Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session
SCCR/28 June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva, Switzerland)
June 30, 2014. Morning Session
to read the close captioning of SCCR28
http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO
password: sccr28 during the meeting
Watch live: Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights – ow.ly/yAzbf. #SCCR28
Find a few comments and selected interventions:
The SCCR 28 started promptly at 10 AM in sunny Geneva. The room was already absolutely full of delegates from member states as well as NGOs. Delegates appeared quite optimistic about the week ahead. Obviously some meetings had taken place since the non-approved-conclusions conclusions of the last SCCR (April 28-May 2, 2014). After a short intervention by Francis Gurry, the Chair Martin Moscoso (Peru) did not waste anytime moving the agenda forward (while still making witty reference to the World Cup):
[…]
At my request, consultations were organised by the WIPO Secretariat and chaired by the committee vice chair, Mrs. Alexandria Gasoly who were joined by representatives of three members of the groups on June 23rd, 2014. I myself held a meeting with the regional coordinators on June 27th, 2014. The purpose of the consultations was to address in particular the proposal I made in my conclusions at the end of SCCR 27 for the scheduling of work at these SCCR 28 and the basis of the work for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.
The regional coordinators agreed that the members will continue to work on all subjects on the draft agenda of the 28th agenda of the SCCR. Discussions will be based on all working documents when constituted the basis of discussions undertaken by the committee at its 27th session, subject to any further proposals submitted by the members.
On the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, regional coordinators and group representatives, I will acknowledge the existing mandate of the committee approved by the General Assembly in 2012.
They further expressed their commitment to advance the committee’s work in this area, while stressing that a continuation of work does not prejudge in any way the nature of the instrument or instruments to be discussed, whether treaty, and/other forms.
For the scheduling of work at SCCR 18, regional coordinators and group representatives accepted the proposal I made at SCCR 27, namely at SCCR 28, first half of the session will be devoted to the agenda item on the protection of broadcasting organisations. And the second half of the session will be devoted to agenda items on limitations and exceptions. It is understood that the SCCR 28th session will start and finish with the standard procedural agenda items.
Now, before turning to some preliminary procedural matters, and before brief opening statements and starting out our first subsequent agenda item, let me use the example that the Director General made during his speech, the World Cup. Here I think that we can say the good spirit of the World Cup, there’s a fair competition. There is some good faith basis, common rules to be respected and all the delegations sharing a goal, probably a sense to succeed.
Of course, we are not here to bite each other.
(Laughter).
So in that case, we will take the good examples of all the delegations that are present here trying to show the world that the good spirit of the sport might be an example for a good spirit in other areas and I’m sure we can take that example. So thanks very much for that.
We quickly may turn to the next following item on the agenda.
[…]
A question from Iran and then Kenya regarding the status of the Chair’s Conclusion that were not approved by the delegates at the close of the last SCCR (5/2/14) was answered by the Secretariat:
SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Chair. With respect to the first question about the status of the conclusions at the end of the meeting, at the end of the last meeting, the Chair announced that he was adopting the conclusions modified to reflect items on which there was not agreement as the Chair’s conclusions. So the output of that meeting is the chair’s conclusions. Those have been loaded on the website and that is the record of the completion of the work from that meeting.
We have precedent in this committee that when the committee does not adopt the conclusions and the Chair does nevertheless one finalizes the meeting and can adopt the report which accurately reflects, in fact, that the conclusions are the Chair’s conclusions.
With respect to the second topic, which was the availability of the report, it is true that the report was not available as early as we would have liked, as there was a rather short period between meetings, however, it was loaded on our website prior to the meeting at the beginning of last week, and copies are available for delegates. So I’m concerned if there’s a statement that the report is, in fact, not available. It should be and it should also be available outside the room for review by delegations.
And it is, of course, up to this committee, if it is comfortable proceeding to adopt the report. If members wish additional time, then the Chair could, of course, if requested by Member States bring the item up later in the week, but the report is, actually, available at this time.
