Centre for Internet and Society

Statement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23rd SCCR

pranesh — 2011-11-30T06:55:43Z

The twenty-third session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from November 22, 2011 to December 2, 2011. Pranesh Prakash delivered this statement on a new proposal made by South Africa and Mexico (SCCR/23/6) on a treaty for broadcasters.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the South African and Mexican delegations for their hard work on this text before us.

We wish to reiterate the statement on principles provided last SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcasting Treaty, and would like to associate ourselves with the statements made today by Public Knowledge, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Knowledge Ecology International, International Federation of Library Associations, and the Canadian Library Association.

Broadcasters Already Protected Online

Broadcasters make two kinds of investments for which they are protected. They invest in infrastructure and they invest in licensing copyrighted works. The first investment is protected by 'broadcast rights', and the latter investment is protected by copyright law.

Broadcasters, being licensees of copyrighted works, generally already have rights of enforcement insofar as their licence is concerned. Therefore there is no need to provide for additional protections with regard to broadcasters in order to enable them to proceed against acts that violate existing copyright laws: they already have those rights by way of licence. This is often forgotten when talking about rights of broadcasters.

The investments to be made in infrastructure in traditional broadcast and in IP-based transmission are very different, even if it is the same 'traditional broadcasters' who are indulging in both. Given that this investment is the basis of additional protection for broadcaster over and above the rights provided to underlying copyright, IP-based transmissions should not be covered in any way even if it is traditional broadcast organizations that are engaged in them.

Providing new and separate rights to large broadcasters for their online transmission, as is currently being done via the provision on 'retransmission' while excluding small webcasters will create a hierarchy and a class distinction without any basis in either principle or existing laws.

Support Countries' Concerns

We also wish to support the amendments suggested by the Indian delegation. As we were reminded by the Indian delegation, the General Assembly mandate of 2007 only extends to traditional broadcasting and to a signal-based approach. In this regard, we also wish to support the question posed by the United States delegation between signal-based and rights-based approaches, as also the strong statement by the Brazilian delegation on the need to ensure that cultural diversity and competition are protected and promoted by any international instrument on broadcasting, and we would like to add 'preservation of a vibrant public domain' as provided by Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement

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

Second Meeting of the Expert Committee on WIPO

praskrishna — 2015-11-29T08:27:54Z

The second meeting of the Expert Committee on WIPO was held in the Committee Room (6th floor) of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi on November 2, 2015. The meeting was held under the chairmanship of Special Secretary (I&B). Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha attended the meeting.

Download the minutes of the first meeting here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/second-meeting-of-the-expert-committee-on-wipo

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

> KENNETH CREWS: Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out.

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews

Ring Side View : Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired

Rahul Cherian — 2012-08-13T04:34:22Z

As a legal advisor of the World Blind Union and part of the World Blind Union delegation to the 24th meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) that concluded on July 25, 2012 I had a ring side seat to the negotiations that happened between Member States in relation to the Treaty.

On call almost 24 x 7 to answer questions and clarify positions to Member States on aspects relating to the Treaty and the ground reality faced by the print disabled community, those were possibly the most grueling 10 days of my life.

Progress at the last 3 SCCRs was painfully slow. At the start of this SCCR on July 16 2012 the single biggest hurdle to progress on the Treaty was the stand that the African Group had taken at the earlier SCCRs with respect to a comprehensive text covering exceptions and limitations to copyright for education, libraries, archives and disabilities. See my discussion with Jamie Love from Knowledge Ecology International on this issue. It was evident that while a comprehensive text had its merits, it would be impossible to make progress on this comprehensive text because, other that for exceptions for disabilities, the issues relating to education, libraries and archives had not reached the level of maturity required to progress to a Treaty. So it was essential that exceptions for disabilities were de-linked from exceptions for education etc. This is exactly what the African Group did much to the excitement of the WBU team.

Much was left to be done over the next few days including discussion on the text of the working document which prepared by Chair after SCCR 23, available here. Normally, discussions on text happen at the plenary session attended by Member States as well as accredited organizations such as the World Blind Union, my organization Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy and others. This process, while adding to transparency and more participation is sometimes slow and the request of some Member States considering the urgency of the matter, discussions were taken out of plenary into a closed room round table discussion. All Member States could participate and many did. Unfortunately, accredited organizations were not invited to attend. Full credit to Member States in terms of effort put into this effort as they worked well beyond normal working hours on most days in an attempt to reach consensus on the text.

Another critical outcome we had hoped for was that there would be consensus between Member States that the instrument would be in the form of a Treaty. As the negotiations between Member States progressed it became clear that the United States and the European Union were blocking the Treaty while everybody else was pushing hard for the Treaty. The United States and the European Union were pushing for some form of non-binding instrument that would be more in the nature of a recommendation. Further coverage of this is at Huffington Post and in the Guardian. The drawbacks of a soft law as opposed to a Treaty is obvious in that a soft law has no binding force as opposed to a Treaty. Rumor has it that the reason for the United States not supporting the Treaty is that the publishing lobby is apparently a huge contributor to President Obama’s re-election campaign and that he could ill afford to alienate this lobby by pushing for the Treaty. The European Union’s opposition to a binding Treaty was despite a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in February 2012 calling on the European Union to support a binding Treaty.

We had hoped that SCCR 24 would close with agreement on the text, agreement that it would be a Treaty and finally that the SCCR referring the Treaty to the upcoming General Assembly in October 2012 to call for a Diplomatic Conference in 2013 to expressly agree on the Treaty.

However, this was not to be. Although much progress was made on the text, the text remains incomplete, with a lot of brackets in the text on undecided points. There was no consensus that the instrument should be a treaty. And lastly there was no decision on referring the issue to a diplomatic conference.

The next steps as outlined in the conclusions to SCCR 24 are the following:

an inter-sessional meeting of the SCCR be held in Geneva between the 2012 General Assembly and the 25th session of the SCCR to continue work;
the 25th session of the SCCR will attempt to conclude or advance substantially the text of the document; and
that the General Assembly convene an extraordinary session to be held in December 2012 to evaluate the text from SCCR/25 and to make a decision on whether to convene a diplomatic conference in 2013.

SCCR 24 made more progress on this issue that any of the previous SCCRs I have attended. We are very optimistic that the Treaty will become a reality of the next 18 to 24 months with the increased pressure being exerted on the US and the European Union by the blind groups in these jurisdictions respectively. Needless to say, the Treaty will benefit developing countries the most since the majority of persons with print disabilities are in these countries. India and other developing countries are mindful of this and are pushing as hard as possible to make it happen.

My next post will be on the pros and cons of the text that was proposed at the end of SCCR 24.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/ring-side-view

Report on the WIPO Director General’s Meeting with NGO’s

puneeth — 2014-04-30T05:33:27Z

The Director General’s meeting with NGO’s was held on March 25, 2014. This is an annual meeting where accredited NGO’s have an opportunity to have a one on one discussion with the Director General on issues that concern them.

