Centre for Internet and Society

Opening Comments by India on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28

nehaa — 2014-07-21T17:55:28Z

This was the statement made by the Indian delegation at the 28th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on July 2, 2014.

Hon'ble Chair

In the quest for Knowledge society-for the developing countries- the issue of haves and have -not’s is now sliced with an additional divide of knows and Know -not’s. Libraries and Archives are the engines of creativity and promote intergeneration equity. They indeed are the modern day temples, mosques and churches- The notion of strong copyright boundaries has found its resonance to encircle spaces hitherto providing the socio economic infrastructure for developing nations. It is in this context that we need to look for appropriate international instrument to consolidate the access by way of limitations and exceptions to libraries, archives, educational institutions and other disabled people.

The overemphasis of stricter and stronger copyright as the engine of creativity is now questioned by latest studies. Ekhard Höffner a German historian has in his comprehensive research argues the fact that in the 19th century Germany outpaced UK, as the copyright laws were not strong as it was in UK. This fact goes contrary to the established view that Copyright is directly correlated to the expansion of creative works and publication. In fact Germany could do the catch up with the other powers in Europe.

I am mentioning this to emphasize for the developing world to do the catch up it is necessary to have limitations and exceptions for Libraries/archives/educational institutions. At this junction it is necessary to recognize the importance of such consensus without presuming whether what sort of International Instrument it should be.

India supports the effort of harmonizing the exceptions and limitations from an international dimension for intergenerational equity and as a tool to develope socio-economic- human resource infrastructure.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opening-statement-of-india-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-08-07T10:44:05Z

The 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“the Committee” / "SCCR") took place in Geneva from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014. In this article, Nehaa Chaudhari, who attended this meeting on behalf of CIS, discusses the developments that took place with reference to the proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”).

At its 28^th Session, the WIPO SCCR devoted two and a half days to a discussion on the Broadcast Treaty. For the majority of this period informal discussions (“Informals”) were held between member states and there was no plenary. While Non- Government Organizations ( “NGOs”) and those member states who were not participating in the Informals were able to listen to the discussions taking place, we were requested to not report about them in any form whatsoever. Consequently, this article does not mention, cite or discuss the conversations in the Informals in any manner whatsoever, and is confined to deliberations at the plenary sessions.

Preliminary

Proceedings on Day 1 (June 30, 2014) began with a speech by the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry. Commending the “exceptional progress” made by the Committee over the past few years, Mr. Gurry cited the Marrakesh and Beijing Treaties as success stories. In talking about the Broadcast Treaty, Mr. Gurry said that the then ongoing FIFA World Cup, 2014 was “the perfect example” for member states on the economic and social importance of broadcasting. He went on to add that the Broadcast Treaty was the last component of the international legal framework which had not been “updated for the digital environment”. Identifying the challenge as developing a shared understanding of what and how to protect, Mr. Gurry was of the opinion that the Committee would make progress on the development of an instrument that was narrow in scope to combat cross border digital piracy.

In his statement following that of the Director General, the Chairperson, Edgar Martin Moscoso Villacorta (“the Chair”) explained that he had held consultations with the regional coordinators and three other nations from each group on June 27, 2014 to figure out how best to proceed at the upcoming 28^th Session of the Committee; before opening the floor to Regional Coordinators for their Opening Statements.

Group Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators : Reflections of a North-South Divide

Opening statements by Regional Coordinators on behalf of their groups reflected sentiments similar to those witnessed at the 26^th and 27 ^th Sessions of this Committee[1]. While there was broad consensus on having a well-balanced work plan that addressed the different issues of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research and persons with disabilities, statements also reflected the disagreements between various groups on the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the various items on the agenda, largely along the fault-lines of the classic Global North v. the Global South. For instance, statements by the European Union (“the EU”) and Group B, the group of developed countries emphasised the convening of a diplomatic conference for the Broadcast Treaty, but on the other hand, statements by the groups of developing countries highlighted the importance of limitations and exceptions.

The Regional Coordinator (presently, Paraguay) for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (“GRULAC”) placed emphasis on a “well balanced work plan which envisages the different issues” but also stated that for their group, “the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions (is) of the utmost importance.”

The representative of Bangladesh, in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Group said that their group considered all issues to be equally important, notwithstanding the fact that they might enjoy different levels of discussion at the SCCR; and on the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations said that the group was “willing to work constructively” and hoped to continue “meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organizations and to advance further to a balanced international instrument of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organizations.”

The statement of the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) Group, presently represented by the Czech Republic categorically stated that the CEBS Group was “striving for the successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organizations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the Diplomatic Conference to take place, as soon as possible, preferably in 2015.” (sic)

Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, in their statement recognised the “tradition…to allocate more time to discussion on more mature subject matters”, referring to the Broadcast Treaty and, like the CEBS Group, also touched upon the issue of convening a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible.

The European Union (“the EU”) has perhaps been one of the most vocal proponents of the Broadcast Treaty at past sessions of the Committee, and carried forward this tradition into the 28^th session as well, labelling negotiations on the Broadcast Treaty “a high priority” for Member States. The EU also echoed the statements made by the CEBS Group as well as Group B on the need to call for a diplomatic conference “as soon as possible.” In order to achieve this, said the EU, there was a need to build a “broad consensus” on the problems that needed to be addressed as well as on the extent of protection envisaged.

Technical Assistance from Broadcasters

The United States of America placed an emphasis on a treaty that would address challenges posed by new technologies, indicated in their request to the Secretariat to inform the member states about different sizes and types of broadcasters using new technologies by conducting a survey, recognising that a lot had changed over the course of the past 12 years, when a report on this issue was last prepared; a proposal which was supported by the delegation of India as well.

Following these comments by the United States of America (but in an unrelated move), the Chair suggested technical assistance be sought from broadcasters. Surprisingly, he identified three NGOs (in this case associations of broadcasters), namely Asian Broadcasters Union, International Association of Broadcasters and National Association of Broadcasters, who could provide technical assistance if required.

This stance was supported strongly by the delegations of Egypt and the Russian Federation. While it also found support from the Japanese delegation, it also pointed out that a mere presentation might bring about some confusion, and instead thought that it might be a better idea to update the studies commissioned by WIPO in 2002.

Resistance to this proposition was offered by the delegation of Venezuela who questioned the “expertize of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue” and “the selection criteria” among others. Exclaiming in surprise at the manner on which this proposal had been accepted, the delegate sough further clarifications on the issue, demanding 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.” (sic.) The concern on the absence of transparency was also echoed by the delegate of Uruguay, who expressed his great “astonishment” at “three technical experts” at the session, saying that it was “most inappropriate” to be informed about the presence of technical experts after regional coordinators had earlier expressed their refusal to have such an exercise. In response, the Chair said that this was a decision that he had taken in response to a request for technical consultations made at the earlier session of the Committee. He went on to add that the Committee could do without the technical assistance if perceived to be unnecessary and the process not transparent.

Scope of Protection: Article 6

The Scope of Protection under the Broadcast Treaty is laid out under Article 6 of WorkingDocument 27/2/Rev. (“Working Document”). This document lays out the text which forms the basis of the negotiations at the SCCR.

Confining the Broadcast Treaty to a signal based approach versus broadening the scope of the treaty to a more technologically neutral rights based approach was the chief point of conflict between the developed and the developing nations, reflect in their statements discussed below.

Opening the proceedings, the United States of America (“the US”/ “USA”) placed complete support on the statement of Group B; but also added that the way forward “to finding consensus” was to “focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.” The US proceeded to outline its proposal of “a single right to authorise the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium.” Highlighting the key advantages to this proposal the US said that its proposal was “modern”, recognizing the importance of “new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy and avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions”. However, the US was also quick to clarify that the “right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast” and would also “avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast” as well as “avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying”.