[…]
Then the Secretariat announced the many (many) side events that are schedule for the week:
SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Chair. Today, there will be a list of side events outside the room today. I will briefly summarize, today there will be two events, one at lunchtime sponsored by IFLA or keeping copy right relevant in the digital environment, libraries, archives and licenses.
It will be in the large ground floor conference room in the new building. That is room 0.107 in the you new building.
Then tonight, there will be an event here starting in room A, and then going outside to the lobby. This will be an event entitled “From Policy to Practice Implementing the Marrakesh VIP Treaty and Making Accessible Books Available, Celebrating the Anniversary of Marrakesh and the Launch of the Accessible Books Consortium.”
There Will Be a Brief Presentation here in the room after which this will be a reception. Later in the week we will have side events at lunchtime on Tuesday from IPA, on Wednesday from G3ICT, on third party captioning, on Thursday from the international authors forum, and on Friday a launch of the second edition of how to make a living for music.
On Wednesday evening, there will be an event on the advantages of resell rights. More details will be announced and also available circulated in the room.
Mr. Chair, at this time, the only other announcement we
[…]
The Chair then made his statement regarding NGOs taking the floor:
[…]
CHAIR: Thank you very much, are Michele, for those announcements.
As an introductory general statement, in order to utilize our time most effectively, the floor will be open at this time, only to group coordinators for introductory statements. And then if you agree with these, the committee will move immediately to discuss the substantive items.
I will also try to provide time for NGO statements at some point in the meeting. You know and you will agree with me that we have given time during the last two SCCRs and it has been very helpful what you have said, those contributions are on the record and since things have not moved much on the substantial issues, we consider that we can still take in account those contributions, however, of course, if there is a new development or a change in the position o someNGO so that will require time to be shared with us.
Nevertheless, the introductory statements that you have prepared might be sent in writing to the Secretariat. So thank you very much for your understanding.
[…]
The Regional Group Statements were not really surprising:
URUGUAY On behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean group: […]Mr. Chairman, our regional group thinks it’s necessary to make progress on the three — on the three basic texts of each and every one of the areas of work. We know that for this to occur is necessary that they be a well-balanced work plan which envisages the different issues, the topics of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for educational, research institutions, as we have already expressed for our group, the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions is of the utmost importance, particularly to which CEBS contribute to generation of knowledge which today have become the driving force the economic and social development of the countries.
GRULAC feels that the documents SCCR/26/3 and SCCR/26/4 prov are a sound basis in accordance with the mandate of the General Assembly in favor of the legal instruments regarding limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions respectively which take into account the interest of all the parties concerned.
Additionally GRULAC would like to support the proposal submitted during the last session regarding the holding of regional workshops as a discussion of the challenges facing libraries and archives in the international feel and its relationship and limitations and exceptions in copyright. These regional workshops will allow us to further delve into discussion among the members and bring the interested parties closer to together.
Mr. Chairman, regarding item 5 of the agenda, GRULAC would like to express the sentiiment and the readiness of all of its members to continue the discussions regarding a treaty and the protection of broadcasting organisations, following the mandate which came from the General Assembly of 2007. In this regard, we agreed to principles and basic concepts.
[…]
The Asia and Pacific group.supported by the Africa Group came up with a “new” idea (to move things forward) i.e. to create “friends of the Chair” or facilitators:
BANGLADESH: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I’m here on behalf of Asia and Pacific group. […] we are discussing mainly three important issues, first protection of broadcasting organisations, second limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and exceptions and educations and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. Our group considers all three issues to be of the same important though they may enjoy different levels of discussion in the committee.
First, for the broadcasting, our group is willing to work constructively to finalize the discussion on the protection of the broadcasting organisations. For the other two issues, in fact, for most of the countries of our group, the exceptions and limitations are of extreme importance as far as the question of national development is concerned.
Based on this Beijing and Marrakesh. treaty. On the protection of broadcasting organisations the members of our group reaffirms their commitment to the single based approach for the protection of broadcasting organisations as part of the 2007 generallism mandate which was agreed in the 27th session of the SCCR. We thank all the regional groups and Distinguished Delegates for their proposals. We hope all the proposals of our group members like India will receive proper attention from the committee.
