SCCR 30 Efforts to wordsmith definition fall short

Chair: section on agenda item No. 6 regarding protection of broadcasting organizations. And just I want to thank all of you for that interesting exchange and discussion we had yesterday. And the positive mood towards Consensus on the scope of protection and the object of protection of the proposed Treaty taking in to account some concerns and some time that have been required by some Delegations who put their concerns on the record.

Any way that the broadcasting organization could have the chance to prevent or restrict or to prohibit unauthorized access interference. We were highlighting that is regardless of the platform of which the signal was transmitted. So this was read yesterday as a sort of an idea that was gaining Consensus yesterday. And then we passed to the — to give a view to the definitions. So regarding definitions we received some contributions regarding what could be considered a broadcasting organization and even a cablecasting organization and when we discussed that we received some contributions saying that such definition could be connected to the activity which takes us to another definition. In trying to discuss the definition of the activity meaning broadcasting and cablecasting some previous contributions were read and we started to receive some comments regarding those definitions. But I think that’s — that there was a suggestion to think if we need a definition of cable — of a broadcasting organization at all. Yesterday some opinions were posted in order to be sure that if we need really a definition of a broadcasting organization, that is will solve problems or pull additional problems to define that or if instead of that approach we just select to have a definition of broadcasting.
I am trying to avoid the confusion that we are just discussing the definition of broadcasting as an activity in order to have clarity regarding the beneficiaries of the Treaty, but without implying that that definition will reduce the scope of protection that we have discussed previously.
So the first idea I would like to receive input this morning is that you have — you have additional thoughts regarding this after the interesting exchange we had yesterday. Do you think we still need a definition of broadcasting organization? Or would be better to just have the definition of the activity, the broadcasting? And regarding the definition of the activity do we need an updated one or it will be enough to refer to international — to definitions exist coming from existing international Treaties including in those WTAP which are not in force but a reference? I think that’s a very interesting starting point because after we started to point out comments on that matter probably you have — you have additional thoughts on that. So I open the floor for that question regarding the definitions of the broadcasting organization and the definition of the activity broadcasting.
Open the floor for that

EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chairman and good morning, to everyone. We have already — we have already contributed to the discussion on that topic yesterday saying that we believe that we should build on definition of broadcasting coming from the existing Treaties, that these definitions have certain clear elements, like wireless transmission, but satellite is included and so on. And we therefore think that definitions that build on this definitions, for example, the definitions that were presented in the document 27/2 rev and especially alternative B for Article 5 the definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting are the ones that we could — that we could build on to have the definition of broadcasting and cablecasting. Of course, the definition which is also presented in a table the one that is coming from document 27/6 is also very similar. But we seem — we think that for our purposes probably the ones from the document 27/2 rev alternative B for Article 5 are the ones with the — that are closest to what we have been trying to agree upon here.
We also think that these definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting help then in finding the proper definition of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations. They are the elements of the definition of broadcasting and cable casting organization. I think it would be rather difficulty to have this Treaty without actually defining the beneficiaries. We think that since we have this specific approach to who the beneficiaries are we need the reference to the activity in a sense of broadcasting and cablecasting but that does not mean that we don’t need a definition of broadcasting organization and cablecasting organization and probably the definition of the signal as was mentioned yesterday by the Delegation of Italy.
So that would be our approach and it would — in that regard we find those definitions that are in the table and that are marked as alternative B for Article 5, those that are closest to where we would like to land which does not mean that certain elements like we mentioned yesterday of broadcasting organization definition from alternative A could not be — could not be added. Like, for example, legal and editorial responsibility and possibly some other elements. But that’s how we would approach this task. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the EU for that specific contribution mentioning the definitions we have and, of course, it is becoming clear that the starting point would be the activity. The definition of the activity because it will be helpful to understand then who would be the beneficiary of the Treaty and I could just add that bearing in mind that it doesn’t mean because yesterday was some different statements to avoid the confusion with object of protection of the Treaty.
