Day 2 SCCR31 Object of Protection discussion started a 12:45pm. At 1pm we left for lunch and a meeting on education.
II. OBJECT OF PROTECTION(1) The protection granted under this Treaty extends only to broadcasts transmitted by, or
on behalf of, a broadcasting organization, but not to works or other protected subject
matter carried on them.(2) The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection in respect of mere
retransmissions by any means.(3) Broadcasting organizations shall also enjoy protection for simultaneous or near
simultaneous retransmission by any means as if such transmission were a broadcast.(4) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply mutatis mutandis to the protection of
cablecasting organizations in respect of their cablecasts.Chair´s note: Further discussion is needed on the inclusion as an object of protection of
transmissions by broadcasting (cablecasting) organizations in such a way that members of the
public may access them from a place and a time individually chosen by them.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, the Distinguished Delegate from Italy for your thoughts. It is a invitation to think about that to all of the Delegates that are here having this discussion. We take that invitation as well, to see how we can overcome the complexity of this situation.
We have reached a point then where we have finished to receive suggestions regarding the section of definitions.
There’s a lot of suggestions and some of them are similar and we take note of that in order to reflect that in a revised version of this document which could be helpful in order to reflect exactly the situation and the options which we’re dealing and if possible some consensus that could arise regarding the definitions.
Now we enter into the section number 2 which is Object of Protection and I think we could start with paragraph number 1 which states that the protection granted under this Treaty extent only to broadcasts transmitted by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization, but not to works or other protected subject matter carried on them. We open discussion on this paragraph, please.
Just an introductory remark, let me tell you that this section is of course called section for understanding what are we going to protect here and the first paragraph reflects what was officially the suggestion to include the broadcast as Object of Protection but I’m aware we had this discussion on the definition side and we should consider that we discussed — when we discussed the definition of signal we were talking about not about the mere signal but a programme-carrying signal. I think we should reflect that in the first paragraph. I welcome your suggestions in order to reflect the discussions we had around the signal in this first paragraph because it should reflect that discussion. Then there is a reference to the activity, the transmission made not only by the broadcasting organization but on behalf of the broadcasting organization and that’s something that should be considered or highlighted as well.
The third element is that it not — that it does not cover protection of the works or other protected subject matter carried on them mainly because to avoid confusion because such a protection is covered by copyright Treaties, bothy right Treaties or copyright legislation. That’s an important element of it.
We have the E.U. asking for the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. Two issues here, one to follow-up on comments made by the Distinguished Delegate of Italy.
Like we mentioned yesterday, we also think that the definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting since they refer to transmission, they already include the notion of signal in them.Of course it is not — it is not wrong to have a definition of signal and whatever other elements we need to have to have it. The question is, is it necessary? I think this is how we would put it,but is it — do we need to have a definition of a signal? Do we need to have a definition of a programme, all of that that we discussed yesterday? Can we have a clean definition of broadcasting and everything that’s required without this definition.
That’s what the question is for us. Of course it is not wrong to have a sequence of definitions but includes a signal and programme and broadcasting, but do we need this? That’s what we think. Coming back to Object of Protection and this first paragraph, what is missing is the reference to pre-broadcast. The paragraph should be corrected in the sense that the protection granted under the Treaty extends only to broadcast transmitted by a broadcasting organization as well as to pre-broadcasts. That would be our proposal to include pre-broadcast in this paragraph. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. We take note of that. Of course it will be in brackets since there is still no agreement on the inclusion of pre-broadcasts at this point. that’s why it was not part of the delivery of this definition. Only if a consensus is reached regarding the conclusion will it come up. At this point since you’re suggesting that inclusion we could consider to put it in brackets in a revised version. Regarding your first comment, which is I think very important, probably we after ending the revision of the whole document we can go back to some questions that could arise. That’s a very good one to see if the room, if the Distinguished Delegates here feel we have — we should have the preference to include the definition of signal programs as it was suggested very clearly or if we could just live with the complete definition of broadcasting. I think this is not the moment probably at the end of the revision and we could have more evidence to discuss that. U.S. has the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your opening remarks for this you asked for comments that would align this Object of Protection in line with others on signal. I’ll try to do just that. We note the use of the phrase broadcasts here to align it with the earlier discussion and the points that this Delegation and others were making perhaps we suggest that it would read as follows, only to the broadcast signals as opposed to broadcast, transmitted by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization, but not to — and then you introduce the word works. We assume you — by that you mean copyrighted works and although we’re fully supportive of the idea of not extending protection under this Treaty to the underlying copyrighted works we note that this is the first time that we’re using works and we have an alternate solution and that would be to use the word the programme, of course, this relates to our suggested definition of programme made yesterday. Finally we attention to other Delegations of the phrase other protected subject matter. From sessions past I have a sense that we may have discussed this matter, this phrase. Nonetheless, when you read it again, it seems quite vague and we’re not sure exactly what other protected subject matter carried on the signal refers to other than the programme and that uncertainty gives us a certain pause.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that clear explanation. We take note of that, the first one, I mentioned it before, as you said, and the second one could deserve some exchange if it is clear enough to refer– but not to progress, no. If it is clear to refer to copyrighted works or underlying copyrighted works as you mentioned. I invite to receive comments for that. Regarding the other protected subject matter carried on them that’s not that comes from different, previous submissions made by other Delegations here even though you referred to previous discussions on those, on that topic I
invite those Delegation who is submitted that and which are contained in the document 27/2 specifically for example in page 5 of 27/2 Rev. Article 6, alternative A for Article 6 which is contained there, a lot of protected subject matter and in Alternative B for article 6 it is extreme or other subject matter carried by such signal.As you see, those submissions were made by the proponents, previous proponents and I tried to reflect that because it was part of the different alternatives that’s there. The answer to — it is vague enough, it is causing additional uncertainty or if we still need that part I will refer to the proponents of the text to explain as that extreme. My task was to consider that part, as different alternatives shown in alternative A and B, this is an invitation I make. . When I refer to those proposals, those proposals came from the original proposals made by South Africa, Mexico, and the other came from the Japanese, from the Japanese Delegation. It would be interesting to listen in the afternoon to listen to the specific specific points. I think we’ll end this morning’s session listening to those of thank you want to add comments to this part, I’ll be pleased to hear new the afternoon. India has the floor.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chair.
We’re in support of changing the word broadcast signal as the whole purpose is signal protection. The word — instead of the word broadcast, broadcast signal makes it more clear. Also the suggestion N. On behalf of the broadcasting organization, not to programme as suggested by the U.S. or it could be not to the you wanted lying content, it could be another way of looking at it. As I said, that closest — that meets all of the boundaries. Other protected subject matter will come under underlying content in order to make it clear about signal protection and not the content part which other acts take care of. To put it that it should extend only to broadcast signals transmitted by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization which can include pre-broadcasting signal but not to programme or alternatively the underlying content. Thank you.
[…].
E.U. has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. Just to follow again up on what Italy said, we also think that it is rather clear that works and other matters, referring to the copyright and other related rights, for us it would be sufficiently clear to have this, we’re open to discussions as to wording that would explain that the protection of — the protection of — the object of copyright and related rights in the works and other matters included in broadcast will not be effected. You can find the wording here but we would think what is here is put as a proposal is rather clear. Thank you.