During intense plenary discussions regarding WIPO’s future work program on the protection of broadcasting organizations and copyright limitations and exceptions, Brazil made the following proposal to reproduce language from the General Assembly decision of 2013. Brazil proposed,
Alternatively, I would like to propose that this General Assembly considers adopting a decision regarding agenda item 15 that reproduces the exact language agreed by all delegations on the occasion of the September 2013 General Assembly allowing only for the necessary adjustments related to the documents that are referred to in the 2013 decision. Besides being obviously uncontroversial – since it has been agreed by all only last year – the 2013 decision has been tested in practice and proved to be effective in terms of allowing for the work of the SCCR to continue without imposing restrictions or otherwise jeopardizing the respective positions of each and every delegation. Additionally, I would like to say that reproducing the language of the 2013 GA would unquestionably amount to the minimum common denominator.
The entire intervention is contained below. Towards the close of negotiations, Brazil asked the plenary, “Does this Assembly now repudiate what it agreed to by consensus in 2013.”
Given the deafening silence, it would appear that WIPO’s work on the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (including work on copyright limitations and exceptions and the protection of broadcasting organizations) is now in limbo.
Thank you, Madam Chair,
Allow me first of all to thank the Chair of the SCCR and facilitator, Mr Martin Moscoso, for his able stewardeship as head of the Committee as well as for his tireless efforts to bridge the gaps between the different positions upheld by delegations during this General Assembly.
We deeply regret that, despite all the hard work of the facilitator and the delegations during this General Assembly we have not been able to reach agreement. We are disappointed to see that some delegations insist on certain positions that ultimately amount to trying to deny others their legitimate right to seek to address issues of interest in this multilateral forum.
The proposed decision regarding agenda item 15 does not give us the necessary comfort in terms of adequately allowing for the continuation of the work of the committee on the basis of the previous mandates that the General Assembly has produced as regards the issues of broadcasting and exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives as well as educational institutions and other persons with disabilities. Particularly, the 2012 General Assembly decision provides us with clear indications as to the elements of consensus that delegations have reached and which are necessary to guide us in our ongoing discussions.
For Brazil, the negotiations on broadcasting and on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives are very important and we remain committed to working constructively to reach a positive outcome on both issues.
Particularly, we consider that progress on exceptions and limitations is the way forward in order to achieve a more balanced IP system that takes into account the need to strike the appropriate balance between rights and obligations with a view that, as stated in the Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement and reiterated in Recommendation 45 of the Development Agenda, the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should be pursued “in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare”.
We therefore urge all delegations to fully recognize the importance of the issue of exceptions and limitations and to consequently engage constructively in the ongoing discussions without prejudging the outcome of the exercise.
Brazil can support the proposal just made by the coordinator of the African Group.
Alternatively, I would like to propose that this General Assembly considers adopting a decision regarding agenda item 15 that reproduces the exact language agreed by all delegations on the occasion of the September 2013 General Assembly allowing only for the necessary adjustments related to the documents that are referred to in the 2013 decision. Besides being obviously uncontroversial – since it has been agreed by all only last year – the 2013 decision has been tested in practice and proved to be effective in terms of allowing for the work of the SCCR to continue without imposing restrictions or otherwise jeopardizing the respective positions of each and every delegation. Additionally, I would like to say that reproducing the language of the 2013 GA would unquestionably amount to the minimum common denominator.
THANK YOU