India reiterated its serious concerns regarding webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks. Japan, on the other hand, while most other nations chose to reserve their comments for discussions in the Informals alone.

On the third day of this meeting, the Chair presented the progress that had been made over the course of the discussions taking place in the Informals. He said that webcasting had been removed from the scope of application. The concern, said the Chair, was that webcasting was also carried out by other actors- not just broadcasting organizations, and that having different rules for different actors carrying out the same activity would not be “a good message” (sic.)

Rights of Broadcasters: Article 9

The Rights of Broadcasters under the Broadcast Treaty are laid out under Article 9 of the Working Document. The US said that it “remained convinced” that a narrow scope of rights would make it possible for the SCCR to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. The Russian Federation on the other spoke of the need to take into account the “appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, and the unauthorized use of the signal.”

As in the case of the Scope of Application, in the case of Rights of Broadcasters as well, the Chair updated the plenary on the discussions in the Informals. The discussions were informed by two informal documents listing out the rights as well as the scope. While discussing the rights, said the Chair, it was decided to merge simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission since they were closely related. The rights sought to be granted to the broadcasters include those of fixation, reproduction of fixations, distribution of fixations and performance of the broadcast among others.

In response to the Chair’s invitation for suggestions, the delegate of Sri Lanka suggested that one of the sentences be rephrased as follows: “Transmission or retransmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium whether simultaneous, near simultaneous or deferred including on demand transmission on a broadcast signal.” She also added fixation rights should be granted only to that extent of a file being copied for the purpose of transmission, before it has been transmitted. A few other delegations either echoed similar sentiments, or chose to remain silent until the Informals.

Comments by NGOs

On the third (and the final for the Broadcast Treaty), day of discussions, the Chair opened the floor to interventions, observations and comments by NGOs.

AIR, representing broadcasting organizations spoke of the “great need” to update the Rome Convention because of the prevalence of piracy, especially transmissions over the internet. The National Association of Broadcasters cited instances of television piracy as examples of the harm to broadcasters and need for such a treaty. The Japanese Commercial Broadcasters Association expressed its support for post fixation rights and said that they were important to broadcasters, “especially the right of making available a fixed broadcast is crucial in order to fight online piracy which we said a number of times before…” (sic.). Also recognising the need to be flexible, the Japanese Commercial Broadcasters expressed their support to the proposal made by the Japanese delegation in making some rights optional.

A different set of concerns was articulated by other NGOs, who were not associations of broadcasters. Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue ( “TACD”) spoke of the possible “collateral damange to public access and culture” and the addition of “new layers of complications barriers and costs added” to access to information and knowledge by consumers. Further, highlighting the irony of the SCCR with the strong push towards a binding Broadcast Treaty “with a wide scope”, the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue said that this was in “stark contrast on the part of some other Member States to discussing new global norms” to facilitating the role played by libraries and archives. Additionally, TACD also said that there was the danger of “opening up an endless and incomprehensive Pandora box of overlapping rights on content between non creators of broadcasts and the real creators” (sic.), and also expressed grave concern over the negative impact of post fixation rights on the use of news, culture and information by consumers ad users. “In consideration of a new international norm for broadcasters, we must not forget the common food for the free flow of information for citizens,” said TACD. It also said that the focus of the work should not be to satisfy the interests of one special group while ignoring the possible negative unintentional consequences on “normal users”, and asked for a social impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty.

Knowledge Ecology International (“KEI”) in their statement stated that the broadcasters had failed to meet their burden of proving the need for “exclusive rights to fight piracy.” In order for the Committee to make progress, KEI suggested that the focus be on a “narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the key need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.” KEI also questioned and opposed the extension of broadcasters’ rights to cable television and other services which were not only subscription based, but were also protected under theft of service laws. Further confining the scope of the Broadcast Treaty, KEI suggested that the treaty only deal with over the air broadcasts which were free to the public.

A powerful statement by CCIA referred to fixed signals as “fiction” and said that the existing model in the Brussels Satellite Convention was adequate to protect piracy of signals. Echoing the sentiments of various other organisations as well (including CIS as discussed below), CCIA stated that while broadcasters had stated that the present approach was not adequate to protect their interests, no reasons had been offered fir the same. In agreement with other nations as well as TACD before it, CCIA also sought information from WIPO on the “real world impact of the obligations” it intended to create.

Also joining the call for impact assessment was the Third World Network (“TWN”). TWN also spoke of restricting the scope of the Broadcast Treaty to the mandate accorded to the SCCR in line with the 2007 General Assembly decision, the need to base discussing on WIPO’s Development Agenda, and the “negative implications on the free flow of information over the Internet and the negative impact on the public domain and access to knowledge.”

The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”), in agreement with CCIA pointed out that the broadcasters had not discharged their burden of justifying the need for the Broadcast Treaty and why “international instruments including, among others, the TRIPS and the Rome Convention” were insufficient to address the concerns of broadcasters. Joining other organizations including CCIA, TACD and TWN in a call for a further study, CIS requested an impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty on all stakeholders. Further, CIS pointed out that if the rationale for seeking this protection was the protection of the underlying investment, IP based transmissions should be out of the scope of this treaty, since the investments involved in IP based transmissions and those in broadcasting in a traditional sense were very different. CIS also strongly opposed the inclusion of fixation and post fixation rights since they were inconsistent with a signals based approach and pointed out the irony in protecting a signal for twenty years, when the signal itself lasted milliseconds.

IFTA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance placed emphasis on the separation of the content and well as the broadcast signal as well maintaining a balance by also safeguarding public interest.

Chair’s Conclusions

After five days of deliberations, the 28^th Session of the SCCR, just like the 27^th Session, ended with no conclusions being adopted by the Committee, as a result of which the Chair’s Conclusions were prepared by the Chair, Martin Moscoso.

Clarifying that this item would be maintained on the agenda for the 29^th Session of the SCCR and that there had been no agreement on recommendations to the WIPO General Assembly, the Chair’s Conclusions state that the Committee conducted discussions on issues relating to “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, and initiated discussions on definitions.” The Chair’s Conclusions also clarify that “the Secretariat was requested by some Members to provide an update of the 2010 study on “Current Market and Technology Trends in the Broadcasting Sector” (Document SCCR 19/12), focusing on the use of digital technology by cablecasting and broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense whether public or commercial, including in developing countries, with the aim of presenting the results of the study and providing opportunities for technical discussion at the 29th session of the SCCR.”

[1] See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1 (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ report on the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for transcripts of the discussions at the 27 ^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 27^th Session of the Committee.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

Disability groups in India welcome progress on treaty for blind persons

praskrishna — 2012-12-31T01:40:07Z

Four years of struggle for a global treaty for the benefit of blind persons is finally bearing fruit. Member states of the World Intellectual Property Organisation have agreed to conclude a treaty for visually-impaired and print disabled persons by June 2013.

Madhavi Rajadhyaksha's article published in the Times of India on December 20, 2012 quotes Nirmita Narasimhan and Rahul Cherian.

Print disabled persons are a group which includes those who are blind, visually-impaired, orthopaedically challenged or those living with hearing problems or learning disability. They have traditionally lacked access to an array of books , films and research material simply because they aren't available in formats which are accessible to them. For instance, blind persons have been denied access to books and films which aren't available in Braille.

The international treaty that is underway would ensure free exchange of work suitable to print impaired persons across borders. In other words, a book in Braille available in the United Kingdom could be freely imported by India for the benefit of visually-impaired persons here.

The treaty is particularly a huge boon for developing countries like India, many of which cannot afford the huge costs of translating works into print-friendly formats or importing them from more developed nations. There are roughly 285 million blind and partially sighted people in the world with the largest pool in India.

The desperate need for such a treaty is evident from the fact that only seven per cent of published books are made accessible to persons with disabilities. This estimate of the World Blind Union is largely for richer countries, with less than one per cent of work available to those in poorer countries.