It has been said additionally that after having clarity on the definition of broadcasting it doesn’t mean that we don’t need a definition of a broadcasting organization. And I would open the floor for — to see that approach is shared or not. And then to as it has been pointed out previously from the Distinguished Delegate from Italy and reiterated by the Distinguished Delegate from EU if we — if we need a definition of signal as it is there.
Before reading you the definitions of signal which are in the

Before reading you the definitions of signal which are in the chart that has been printed in order to help you to be useful for your analysis, I would ask if this view that the definition of broadcasting would be important with the elements that have been mentioned and if we still need a definition of broadcasting organization or not is — is a point where you have your own view. Australia has the floor.
>> Australia: Thank you, Chair. And good morning, colleagues. Firstly if I could join in congratulating you on your re-election along with others. A great injustice has been avoided.
From Australia’s perspective we don’t think there is a need for a definition of broadcasting organization. The Rome Treaty the Rome Convention operating perfectly all right without one. We would prefer in terms of broadcasting to base the definition on those that already exist in the Beijing Treaty and in WPPT. We acknowledge the issue in relation to computer Networks. But perhaps that could be dealt with elsewhere in the Convention. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for sharing your view on this matter. I would like to keep on listening views on this issue in order to try to reach an understanding of your views on this set of need of definitions. Serbia has the floor.
>> SERBIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since this is the first time I am taking the floor I would like to congratulate you on your election as well as your Vice Chair. I would like to add a short comment with respect to the definition of the broadcasting organization which is important to us is to stress that if we want to follow one legal regime and namely to connect the definition of the broadcasting organization with the activities, that it is under, that its purely enough to say that the broadcasting organization is the entity that rendered the services of broadcasting and there is no need to add any other explanation and definition and so on. But it seems to me that circumstances of where we are now actually produce the needs to add some additional clarification on what is actually broadcasting today. And to add some points on — in respect to the responsibilities of the broadcasting organization in respect of collecting the information send information to the societies, send information to the public and so on. So we believe that the second definition that include actually the responsibility of the broadcasting organization and collecting information and editorial responsibility and so on is actually a better solution. And it is more than just to connect the notion of the broadcasting organization with activity that it is under. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that view. I want to highlight that this interested view says that if we are good enough to define the activity let’s say broadcasting when we refer to broadcasting organization was the entity who provides the service of broadcasting will be enough in order to clarify that definition

>> RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I would like to give my views on the positions that we have heard this morning. And the new contributions that were proposed just now by the Chair. I think it will be very right to not define broadcaster. This is because in many countries first of all, the concept of broadcaster is very different from that in another country. And furthermore, for example, in Russia various laws interpret in a different way, the concept of broadcaster. There are laws on mass media gives one definition of broadcaster and another law gives a completely different definition of it. So it leads to confusion. So I think that in our document, in our Treaty it wouldn’t be advisable therefore to define broadcaster. I fully agree with the Delegate of Australia who reminded us of the Rome Convention where an actual fact we haven’t mentioned the broadcaster at all. We haven’t defined it. We haven’t defined broadcaster. And now coming to broadcasting, as the transmission of the signal, that’s important from the Point of View of combatting piracy. I think that definition should be the key definition in our document. And the most important thing is not to get involved in pointless discussions about the definition of the broadcaster. The broadcasting organizations themselves. So we are prepared to support that position. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you to the Distinguished Delegate from the Russian Federation for helping us in trying to see if there are — there is a common view on the need to include a definition of broadcasting organization.
We have to bear in mind that one thing is to have a definition of a broadcasting organization and the other thing is to have clarity on who will be the beneficiaries of the Treaty. So I take the point made by the Distinguished Delegate from European Union of the need to have clarity regarding who is the beneficiary of the Treaty. Of course, that is a key. But what we are saying if that — we need in order to achieve that we need a definition of a broadcasting organization. And now I’m keep on listening to you but I’m trying to build upon some sort of common view regarding that at least we need a definition of broadcasting considering the international Treaties, the definitions included there in previous international Treaties. And then to discuss if some additions are required with some specific reasons to do so.
