The morning session of SCCR 29 (Dec 8-12, 2014) ended with a coffee break which will be followed by informals (that we are not allowed to report on at this point). After the usual decisions this morning i.e, Adoption of the agenda of the twenty ninth session then Accreditation of new non governmental organizations (and yes, the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) is in!) we had the Adoption of the Report of the Twenty-Eighth Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. All this went smoothly probably because the group coordinators had already met and agreed on agenda and report with apparently a spirit of cooperation
The Group coordinators on behalf of the various SCCR groups made general statements on the work ahead regarding the Protection of broadcasting organizations, Limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as Limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. The formal sessions are webcasted and available here:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=32094
So far there was no surprise and while the broadcasting treaty is crawling toward a diplomatic conference (decision in 2015?) it seems the work on limitations and exceptions is not (yet) on the front row but still on the table for 2 days of discussion. The update of the study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives by Professor Crews is expected to kick off a good discussion on the topic on Wednesday afternoon. Until then it will be about broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting. And again.
Here are some of the informative statements from the country delegations.
One of the most interesting (and clever) was the one delivered by Chile:
CHILE: Thank you very much Chairman. First of all, we would like to say how pleased we are to see you presiding over this Committee once again and we express our thanks to the work carried out to prepare this meeting. We express our warm welcome to Ms. Ann Leer and we wish her every success in her work. We would like to thank her for her opening statement. We would like to echo the words of GRULAC on the opening statement made on our behalf. Our country is willing and available to work in order to come to agreement on this issue. We would like to have a focus on the mandate that was given to us in 2007. This is why we believe it is vital that we come to a Consensus with regard to the principles and the basic concepts that still have not yet completely been completely clarified. And this is why. We believe it is necessary that we dedicate sufficient time to studying the definitions. If we cannot come to agreement on what it is that we are talking about when we talk about a broadcasting organization, broadcasting, retransmission, just to name a few, then it will be difficult for us to to come to agreement on issues such as the scope of protection, and the rights that are granted. Finally, we would like to make one clarification with regard to the draft report in English. Coming from the SCCR 27/9 session, document 27/9. In the translation it doesn’t clearly reflect what our position was. For our Delegation the concept of broadcasting could include broadcasting by cable but not necessarily. In Chile’s case, cable broadcasters are not broadcasters. Broadcasting organizations. Thank you very much for your attention and we continue to follow this with much interest.
The US seems committed to its single right or signal protection now referred as “narrow targeted Treaty”:
UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States would like to welcome back you and your Vice-Chairs and also to welcome for the first time the new Deputy Director General for culture and creative industries. We look forward to work with her on the full range of important and sensitive matters before this Committee. As the U.S. has stated before we are committed to making progress on this agenda item within the scope of the general Assembly mandate. We have proposed a narrow targeted Treaty aimed at addressing the core needs for broadcasting organizations in the digital environment without creating extra layers of protection for the content that is broadcast. In our view we have moved forward over the past two sessions of the SCCR in clarifying our common understanding of the complex issues involved in proposed Treaty. We working from the charts prepared by the Chair we have been able to take steps forward improving and narrowing the proposals on the table. We believe it would be fruitful to continue on this path through further technical work in informal discussions. There is it still more to be done to be able to achieve a draft Treaty text that can be acceptable as a basis for meaningful negotiations. Also as noted in the last session we believe that additional information through the update of the 2002 Secretariat’s technical background paper and also presentations from a diverse range of broadcasters about their use of technology would be very valuable to the Committee as it tnls its examination of the issues. So we look forward to learning more and working together to improve the text that we are considering. Thank you.Brazil also made an excellent statement making clear that “an extra layer” of rights was not acceptable:
>> BRAZIL: […] Mr. Chairman, Brazil’s positions regarding our discussions on broadcasting are well-known and I will keep it short on this occasion. I would just like to reiterate our view that a Treaty on broadcasting should not provide extra layers of protection for broadcasters. A Treaty should be signal-based only and therefore limited to simultaneous or a near simultaneous transmissions. Brazil is fully engaged in the discussions of a future Treaty on broadcasting and we hope that we can make progress in this regard during the current session of the SCCR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.India gave a detailed, technical and substantive explanation of its concerns about the possible extension of the mandate for inclusion of webcasting, the need for exception and limitations and again asked for a comprehensive study on the impact of such a treaty:
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Delegation of the India joins other Delegations in congratulating you on continuing the Chairmanship of the Standing Committee on copyright and related rights and also thank the WIPO Secretariat for the preparation of this meeting and the documentation regarding the working document on the Treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations. We reiterate our commitment to comply with the signal-based approach in the traditional sense which is consistent with the 2007 WIPO General Assembly mandate. However Mr. Chairman we have expressed our flexibility in supporting the issue of unauthorized live transmission of signal over computer Networks provided the broadcasts organization has rights over the contained broadcast by it. India’s alternative proposals submitted at the 26th session of SCCR are in complete conformity with the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly. Mr. Chairman, India reiterates its position of not to expand the mandate for inclusion of any elements of Webcasting and simulcasting […]. India apposes any attempt to amend the mandate of the General Assembly to include retransmission over computer Networks or retransmission over any other platforms because these activities are not broadcasting in the traditional sense. Provision of this Treaties needs to provide protection to the broadcasts organizations for broadcast on traditional to [enable] them to enjoy the rights ex-tented owned or acquired by them from the owners of copyright or related rights. It should include protection against retransmission. In order to implement the above the content should be owned by the broadcaster as content creator or assignee. No extra layer of rights should be awarded to broadcasters on the content they have license to broadcast only. They should not be given rights of other platform. Any such extent to be should again the author and right owner. […]But the broadcaster should not get any blanket right. With the licensing is different. In states where the broadcaster got to the at satellite rights that is transmission of signal in traditional sense and no other player has been given the life online streaming rights the broadcaster can get a right to prohibit the unauthorized retransmission of that contained on any other digital or online digital platforms. This step is considered — we understand is within the mandate of 2007 General Assembly. No India supports that no post fixation rights should be allowed under this proposed Treaty as the scope of protection covers only signal protection. However fixation can be allowed only for rebroadcasting and time shifting purposes. This treaty should provide for exceptions and limitations to the protection in case of private use, use of short excerpts in connection with the reporting of current events used for purposes of education and research and Mr. Chairman we would also like to request that WIPO should undertake a comprehensive study on the impact of various stakeholders of expanding this scope of broadcasting rights and the existing studies. As it is partial and not contemporary in fact. The current available studies are of 2008 for Asia including that of India do not reflect the contemporary scenario for any meaning way forward. In that regard Mr. Chair we would like to reiterate our request made in the previous session for having a presentation by broadcasting organizations and Secretariat for all parts of Developing Countries for half a day during the next session. It will help resolving some legal and technical issues that remain unanswered during this debate on broadcasting organizations. And we also want to understand it from the perspective of the need for the people in the developing world how it will impact them in future. And Mr. Chair, we are looking forward to participating in the meaningful technical consultations to resolve the outstanding irus in finalization of the skoem of protection of broadcasting organization Treaties.We also listened to quite a few pushing for a treaty such as the EU, the Czech Republic and Belarus to name a few. Here is the Czech Republic which on behalf the Central and Baltic States (CEBS) went as far as stating that the treaty is wanted by the “general public” and should be good for future platforms (ie even beyond the internet?)
>> CZECH REPUBLIC: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Czech Republic on behalf the CEBS group would like to reiterate its strong support for the introduction of an up to date and effective protection of broadcasting organizations. As stated by the Director-General on several occasions this segment of copyright system remains the last one not to have been updated within the international legal framework. Our group believes that it is clear to everyone not just to expert diplomats and IP professionals but to the wider public that the environment has significantly changed in the past decades and demands adequate modern protection for broadcasting organizations. The protection should correspond to technological developments of the 21st Century and to the current and also to the extent possible potential future business models and other activities of broadcasters and cablecastors. In this regard we cannot ignore alternative ways of transmission when contemplating the Treaty. […]We believe the best working method is to work on a single document with a view to produce a basic document and to convene a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible in accordance with our long standing proposal on the timeline to that end. Thank you.