The webcast of the meeting can be found here.

This year’s meeting featured queries on a whole range of issues from mainstreaming the development agenda recommendations to the number of WIPO meetings. The Director General engaged in a frank exchange of views with NGO representatives and stressed the importance of NGO’s in WIPO’s work.

Opening Statement

The meeting kicked off with a statement by the Director General. He reported that the demand for IP titles was greater than the world economy- citing the growing number of patent and trademark applications. He also commended the SCCR in concluding the Marrakesh Treaty and said that the engagement and alignment of civil society actors was crucial to the signing of the Treaty. He also noted the role of the World Blind Union and the publishing community in supporting the Treaty.

The Director General also had updates on the work of various committees for the 2014-15 biennium. With respect to the Design Law Treaty in the SCT, he stated that the US and Canada had accepted the possibility of an article on technical assistance but not as a condition to convene a diplomatic conference. On the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR, he said that a lot of work needs to be done and that the SCCR needs to decide if a Treaty with a narrower scope is feasible and if a Diplomatic Conference has to be convened in September. On the IGC, he stated that this committee was WIPO’s greatest political risk and that the Committee must find a way to deliver on a project that has been on since 2001.On the Lisbon Agreement, the Director General stated that 28 States had agreed to renew the agreement and the new agreement would cover GI and Appellations. He noted that this was a huge step forward as GI’s become more and more valuable.

In addition, he noted three areas of interest for the future work of the WIPO:

Balance between collaboration and competition: The Director General noted that there should be greater emphasis on collaboration and competition at the WIPO. He called for emphasis on cooperation, open innovation in global value chains. At the same time he stated that IP also creates competition. He stated that the tension between competition and collaboration should be under consideration in the future as it is growing into a major geopolitical issue.
Digital Economy: The Director General said that Member States should engage on the impact of an increasingly digital world on the environment. While this issue has been under discussion since the 90’s, there have been new developments that need further consideration.
Appropriate Technology: The Director General commented on the passive transfer of technology and said that there is a knowledge gap between having technology and knowing how to use it, and this should be kept in mind in future wok.

Q&A

Following the opening statement, the Director General fielded questions from NGO representative. Below is a summary of a few notable responses from the Director General.

On a question regarding the mainstreaming of the Development Agenda, the Director General said that it is up to the Members to decide how to make the Development Agenda normative. But he pointed out that both the Beijing and Marrakesh Treaties refer to the Development agenda in their text.

In response to a question on future plans and projects on public health and IP, he said that the WIPO is encouraging research projects on the issue. He also pointed out that the WTO, WIPO and WHO are engaged in an active collaboration on this issue and had also organised a seminar on it. He also said that the three Director Generals had published studies on the topic.

MSF made a number of interventions on the issue of public health. They argued that ongoing WIPO research did not meet the needs for medical innovation and that there was need for serious rethink on how to make it work better. They also said that the focus of WIPO research was currently only on LDC’s and this left out developing countries and consequently a large number of people.

In response the Director General said that the WIPO could only “build with what it’s got” and said that they should engage with more parties and with what they do. He also said that they are beginning to engage with middle income countries. He also said that WIPO research was free and that it could be easily shared and the fee was only if there was a sale.

MSF also called for a change on the nature of technical assistance as there were repeated seminars on anti-counterfeiting measures with little or no focus on the quality of medicines. On this, the Director General agreed with MSF and said that the larger problem was quality assurance which needed to be addressed, but he also pointed out that WIPO as an IP agency could not get into the issue of quality assurance.

He also fielded a question from the author on making WIPO sessions more accessible with the possible use of remote participation in the future. The Director General said that this was a good idea, but he pointed out that this was up to the Members to consider and possibly implement. He also noted that it was only recently that WIPO started webcasting meetings and that there would be issues of time management with remote participation.

On a question about the increasing number of meetings at the WIPO, the Director General acknowledged that this was a problem and that the respective Committees had to decide if it was essential to convene a meeting ever so often. But he also pointed out that the Secretariat cannot interfere in such matters and could only facilitate discussion on these issues. He also said that it might be better if experts met regularly to discuss technical issues and negotiators met only when an issue had matured.

On a further question on the number of documents being released for every meeting and their increasing length, the Director General joked that it was unlikely that anyone under the age of 30 would read all the documents. He said that this is an issue that should be looked into.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-wipo-director-general-meeting-with-ngos

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

Primer on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired

pranesh — 2013-06-25T08:47:18Z

In this primer, Pranesh Prakash and Puneeth Nagaraj explain what effects a WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired can have and who's opposing it.

A Primer on the provisions of the TVI and ongoing negotiations

The Treaty on Limitations and Exceptions for Visually Impaired Persons/Persons with Print Disabilities (“TVI” for short) is a landmark international instrument in recognizing the crucial link between copyright limitation and greater access to visually impaired persons / persons with print disabilities (“VIPs” for short). Below is a summary of the provisions of the Treaty and the benefit it will bring to VIPs, and the kinds of speed-bumps that rich countries are trying to place to make this treaty ineffective for the blind, the majority of whom live in poor countries.

1. Exceptions in Domestic Copyright Law

Currently, in most countries, only the owner of copyright to a particular book has the right to convert it into an “accessible format” (e.g. Braille, audio book, DAISY book, etc.). This treaty aims to create an exception to this rule by allowing print disabled persons, their representatives and non-profit ‘authorized entities’ the ability to convert books for the benefit of VIPs without seeking permission. The treaty would leave it up to each country whether their law will require such conversions to be paid or not since there is no uniformity on this question among countries that have national exceptions.

Opposition: The United States, European Union, France, Australia, Canada, and the publishing lobby have asked for multiple conditions for creation of accessible formats. They wish to confine this exception to non-profits, prevent translations, and ensure that books that are “commercially available” can be excluded, and require that countries who wish to use this exception have to comply with an onerous test called the “three step test”. Internationally, rights holders have zero formalities for gaining copyright (which, by international treaty, does not even have to be registered). But the rights holders want to ensure as many bureaucratic hurdles are put to exceptions as possible.

2. Cross-border Transfer of Accessible Works

One of the main purpose main purpose of the TVI is to increase the cross-boundary exchange of copyrighted works in accessible formats. According to the World Health Organisation, 87% of the visually impaired live in underdeveloped countries. Bangladesh and Swaziland, for instance, spend very little money on converting books, while in the USA, millions of dollars are spent both by the government and by charities. If this treaty is passed the way the World Blind Union and other pro-disability NGOs are asking, a blind girl from Bangladesh would be able register with a US-based site like Bookshare.org, after proving she’s blind, and just download the book she needs in a format that is accessible to her.