Brazil has the floor.
>> BRAZIL:
BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor. I will be very brief. I just would like to make one point regarding the importance of the definition. I would like to recall that well, in general we support the — your statement saying that we need clarity on the beneficiaries of the Treaty and our comment would be just in the same line that when we go back to the Treaties to WIPO Treaties that also mentioned the broadcasting organizations they are mentioning broadcasting organizations in a context of having this companies as users of the system. While discussions we are having today we are discussing the possibility of having them as beneficiaries of the Treaty. And that would require much higher degree of clarity on who would be this beneficiaries when compared to the other experiencing WIPO Treaties. I would like to raise this element and say that perhaps we should focus more in a more accurate definition than what we have in other Treaties. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that contribution, Brazil. Let me ask you, when you finally say perhaps there are more accurate definition you are meaning more accurate definition of broadcasting as the activity or a definition of a broadcasting organization as well?
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair. We had the discussion on the — in the past yesterday on the definition of broadcasting and we like to restate that we understand that we should have a neutral technological definition of broadcasting and in order to encompass all countries with very different regulatory regimes. When it comes to the necessity whether or not having a definition of broadcasting organizations we are still discussing intern nalgly. But we loo toik to reiterate to bring from a treat that has a definition of a user and use it as beneficiary in another Treaty. Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Well, very much for that absolute clarity and for your views

…
>> KENYA: Thank you very much. I am pulling up from the summary you have made and the proposal you have put forward and the various contributions that have come from various Delegations. My Delegation still thinkses that it is imperative that we come up with a very clear definition of what broadcasting is. In terms of our national law the copyright Act deals with the issue of what broadcasting and cablecasting entails and definition of broadcasting you end up finding it in the law the specific law that deals with praud casting ab it is quite technical issue. For the purposes of moved forward in this definition if we have a very clear definition as to what brewed casting entails then it will make it easier for us to know who the beneficiaries are. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you to the Distinguished Delegate from Kenya. That’s the intention of this stage of discussion. Since we are still waiting for more requests from the floor let me ask the Distinguished Delegate from South Africa

> CANADA: Good morning, to all. First of all, let me congratulate you on your election as well as the co-Chairs and all of the Secretariat for the organization of this summer session of our Committee. We would like to take this opportunity to salute all of our colleagues. We brought uPt mat definition between broadcasting or cablecasting organization with our domestic legislation and the definitions that already exist in other Treaties. Now we certainly need to look at the link between provisions on the definition and the establishment of beneficiaries which we will probably have to determine at a stage where we will have further elements of information. You have mentioned a provision on national treatment here but perhaps we need to look at the link between the two — first two provisions. This because of importance that we attach to ensuring that our different legislative frameworks often refer to this power that is granted to them by the laws of their country in order to provide services to audience, especially when granting public broadcasting licenses. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that as well. So our — what we can — what I can see listening after your statements is probably that we need mainly a basic definition of the activity broadcasting with a chance to accommodate when we define that either through a neutral technological approach or through a separate definition cablecasting issue that has been raised for some Distinguished Delegates here. But there are some advantages of sorting out the differences in national legislation regarding these definitions by having as a starting point the definitions already drafted for existing international Treaties including the BTAP.
And then it will be easier to have clarity regarding the beneficiaries of the Treaty. The beneficiaries of the Treaty could be clear either through a definition of broadcasting organization or as a provision saying as we did in other cases who are the beneficiaries of the Treaty.
