Highlights of the discussion regarding transmission over computer network based on the second non paper (proposal by Japan)
I have received a request from KEI and I am ready to listen to their contributions at this point. KEI has the floor.
>> KEI: Thank you. I noticed that the Chairman’s nonpaper and on cablecasting and Japan paper have a similar theme of allowing countries to have different regimes for both cablecasting or for treatment on the — over computer Networks. And in terms of the computer Networks, I just want to point out that unlike something that’s — where the distribution to someone’s home and it is broadcast over the Internet the audience is often in lots of different countries and it does create considerable cost on the person that’s involved in transmitting information if they believe that they have to clear rights in foreign countries for something that’s put on the Internet. Because you are creating essentially — once you introduce computer Networks you create a lot of complexity in terms of the responsibility of the person is using somebody. If something is done under creative commons license you may feel that since you have the rights from the copyright owner that you are free to use the work but then you may find that there a competing claim in a country where they have done the type of right that Japan proposes and if your transmission over the network is in to that country, you are in a position that you incur liability and it creates cost on the entity to determine rights if all these different countries that might have done this. I don’t want people to think this is a simple solution. It may make more sense in the cablecasting category than it would on the computer Networks. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you
[…]
Chair
[…] In that case I would invite NGOs to give us their contributions regarding these specific points of discussion. If you have some opinions to be taken in account, please ask for the floor. I don’t see is request from the floor until this point of the and in that case I would like to turn in to the second nonpaper that we could see in the screen regarding the protection of signals transmitted over computer Networks to continue to receive comments on this proposal as way to move forward. And to close the gaps that we have regarding this kind of protection.EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. So just to say that, you know, the — this second paper is a proposal that has been circulated some time ago and we are aware of the wording that was proposed by the Delegation of Japan. We have still some difficulty to understand why transmissions over computer Networks of traditional broadcasting organizations would be excluded. Why wouldn’t they be protected, whether we — as we have said also yesterday, somehow simul casting today is the norm for traditional broadcasting organizations. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for your comment. It implies a question and it is an open question for other Delegations to express our views regarding that. Other comments are welcome. I see none. I reiterate my invitation to NGOs.
KEI has the floor.
>> KEI: I just wanted to mention, the EU asked why people may want to exclude computer Networks from the Treaty. But one thing that has not been discussed is the limitations and exceptions that would apply to any of these regimes that are proposed and it is difficult to evaluate whether people think the proposals are going to work or not work without having a better understanding simultaneously of both what the rights and the exceptions to those rights are going to look like.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that view. And it is a useful comment because it takes us to reminding us that there are other sections of the proposed Treaty still to be discussed. One we have not focused on that sections until now because it was crucial to have a discussion on the basics of the proposed instrument, meaning the object of protection, definitions and rights to be granted. However at some point it could arise a need of having an idea of which are the — those other elements that might be part of the proposed Treaty, bearing in mind that, of course, we cannot get deeper in those additional sections if we don’t have at least a Consensus on the boundaries of the Treaty that we are discussing.
But even though I have to share with you that when we started to use the technique of charts several sessions ago in order to foster the understanding of the technical topics we were dealing with in that period, we also prepared with us the Secretariat a chart containing those other remaining topics. That chart was not distributed at that point two or three sessions of the Committee ago because it was not the right moment to do that because we were focusing on the topics that we have discussed during this last three sessions of the Committee.
But listening to the intervention of KEI it gives us a clue that probably there’s — this is a moment to make a reference to the existence of other sections of the Treaty. And before getting in to the detailed proposals which are there, we could again use the chart prepared for that purpose containing the other elements of the Treaty. Since we have reached a point of silence regarding this main elements of the suggested Treaty I think that I will use the time distributing chart for containing the other topics. So you in the room have an idea of the remaining topics that are covered with the intention not to get deep on those but at least to have the idea mentioned by the representative KEI that having in mind that there are some other topics could probably have an influence on our discussion on the basics of the Treaty.
The chart is in printed version. It is going to be distributed at this point. And we will show it on the screen. But in the meanwhile we will use European Broadcasting Union is requesting for the floor.
>> European brewed casting union: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had some brief comment on the text which was just before us on the screen regarding the possible exclusion of certain online signals from the scope of protection. I think I have some concerns about reference to computer Networks because the question there is do we really know what we are talking about. Computer Networks are not defined in any WIPO Treaty as far as I know. And, for example, would that mean that IPTV would be excluded as well even though this is in certain regions, certainly considered as a normal broadcasting activity. So I think that we have to be very careful about the wording of certain exclusions if we are going that route. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that clarification. I think that it includes a question related to what we […]
>> GERMANY: Thank you, Chair. I really thank the Delegate in the EBU just to remind us of the problematic point of computer Networks. I just want to illustrate this, maybe many people here in the room know it, but they have this kind of triple play at home where they get television and Internet and telephone from the same kind of cable. So you have the Internet, you go on as I mentioned yesterday to the Livestream of traditional broadcaster and watch some kind of Internet Livestream. And then you use the same cable at the moment and you have some kind of TV signal. So but how can we say well, this is a computer network signal and the other one is in the a computer network signal. So I think it is really problem for the future when all the technical devices converge to one system and this also I think is a point which could somehow lead us to see that we need somehow a broad, a broad Treaty. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thanks for your comment. I would invite the Japanese Delegation as we are referring to their proposal which uses the term computer Networks to give us some light on the intention of the — of use of that term and if they can contribute to answer the question posted on that regard. China has the floor.
>> CHINA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regionally I would like to take the floor after the Japan’s comment. But since I have this opportunity I would like to express our opinions. I remember that yesterday when the Director General started the meeting he explained that this Treaty, proposed Treaty has been under discussion for over 20 years and during this long period the technology has advanced a great deal.
So it is a very, very common phenomenon to have a computer network transmission. So if we exclude the signals transmitted over computer network, I don’t think this exclusion ought to reflect the reality today. So now, of course, I’m willing to listen to what Japan has to say. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that
And well, we invite the Distinguished Delegation of Japan to give us some lights regarding the use of the term on the reasons of that proposal. They have elaborated that it could be considered as a rich proposal. However there are some questions related to the use of the term of transmissions over computer Networks.
They are invited to take the floor. Japan has the floor.
>> JAPAN: I’m afraid I can’t answer the questions raised in appropriate manner. We need some time to answer the question of what covers the computer Networks, maybe we need some time. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: No problem. Thank you very much. I think that is an open question that we could deal with during the — our working time in this session. And any response would be interesting to know.
Well, we have reached a point of that it is important to mention that the other issues were a part of the proposed Treaty. I want to reiterate that was not intention to cover all of the topics while we don’t have an idea of the basics. However, we have heard a reference from one NGO that probably that could help our discussion on the basic points. In that regard I remember that we had this instrument prepared and that’s the one that was shared with you. I will request the Secretariat to describe the chart entitled “other issues”.