Developments of technology is occurring very fast and based on the working documents, different proposals and our discussions during the SCCR 27, we are hopeful to continue meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organisations, and to advance further to a balanced international instruments of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organisations.
Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned the exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities are extremely crucial for the members of our groups. The limitations and exceptions are integral part of more balanced of copy right system for the benefit of rights holders and society. Due to the lack of resources to meet individual needs and the digital divide, libraries and archives and educational and research institutions are the only means to institute education for the members of our group.
So when we discussion our IP rights for libraries and educational and research institutions, this should be a key consideration. The advancement of science and digital technology have quite transformed the mode and means of information but not all the countries are benefiting from this development in the same way. Our group is the home to the largest number of disabled persons in the world and they are our common responsibility.
So our group expects to find effective and expeditious solutions to all the topics and outstanding issues regarding the exceptions and limitations ter earliest in the SCCR. To achieve, this Mr. Chairman, the committee may consider appointing friends of the chair (facilitators) to develop working texts for exceptions and limitations from the documents at hand, like other committees of WIPO. And to ensure access to educational and information deals and to guarantee sustainable access for those in real need there’s a comprehensive on exceptions and limitations on library and archives, research institutions and for persons with other disables.
We believe that new international instrument would be the viable option to ensuring these relevant objectives.
Mr. Chairman, any future international legal instrument should cater to the principles of human rights, development, freedom and human security especially when we are developing the post-2015 agenda for all. We consider that if all of us are serious and flexible, the current text editions and discussions will provide amples to have balanced instruments for the right holders and the consumers. The members of the Asia and Pacific will be engaged in all
So our group expects to find effective and expeditious solutions to all the topics and outstanding issues regarding the exceptions and limitations ter earliest in the SCCR. To achieve, this Mr. Chairman, the committee may consider appointing first our friend of chair to develop working texts for exceptions and limitations from the documents at hand, like other committees of WIPO. And to ensure access to educational and information deals and to guarantee sustainable access for those in real need there’s a comprehensive on exceptions and limitations on library and archives, research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.
[…]
CHINA: […]The Chinese delegation endorses the agenda for the session and hopes under your wide leadership, this meeting will achieve substantive results in 2012 and 2013, the collective push of WIPO and its Member States, WIPO concluded with success the Beijing Treaty and the Marrakesh treaty which are milestone events.
We believe that these significant efforts and results will show us the way to reaching consensus as soon as possible on pending issues in the copyright field. I take this opportunity to inform all the delegations present here that the national peoples Congress has ratified the Beijing Treaty. Next week, the ratification instrument will be deposited to WIPO. We hope that delegations will work in the same cooperative spirit as demonstrated during the negotiations of the two above mentioned treaties, and be as flexible and pragmatic as possible during this session so that substantive progress will be made in our discussion on all agenda items.
With regard to the items on our agenda, the Chinese delegation will continue to actively participate in our discussions as we have always done in the past, and we will be open and flexible to any constructive proposals. We also hope that delegations will, under the leadership of Chair, seriously address the slow progress of our discussion on some specific issues. So that some issues can be resolved at this session.
[…]
CZECH REPUBLIC for CEBS:
[…]
Let me reiterate the long standing priority of the CEBS group in this committee. We are striving for successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organisations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the diplomat conf as soon as possible in 2015.
[…]
Japan for Group B is supporting work on the treaty to protect broadcasting organization and a “diplomatic conference at the earliest time possible”. Group B also loook forward to discussions on new topics for next sccr discussions.
For Kenya new topics to be discussed only when others are concluded.
The European Union stressed that they support a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible because the treaty for the protection of braodcasting organizatiosn is “the highest priority”. However regarding libraries, archives, educational, teaching and research institutions, and for persons with other disabilities:
“we hope that the discussions taking place this week will be constructive and advanced based on a shared understanding of the objectives and the approach to be followed.