Organizations like the Indian Right to Read Alliance which has been pushing for the treaty welcomed the June deadline. "This is an incredible development, and after a four year struggle we are looking forward to the treaty being concluded next year. This Treaty will revolutionize access to reading materials for persons with print disabilities around the world and we in India will hugely benefit from being able to import books in accessible formats from countries with large libraries such as the United Kingdom and the United States," said Rahul Cherian Jacob of the Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy, who is the legal advisor to the World Blind Union.

Sam Taraporevala, Director of the Xavier's Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged was elated by this development. "There is a library in the United States which has 10 million books in accessible digital formats which will be accessible to us once this treaty is passed. This is huge boost to our blind and visually impaired students who want to get into the field of research."

The treaty could transform the lives of million of people around the world, believes Nirmita Narasimhan, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore based NGO which has played a crucial role in WIPO negotiations. She pointed out that breaking the barriers would make the Internet and accessible information and communications technologies more meaningful by expanding their potential for use.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-city-mumbai-madhavi-rajadhyaksha-december-20-2012-disability-groups-in-india-welcome-progress-on-treaty-for-blind-persons

International treaty to make books accessible to the blind

praskrishna — 2012-12-21T11:36:11Z

It would make it legal to send accessible books across borders.

The article by Ramya Kannan was published in the Hindu on December 20, 2012. Rahul Cherian is quoted.

In a move that is likely to take more books closer to some 285 million people in the world, the Extraordinary General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has referred the Treaty for Visually Impaired Persons to a diplomatic conference in June of 2013.

The treaty would allow specialist organisations to make accessible copies of books in all signatory countries; make it legal to send accessible books across national borders and make more books available for the blind.

There are an estimated 285 million blind and partially-sighted people in the world, of which the largest percentage lives in India. Like everyone else, blind people need books for education, pleasure and inclusion in society, but unlike others, these books are not accessible to them.

Books have to be converted into ‘accessible formats’ — audio, Braille, or large print — for the visually impaired. However, the fact is that about only 1 to 7 per cent of all books published are available in these formats.

“In many countries, the copyright laws prevent making accessible copies of the books, or importing them from nations where it is available,” said Rahul Cherian Jacob, who heads the Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy. He helped in drafting the Treaty and is the legal adviser to the World Blind Union on the Treaty.

Some developed nations have huge budgets that would allow them to make books in accessible formats. For instance, the U.S. had about $400 million a year to spend on making such books, while countries like India have very little funds available for the purpose, he said. Even if these books were available in the U.S., they were not accessible in India, because of import restrictions.

Sam Taraporevala, Director of the Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged and vice president and chairman policy formulation, Daisy Forum of India, said this could not have come at a better time for India. It was in last June that the amendment to the Copyright Act was passed, making a special exception to make accessible books.

G.R. Raghavender, Registrar, Copyrights, told The Hindu, “While the WIPO treaty looks at the blind and print-disabled, in June, Parliament introduced wider exceptions for physically disabled. Authorised entities will be allowed to produce accessible versions of books on a not-for-profit-basis without seeking for special permissions.”

However, even with this, owing to import restrictions, books already available in accessible formats in other countries could not be brought into India. They would have to be reprinted, Mr. Jacob noted.

"This is the real benefit of the treaty if it kicks in," Dr. Taraporevala said. Books could be sent across nations without restrictions, and this would mean a significant increase in the number of books available.

"However, what we do need to move towards a scenario where publishers will attempt to move towards equal opportunity publishing. The ideal scenario will be to make available every book that is published in accessible formats. Hopefully if all goes well, there will be something on the ground by the end of next year," he said.

The Cabinet should give the nod for India signing and ratifying the international treaty for it to come into force. However, given the overwhelming positive reception to the recent amendment to the Copyright Act, getting approval would not be an issue, rights activists said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-ramya-kannan-december-20-2012-international-treaty-to-make-books-accessible-to-the-blind

WIPO General Assemblies Approve Road Map on Treaty for the Visually Impaired

Rahul Cherian — 2012-10-11T10:34:37Z

In a significant development the 50th session of Assemblies of WIPO member states reached a breakthrough decision on how to complete negotiations on a pact to improve access to copyrighted works for the many visually impaired or print disabled people around the world.

The meeting of the General Assembly which concluded on October 9, 2012 approved a road map that could lead in 2013 to a historic diplomatic conference for an international treaty focused on improving access to published works for persons who are visually impaired or print disabled. The Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will hold inter-sessional meetings from October 17-19, 2012 to work on the text of the instrument. The SCCR will meet from November 19-23, 2012 and will continue discussions on the text with the objective of concluding or substantially advancing the text-based work on this topic. Member states agreed to convene an extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly in December 2012 to assess progress on the text and decide whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013. Some 300 million blind or visually impaired people around the world stand to benefit from a more flexible copyright regime adapted to current technological realities. Individuals with reading impairment often need to convert information into Braille, large print, audio, electronic and other formats using assistive technologies. Only a very small percentage of published books around the world are available in formats accessible to the visually impaired.

At the closing of the Assemblies, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry welcomed the "extremely constructive engagement of member states" in the work of the Organization as demonstrated in the decisions taken by the Assemblies. He underlined the progress made by member states in setting timetables for concluding negotiations on international instruments on access to copyrighted work by the visually impaired, design law and intellectual property and genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. The Chair of the WIPO General Assembly, Serbia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Uglješa Zvekić, also welcomed the positive outcome of the Assemblies which took stock of the work of the Organization and set timetables to conclude normative work in several areas. Representatives of regional groups, and individual member states, also welcomed the outcome of the Assemblies and the positive spirit among member states. Regional groups specifically underlined decisions to move forward in discussions on a treaty to facilitate access to copyrighted works by the visually impaired or print disabled.

For more details see http://wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0022.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/wipo-approves-road-map-on-tv

37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:08:46Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 1, November 26.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There still remain concerns about the weak language on limitations and exceptions in the proposed treaty.

The proposed treaty is bound to have adverse effects on legally accepted existing practices of sharing and using online works. Libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, public interest organisations such as Creative Commons, organisations and efforts directed at making orphan works available online - all perform critical roles to advance the progress of society. There is a looming threat on the continuation of their ability to access and to provide the public subsequent access to their collections. Thus, there is a dire need to incorporate robust solutions into the treaty text to not have unintended consequences on the society.

We must also make note of developments such as Facebook acquiring rights to stream La Liga matches in the Indian subcontinent and acquisition of Pandora by a broadcaster (Sirius XM). In such an environment, it is becoming impossible to technically eliminate the role of computer networks insofar as creating the signal and transmitting it is concerned. The treaty still envisages to not benefit those transmissions that occur exclusively on computer networks. In light of new business and technological realities, the deficiencies in the Committee's discussions are already apparent. We urge the committee to work to ensure that the resultant treaty is balanced in letter and spirit, both.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Agenda on Limitations and Exceptions

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:20:13Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the agenda on limitations and exceptions on behalf of CIS on Day 3, November 28.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society organisation based in India working on issues of openness and access to knowledge, amongst others.

India is a diverse country with thriving communities working on and promoting access to research, data, archival material, educational material, and developing material to benefit persons with other disabilities. As such, the regional seminars will be an excellent opportunity for such communities to interact with various stakeholders and government delegates; and help formulate concrete principles that should inform the international legal instrument that we hope is developed and discussed soon.

To enable comprehensive and substantive participation and discussions, I urge member states and WIPO to undertake steps to make the regional seminars as inclusive as possible. I request the secretariat and member states to actively work with civil society to identify and invite such community leaders.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions

Views on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:48:40Z

On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6). Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage. Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My presentation will be in reference to the revised consolidated text SCCR 36/6 and the US proposal SCCR 37/7.

In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional – satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.

