KEI: I wanted to just address some of the issues on the cross-border relationship with the exceptions. I know the publisher mentioned mention to three step test. There are three important exceptions that are not related to the three step test in the Berne Convention and those would be dealing with education, news of the day, public affairs, quotations, and other particular exceptions within the Berne Convention. But I think a different set which I made reference to earlier was that in the exceptions which are implemented as a limitation on remedies as opposed to a limitation on right, the three-step does not apply at all.
And there is a parallel to this in the patent side. In the patent I’d the TRIPS Agreement has restrictions on exports under compulsory license. They are not a complete restriction, but they are, it’s considered to be an important restriction. But those restrictions did not apply when the compulsory license is a limitation on remedy. In the United States a lot of the compulsory licenses that are issued are limitations and remedies and often they are very substantial exports and in some cases the entire product is exported.
And this can be done in the TRIPS Agreement because the compulsory license is done under a limitation on the remedy as opposed to a limitation on the right. In the copyright area, in the area of orphan works the United States copyright office has recommended that the exceptions be implemented as a limitation on the remedy as opposed to a limitation on the right.
And in the African Group proposal for in both the libraries and in the education area, they have proposals for implementing exceptions as limitations on remedies as opposed to limitations on rights. So I don’t think this strategy necessarily works with everything, but there are certain classes of cases where the cross-border thing could be effectively implemented as a limitation on the remedies as opposed to a limitation on the right. I just wanted to add that technical point. Thank you.