Opposition: The European Union and United States want make this non-mandatory. They also wish to restrict the ability of the Bangladeshi blind girl from accessing these books by allowing trade only between non-profit ‘authorized entities’. Unfortunately, many developing world countries (like Swaziland) don’t have any authorized entities to speak of, leaving blind people there stranded. For a treaty to be effective, individuals must be granted the right to import books as well. The European Union also wishes for a ‘commercial availability’ clause, meaning that if a book is ‘commercially available’ in the receiving country, then the authorized entity can’t export. In Europe itself there are almost no countries (with the UK being an exception) that have such a requirement when it comes to domestic conversions, but the EU still wants to ensure that as a requirement for poor countries. It is very difficult for an authorized entity located in the USA to determine in each and every case whether an accessible format of the book is ‘commercially available’ in the hundreds of countries they will receive requests from. Importantly, even a book priced exorbitantly or available only for those with expensive iPads may be considered ‘commercially available’, even if it is practically out of reach of the blind in the receiving country. This clause must go if the treaty is to be meaningful.

3. Digital locks

If digital locks (often called “Digital Rights/Restrictions Management” or DRMs) are used, then technologically, the blind can be restricted from enjoying a work which they have a legal right to access. For instance, Amazon has limited — at the behest of the Authors’ Guild of America — the ability of blind people to get their Kindle e-book readers to read aloud a book, and did so using digital locks. The TVI proposes that countries be required to ensure that the blind have effective access to books, even if they have digital locks.

Opposition: The United States and the publishing lobby is the biggest opponent of this provision. They have a system under which the blind are not required to automatically be granted the right to ‘circumvent’ the digital lock to make a book accessible even if they have bought an e-book, but have to granted permission to do so every three years by the government. The most recent three-yearly review found that the blind groups did not make out a strong enough case to justify granting them an exception, but thankfully this determination was overruled by the US Librarian of Congress. Thus the TVI must ensure that publishers cannot technologically impose restrictions on a book for the blind that they can’t do legally.

4. Translation

Another hot-button issue is the right to translation. Given that the biggest exporters of books, due to their colonial legacy, are USA, UK, France, and Spain, it is imperative that the blind in developing countries have access to these books in languages that they can understand. Very unfortunately, most of these languages are not profitable-enough markets for publishers to publish accessible translated books. Given this, it is necessary for charities to be able to make translations of accessible works specifically for the blind.

Opposition: The European Union and the publishing lobby is strongly opposing this, claiming that this will result in the blind having better access than the sighted. This is a false claim. A sighted student might have access to a translated book (made without an exception), but the blind student might not. For this has no merit as it ignores the social consequences of disability. This provision will merely bring the visually impaired to the same level as the rest of the population and not give them some illusory advantage.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/primer-on-tvi

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

NGOs circulate letter at WIPO SCCR/36 raising serious concerns about draft Broadcasting Treaty

sinha — 2018-05-29T10:42:48Z

At the 36th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty continue - this time with a sense of urgency to present results of the 20 year negotiations to the UN General Assembly, scheduled in September this year. There remain long-pending issues within the Treaty, which have largely been ignored or weakly acknowledged by the Committee. In view of the threats that this Treaty poses to Access to Knowledge and the mission of educators, archivists, researchers, libraries and creators, NGOs at WIPO (including CIS) have circulated the letter below.

Joint NGO letter on the proposed WIPO treaty on broadcasting

May 28, 2018

Dear Delegates to WIPO SCCR 36

We are concerned that negotiations on a broadcasting treaty have not clarified a number of important issues, nor addressed core concerns from civil society and copyright holders.

At the outset, we are supportive of measures to address the legitimate concerns of broadcasters as regards piracy of broadcast signals. We are looking forward to seeing appropriate measures to address such challenges, provided they are well defined and limited to solving those problems, and avoid unintended consequences to impede access to and use of works, or harm copyright holders.

Our primary concerns are the following:

Term of protection/post fixation.
Limitations and Exceptions.
Public Domain works or works freely licensed by creators.
Confusion over an ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries.
Streaming on demand.
Works originated on the Internet.
Role of large Internet companies in streaming video.
Non-discriminatory and reasonable licensing terms

Term of protection/post fixation

Chairman Daren Tang’s text (SCCR/35/12) proposes a 50 year term of protection for the rights, which is a proposal backed by some broadcast groups and countries supporting the broadcasters. [1] Clearly, this implies the broadcasters will obtain post fixation rights in works they did not create nor license. A 50 year term of protection makes a mockery of the notion that this is a signal based treaty or is only concerned with signal piracy, as it effectively extends the protection beyond the term of copyright, and is a recipe for disaster as regards orphan works (just as individual countries are in the process of trying to solve the orphan works problem). To protect against signal piracy, a short term of 24 hours would make more sense than 5 decades from the date of every broadcast.

Under no circumstances should post fixation rights apply to every mere re-transmission of a broadcast signal -- a policy that would in practice result in perpetual protection of the signal, and give broadcasters more durable protections than copyright holders.

Limitations and Exceptions

There have been a number of proposals as regard limitations and exceptions, but almost no debate in the SCCR has ensued on this crucial issue. The proposals for exceptions in the Chairman’s text are narrow, and give broadcasters more robust rights than copyright owners or performers themselves.

If the broadcasters’ right does not extend to post fixation rights, or has an extremely short term, the exceptions language may be less important. But since broadcasters are seeking rights that last for half a century, i.e. post fixation rights, the exceptions become extremely important.

For any treaty involving post fixation rights, the exceptions in the broadcast treaty should include both mandatory and permissive exceptions. Mandatory exceptions should include those in Berne (news of the day and quotation), as well as for education and training purposes, personal use and preservation and archiving. The agreement should also permit non-mandatory exceptions that address both specific uses and more general frameworks such as fair dealing or fair use. Compulsory licenses should not be prohibited. If the treaty creates a layer of rights for entities that do not create, own or license the underlying works, this layer should not be used to prevent legitimate reuses of the copyrighted works.

In no event should the exceptions for broadcasting rights be less enabling for users than the exceptions that apply to copyright.

Public Domain works or works freely licensed by creators

In no cases should the treaty give broadcasters post fixation rights in works that are in the public domain, or openly licensed.

Confusion over an ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries

There is confusion over who will be the beneficiaries of the treaty. The General Assembly mandate is to limit the treaty to broadcasting in the traditional sense (see page 57 of WIPO/GA/34/16), yet during the SCCR negotiations, BBC and several Spanish language broadcasters have pressed to include Internet streaming services, under the theory that WIPO would create special rights that television broadcasters would have, even when the context was delivered over the Internet, that other entities using the Internet would not have. This assumption needs to be examined critically, to ensure it is not a naive and unrealistic assumption that a right can be given to one set of businesses and denied to another doing the same thing. And, if the right ends up being given to everyone streaming anything on the Internet, how does this change the evaluation of the costs of managing the rights, and unintended consequences?

Streamed on demand

The BBC, the Spanish language broadcasters and some others have asked that the right extend not only to live broadcasts, but also to material later streamed on demand to individuals. If the treaty extends to materials streamed on demand to individuals, there is no longer a special case for broadcasters. Millions of entities and persons stream content on demand, without a special broadcaster right, often over platforms like YouTube. It’s absurd to create a special right for streaming works on demand over the Internet, just because the company doing the streaming is a broadcast company and the work was once broadcast.