The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities. This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step. And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.

My co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international standard.

The US delegation’s proposal, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations – organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.

At a seminar on this very treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this neighbouring right. He said that the justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it technically possible to do that?

To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and exceptions is urgently needed.

Thank you.

For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international

Report of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society

nehaa — 2016-04-04T14:39:05Z

This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.

I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators

Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.

It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.

Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.

It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.

Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.

Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.

The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century.

Information Session on Broadcasting

Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.

Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.

Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.

Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.

John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.

He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.

However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.

Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.

Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.

George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.

Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.

Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.

Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.

She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.

Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.

Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.

Day 2: June 30, 2015

Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Regional Group Statements on General Principles

Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 ^nd SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.

Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29^th SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.

Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.

The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.

Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.

South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.

National Statements on General Principles

Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.

The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.

Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.

Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.

Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.

India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.

Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections

The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.

Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.

Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.

Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.

Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.

The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.

Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.

China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.

India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy.

Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.

The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content per se.

India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.

Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.

Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.

The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.

Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.

Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.

The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.

As per the EU, the definitions in Document SCCR 27/2 needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.

At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.

Defining 'broadcasting organizations'

The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.

Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.

Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.

Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.

Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.

Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.

South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.

Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.

The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.

The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.

Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.

The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.

Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.

Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.

Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.

Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.

The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.

The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.

India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.

Chair's Conclusions

At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.

II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators

Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.

Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.

Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.

Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.

The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Regional Statements on General Principles

Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.

Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28^th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.

Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.

Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.

Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.

China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.

The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.

Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.

Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.

India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.

Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.

Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.

The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.

Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.

South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.

The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.

Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.

Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.

Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.

Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.

Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.

Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.

Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.

Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.

Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.

Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.

Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.

Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.

Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.

Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.

The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Approach Forward

The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.

There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.

The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.

Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.

Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.

Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.

The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.

The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.

The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.

The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.

Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.

This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.

Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.

Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.

Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.

Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27^th SCCR.

The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.

South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.

Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.

The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.

The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.

Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.

Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.

Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.

Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.

Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.

The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.

The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.

Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US

Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.

Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.

Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.

Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.

Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.

The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.

China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.

The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.

After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.

Preservation

Non-Governmental Organizations

Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.

The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.

The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.

The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.

The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.

According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.

Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21^st century.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.

Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.

The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.

The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.

The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.

The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.

The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.

The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.

The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.

Member States

Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.

The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.

Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.

UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.

Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.

Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.

Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.

India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.

Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.

The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.

EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.

The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.

Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.

Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.

EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.

Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.

The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.

Day 1: July 3, 2015

Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities

Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.

The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities
and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.

The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.

China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.

Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.

The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.

Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.

Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.

Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.

Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.

South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.

Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.

Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.

Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.

Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.

Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.

The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.

Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.

South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.

Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.

Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.

The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.

Chair's Summary

The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.

Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.

The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.

Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.

Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.

The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.

The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.

Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.

Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.

Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.

Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.

Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.

India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.

The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.

The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.

Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.

The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.

South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.

The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society

WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired — Moving from a Treaty on Paper to a Treaty that is Workable on the Ground

Rahul Cherian — 2012-09-28T04:41:08Z

After many years of hard lobbying by the World Blind Union, it appears that the WIPO Treaty on limitations and exceptions for visually impaired persons/persons with print disabilities (TVI) could become a reality next year. However, due to pressure from the European Union and the United States, and their insistence on several untenable provisions, there is a real risk that the TVI could become unworkable on the ground.

The following is a list of concerns that must suitably be addressed if the TVI is to make a realistic dent in the “book famine” in which only a few per cent of books are available in accessible formats that persons with print disabilities can read.

Definition of authorised entity to be widened.
The current definition of authorized entity prescribes that only authorized entities that address the needs of beneficiary persons as one of their primary (in brackets) activities or institutional obligations can undertake conversion and distribution of books in accessible formats. This requirement is unacceptable since it will exclude many legitimate organisations and institutions that undertake these activities but who do not address the needs of beneficiary persons as a "primary" activity or institutional obligation. Some examples of such organisations/institutions are mainstream education institutions and mainstream libraries. Delhi University which has a large number of blind students will be excluded and this is unacceptable.
Authorised entities must be required to follow simple rules and procedures when converting and distributing works in accessible formats.
As is proposed now, authorized entities could be required to follow complex rules and procedures with respect to the permitted activities. In this connection it is critical to note that:
- Smaller organisations will not be in a position to keep organised records. Therefore smaller organisations that serve rural or small populations must not be subject to a requirement to keep records where they do not distribute accessible formats in electronic form.
- There must be no requirements for organisations to apply Technology Protection Measures to accessible formats in electronic form.
- While organisations can inform beneficiary persons to whom they supply accessible formats that there must be no subsequent distribution to non-beneficiary persons, an organisation should have no obligation to oversee the use by the beneficiary persons they supply accessible formats to, or any responsibility for misuse by beneficiary persons they supply accessible formats to.
- There must be no requirement to share the records that organisations are required to keep with any person or entity other than in the eventuality of copyright infringement proceedings.
The rules and procedures must therefore be simplified to reflect the above.
The exception must automatically kick in if the relevant accessible formats are not available in the market on the same day as the mainstream format.
At present there is no clarity on when the exception kicks in and the existing wording can be interpreted such that the exception may apply only after significant time has passed after the books are available in the market in the mainstream format. If a work is made available in the market in a mainstream format it is essential that beneficiary persons can enjoy the work in the relevant accessible format at the same time. Failure to do so is discriminatory towards beneficiary persons. In this connection, the TVI must expressly clarify that if the accessible format copy is not available on the same day as the mainstream format, the exception automatically applies and authorised entities and beneficiary persons can create accessible format copies on the same day that the mainstream format is commercial available.
This will also be an incentive for rights holders to take steps to ensure that accessible format copies are made commercially available on the same day as mainstream formats.
“Making available” to be possible through wire and wireless means.
One of the proposed changes to the TVI is the clarification that “making available” accessible format copies to the public should be as per Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty thereby expressly providing for communication to the public, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. Given that technology is making it increasingly possible for beneficiary persons to access accessible format copies over wire and wireless means, this is clarification is very critical.
The Authorised Entity in the exporting country must not have any obligation to verify any form of legal eligibility in the importing country.
As per the current wording of the TVI an authorized entity in one Member State:
- Must, when exporting to beneficiary person in another Member State, verify whether that other Member State would permit that beneficiary person to make or import that accessible copy; and
- Can only export to an entity or organization in another Member State that the originating authorizing entity has identified as another authorized entity.
It is obvious that authorised entities in one country cannot verify the above with any degree of certainty and therefore it is impossible for authorised entities to comply with this requirement. Moreover, as in the case of all copyright exceptions and limitations, rights holders have the right to take copyright infringement action against any person or entity that operates outside, or exceeds, the exception. This requirement relating to the verification legal legibility must therefore be deleted.
Member states having the flexibility to decide whether to link exceptions to commercial availability.
At present, the draft TVI provides Member States the flexibility to decide whether to confine permitted activities to instances where there is no commercial availability of accessible format copies. This flexibility is critical for Member States since the economic and distribution ground realities in each Member State vary widely and only a Member State can decide this issue conclusively for its own circumstances. Any attempt to change this position in the TVI must be opposed.
In short, barring the above issues, the Treaty appears to heading in the right direction. The upcoming intersessionals in Geneva (17-19th October 2012) to discuss the text of the Treaty will be crucial to decide the fate of the Treaty. Watch this space.

Rahul is the founder of Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy and he advices the World Blind Union on legal issues relating to the WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/wipo-treaty-for-the-visually-impaired

The Hathitrust Judgment and its impact on TVI negotiations at WIPO

Rahul Cherian — 2012-10-30T04:28:24Z

Those of you who have been following my earlier posts on the WIPO negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired will remember that one of the biggest concerns of the World Blind Union on the draft wording of the Treaty was with the definition of an “authorized entity” that can undertake conversion and distribution of accessible format copies.