The European Union and its Member States believe that the current international copyright framework already provides for sufficient legal space for Member States of WIPO to devise, adopt and implement meaningful limitations and exceptions in an analog and digital context while respecting the necessary balance to ensure that copyright continues to be an incentive and a reward to creativity.
We consider that there’s no need for further rulemaking at international level in this regard and we reiterate that the exchange of ideas and best practices is for us, the appropriate way forward on this matter.
We understand at the same time that there are different views in the committee as to the desired outcome and the practical work to be carried out. In the acknowledgment of that, we think the committee should have an achieved understanding as to what could constitute a positive common ground in which an agenda can be pursued.”
[…]
CHAIR: […]Let me just make a clarification. It is about an item on the agenda. And I hope that after what I have said, it will be sufficiently clear. Based on the discussions at the last SCCR, there is an item 8 on agenda for contribution of the SCCR on the implementation of the respective Development Agenda recommendations. At the last meeting, this item was requested — it was requested by one delegation, and the other group clarified that this is not a standing agenda item. We understand its inclusion was postponed because it was suggested in the last SCCR to be included, and it was considered that at that point, there was no time to include it and that the next SCCR it should be included. That’s what we have done.
We understand that there are some versions of the agenda that are circulating without this item. The Secretariat will make sure that all versions online are consistent, and if necessary, that correct paper versions will be distributed. Therefore, from this part of the table, we consider it included agenda number 8 and just to confirm that I — hopefully it won’t be necessary to open the floor for that.
However, for transparency season, if there’s a opposition for this. I see none. So for clarification, we confirm its inclusion.
Japan has the floor
[…]
>> CHAIR: Clarification to the Distinguished Delegate from Uruguay. So, of course, it’s possible to have these views regarding our future work. And thank you for reaffirming that there was consensus on the initial remarks that will guide our work during this week.
Thank you very much again.
Well, turning to the issue of the protection of broadcasting organizations, as it was a good practice that was useful in the previous SCCR, I plan to circulate conclusions on each item as we consider it, in order to ease consultations among the different regional groups and other groups.
The 27th session of the SCCR pursued discussions on the broadcasting organizations on the basis of the working document on the treaty of broadcasting organizations. This document is SCCR/27/2, which will, again, constitute the basis for further text-based discussions to be undertaken, including the annex which was added in conclusion of the 26th session which contains the proposals from India, Japan and Brazil and proposals for discussion from the US.
In addition, a proposal was presented at the 27th session, which was taken into consideration in the discussions. It is containing document SCCR/27/6 presented by certain countries of the caseg group. It was made on the basis of several non-papers submitted by the chair, as well as the informal document prepared by the delegation of Japan on the main issues of the broadcasting treaty.
Regarding this, I look forward to positive contributions and the active engagement of all delegations to advance developing of text and formulate treatable recommendation to the upcoming General Assembly in a way that will lead us to the decision that is expected from this SCCR.
[…]
JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, Group B would like to reiterate great importance which we attach to the effective protection for broadcasting organization in today’s environment. At the last session in April, all Member States actively participated in the discussion, including informal discussion using technical working non-papers which addressed issues relating to the categories of platforms and activities to be included under the object and scope of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense.
It helps to clarify certain issues and Member States’ positions in a more organized way, in particular relating to the scope of application prescribed by Article 6. Such clarification contributes to find the compromise, bridging the gap and the pathway for our future consensus in.
This context, the clarification exercise which we have done in the past sessions indicates, among other things, that the proposal by Japan relating to paragraph 6 and your suggestion of a seasonle line approach are options for possible compromises, we are considering at this session. In the most fundamental two areas namely scope of application and the issue of rights to be granted.
On top of that, our group would like to recall that the fact that broadcasting organizations in the digital era is a complicated and complex subject which requires technical and legal understanding so as to enable the establishment of a appropriate international framework.
In this regard we continue to appreciate the intellection of broadcasting organizations which could facilitate the negotiation on this issue. Finally Group B believes that our continuous efforts and flexibility can lead us to a common ground on which Member States can all agree with a view to continue the work to being able to convene a diplomatic conference at the areas possible.