Works originally streamed on the Internet

Even more expansive are the proposals by the same broadcasters to extend the broadcasters’ right to works originally streamed on the Internet, thereby eliminating any distinction between broadcasters and every other Internet user.

Role of large Internet companies in streaming video

While many delegates see this as a treaty that will benefit local broadcasters, that is likely only to be true in the short term. And even in the short term, the more ambitious versions of the treaty are also designed to create economics rights for large foreign corporations that “schedule the content” for cable and satellite channels, such as Disney, Vivendi, and Grupo Globo. In the longer run, the treaty appears to be creating a new legal regime that will create rights for the giant technology firms largely based in the United States, that are creating global platforms for video and sound recording content, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Google/YouTube Tv (https://tv.youTube.com/), Hulu tv (https://www.hulu.com/live-tv), Yahoo, Twitter, Sling TV, Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/moviestv/), Spotify (Based in Sweden), Apple Music, Google Play Music, and Pandora, all companies that could qualify as broadcasters by owning a single broadcast station.[2]

The existing content on the YouTube platform is enormous and Google is hardly a struggling company, so it seems odd that WIPO is rushing to create a legal regime that appears to give Google even greater rights over works they never created or licensed that it already has.

Non-discriminatory and reasonable licensing terms

To the extent that a broadcast treaty creates rights of any kind that impact users outside of the robust limitations and exceptions we favor, member states should have the flexibility to require licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, or remuneration rights regimes, as an alternative to exclusive rights,

Conclusion

The 2007 GA mandate asked the SCCR to consider “convening of a Diplomatic Conference only after agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection has been achieved.” The WIPO GA has asked the SCCR to “update the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.” At the SCCR, the definition of “in the traditional sense” is now used less and less, and “future proofing” the protection more and more, without any real understanding of how a new WIPO treaty will upset the existing arranges and rights that copyright holders and users now enjoy. In particular, WIPO needs to discuss the role of giant largely U.S. based Internet platforms now delivering video or audio content, and how any new rights for companies that deliver third party owned content will redistribute income between right holders and platforms and between countries, and impede access to works.

Sincerely,

Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS-India)

Civil Society Coalition (CSC)

COMMUNIA International Association on the Digital Public Domain

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL)

Fundación Karisma

Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights

Innovarte

Instituto Proprietas

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)

Le Conseil international des Archives (CIA)/ International Council on Archives (ICA)

Public Knowledge (PK)

Third World Network (TWN)

[1] “The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting [or cablecasting] organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the programme-carrying signal was transmitted.”

[2] Christopher Harrison, Why Pandora bought an FM radio station, the Hill. June 11, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/304763-why-pandora-bought-an-fm-radio-station. Or be acquired by or merge with a broadcast or cable organization, such as Yahoo’s pending acquisition by Verizon.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngos-circulate-letter-at-wipo-sccr-36-raising-serious-concerns-about-draft-broadcasting-treaty

NGO Profile: Knowledge Ecology International

puneeth — 2014-03-11T16:10:57Z

As CIS’ observer in Geneva, I will be profiling NGOs and other prominent actors at the WIPO. In the first in a series of blogs, I profile the work of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) at the various International Organisations in Geneva.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) is an NGO that searches for better outcomes, including new solutions, to the management of knowledge resources. KEI is focused on social justice, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, including low-income persons and marginalized groups.[1]

KEI has a strong presence in Geneva and their works revolves around the International Organisations that are located here. Their Geneva office is run by Thiru Balasubramaniam, who previously worked with the WHO.

International Organisations in Geneva

KEI is active in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva. At the WHO KEI is represented at the World Health Assembly and the WHO Executive Board. KEI was alsoan active participant at the Intergovernmental Committee on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), which existed from 2006-08.

At the WTO, KEI is engaged in work around TRIPS council meetings- this includes technical assistance to Members and research and analysis of the outcomes of these meetings (the TRIPS Council unlike the WIPO is not open to Observers). KEI along with other NGO’s are also looking towards a possible Treaty on the Supply of Global Public Goods.

Work around WIPO

KEI is active at the following WIPO Committees: the General Assembly, the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Their work in these areas is outlined below:

KEI has been actively involved in the Development Agenda at the WIPO from the beginning. They have actively participated in shaping discussions related to the transfer of technology and access to knowledge (A2K). Jamie Love, the Director of KEI was commissioned by the WIPO to author a paper on Alternatives to the Patent System. KEI had also mooted the idea for a Global Conference on Open Collaborative Research in 2003. The idea had widespread support from the scientific community, which saw fruition with the organization of the conference in January, 2014.

KEI was instrumental in the conception and passage of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (TVI) at the WIPO. They are currently engaged in work surrounding the Broadcast Treaty and Limitations & Exceptions for Libraries and Archives. KEI’s stance[3] on the former is that the proponents of the Treaty have not made a strong enough case in favour of the Treaty and that it could potentially impede access to knowledge and create barriers to the enjoyment of the internet. On the latter, they believe that the Berne appendix must be revisited to recraft it to strengthen the education exception and that the Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries (1976) should also be used as a way for developing countries to serve their education and libraries needs.

Publication

KEI’s publications and Research Notes can be accessed here. In addition, they run two Listserves on IP-Health and A2K which can be accessed here.

I would like to thank Thiru Balasubramaniam, KEI’s representative in Geneva for agreeing to do the interview which was the primary source of this blog.

[1]. See http://www.keionline.org/about

[2]. The proposal can be accessed here: http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/kei_wto_agreement_on_public_goods.pdf

[3].Interview with Thiru Balasubramaniam on file with the author.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international

National IPR Policy Series : India's National IPR Policy - What Would WIPO Think?

nehaa — 2015-07-02T17:47:58Z

As part of the National IPR Policy Series, CIS is evaluating how India's National IPR Policy framework and process holds up to WIPO's suggestions. In this note, Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari examine in particular, the functioning of the IPR Think Tank and the first draft of the National Policy in light of the WIPO framework and the principles it encapsulates.

This note is a brief overview of the approach set out by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") for the development of National IPR Strategies by various countries. This note also compares WIPO's approach to the approach adopted by the IPR Think Tank ("Think Tank") in the formulation of India's National IPR Policy This note is only an academic exercise and is not to be construed as a recommendation of the procedure set out by WIPO for the development of National IPR Policies/Strategies.