Before the WIPO intersessionals began on October 17, 2012, the definition of “authorized entity” in the draft Treaty prescribed that only authorized entities that address the needs of beneficiary persons as one of their primary (in brackets) activities or institutional obligations can undertake conversion and distribution of books in accessible formats. This requirement is unacceptable since it will exclude many legitimate organisations and institutions that undertake these activities but who do not address the needs of beneficiary persons as a “primary” activity or institutional obligation. Some examples of such organisations/institutions are mainstream education institutions and mainstream libraries. Delhi University which has a large number of blind students will be excluded and this is unacceptable.

The main proponents pushing for the word "primary" was the United States and the European Union while India and other developing countries wanted the word to be deleted for obvious reasons. There was a virtual deadlock in the negotiations on this particular point.

The United States was pushing for the word “primary” because under US Copyright law, an authorized entity means a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities. Under US law there was uncertainty as to whether educational institutions and libraries would be covered under the definition of “authorized entity”.

Enter the HathiTrust Judgment http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nasims/HathivAG10_10_12.pdf. The judgment, which was pronounced a few days before the October WIPO intersessionals by the New York Southern District Court, held that libraries and educational institutions fall under the definition of “authorized entities” under US law.

The US delegation to WIPO was instantly alerted about this judgment and was requested to negotiate broader wording for authorized entities under the Treaty as was now the position under US law.

At the intersessionals that concluded on October 19, as observers, we were not allowed into the room and the discussions were happening between the Member States but at the end of the intersessionals this is the proposed wording of authorized entity:

Authorized entity means an entity that is authorized or recognized by the government to provide education, instructional training, adaptive reading or information access to beneficiary persons on a non-profit basis. It also includes a government institution or non-profit organization that provides the same services to beneficiary persons as one of its primary activities or institutional obligations.

As can be seen from above, this definition is broader than the previous definition since the word primary has been deleted from the main definition and it explicitly covers educational institutions and libraries. It is also interesting to note that even for profit entities that provide the above services on a non-profit basis to beneficiaries are covered.

It remains to be seen what form the definition of authorized entities will take but the HathiTrust judgment has definitely helped in the negotiation process.

The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights takes place in Geneva between November 19 and November 23, 2012.

Watch this space for updates. See my earlier posts on the WIPO negotiations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/hathitrust-judgment-and-its-impact-on-tvi-negotiations-at-wipo

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

sinha — 2022-05-12T08:41:01Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic, which will endure in the long term as well.

In India, researchers at public and private institutions in both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021, submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research collaborations.

At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.

We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward laid in the Proposal.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item

Maher Reports on WIPO Copyright Deliberations

praskrishna — 2014-07-03T09:41:28Z

SAA Past President and IPWG member William Maher represented the views of American archivists as a permanent observer at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights meeting, December 16-20.

Read the original published on the website of the Society of American Archivists. CIS is briefly mentioned.

Attendees discussed an international treaty for library and archives exceptions for copyright, including provisions related to orphan works and making preservation copies. Maher noted that many of the national delegates are less familiar with the mission of archives than that of public libraries; his statement on SAA’s behalf helped to bridge that gap. (View his presentation and that of the International Council on Archives representative here, at 26:30 and 34:00.)

View the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) information flyer here.

Following is Maher's report on the meeting.

Summary Report on Service as Society of American Archivists
NGO Representative at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 26^th Session

William J. Maher
January 10, 2014

Executive Summary: At the December 2013 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the SAA was instrumental in educating not only the WIPO national delegates but also the library advocacy groups on the differences between libraries and archives and the specific archival needs for a treaty supporting copyright exceptions and limitations. With our coalition partners, the SAA helped prevent the marginalization of work on library and archives exceptions during future meetings. Meanwhile, new leadership of the SCCR helped the Committee avoid the stalemate that had been evident at SAA’s prior attendance in November 2011. Thus, momentum has been maintained for continued work on library and archives exceptions at the three SCCR sessions scheduled for 2014.

Next Steps: Because of the positive outcome of SCCR 26 calling for continuation of “text-based” work on library and archives exceptions over the next three meetings in 2014, it will be important for SAA to secure funding to ensure that our archival voice, experience, and particular needs continue to inform both the NGOs and national delegates at the these sessions. In addition, to help make that representation most effective, the Intellectual Property Working Group will need to develop several concise case study statements or “issue briefs” to exemplify the particular archival dimensions of the eight remaining themes in the draft text being considered for a treaty. Finally, early consultations should be held with coalition partners to develop a strategy to ensure retention of the text’s orphan works provisions.

Background: Copyright law may be established by national laws, but it is international treaties, such as the Berne Convention and the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty that provide the broad framework of copyright and authors’ rights. While current treaties allow nations to provide some exemptions to authors’ monopoly of exclusive rights, the areas for exceptions are quite limited, and none are mandated except in the recently treaty supporting exceptions for visual impaired persons.[1] Meanwhile, there continue to be onerous regimes for exclusive rights,[2] and it has been difficult to get attention to archivists’ and librarians’ specific interests in supporting acquisition, preservation, and accessibility of our of collections, and services to our users.

Fortunately, there are global actors with whom American archivists can collaborate. Thanks to 2004 and 2008 initiatives by Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, and Nicaragua, there has been a call for WIPO to develop treaty language that would require member states to enact education- and development-friendly exemptions into national law. The International Council on Archives (ICA) has commissioned a copyright working group to examine these issues, created a “white paper” entitled Current Issues in Copyright for Archives, and appointed the UK’s Tim Padfield as a representative to WIPO. By their joint work, ICA and the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) have created a plan to secure appropriate exceptions and limitations to copyright’s exclusive rights. The plan’s success, however, would require continued engagement in and representation at WIPO.

WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is the body authorized to draft language for international treaties on copyright and generally meets twice a year. The possibility of “library and archives rights” was the subject of a special SCCR meeting in Geneva in November 2011. This meeting was the first time the Society of American Archivists was able to participate as an ad hoc Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) observer, and I attended as SAA’s representative. Subsequently, SAA applied for and was granted status as a permanent NGO observer, and on that basis sent me once again as a representative to the SCCR 26 meeting December 16-20, 2013. Given what I had observed in 2011, the protocol and process of the SCCR made much more sense in 2013. Perhaps this was just part of the learning curve, but it equally well could be a result of new leadership of the committee.

The effort to develop a treaty to provide exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives has been tied to development concerns of the “global South.” When the WIPO General Assembly adopted a development agenda in 2007, SCCR had a mandate to make development needs an integral part of its work. It commissioned Kenneth Crews to provide a report examining copyright laws of 149 of WIPO’s 184 member states.[3] Results, not surprisingly, showed wide variations in national practices and a general lack of provisions addressing library and archives needs. In 2010, SCCR expanded its consideration of exemptions and limitations to include provisions for visually impaired persons, libraries and archives, and education. Then, in June 2011, the 41-member Africa Group presented a draft WIPO treaty for these latter areas, based heavily on a 2010 proposal from IFLA. Finally, IFLA itself presented its own “Treaty Proposal on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives” (TLIB) at the November 2011 meeting.[4] The draft was cosponsored by ICA, Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), and a library NGO called Innovarte.[5]

Although IFLA, as an NGO, cannot propose treaty language, at the 23^rd session of SCCR in November 2011 a coalition of Brazil, Ecuador, and Uruguay put forward a document incorporating all of the essential elements of IFLA’s proposal, and that document received standing for debate and discussion within SCCR. However, the discussion revealed deep divides among the national delegates. Developed countries argued that their separate laws already contained provisions to meet the needs of users for access to library and archival material and that no mandatory treaty was needed. Developing and lesser developed countries argued that the needs of their populations for access to information and knowledge was impaired by the lack of exceptions and limitations to copyright and particularly by the lack of an international instrument that could provide predictability and uniformity across national borders. At best, the developed countries suggested the adoption of so-called “soft law,” or guidelines that countries could adopt. At worst, some argued that attention to balancing copyright with exceptions and limitations was unnecessary use of the committee’s time.