Mr. Chair, Group B stands as committed as every to work towards a consensus that will enable broadcasting organizations to be given effective protection at the international level. I thank you,
[…]
CZECH REPUBLIC: The Czech Republic on behalf of the CEBS group would like to have a speedy introduction of effective and broad protection of broadcasting organizations. Such protection should correspond to technology developments of the 21st century and to the actual today’s and possibly tomorrow’s business models and other activities of broadcasters and cablecasters. We cannot ignore alternative ways of transmission when contemplating on the treaty of broadcasting organizations. The outcomes of our work should be applicable not only now, but also in the days to come, and the upswing of online transmissions that must be reflected in our deliberations.
What we must avoid is a treaty that’s already outdated upon its entry into force. We understand the scope of rights to be one of the most outstanding elements of negotiations. This, however, cannot mean that we can avoid cooperation on this effort. It needs to be tackled at this stage of negotiations. We believe the best working thought is to work on one single document.
[…]
EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chairman. The European Union and its Member States would like to thank you and the WIPO Secretariat for the work related to the possible treaty on the work of broadcasting organizations and in particular for having prepared the 27th session of the standing committee during which we conducted further descushions on the main element of the treaty such as the discover of applications and the rights. The WIPO treaty on broadcasting organizations remains a high priority for the European Union and its Member States. We are keen to see an improvement in the international broadcasting organizations but is meaningful in especially in the use of modern technology by broadcasting organizations.
It’s important that the protection is adopted to the specific problems broadcasting organizations face, and that at the same time, respects the rights of right holders in works and other protected subject matter carried by broadcast signals. The European Union and its Member States stand as committed as every to work towards this goal. We believe that in order to achieve a treaty, giving broadcasting organizations adequate and effective protection, a broad consensus needs to be built as to the problems that need addressing, and as to the extent of protection to be granted. During the last standing committee, we have agreed to continue our discussions on the main elements of the treaty. We are ready to further engage in these discussions in order to better understanding various positions, to map differences and points of convergence with the view of working out possible compromise options.
We would have also been ready to engage in technical discussions on various modes of transmissions with experts from broadcasting organizations as proposed by some delegations during the last standing committee.
The European and its Member States are looking forward to discussions on the working document, at the same time of reserve the rights and making Texual comments on this document.
[…]
CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our delegation thanks WIPO Secretariat for the effort on promoting the agenda on broadcasting organizations and is willing to work with the Secretariat on this issue. We are pleased to see that in the 27th session all delegations regarding the scope of application, all delegations demonstrated flexibility to response to the development trend in Internet. We also support the delegations’ views on beneficiaries and the rights enjoyed by broadcasters, and we would like to have further discussion of these issues.
On this basis, we would like to seek a solution accepted by all sides, to accelerate the progress of negotiations on the instruments and promote the fruitful progress on this issue.
[…]
> CHAIR: […]I was saying that in order to facilitate, to try to obtain some progress, it was useful when we face some difficulties in understanding the scope of the different proposals we had, to go back to set the principles and I would like to recall that that was very useful in the previous experience of Marrakesh Treaty, when we had consensus on the principle, some of the different proposals maybe fall apart immediately and some of them might be considered an easily joined hopefully.
So in consequence, I invite you to enter into this technical discussion in Room B, trying to set what are the principles regarding the scope of protection, the scope of rights, that we are going to handle with and trying to obtain a consensus on those matters.
There was a request on the previous SCCR to obtain technical assistance in order to understand the different technical or technological platforms that we were dealing with, and in that sense, we have considered another previous practice that was used in previous SCCR before I had the chance to — to be in this role, and so I have considered to ask for technical assistance during these informals in order not to wait for making outdoor consultations of technical nature.
These specific contributions from technical assistance would request probably from the side of broadcasters to bring us three persons to be there in order to just give us technical assistance when it is required.
I think that might be useful to have what was used before in other experiences, and that case, we can use the practice again.
Secondly, in order for faster transparency, the Secretariat has informed me that the work that we will do in Room B will be heard in this area — no?