An Overview of WIPO's Approach

WIPO's suggested model of a National IPR Policy operates at three levels - The Process, Baseline Questionnaire and Benchmarking Indicators. [1] On process, WIPO suggests an 8-step procedure in developing a National IP Strategy that lays clear emphasis on both continuous consultation and methodological rigour in data collection. The initial 'Assessment Mission' is aimed at preparing the ground for the formulation of the policy, and includes meetings with stakeholders so as to involve interested entities from the very beginning. [2] Given that an IPR policy is necessarily a political exercise, WIPO recommends that the mission be used to secure the political capital and commitment that would be necessary to see the exercise through. Then, a 'project (national) team' is constituted for an IP audit and develop an understanding of the economic, social and political infrastructure as context for the formulation of the policy. It is also stated that, in most instances, the team will include an international consultant. This is further complemented by 'Desk Research' and 'Data Collection' using the 'Baseline Survey Questionnaire', an integrated data collection tool developed by WIPO. The desk research is an assessment of the existing IP policies coupled with the country's broader goals - developmental, economic and social, so as to conceptualize a policy that is in conformity with the goals.

The data collection through the Baseline Survey Questionnaire is meant to complement the IP audit to understand the "weaknesses, strengths and potential" of "the current IP situation in the country". This audit and data collection drive is then buttressed with 'National Consultations' to validate the data and conclusions reached thus far. WIPO is unambiguous that the aim of these consultations is to enable a wide range of parties to exercise meaningful ownership and agency over the process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. With the inputs received from the process so far, WIPO recommends that the drafting of the strategy commence on the basis of the "suggestions, opinions and recommendations received during the national consultation process". The drafting should operate at the level of each sector and the country as a whole. This is followed by a 'second round of stakeholder consultations'. These serve a dual purpose: to validate the findings of the first draft and to verify whether the first round of inputs are reflected in the draft itself. Finally, an 'implementation framework' including "implementation structures, a resource mobilization strategy, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms".

Assessing the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy:

Now, we look at the National IPR Policy in India in light of the WIPO framework outlined above. First we look at the Assessment Mission or process followed prior to the announcement of any IPR policy. Then, we look at what assessment was undertaken of the existing IP laws in the country. Finally, the stakeholders meetings conducted so far are analysed in comparison to the purpose of such consultations that WIPO envisages.

Assessment Mission: There are no reports of an initial meeting having been held to explain the scope and methodology of the process. However, the IPR Think Tank invited comments before the release of the draft national policy in order to seek suggestions on the tentative policy. It should be noted that these comments have not been published.
Assessment of existing IP framework: The overview of the existing IP system in the draft policy covers just the various IP legislations and the relevant government departments. It then proceeds to underscore elements in Indian law that enhance and incentivize stricter standards for IP protection. For example, it illustrated the future challenge in copyright law as being enforcement on digital platforms. It identifies a need for concerted action to increase patent filings by Indians as over "75% of patent filings are by foreign entities". Further, even when it mentions India's ratification of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty ensuring access to copyrighted works for persons with visual impairment, it is in the context of further reinforcement of copyright.Therefore, it is clear that the perspective of the draft policy towards India's existing framework downplays provisions ensuring access and protecting the public interest and focusses on more expansive IP protection, narrower exceptions and an overall priority for IP rights over the public interest in accessing knowledge. The purpose of the IP audit and desk research, "to obtain a clear picture of the current IP situation…, its weaknesses, strengths and potential.", has not been done justice by this audit weighted in favour of rightsholders. Finally, the Baseline Survey Questionnaire -an integrated tool for extensive data collection - has no mention in the draft policy. There is no indication that it has been utilized for the purpose of data collection, if any.
On stakeholder meetings: The Draft National IP Policy was released on 24 December 2014. A DIPP Press Release called for comments and suggestions to the First Draft to be sent in by January 30^th, 2015.[3] The first set of stakeholder meetings were only held on February 5^th and 6^th, 2015.[4] This is at odds with what the WIPO recommends. The very first step in the WIPO framework is the 'Assessment Mission' which involves meetings with stakeholders that explains the scope and methodology of the process, presumably to elicit views. There is no publicly available information that suggests that this has taken place. Second, the national consultation precedes the drafting of the strategy with the explicit goal of validating the IP audit findings and eliciting views on the drafting of the strategy. This is not intended to be a merely formalistic exercise but meaningful involvement of stakeholders in the whole process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. Now, the DIPP has solicited comments prior to the publication of the first draft. However, mere solicitation of comments without meaningful consultation is a mere shadow of the objective of the WIPO recommendation of national consultations - "..to actively participate in the validation of the IP audit findings and the formulation of the National IP Strategy..to enhance a wide a range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy." Therefore, the principled objective of the consultation process as outlined by WIPO - enabling stakeholders to exercise a sense of agency over the policy document and drafting process - was severely undermined. Furthermore, WIPO suggests that the drafting of the policy should be based on the findings and suggestions submitted by the stakeholders. Given that comments have been solicited before the policy was drafted, it is incumbent upon the Think Tank to make comments submitted public. [5]

The following table summarizes the comparison in the WIPO approach to that of the IPR Think Tank. Apart from the procedure outlined thus far, the table touches upon other points of comparison that are sure to inform the continued functioning of the Think Tank in the road towards a National IPR Policy.

WIPO Suggestion	India's National IP Policy Framework - Comparison
WIPO has also suggested a number of justifications that may be advanced for the development of a national IP strategy. [6] These justifications will help in grounding the policy in a clear, lucid set of objectives. These are: Need to consolidate sectoral policies National long-term development agenda Benchmarking and best practices International trade obligations Strengthening the national IP office	India's Draft National IP Policy provides for the following objectives:[7] Create awareness of the economic, social and cultural benefits of IP (IP Awareness and Promotion) Stimulate the creation and growth of IP (Creation of IP) Strong and effective laws that protect IP rights in a manner consistent with national priorities and intl obligations and that balance the interests of the rights owners and the public (Legal and Legislative Framework) Strengthen IP administration and management of IP rights (IP Administration and Management) Augment Commercialization of IP rights; valuation, licensing and technology transfer (Commercialization of IP) Strengthen enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to protect and combat against IP rights violations ( Enforcement and Adjudication) Human Capital Development in IP
The second prong of WIPO's suggestions is devoted entirely to the Baseline Survey Questionnaire. There are seven clusters identified: IP Administration and Management Generation of IP by universities, research organizations, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Commercialization of IP and technology transfer by universities, research organization, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Copyright and copyright industries Plan breeders; rights (plant variety protection) Enforcement of IP rights IP and public policy	While there are elements of these clusters in the draft policy, there is no mention of them in the context of the method of a Baseline Survey Questionnaire. This means that the data collection was not undertaken in compliance with WIPO's recommendations and means that there was either no data collected or the results are undermined.
Finally, the WIPO framework places great emphasis on the implementation of the policy.[8] It has elements of this in all three prongs. It requires the policy to have an effective framework for its implementation that includes resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.[9]	The issue of implementation is covered by the draft policy at two levels: 1. Implementation of IP rights - This includes a) Placing the burden on individuals to protect their IP rights as IP is an "essentially private rights [sic]". [10] The state merely plays the role of the facilitator for protection. b) Enacting rules and setting up institutions. Examples include the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 framed to implement border control measures as well as the Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council. [11] Further, strengthening enforcement mechanisms includes the establishment of a centralized 'Multi-Agency Task Force' for coordination between the raft of agencies that India has. [12] c) Facilitate IP dispute resolution through the designation of a specialized patent bench in select High Courts. It also calls for the creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located as well as an increase in the powers of the IPAB. [13] 2. Implementation of the Policy itself -[14] a) It suggests that the integration of the policy with stated government programmes such as 'Make in India' and 'Digital India' would enable its implementation. b) The establishment of IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) which will open IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) for promoting IP awareness, protection and utlilization. c) IP support to MSMEs. d) Technology Acquisition and Development Fund under the Manufacturing Policy for licensing or procuring patented technologies. e) Manufacturing units will be encouraged to set up IP cells in their own units and make IP a part of their corporate strategy. f) Integrate with government initiatives.