In the end, while the November 2011 SCCR 23 could not agree on the nature of the “international instrument” it would be pursuing, it adopted a work plan to continue to discuss library and archives exceptions at its future meetings while also focusing attention on the creation of exceptions to support the needs of visually impaired persons (VIPs). Over the course of 2012 and through mid-2013 (i.e., SCCR 24-25), the Committee focused most of these discussion of exceptions on the VIP matter, but it did set a timetable to devote particular attention to the library and archives exceptions over the course of SCCR 26 through 29, with the objective of adopting a text for submission to a diplomatic conference in 2015.

Despite the seemingly intractable positions evident in 2011 and widely reported through early 2013 regarding VIP provisions, a June 2013 diplomatic conference in Marrakesh was able to reach an unexpected agreement on a VIP treaty. This was an important development because it represented a first. It elevated copyright exceptions to treaty status, and it involved obtaining consensus among hitherto seemingly irreconcilable parties.

The so-called “Miracle of Marrakesh” set the stage for potential drama at the December 2013 SCCR 26. Could the momentum of creating copyright exceptions carry forward from the VIP area to also support library and archives exceptions? Would the publishing industry, collective rights organizations, and the global north be able to argue that the exceptions created at Marrakesh had rebalanced copyright so that attention could now focus on other areas of exclusive rights, such as the long-deferred matter of exclusive rights for broadcasting organizations?

Preparations: Once it was clear that SAA Council would be funding participation at SCCR 26, I was asked to join various listservs and e-mail lists of other treaty advocates and invited to to brainstorm and coordinate positions among treaty-friendly NGOs. These collaborations involved assessing the variant drafts that national delegates had put forward for the 11 separate “topics” or provisions of a proposed treaty text and advising on which variant was best for our particular needs. Particularly important was being able to participate in the shaping of the message for a general publicity piece to explain to the public why copyright reform for libraries and archives mattered. Because of this access and participation, SAA was able to have its logo appear on the ultimate piece after we were sure that it adequately reflected archival as well as library concerns.[6] Throughout the entire preparation period, as well as during the week of SCCR, there were multiple and frequent consultations with the SAA Intellectual Property Workding Group (IPWG) and the SAA Executive Director, especially in drafting the main statement for SAA to present as well as the text for the “Side Event” presentation.

SCCR 26, December 16-20, 2013: The schedule for SCCR 26 allocated the first two days to a discussion of exclusive rights for broadcasting organizations, a question of limited interest to archivists. This was to be followed by two days devoted to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives, and a final day discussing issues relating to whether exceptions could be created to support educational institutions and organizations. The session opened on December 16 with the election of Martin Moscoso of Peru as a new chair to lead the committee for the next two years. He had most recently served as facilitator over informal discussions between opposing sides at Marrakesh and had strong support from the Committee.

Moscoso proved adept at maintaining good order, identifying issues for potential consensus, and managing situations when positions of some national delegates conflicted sharply. The resultant draft text for the SCCR’s plan for future work suggests that the matter of the exceptions for libraries and archives being sought by the Africa Group (AG) and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC) will remain on the agenda. Overall, the SCCR session showed a much more positive spirit and productivity than that of November 2011.

Library and Archives Exceptions and Limitations: Despite some efforts by global North countries to extend the broadcasting discussion beyond the scheduled two days, the Chair directed the Committee to follow the previously agreed-upon allocation of time. After calling upon regional groupings and national delegates offered for general comments on library and archives exceptions, the floor was opened the floor for presentations by approximately two dozen NGOs.

Interventions from Non-Governmental Organizations: Unlike some other international bodies such as the telecommunications union where invited NGOs participate in floor debate, at SCCR NGOs’ formal involvement is limited to scheduled opportunities to offer statements or “interventions” on the policy issues before SCCR. By long convention, these interventions are limited to three minutes, with some prior chairs enforcing the time limit vigorously. The NGOs at SCCR contained representatives from both sides. Those speaking against the need for library and archives exceptions included Motion Picture Association, International Federation of Journalists, International Federation of Musicians, International Publishers Association, Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Federation of Reproductions Rights Organizations, etc. Those speaking in favor of L&A exceptions included the Canadian Library Association, Center for Internet and Society, German Library Federation, Karisma Fundaćion (Colombia human rights organization), IFLA, eIFL, ICA and the SAA. In his intervention, Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International pointed out that the needs of archives were particularly striking yet seemingly less complex than those of libraries.

A central part of my presence as SAA’s NGO representative at SCCR was this opportunity to provide a formal position statement to the Committee.[7] Within the allowed three minutes, I noted how the recent UNESCO “Universal Declaration on Archives” called for broad public access to archives. I also noted that because the public increasingly expected archival content be online, copyright represented a major barrier to the archival mission and to the public’s right to access. Noting the insufficiency of the U.S.’s Section 108 library and archives exceptions, I called the national delegates’ attention to the need to develop a treaty that would provide cross-border uniformity. I closed by suggesting that the viability of both archives and the copyright system required exceptions to support public access for heritage and accountability. The statement appears to have been well-received by treaty advocates based on several comments that received through the end of the week. Perhaps the best indication of this was the blog entry provided by Manon Ress of Knowledge Ecology International, who reproduced my statement in full, immediately preceded by her comment: “The room is clearly divided but the intellectual argument is being won by the libraries and archives. Here are some of the very strong statements.”[8]

Debate by National Delegates on Proposal for Library and Archives Treaty: Following a previously developed work plan, the Committee adopted a text-based discussion of the awkwardly titled: “Working document containing comments on and textual suggestions towards an appropriate international legal instrument (in whatever form) on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.” The work plan had called for discussion of the draft text through its 11 topics which had been built from texts first by the Africa Group and Brazil/Ecuador.[9] Over the two allocated days, the delegates were able to complete work on the first two topics (copying for preservation and for users), touch briefly on legal deposit (topic 3), and begin discussion of library lending (topic 4). Those skeptical of the need for an international treaty kept trying to steer the discussion toward a review of current national practices and the need to protect the authors’ interests. Advocates for the treaty emphasized the need for a base level of exceptions and the need to establish uniformity across national borders. Insofar as multiple phrasings of the the proposed provisions were left in document, those proposals appear to have basically survived the discussion, but it became clear that there was overlap among some of the themes, such as copying for users and library lending/document delivery. Thus, some consolidation could be expected. For archives, issues about preservation, including the need to remove limits on the number of preservation copies, were well handled. However, one of our most important topics, orphan works copying and distribution, was deeper into the work plan and was not addressed.

Overall, there was little change in the delegates’ positions during the meeting. In short, the global North argued that an international instrument was not needed because many countries had addressed these concerns with national laws. They therefore tried to steer SCCR’s work towards merely studying the laws and practices of member states. In addition, a number called for an update of Kenneth Crews’ 2007/08 study, presumably on the assumption that legislation in some countries may have changed in the past 6 years.

Throughout, the SCCR Chair worked to find a consensus for the future work. On the down side, it appeared that the complexity of the copyright issues archivists face are quite foreign to these policy makers, no matter how much we restated the principles that we would like to see incorporated into an international instrument. The discussion at SCCR 26 clarified that our most important task is to have a rich roster of simple, practical examples of how the lack of a specific exception militates against the public’s need for information and records. We also need to counter the claim that national laws already provide locally tailored solutions by explaining the cross-border, international nature of the problem. Good, clear, and provocative examples in our prepared remarks and in briefing sheets, will advance the understanding of friendly delegates. on whom we have to rely. The IFLA and eIFL representatives began working on such a set of

“Side Event” Presentation: SCCR meetings often include “side events” beyond the official proceedings of the Committee. These events include evening receptions as well as the more typical early afternoon panel sessions on some issue of relevance to the topics being considered. At SCCR 26, the Thursday December 19 side event, sponsored by IFLA, was titled “‘Digital Gridlock’” What Future for Libraries and Archives?” Its particular point was to clarify how access to library and archival material is impeded by copyright limits, and how the problem is fundamentally an international one that can only be solved by a treaty providing consistency across borders. The speakers were allocated five to ten minutes. I was asked to present on how copyright affected the future of archives. My remarks were titled, “It's My Heritage, Why Can't I Have It? The Unintended Consequences of the Digital Embargo.”