It’s possible to be heard in this area. So for transparency reasons, not only other delegates, but NGOs may follow the discussion and probably contribute through the the different representatives that will be there.
In that sense, since the work to be done is going to be hard, I suggest coordinators, plus six people format. So that will give the chance for bigger participation on that matter in a different format.[…]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: […] the United States was very pleased by the progress that we made at the last session of the SCCR, and we are looking forward to continuing to move forward this week in clarifying and improving the proposals before us.
We support fully the statement of Group B, and we also wanted to add that we continue to believe that the best way forward to finding consensus on the broadcasters issue is to focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.
Toward that end, we have proposed, as everyone knows, pursuing an approach that involves a single right to authorize the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium. In our view this approach could permit cutting through the long standing divergence in proposals here, and finally achieving an international agreement.
So just to say that the key advantages to this approach include, first of all, that it’s modern, that it recognizes the importance of the new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy, and it avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions here. It avoids, first of all, a new layer of protection for the content that is broadcast. It is clear that the right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast. It would also avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast and it would avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying.
So we have been quite gratified by interest shown in this potential approach by many other delegations. As to next steps this week, we found that the charts prepared and presented by the Secretariat at the last session were extremely helpful, and first of all, on the subject matter of protection, which is Article 6 in the drafts, we believe that meaningful progress here will require a shared understanding of what exactly we are seeking to protect. Now, as we heard from the BBC in its presentation at the last session, nature of the activities of traditional broadcasting organizations is evolving, and they are increasingly using new technologies in delivering their services.
We believe that the sinaquanon for being able to undertake negotiations, it’s our belief in knowing the different sizes and broadcasters not just the B.BC and that will allow us to see what options are, to include in the subject matter of protection.
For example, one question is, are all broadcasters engaging in simulcasting, and another question, are all broadcasters or only a small group of them engaging in web originated transmissions? Having answers to those questions would make it possible to clarify our respective positions for negotiation.
It may well be that we’ll find out that most delegations would consider protecting simulcasting but would rule out pure webcasting and the US in particular, has not renewed our 2006 proposal to protect pure webcasting.
The discussions at the last session took us a considerable way towards these answers, but some more work remains to be done to achieve the necessary understanding. So what we would propose is that we conclude this clarification exercise but do so without unnecessary delay in our discussions, mindful of the desire by my delegations not to use up too much of our limited time. We would suggest devoting half a day at the next session to finishing this clarification exercise, and we would propose doing so in two ways, one is we have taken a look at the 2002 technical background paper prepared by the Secretariat in which part three talks about broadcasting organizations and new technologies.
If the Secretariat could update this document informally through a survey of how different sizes and types of broadcasters are using new technologies,that would be very helpful, and it would be useful to have what could be just an oral informal report by the next session of the standing committee, because a lot has changed in the last 12 years since that report was prepared.
We also think it would be useful to have technical presentations from experts about what broadcasters of other types and sizes than the BBC and from other regions are doing with an opportunity for interaction and discussion.
And, again, we think that both of these things could be done within half a day at the next session.
We do think that this investment of half a day’s time would prove to actually let our discussions move more quickly toward preparation for negotiations.
So that’s Article 6. And then on Article 9 which is the rights to be covered again we think the chart from the last session was very helpful in providing a comparison of different approaches and proposals. We think that further analysis using that framework can serve to move us closer together and to further know the scope of the rights to be negotiated. We remain convinced that a narrower scope of rights will make it more possible for the standing committee to be able to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. So just to conclude, we are optimistic that continuing the discussion this week will move us in a positive direction toward developing a text for association.
[…]
The technical experts?