Conclusion: Testing Times Ahead

The IPR Think Tank has not been consistent with WIPO's recommendations on drafting a National IPR Policy. In terms of data analysis, the Think Tank has not displayed an iota of the analytical rigour and data collection that WIPO believes is necessary to understand both the state of IP in the country and devise effective means of responding to lacunae. Further, while consultations have been held with civil society, these have been lacking in two respects. They have not followed the timelines prescribed by WIPO insofar as consultations have happened only after the release of the first draft. As a result, the Think Tank has failed in actualizing the raison d'etre behind national consultations - "enhance a wide range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy". Finally, this piece is not an endorsement of WIPO or its recommendations but a mere acknowledgement of the role WIPO has played in this exercise. In the final analysis, India has fallen short of adhering to the principles reflected in the WIPO framework.

[1] http://www.wipo.int/ipstrategies/en/methodology/

[2] The stakeholders that WIPO mentions are "..inter alia, the national IP office(s), relevant government departments, universities and research institutes, SMEs, inventors, creators, legal practitioners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)".

[3] http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf

[4] http://spicyip.com/2015/01/examining-the-draft-national-ip-policy-stakeholder-meetings-to-be-held.html

[5] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

[6] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 11.

[7] National IPR Policy (First Draft), p. 6-23.

[8] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 9.

[9] Ibid .

[10] Ibid , p. 20.

[11] Ibid , p. 20.

[12] Ibid , p. 21.

[13] Ibid , p. 22.

[14] Ibid , p. 25-26.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-indias-national-ipr-policy-what-would-wipo-think

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

Is the WIPO Treaty for Broadcasters Moving Forward at SCCR 27?

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T11:58:15Z

The WIPO treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organization: The Way Forward?

CIS statement at WIPO is quoted in this post submitted by Manon Ress to Knowledge Ecology International on April 29, 2014.

On day 2 of Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 27, it looks as if the US delegation was showing the SCCR delegates a "way forward" for a new treaty for broadcasting organizations. It seemed as if US diplomacy was working efficiently and the US proposal was gathering support. However, while the US proposal was indeed gathering support, public interest groups and copyright owners also became more vocal in their opposition to the proposal on the table.

Let me highlight aspects of the first 2 days (Monday and Tuesday 28-29 April, 2014) of discussions on the treaty. Wednesday half day is in principle devoted to conclusions on the first topic of the SCCR 27 and will be dealt with in a separate blogpost.

On Monday, led by Martin Moscoso, a most efficient Chair, the delegates moved quickly through the text (with many alternatives) and discussed the various technological platforms as well as the various forms of transmission for broadcasting. They decided to come up (later) with a matrix to, if not clarify at least simplify the work on the proposal. Monday was about the object of protection (what is a signal?) and Tuesday was about Article 9. which is the Article about rights. The issues were: what are the rights that will be granted or not granted to the broadcasters in the treaty.
Until lunch time Tuesday, the mood was quite optimistic and it was no longer "if there is a treaty" ...but when there is a treaty. Delegates were chatting everywhere and one could almost feel a treaty fever coming to the SCCR again.

The discussions were quite diplomatic but also technical. The Delegates are, after all, copyright and related rights experts obviously enjoying arguing and debating, subject matter protection, scope and of course nature of rights. Here is the Secretariat comprehensive review of Article 9 which include the many Exclusive rights that are on the table.

SECRETARIAT: this very high level. We have for Article 9 on page 8 two alternatives, alternative A and Alternative B. Then we have Article 9 in the annex, a proposal from India and then we also, of course, have the new proposal on, in that document, annex 6, I believe this is covered in Article 6 of the cablecasting organizations.Starting with the working text,Ssccr/27/2rev. Both of these Articles, they deal with exclusive rights to authorize by broadcasting organizations, the first one lists fewer rights it covers retransmission, performance, the use of a pre-broadcast signal with them and then with the performance (?), it leaves it as a matter of domestic law to determine the conditions under which this may be exercised provided that the protection is adequate and effective.

Alternative B has a more extensive list of exclusive rights that broadcasting organizations may authorize.

Fixation, direct, indirect production, retransmission by any means, communication to the public, making available, transmission for the reception by the public following fixation and making available to the public of the original and copies of fixations of broadcasts with respect to this alternative, there are two subparagraphs, two and three, that address some flexibilities. Two says that the indirect reproduction and retransmission rights may be a matter for domestic law where the protection of the right is claimed to determine the conditions under which it may be exercised provided that the protection is adequate and effective.

It is possible under 3 to deposit a notification with the Director General saying that instead of the exclusive right of authorizing providing for in subparagraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 there could be a right to prohibit with a notification.

Then there's a general final subparagraph talking about adequate, effective legal protection to signals. With the means of the protection being governed by legislation of the country where the protection is claimed.

The Annex includes various proposals and the Chair asked each proponents to explain:
For example, here is the US Intervention:
quote

The U.S. proposal for discussion is found in the annex at page 4, we first suggested this concept a year ago at intercessional meeting and fleshed it out in actual language at the last SCCR session. As we described then, the goal of our suggested language for discussion is to try to cut through the same debate of the scope of rights for this treaty that's been going on for in the range of 15 years now. What we were attempting to do was to identify a single core right, that would be very narrowly focused to address the fundamental concerns of broadcasters, to do so within the scope of the General Assemblies mandate to deal with signal protection, signal-based protection. As you see from the language, I won't go in a lot of detail, we have described this before, we would suggest that no post-fixation rights would be required at the international level, just protection for the signal itself and that after fixation we would be relying on protection for the content rather than the signal so not through this treaty, but through other treaties and through national laws.

So the way we formulated it was to focus on simultaneous or near simultaneous retransmission to the public of both the signal and the pre-broadcast signal because the broadcasters had made a case for the need of protection for pre-broadcast signal as well. As you can see from our proposed definition for discussion purposes we would define near simultaneous retransmission to be a transmission that's delayed only to the extent necessary to accommodate time differences or to facilitate the technical transmission of the signal. So recognizing that -- well sometimes there's a delay but we would be talking about delays of something more like seconds and hours rather than years.

What we would also like to do at this point, rather than spend many hours having everyone discuss again what their original proposals were, perhaps there's a way forward that this committee could consider. We do have a number of complex alternatives with multiple rights for Article 9 before us at this point.