And then with that clarification we all of us we should bear in mind that whatever definition of broadcasting we take it is — there is a difference with scope of protection that could be decided to be in the case of the proposed Treaty because if we take definition of the activity coming from an international Treaty which, for example, is related to the wireless transmission we have to be very clear that it does not mean that the object of protection is limited to the wireless transmission which I think that is pretty clear until now. But any case let me just reiterate that. So that’s what I’m reading from your opinions until now on this matter. We have a request from the floor from United States

> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just to reflect briefly on the conversation this morning we heard from a number of Delegations about the importance of consistency with the existing international Treaty definitions Rome WPPT, and Beijing and to follow the formulation of our Distinguished Delegation from India it was so clear yesterday we would say a resounding yes, to that principle. At this stage in the discussions also a number of Delegations noted the need to in a sense keep a number of definitions open until as the negotiations discussions proceed we gain greater clarity. So we agree with those statements and toward that end we have a preference for at this stage in the negotiation keeping the definitions of both broadcasting organization and broadcasting in our working deliberations. We might even add that keeping the definition of broadcasting on the table might provide an opportunity as the discussions become clearer to find an opening for distinguishing particular activities that are highlighted in this Treaty.
I’ll end there. And look forward to further conversation.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. for his very clear intervention regarding the U.S. position on this discussion. Thank you very much for that approach.
Well, I think that we have received a good amount of interventions on these issues and the definition of broadcasting as an activity, how to tackle the issue of cablecasting. And in the definition of broadcasting organization. What is pending in order to at least hear your views regarding the remaining issues that were part of the concept chart is a definition of signal. I don’t want to jump to that part of it without giving you the chance to give me some views regarding that extreme, if there are some. In order to trigger your interventions I would require the Secretariat through Carole to — if she can just read us what we have regarding the definition of signal.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning, everyone. I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the two definitions that we have from working documents contained in page 2 of the document on concepts. First of all, a definition taken from document SCCR/27/2 rev alternative A for Article 5 which provide a signal means and electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof whether encrypted or not. The second definition is also contained in document SCCR/27/2 rev alternative A for Article 5 alternative little a, signal means an electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast or cablecast. So based on these two definitions if you go back now to page 1 at the right in the column relating to signal you have a number of elements criterias which have been identified which can be taken in to consideration when finalizing the definition of what is to — what is to consider as a signal. First of all, we see that the two definitions provided in the working documents agree on the nature of the signal which has to be an electronically generated career. And then as regards a signal meaning well, there are different elements which can be taken in to consideration. First of all, the capability of transmitting a broadcast or a cable cast. The object of the kearj whether consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images over presentations thereof and there is a possibilities of merging these two criterias, cap I will of transmitting sounds or imimagineses or sounds and images over presentations thereof and in the definition of signal also the criteria of encryption or not encryption could be taken in to consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. As you noticed
> CHAIR: Thank you very much. As you noticed this — the elements are in order to give confusion. It is just a way to identify the elements that are contained in the proposed definitions. So it is in that way I think that they have that goal just to be understood. I would just request if we have an existing definition of signal in previous international Treaties to be read. Please Carole.
>> SECRETARIAT: Yes. Indeed Mr. Chair. We have the definition which is contained in the Brazil Convention, Article 1, little i, signal is an electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting programmes.
>> CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much for that. Since we have the extreme of the chart of concepts included I wouldn’t like to just say to finish our discussion at this stage on the topics of definitions or basic definitions without giving you the chance to give some inputs regarding the definition of a signal. So I open the floor for comments for that.