[…]
KENYA: Thank you, chair and mine was just a clarification to getting the suggested work — manner of working and in regards to — especially in regards to the issue of the technical assistance or the technical experts who would westbound involved in terms of help — would be involved in terms of helping the experts in terms of trying to escalate the issues and the discussions in the broadcasting, I don’t know whether we can have an idea, the experts maybe you have in mind, just to give us a — an understanding of what the composition would be […]
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that request for clarification. I would like to say that I have asked broadcasters from different parts of the world to help us in bringing us this technical assistance if requested. So three of them would come to join us to informal group, informal work of the informal group in Room B, and, of course, since I made this request having different broadcasters from different parts of the world
[…]
RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a few comments, sir, and some support as well in favor of what has just been said. We support the efforts of the Secretariat and of the committee itself, so as to come up with a single document. We think it’s a very important step forward. This document must allow us to establish a mechanism, an appropriate mechanism, that is, for the protection of the signal used by the broadcasting organizations. Since or because of the mandate from the General Assembly concerning the rights of broadcasting organizations, the rights could include that of traditional bodies but also taking into account the appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, the unauthorized use of the signal, the unauthorized use of the signal.
According to me, the proposal which was made by our Chair, resorting to experts, we welcome it, most favorably. It would be interesting that the expert tell us in what direction we should head and I would like to point out that by drawing up this document, we should also take account of the different decisions which have been made previously concerning the protection of the rights of the broadcasting organizations within the framework of our committee. We must, of course, protect their rights, taking into account the existing treaties, particularly the protection of rights of broadcasting organizations, also taking into account legislations, national legislations which exist in this field.
We hope greatly that the delegations will be able to show understanding at the time when we will make decisions for the holding of a diplomatic conference, and in this regard, in the preparation of the document in question, we are ready to contribute in this respect and along these lines.
[…]
INDIA: […]
Mr. Chairman, on this issue of broadcasting organizations protection, we would like to thank the members of group who have provided alternative text on this issue and we would also like to express our thanks to the delegation of Japan and you for providing the non-paper to have a better understanding of the methods of different categories of protection of the transmission over the internet.
India has provided textual proposals during the 26th session and also during the 27th session of the SCCR. We had opportunity to clarify some of the points as requested by different Member States.
Mr. Chairman, we recall also the presentation made by the BBC at the 27th session, which was to enable delegates to learn more about the types of advanced technology being constitutioned by broadcasters however, it was useful, but there were several legal and technical issues which remain unanswered and therefore, Mr. Chairman, as the delegation of India had requested during the last session of SCCR for further clarification on the definitions of the various platforms of transmission over Internet to be disseminated to the members for taking an informed decision and in this context, we also thank the delegation of the United States which just requested for a half day session during the next session for making a presentation by the Secretariat as well as some broadcasting organizations as a combined effort in order to have better understanding by the Member States. So we support that proposal.
And, of course, Mr. Chairman, we have expressed during the last session our concerns regarding the new place forms, the webcasting, the simulcasting and retransmission over the computer networks, and we could be flexible in supporting the issues of unauthorized transmissions over computer networks providing the broadcasting organization has rights over the content broadcasted by it. So Mr. Chairman, we would like to express our continued engagement in a constructive manner during this week’s discussion.[…]
CHAIR: […]
Before giving the floor to the Distinguished Delegate of Egypt, just let me tell you that the three names of the experts that the broadcasters have provided us are a Mrs. Premila Manvi from the Asian Broadcasters, Mr. Alexandre Jobim (IAB) from the international association of broadcasting, coming from Brazil and Erika Redler for North America BA.
JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am speaking in my national capacity. At the outset, since this is the first time to take the floor as the government of Japan this delegation would like to express its appreciation for your hard work toward the success of this session of the SCCR.
We would also like to thank the Secretariat for their continued dedication.
This delegation fully associated itself with the statement made by Group B, since we do recognize the importance of the protection of broadcasting organizations, we have been actively and constructively engaged in the discussion toward the early adoption of broadcasters treaty over the years.
In this context, due consideration should be given to the progress this committee has made so far. Upon the recognition that it is essential to foster a common understanding of fundamental concepts among member states we have been focusing on the key issues such as beneficiaries, a scope of protection in the two years. As to the beneficiaries, we fully convinced that no Member States have objection against treating broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense as the beneficiaries in this treaty.