And in the interest of being able to make progress, we would like to put forth an idea for consideration. In the discussion of our proposal for discussion purposes of this new approach we have not yet in the meetings that we have held since we first put it forward, we have not yet heard opposition to the Treaty covering at least that much and the main area of this agreement seems to be whether there should also be additional rights particularly relating to post-fixation uses. So one suggestion we put forward for consideration on how to move forward in this meeting would be to see if we can as a committee try to narrow the range of choices before us and there are a number of ways that this can be done. One possibility would be to say that one choice is the U.S. suggested approach in our proposal for discussion, and the other main choice would be to start with that, but then also add some version of the various post-fixation rights that other Delegations have proposed as the alternative. Maybe there's a way that the proponents could combine some of their catalog of rights into a shorter catalog or a single more general right dealing with post fixation uses and then although certainly the United States isn't in a position to agree to such a broader catalog, we would have a clearer idea of what the two main fundamental approaches are, and that would help us all clarify the situation and present the alternatives to be negotiated as we move forward and make it easier to look for potential compromises.

I don't know if that's entirely clear, and I would be I don't know if that's entirely clear, and I would be glad to describe in more detail what we were thinking about, but we put this out for everyone's consideration as a possible way to move forward rather than just to continue to go in circles with everyone explaining their own position. And again, you know, as we keep saying, we want to stress that all we're talking about again is a international minimum and that doesn't prevent anyone from having the entire catalog of rights that they may have in their current national system to preserving those rights and urging others to adopt them as well. We're looking for something that we can all agree to at international level.

This US Proposal which is about a narrow right (a signal-based approach) and also a way to limit the proposals on the table by having only two fundamental approaches on the table. The signal-based narrow approach or the US proposal by contrast with the catalog of rights proposed by the EU (and its supporters).

One had to note that what was in December for SCCR 26, an informal US proposal in the annex, had gathered many supporters. For example, the US proposal was supported in some ways by India:

INDIA: Good morning, Mr. President.
I think Belarus, the Distinguished Delegate from Belarus and the Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. started the day with good morning, with good initiatives. We're open to discuss those issues. Going back to the comments made by the Distinguished Delegate from belarus, we do agree that no additional protection to the content should be given because content, the content, it is either author or the performer, asper the convention or the WCPT or the sin graphic producer, the producer of the sin graphic or the sound performing. Already the protection, is that.

What we need to protect here, it is the signal as said by the Distinguished Delegate of the United States also. The signal-based approach, that's what it says, the signal has to be protected. If you look at the definition of signal which India has given in annex, Article 5, page 1, it clearly said that the signal means an electronically generated carrier consisting of a specific program whether encrypted or not and then encryption, it is the dpm, we all know that, you know that that's the business model, the technical model followed by most. Coming to the program carried by the signal, that's the broadcast content.

So we have to see what exactly the signal is carrying the broadcast. It contains, you know, various types of Intellectual Property that's a copyrighted material that we can divide into four main categories. One is, of course, the program content, whether it is in-house production, created by -- acquired from the content owner, and then the other content is the advertisement, and then the moment you will see these two things, each has its own look and appearance just like CNN or BBC, the moment that content is on the screen, you know this is CNN content, you know that this is BBC content, even the same if their live casting, this, you see, in the Standing Committee, you know how it is different, it is a CNN journalist, a B cc journal. Then becomes the way they arrange the content, that's the full thing. The way it is presented. So, these are the four things, the signal, broadcast content, content, so various licensing and arguments are there. The advertising appearing between the few seconds in the BBC journal is different than what advertisement of the CNN and apart from the look and feel of the journal, and then coming to the proposal I would like to briefly explain and make sure we're given the Article 9. It is totally based on the signal-based approach in what we have explained here that the broadcasting organization hall enjoy the right to prohibit if done without authorization the rebroadcast of the signal through traditional procedure casting means, so rebroadcast not only the broadcast, the rebroadcast has to be protected. Here the question of fixation comes, you know, the fixation to be allowed only for the purposes of the rebroadcasting are in the near simultaneous broadcast, which was our Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. was telling, maybe deferred on the delayed -- unless you fix it, you don't do that. Coming to the simultaneous broadcasting, the U.S. Delegate was talking about, here simultaneous in the traditional sense only, it is clear it is a signal-base aid approach in the traditional sense, not the webcasting or simulcasting, what we need to protect here, if any unscrupulous guy, unauthorized manner taking this program-carrying signal, putting it over the internet, the investment of that broadcaster has to be protected. So that's what our proposal talks about, not about the simulcasting, live screaming and other platforms. So there -- otherwise, we will be including the webcasting and simulcasting in the traditional approach. In the traditional platform doesn't carry the webcasting of the simulcasting in the traditional sense and also in the webcasting. That's the simulcasting, doing the same thing, in two different platforms.The simulcasting can be allowed here in the traditional sense, if the BBC wants to, at the same time, broadcasting the same problem, the reach of the B cc in that territory would be different and it is different, they're covering different parts of the world.

So, that's what I would approach here. Then with that, the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. raising the post mixation rights, one significant until appears on the screen, there is l. C or led, nowadays the technology, it is crazy. It is on the screen. So only the content, not the signal. So the fixation of signal, then post-fixation don't come in the signal-based approach. What we need to do is the Protection of Country the signal and if fixation is coming, that fixation is allowed only for the rebroadcast, deferred or delayed broadcast purposes. We'll come back in these issues as the further discussion continues.
Thank you.
And by by Mexico.
> MEXICO: Thank you, Chairman. It gives me great pleasure to see you Chairing and you have the full support of my Delegation in all your work and moving forward in the topics of this committee such valuable work from Mexico. I would like to thank the Secretariat for the document that they provided us with in such a punctual manner. Thank you for helping us with our work. I would like to recall all Delegations. That we need to be seeking the establishment of general standards to feel more comfortable within the legal framework of these particular topic. We shouldn't be looking for participation on any individual basis because we will move forward with our work.

I recall that any international Treaty has to be based on general principles and not on details and the details should be stipulated in the respective domestic legislation of each Member State. On that note I would like to support the proposals from the Distinguished Delegate from the United States that we should, yes, move forward in this way with the work of this committee
And by Japan:
JAPAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone. I'm speaking on behalf of the Japanese Delegation.
We're in the position to support the suggestion by the Distinguished Delegates from the U.S. to put to option related to scope of protection. With respect to scope protection, some Member States seems to find great value in wide variety of rights including fixation rights, including the right of production and the right of making available after the fixation. For such members, post-fixation rights should be included in this Treaty. On the other hand, some Member States are of the view that the minimum fixation rights, simultaneous or near simultaneous retransmission and the right of pre-broadcast is enough under this Treaty.