Realizing that neither the delegates nor all the other NGOs understood what archives contain and what archivists do, I drew on my own archives’ experience to describe the scope and use of institutional archives and manuscript collections. I focused on the increasing expectations to meet users needs via online holdings, and I emphasized how copyright in orphan works was a major impediment to meet these expectations. I cited an example of a NARA project where the use of its data files increased 335 times when the data were put online.[10] I made a special point of citing core statistics from Maggie Dickson’s University of North Carolina study to underscore the excessiveness of a strict authors’ rights and permissions regime for archival digital projects.[11] I closed with two specific examples drawn from collections and users at the University of Illinois Archives, in which key cultural heritage information was not readily available to individuals of those communities unless they could afford travel to see the originals. The presentation was well-received and generated some useful discussion during the question period. Overall, the “Side Event” was a successful opportunity to explain the archival concerns and clarify that they are not precisely the same as libraries’.

Education Exceptions: Friday morning, December 20, was devoted to general statements from NGOs, and regional and national delegates about the set of exceptions that the Africa Group had proposed to support educational organizations and educational activities. These call for a broad array of exceptions to allow copying and digitization of works in support of education and research activities at all levels. Overall, the concept appears to face a tough road ahead. Because this issue was at a very early stage, only the morning of the last day was dedicated to discussing it.

Conclusions and Closure of SCCR 26: One the defining elements of any SCCR meeting is the last day’s work to prepare a “Conclusions” document. It summarizes what work was completed during the session, including consensus statements on issues where possible. Most importantly it identifies the work plan and allocation of time in the coming SCCR meeting(s) for particular issues. Because the Conclusions define what it the SCCR has accomplished and where its priorities and policies are headed, each sentence in the relatively short document (generally 3-4 pages) is subjected to great scrutiny and sometimes nearly endless debate late into the night or wee hours of the morning.

Given the smoothness of the earlier days of the week, there was some hope that floor fights would be minimized and that the evening might end early. Unfortunately, that was not the case, even if the ultimate result was positive for those interested in library and archives exceptions. Those delegations advocating for a broadcast treaty and merely more study for the library and archives area launched an effort to allocate the majority of time in the next three SCCR meetings (i.e., three days in each) to broadcasting, with only two days in each for “exceptions.” Thanks to the some effective work by the librarians and archivists present in connecting with a few of the sympathetic to neutral country delegates, wording in the final version of Conclusion item 31 included the specific reference to libraries and archives as the lead topic for the latter two days of the April 2014 SCCR.

Nevertheless, the issue of relative allocation of time during the three 2014 SCCR meetings was contentious. Because of some persistent resistance by treaty-sympathetic countries, the Committee’s eventual consensus was that the allocation of days for the July and December SCCRs would need to be deferred pending outcomes of the April meeting. While this may seem a small accomplishment or even just a delaying action, in fact it reflects significant success by treaty advocates in not allowing the momentum from Marrakesh to be turned back.

Advocacy as Education of Multiple Publics: SAA’s experience at the SCCR in 2011 and especially in 2013 demonstrates that a central part of successful policy advocacy is not simply communicating our position, but also the extent to which we use the interchange as an opportunity for education. Because the policy makers and stakeholders whom we want to reach are only minimally aware of the mission and professional practices of archivists, influencing policy cannot start until we are recognized as a distinct sector with a mission that matters to the public and communities we serve. Ironically, the low visibility of archives and archivists among the public can work to our advantage in that if we sharpen our message carefully, we can immediately create a positive foundation for future interactions. By providing concise statements that focus on the broad cultural and educational value of archives combined with the substantial professional and ethical standards we have developed over the past three-quarters of a century, we can obtain not just respect for our mission but also a sympathetic hearing for our policy needs.

In this regard, according to comments from more than one of the stakeholders at SCCR 26, SAA was extremely effective in its communications and advocacy for the archives sector. SCCR 26 also demonstrated that archivists can obtain a hearing and audience for our concerns that is clearly well out of proportion to our inescapably small size. Indeed, it is the power of the archival message that has made stakeholders much larger than ourselves seek us out as coalition partners. In the process, we have gained significant leverage to advance our positions.

To the extent that SAA wishes to build on the success at SCCR 26, an infrastructure is needed for this advocacy. First, there needs to be a physical presence at WIPO. Many of the occasions SAA had for influencing the text of coalition advocacy pieces would not have arisen if our planned presence at SCCR had not opened the door to our participation in the coalition’s communication channels through which positions were formulated collaboratively. Only through these were we able to make clear to library and other prospective allies those fundamentally different and compelling archival needs. We to be able to dedicate significant amounts of time to collaboration in the weeks leading up to the meeting. Significant preparation is needed to prepare concise, targeted position statements that can be effectively delivered in time that is measured in seconds rather than minutes. The statements need be supplemented by practical examples of archival needs and the benefits to the public from our holdings and professional work. The examples need to reflect the breadth of the publics whom archives serve as well as how these relate to international policy objectives being sought.

It goes without saying that SAA’s representative has been absolutely dependent upon and grateful for the strong support provided by the Intellectual Property Working Group, especially its chair, and for the confidence and support of the SAA Executive Director. Education is essential for effective advocacy, but it is preeminently a team effort.

Endnotes

^[1]. According to the Berne Convention and the World Trade Organization’s 1994 TRIPS agreement, any exemptions provided by national legislation are supposed to meet a “three-step-test.” “Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.” See: Berne 9.2. at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html

^[2]. For example, the 1996 WIPO Treaty required countries to create legal prohibitions against circumventing any electronic copy-protection mechanisms that copyright holders have used on their works, making archival migration and preservation of electronic records very difficult.

^[3]. Kenneth Crews, Study of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_2.pdf.

^[4]. Available at: http://www.ifla.org/en/node/5856 .

^[5]. The TLIB proposal calls for copyright exceptions and limitations that would enable libraries and archives to engage in: parallel importation; library lending; reproduction and supply of copies; preservation; making and distributing accessible copies for persons with disabilities; providing access to retracted, withdrawn, and orphan works; cross-border uses; translation of legally acquired works for specific users/user groups; freedom from contract provisions which would otherwise overwrite the exceptions; circumvent technological protection measures for lawful access; and enjoy limitations on liability for libraries and archives work.

^[6]. The resultant flyer can be seen at: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/exceptions-limitations/ifla_wipo_message_overview_final.pdf

^[7]. The full text of the intervention on behalf of the SAA can be found attached as Appendix A.

^[8]. http://keionline.org/node/1863 Unfortunately, because the SAA’s acronym was mistranslated, WIPO interpreters muddled the translation of the SCCR Chair’s Spanish language introduction of my intervention. Thus, Ms. Ress misidentified the first text as being from the International Council on Archives. While the ICA intervention was quite good, the text Ms. Ress replicates on the KEI blog is a verbatim transcript of the SAA remarks. The video of the SAA presentation can be seen at: http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/index.jsp – Scroll down to below the title "Video on Demand," and in the right-hand menu, select “SCCR/26-Wed 18-English, Afternoon Session.” SAA’s intervention begins at minute 34.

^[9]. Those themes/topics, with a brief summary of the provisions being sought, were:

1): Preservation : It shall be permitted for libraries and archives to reproduce works, or materials protected by related rights, for the purposes of preservation or replacement, in accordance with fair practice.