Okay. Well, I wanted to give you the chance to make some comments on that but I was aware that probably as has been clearly stated by the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. is that this set of definitions probably will be reviewed during the process — the future process or future work on this matter. So I understand very much that that is the case with the definition of signal. Because we are still concentrated on the definition of the activity of broadcasting and we — I think that we will analyze what has been said until now on regard of this previous definitions which I think that has been a very good exchange. Saying so I think that now it is the case to Okay. Well, I wanted to give you the chance to make some comments on that but I was aware that probably as has been clearly stated by the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. is that this set of definitions probably will be reviewed during the process — the future process or future work on this matter. So I understand very much that that is the case with the definition of signal. Because we are still concentrated on the definition of the activity of broadcasting and we — I think that we will analyze what has been said until now on regard of this previous definitions which I think that has been a very good exchange. Saying so I think that now it is the case to continue our morning session thinking about how are we going to proceed on this topic. Of course, I think at this point it does not make sense to continue discussion on other provisions or other areas that we have because what we have been discussing until now are the basics for this in order to reach a common understanding. And I want to retain what has been achieved yesterday, what could be considered as a way to describe what might reach a total Consensus with some pending observations but to describe that as a stage that we have reached during this session. And regarding the definitions it was clearly stated that we needed some clarification on that in order to have a comprehensive view of the basics of this Treaty. And I think that we have done so. It wouldn’t be at this point interesting to get in to details of other parts of other elements because probably it is premature and we will need to reflect what has been said on the two previous topics. However it would be interesting to trigger and listen your views on the next ways to future work on this — on this topic because as you know we have General Assembly after this session. So I’m sure that you will have the chance to discuss that within your regional groups and we will have a meeting with them at 1 p.m. with the regional coordinators in order to receive your views.
We are preparing some summary of the Chair regarding this topic, trying to retain and to put not surprising conclusions but those that are arising naturally from our discussion. And it would be interesting to listen your views previously coordinated among your regional groups or within your regional groups in order to if we are going to take the chance to communicate to the General Assembly the state of our EU has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chairman but this was — I still need to contribute on the signal as we have moved on I withdraw this request. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Well, I made an invitation and I wouldn’t like to pass to the next stage without giving you the chance to comment as the definition of signal. I think that is a good time to listen to you. So please comment us.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you. And just very briefly we think that certain elements of the definition of signal if such definition would be needed are also already in included in the definition of broadcasting of the existing Treaties. Because if you look at the definition of the Beijing Treaty there is a reference to public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof and we think this part of the definition of broadcasting if we need a definition of a signal should be included in the definition of a signal. This is reflected, for example, in alternative A for Article 5 in the first formulation of the signal that we have here and then, of course, there are some technical issues which should be consisting of or capable of transmitting where we can have discussion but just wanted to note that certain elements are already in the definition of broadcasting and maybe the final remark is that we should not try to produce too many definitions we think. So we should not — we probably not necessarily need to include broadcast cablecast. I think it is sufficient if we have broadcasting, cablecasting broadcasting organization and signal. We don’t need to have broadcasting cablecast and programme and signal and all of that. I think that’s probably not needed. Looking at the second definition of signal where there is reference to broadcasting and cablecast I think that maybe we should not complicate matters too much. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for those initial thoughts regarding the definition of signal and what should be included in the reference to that part of the

of the definition of broadcast that could be added as well to the definition of signal and it is containing one of the proposals submitted with that purpose.
Well, if I don’t have any other suggestion or request from giving additional comments to the definition of signal, I just could — I just want to reiterate that at this point additionally to those topics that we have tackled during yesterday and during this morning we have other set of provisions that are contained in the submissions that we have received. I don’t want to hide them. One of them is the issue of the beneficiaries. The second is the term of protection. The third one is the need to include limitations and exceptions. And there was a topic related to the use of Technological Protection Measures and even there’s — there’s some submission stating the use of right management information as well. Those are the topics that I mentioned that probably at this point some of them if not most of them are — it is premature because we needed the basics the basic points we have discussed until now in order to have clarity to undertake this specific efforts. However since we have had a discussion regarding the definition of broadcasting organization I have taken due note of your different comments but as you heard there was a connection with clarity on the beneficiaries of the Treaty. And at this point it would be interesting to see if I was reading properly your different contributions regarding the beneficiaries of the Treaty. I perceive that there was the need to clarify that beneficiaries of the Treaty were not including by any submission, by any proposal, by any Delegates those natural persons who are embraced in — with a use of new technologies in activities that might be understood as broadcasting. If we take the definitions that have been used until now. In this let’s say the Web — for example, in the case of the Web castors and that has been not only a perception I take from this meeting but from previous meeting in a chart and object of protection we said that Internet or Internet transmission initially there was a sort of Consensus to leave it out of the provisions we were dealing with in order to clarify and to give a clear message outside of this room that there will be no implications or no reference to those activities made by all the citizens using a Smartphones and other new technologies which allow them to almost what could be considered as broadcast something in the Internet.