And with respect to the scope of application, the intensive discussion among the Member States helped us to understand our mutual understanding on this issue, especially on the point of which type of transmission over computer network should be included in the scope of this new treaty.
Given such a situation, we are of the view that at this session, we should spend more time open the discussion of the scope of protection and — than other issues so as to make significant progress to convene diplomatic conference as soon as possible.
As for the presentation of technical experts, we are of the view that the technical explanation of modern technology by broadcasting organization, will definitely help us move forward, however, we should bear in mind that fact that sometimes each broadcaster used the same word in different meaning. And therefore, a mere presentation may bring us some confusion about what we are talking about. In this sense, we think updating the 2002 technical papers by Secretariat will be helpful.
Based on such updated document, we can effectively discuss the issue on what kind of platform or what kind of act is to be protected in this new treaty. Many chair, this delegation is willing to delegate in this negotiation in a constructive matter.
Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to inform you that on June 10th this year, just three weeks ago, the government of Japan finished all necessary procedures for accession to Beijing Treaty on all visual performances and became the first accession state of Beijing Treaty.
[…]
VENEZUELA: Mr. Chairman, I just have a doubt here. I think I got a bit lost in these discussions perhaps because you are speaking English and that’s not my mother tongue. I just got lost at what time did we decide that new experts were coming? Who are these experts? What is the expertise of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue? What are the selection criteria were used for these experts? What are we claiming to do with these experts? What are we seeking from these experts?
The truth is, I’m just a bit taken aback by your proposal. I’m surprised at the way in which all this has been accepted, despite the fact that you are a member of our group and whom we have supported, but I think we are — we are always talking about transparency and I don’t think it’s been all this transparent to bring at the last minute, to bring up a topic where we are all surprised like an expert proposal which I wasn’t familiar with and I’m just hearing it for first time on a topic where we are all know that my country has serious reservations in this regard.
So I would like to receive some clarifications on this matter. I would like to know who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.
CHAIR:[…] Thank you for that question and I can answer it directly. Yes, it is previous session of the committee, there was a request to ask for technical support, to allay the technical doubts, about the technological platforms being used for broadcasting, and also the connections with business. That request was part — was part of the paragraphs that were submitted for the committee’s adoption as conclusions and unfortunately as you know, we are unsuccessful in formally adopting any conclusions on any of the items we dealt with at the previous session.
Consequently, it became necessary to have the chair’s conclusions, conclusions of the Chair. And the document was headed thus, “Conclusions of the Chair.” And since the Secretariat was not able to carry out further coordinations because there was no agreement in the committee about setting aside a day or half a day for technical assistance which is what happened with the experience of the BBC, we had to undertake this work, both in the plenary, and in an informal group, all alone.
So Distinguished Delegate of Venezuela, we can do without the technical assistance if it’s considered to be negative for committee’s work because believe me, there is no interest in incorporating technical support by force, if it’s considered unnecessary or if due to reasons of transparency it might be considered something bad for the committee. It’s just a proposal from the chair to try and reduce the time for technical consultations that may emerge during the discussions.
In other words, make use of the broadcasters. So having said that, I am open to any more suggestions from you, Venezuela.
Thank you.
Venezuela has the floor.
>> VENEZUELA: Well, I understood you much better in the language that we both love, Spanish.
I don’t want to sabotage your work. That’s far from any intention of mine. But I think when you made your proposal, you could have left time until the next session for us to put forward candidates and forgive me but I think you are being ingenuous.
The best telecommunication company in — is in Venezuela, but it’s not — we’re not talking a Venezuelan company representing the interests of Venezuela and being in accordance with what the population wants. Here we have transnational companies. I think your proposal, like all of your proposals is welcome but I was taken aback by the fact that we represented with these names and we don’t know who they are. I think there should be a space for — between now and the next session, names could be put forward and we could then listen to their technical advice and pay attention to it.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate of Venezuela and my friend and we take note of what you have said and we’ll apply it to the next session, although that doesn’t rule out the fact that we can make use of the expertise offered at this session and Secretariat will give us some information about the background of the people who are going to take part in this exercise. […]