2) Right of reproduction: A library or archives may reproduce and distribute a copy of a copyright work to a library user, or to another library or archive, for purposes of: education, private study by a users, or interlibrary document supply.

3) Legal deposit: Treaty member countries may determine that specific libraries and archives or any other institution shall serve as designated repositories in which at least one copy of every work published in the country is to be deposited and retained.

4) Library Lending: It shall be permitted for a library to lend copyright works, or materials protected by related rights, to a user, or to another library.

5) Parallel Importation: Libraries and archives shall have the right to buy, import or otherwise acquire copies of any work published in any other Member State with the permission of the author of that work.

6) Cross border uses: To the extent that it is necessary for the exercise of a limitation or exception provided for in this Treaty, cross-border uses shall be permitted.

7) Orphan works, works out of commerce. Libraries and archives shall have the right to reproduce, preserve and make available in any format or retracted any withdrawn works from public access or orphaned works.

8) Limitations on Liability: A librarian or archivist acting in good faith within the scope of his or her duties, is protected from claims for damages, from criminal liability, and from copyright infringement.

9) Technological Protection Measures: Libraries and archives may circumvent technological protection measures to exercise any of the rights provided by this treaty. 10) Contracts: contractual provisions may not overwrite the limitations and exceptions.

10) Margaret O’Neill Adams, “Analyzing archives and finding facts: use and users of digital data records,” Archival Science 7( 2007):21–36.

11) Maggie Dickson, “Due Diligence, Futile Effort: Copyright and the Digitization of the Thomas E. Watson Papers,” American Archivist 73 (2010): 626-36.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/society-of-american-archivists-july-2-2014-maher-reports-on-wipo-copyright-deliberations

WIPO reaches agreement on treaty for blind

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T09:59:29Z

Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organisation have reached an agreement to provide wider access to books for the visually impaired in different countries, a long-pending demand of the World Blind Union and activist groups.

The article by Pankaj Mishra was published in Livemint on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

If officially approved, the treaty will help distribution of specially formatted books for the blind and visually impaired in different countries by removing copyright law hurdles. For instance, US-based Bookshare, which is an online library for people with sight disabilities, has about 200,000 books in its collection, but only about 75,000 of them can be distributed in the UK because of copyright restrictions.

According to the Intellectual Property Watch website that track international policy on the subject, the agreement was reached over the weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, where a conference to facilitate access to published books for people with sight disabilities is being held.

“The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as ‘the Berne gap’, which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty,” the website said in a report on 24 June.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.

Experts such as Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society said Indian negotiators played a crucial role in pushing for these amendments.

“India’s copyright law after the latest amendment has a very robust exception for the disabled. It is disability neutral and works neutral. We must applaud the Indian negotiators for exporting Indian best practice to global copyright policy. India continues to be a leader in WIPO when it comes to protecting the public interest and facilitating access to knowledge,” said Abraham.

The treaty, which promotes sharing the books in any format for the blind or visually impaired, is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world, Intellectual Property Watch said.

“The treaty however is both disability specific, i.e. the visually impaired, and works specific, mostly targeted at ending the book famine,” Abraham said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind

Statement by the Centre for Internet and Society on the Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 30

nehaa — 2015-07-02T01:20:38Z

The 30th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's ("WIPO") Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ("SCCR") is underway in Geneva from 29 June, 2015 to 03 July, 2015. While CIS was unable to attend this meeting, we have the following statement to make on negotiations on the Proposed Treaty for Broadcasting Organizations.

This statement was prepared on behalf of CIS by Nehaa Chaudhari. Many thanks to Pranesh Prakash and Amulya Purushothama for their inputs.

Mister Chair,

Our intervention will speak to the presentations made by broadcasting organizations on Day 1 and Member and Group Statements on Days 1 and 2.

First, Mr. Chair, generally on technical panels- If this is the manner in which this Committee will be appraised of new developments, without prejudice to our reservations about this ad-hoc manner itself, we strongly suggest that other interest groups and stakeholders be provided a similar opportunity to present their side of the story, in front of this Committee, for one entire day. Industry representatives, including those from telecommunications, information technology, consumers electronics, and performers- and not just various public interest NGOs have been expressing reservations and concerns about this Treaty from at least as far back as 2006, if not earlier. We appreciate Group B’s ask in their introductory statement to “continue to hear the voices of the real world” – We only ask that you award all stakeholders an equivalent, if not equal opportunity to be heard in the manner that you have the broadcasters; without privileging the interests of the broadcasters above the others. There must be a recognition of the rights of other stakeholders including content owners- not just in the Treaty as noted by India yesterday, but also in the discussions leading up to it.

Second, Mr. Chair, on Technical Background Paper document SCCR 7/8 – which you had flagged off as relevant for this session in your summary of SCCR 29 – but, of course, I stand to be corrected if I have understood incorrectly. Mr. Chair, this document is more than a decade old – it seems to have seen no updates since 2002, and even in that form, it is wanting. The document excludes from its scope the rationale for the treaty as well as the scope for protection, which we find problematic, especially given as these have been among the most contentious topics in this Committee. Additionally in only dealing primarily with the Rome Convention with but a passing reference to other international instruments, if at all, it presents an incomplete overview of the legal framework already available to broadcasters. I also have other comments to this document, which I will send in writing. We’d strongly urge that an updated version of this document be presented to this Committee so that we can have a more accurate discussion, just like the one on market and technology trends has been updated as SCCR 30/5.

Third, Mr. Chair, on the presentations and statements themselves. A reason oft cited in this Committee, Mr. Chair, has been the need to protect the underlying investment and the purported loss of revenue. From their presentations on Day 1 Mr. Chair, it seems to us that the broadcasters are doing perfectly alright without a Broadcast Treaty. Mr. Knapp for IHS in fact said that “Despite digitization, TV homes, paid TV homes are growing globally”, stating also, that there was a very high average revenue per user in North America and a “double digit growth in the pay TV sector” in other regions, which meant a “fairly healthy industry despite all the digital disruption side”. We have also heard from TV Globo who told us of the progress made in advertising and pay TV and smartphone penetration in Brazil, and from Zee Telefilms from India who spoke of a booming broadcasting industry.

Mr. Chair, Nothing we have heard so far addresses three important questions – why is there a need for a separate right? Why are protections under the Rome Convention inadequate? While piracy might well be an issue, why can’t it be covered under existing copyright law – all of which comes down to why we’re discussing the creation of a para copyright regime for broadcasting organizations.

From the Caribbean Broadcasting Union, we heard about emerging technologies and the challenges due to piracy. There was also a mention of significant investment – but if that is to be the basis for this treaty, we would ask that detailed reports of these investments and losses also be placed before this Committee. Also, none of this addresses the lacunae in the Rome Convention or existing international copyright law.

Mr. Chair, we have repeatedly heard from Group B and the European Union on the ‘significant economic value of broadcasting’, but, this economic value has had international law recognition for a while now. While the CEBS group, Japan and Russia speak highly of technological advancements to justify the need for the Broadcast Treaty, there has still been no discussion on the inadequacy of existing international law to address these technological advancements. There needs to be something more that justifies this attempt to give broadcasters an additional layer of rights. It might be useful to conduct a comprehensive study on signal theft and piracy and the legal frameworks in every member state to deal with signal theft and piracy, and an updated study on the international legal framework as well. This Committee has precedent on such an exercise in Prof. Kenneth Crews’ study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives that has been tabled at this SCCR.

Mr. Chair, this para copyright we’re trying to create, especially without all stakeholders being heard equally, would in effect severely limit any competition that broadcasting organizations would face from the Internet and other emerging technologies; which is undesirable for any market, besides access to free knowledge and information, as well put by the delegation of Iran.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/statement-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-india-on-the-broadcast-treaty-at-sccr-30