear in mind the mission that the cultural institutions have, as — when discussing them as beneficiaries of exceptions is important, also because these missions might have been assigned to them by law, and this is also points to public law aspect in the discussion.
The document also refers to the public nature of the service provided by this — these institutions, which speaks to the aspect that also should be kept well clear in mind when devising national exceptions which is that clear definition of beneficiaries, which obviously has a national and local aspect to it. And also the activities that are performed by these institutions.
Thank you.