And I have heard the clear view of different Delegations that beneficiaries of this Treaty should be well, mainly broadcasting organizations or using the contribution by the Distinguished Delegate from Serbia the entities which provide a service of broadcasting if we are not going to define our broud casting organization and I have received some inputs that probably bearing in mind what we need to conceive as beneficiary of — beneficiaries of this Treaty that probably we will limit to those of them who are in a regulatory environment as has been suggested or commented somehow by the Distinguished Delegate from EU in order to give some certainty who are the beneficiaries of that. However still there was a remaining open question regarding other business entities who are part of — who are participating in the activities which make possible the provision of the service. So I think that the — it needs interesting reflection. I would invite you to think about the beneficiaries of the Treaty and probably we can open the floor for listening to you on this matter to see if there’s some Consensus on that matter or if there are some specific elements to think about. I open the floor

ROMANIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say first that I am speaking in my national capacity and also to say that we aligning to the EU statement that was delivered earlier. In our view since this precise draft deals with the broadcasting organizations we believe it is important to have definitions — a definition of beneficiary. So broud casting organizations and I think we will be able to find ways to come with the best solution, I mean to build on definitions that we already have, the definition that we already have in the previous Treaties on broadcasting. So we still believe that it is important to work on providing a definition of the beneficiaries. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for your view. Other view? Well, there’s — I’m sure that you are thinking about that because I just — I am just recalling that when we talk about the definition of the broadcasting organization there is a possibility it has been suggested by some of you that we could not have that definition of a broadcasting organization because we — it could be possible to just have the definition of the activity of the broadcasting. But even in that case which I am not saying that is the Consensus it has been suggested somehow, but even if that case we don’t have definition of brewed broud casting organization we need to have clarity of beneficiary of the Treaty. That’s what I am suggesting to think about the beneficiary of the Treaty, not only limiting this exchange to the need of having a definition of a broadcasting organization. Just in the — with a purpose of having clarity on who will be the beneficiaries of the Treaty. EU has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chairman. We just briefly would like to say that all our remarks regarding the definition of activities of broadcasting cablecasting and through these definitions arriving at a definition of broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations all this for us is the way to define beneficiaries. That is the way that we should define beneficiaries and we think that that is — it will be necessary for this Treaty. We agree with all the Delegations that raised that we should start from the definition of braud CAGsing but this definite definition to a large extent a stable definition on the basis of the existing treaties and for this definitions we should then move to the definition of broadcasting organizations. For us this discussion that we had around these definitions that was the discussion on the beneficiaries from our point of view. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Well, thank you very much for that. Okay. As you see we cannot just go around this exchange of views. There is a need to concretize that specifically in work under the basis of these common understanding of having starting with the definition of broadcasting, meaning the activity dealing with the topic of cablecasting there or through an independent or separate definition or through a technological neutral option if possible. And after that starting or continuing our work with a definition of broadcasting organization if we agree that we need it after that in order to have clarity on who are the beneficiaries of the Treaty. So now it is pretty clear that the roadmap to follow and the next stage will be to work specifically on what we have and to well, concretize these exchange in the specifics.
I’m glad to — that we have reached that point and I’m glad to listen that some sort of clarity have come from how to proceed and under which parameters. So after this I invite you think how to reflect this, how this common understanding will affect the future work on this matter. And probably we will need some initial thoughts regarding that and the regional groups’ opinions on how to proceed after this.
Thank you very much for this rich exchange. And we go now for a coffee break and in 15 minutes we start the last part of this agenda item.
(Gavel)
(Coffee break)