Here we would like to point out that in order to find the way forward in our discussion more flexible approach may be necessary. From our perspective one possible way while setting the common denominator among all Member States of subject matters for minimum mandatory protection, other rights which not all the members must -- most members think is necessary and this is treated as the subject matter for optional protection. Of course, even if we take such an approach we have to further discuss which rights should be mandatory protection and which rights should be optional protection.

And by South Africa:
SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, I would like to associate myself with the previous speaker, Mexico and the U.S. I think it would be better to have just a general and another scope of rights for the broadcasters sips we're dealing with the signal-based approach and so as always to avoid having to include issues and list of issues that are covered by other Treaties. It may cause a problem in the long run in the sense that some Member States may find themselves want to be a part of this Treaty having to do a balancing act as to whether they need to join into this Treaty to be parties to the other Treaties or to the other issues that are being included in this particular Treaty. It would favor a very narrow, general scope of rights as I think the U.S. has captured that very well. I think it will help us to move forward. Otherwise we'll never -- a long, protracted kind of discussion and we have a very good experience in this, we have been looking at this for a very long time and part of the problems lie in this -- having a very long list of rights and so on, so on. I think that domestic legislation can do justice into the catalog of rights that Member States will now want to prescribe.

But things were not that easy with the EU:
EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to everyone. We tried to look at all the possibilities and options on the table and tried to think of some matrix as you proposed yesterday for which we have to find for both the object of protection and for the rights. Looking at what was presented and discussed today, we tried to put this into some kind of order also in response to the proposal by the Delegation of The United States. What I will present now is our understanding of where we understand with these discussions on various rights and, of course, there may be rates where we have not understood properly.

To us, it seems that there is a consensus in the room as to simultaneous, as to the right to authorize a prohibited or prohibit simultaneous retransmission by any means. As long as we talk about simultaneous retransmission we think from the discussions that took place here, but everybody agrees with simultaneous transmission, that should be covered by the catalog of rights.
Then the other category, the important category here, are any transmissions from fixation. In our view, we should in a way separate the discussion on transmission from fixation from other post fixation points. I think often we use here the term simultaneous retransmission versus post-fixation rights. I think there is a bit of a more nuance to the situation here because we have the post fixation rights because of the reproduction and distribution which we'll talk about later. We have the core right here, the core right which is a retransmission from fixation.
In the U.S. proposal there is also an element of such transmission from fixation as far as we understand, but it is limited. It is limited by technical means and limited in time because it is only to take account of time zones.

In other alternatives that we have on the table as far as we understand in the working document, alternative A, Alternative B, the proposal which was presented today by Belarus on behalf of some members of the CACEEC group, and to the extent that we understand the proposal of the Delegation of India, all these proposals include the right to authorize and prohibit only the right to prohibit in case of the proposal from India transmissions from fixation. We have -- atlas the way we see it, on one side we have the U.S. proposal with transmissions from fixations limited in some way and specifically in time, and then we have a number of proposals where we have transmissions from fixations included. For us, that would be the second block after the simultaneous retransmission, the second block to look at is this block of transmission from fixation. Within this block there are a number of Delegations that in the very explicit way include the so-called making available right. This is the case of Alternative B in the working document, this is the case of the proposal -- proposal presented by Belarus today and this of course has been the position of the European Union as well.

So that's for us, the second thing to look at, maybe to put in this matrix.

We would like to somehow maybe separate this block of transmissions from fixation from what we usually call post-fixation rights. When we move to post-fixation rights you have -- this is always interesting, helpful to look at the table proposed by by the Japanese Delegation, there are a number of rights so that you have the right of fixation itself, of course, that's not exactly post-fixation rights but I think belongs to this group of rights, reproduction and distribution and the right of public performance in places without accessible, for repayment of the fee. All these rights, we think belong to this third block. To be looked at.
Of course, there are certain overlaps, when you look at the various proposals, some extend to all the rights, some extend to only some of these rights. In our view, these three groups are -- it is something to be looked at.

Further, I think if we look at this, if we create in matrix in that sense, it will help us to move further. Then, of course, for us, the next step of the discussion is to then understand in more detail various proposals and I'll just give a couple of examples. I think it is clear for everybody in the room to understand the proposal of the United States on near simultaneous transmission T will have to be very clear what is near simultaneous means, and especially since it is limited in time, in the U.S. today, they indicated, that limited in time not in terms of years, but rather in terms of hours or let's say shorter periods of time, it is very important to know how this would be, how it would be understood and how it works in practice. I think as regards to proposal from India, one thing for us is still maybe not entirely clear is this reference that in all cases the protection has to be subject to the extent of rights acquired from the owners of copyright and related rights. That's, for example, in terms of transmissions of sport events, which are not covered by copyright, we don't understand how this would be covered or whether the proposal of India is, but these would not be covered at all by these Treaties but there is a number of issues that we can go into more depth with each of these proposals. I think that the final, final block is what kind of rights are we talking about in terms of exclusive rights, rights to prohibit. That's all other rights.

In a number of these proposals, we have the right to offer us and prohibit, why for example in the proposal from India we have clearly right to prohibit. That's the final element of the matrix with which we have to look at because maybe not necessarily for all of the rights we have to have the same right. In the sense the same category of right. Maybe we can have some rights that are exclusive rights and for some rights, rights to prohibit, of course, we should not finally forget the protection for the pre-broadcast signal because we have not mentioned it today, but I think on that element also there is quite a broad consensus to have this as a right to the protection for pre-broadcasting. Thank you very much.
After quite a few confused and confusing interventions, the US took the floor again urging the delegates to separate the two main issues, what are we trying to protect and with what rights:
United States.

A lot of issues have been raised in the last round of interventions. I do think it is important to keep our minds fixed on the idea that there is two separate issues and one is the scope or object of protection and the other is what the nature of the rights are. Sometimes I think we're conflating them in the discussions, if we look at the matrix, the object of protection, what that is, I just wanted to note one more time while we've got the broadcasters in the room that I do think there is still some open questions that would be good to get answers to if not -- if it is not possible to get the answers this week, then the next time that this committee meets, and those were my questions about to what extent the uses of new technology described by the BBC and summarized in Japan's little summary document, to what extent the uses of new technology have become standard and how widely adopted they are among broadcasters in different countries and of different types and sizes. I think that would be helpful to know.

Also where the piracy takes place, where it is that those who are Pirating, getting the signals from would be useful to know as well and I partly raise these questions because to the extent we're debating the inclusion of or consideration of simulcasting, deferred, on demand transmission signals, in addition to the question of what extent the piracy problems would be covered by copyright in the content and another question with could be could this be seen an an issue of infringe.

Rather than the issue of protection. If we're protecting over the air broadcast signals, is the problem that the piracy of those signals is taking place using the simulcast versus using the actual over the air broadcast. That's why I see the issues as related, and I think it would be helpful to get more answers to those questions as we look at whatever matrix is prepared.

In terms In terms of the rights, the Article 9 issues, the EU asked a number of questions, I think the Delegate from the EU is correct that there's -- it is not just that the rights are prefixation and post fixation, there is probably at least three different types of things we're talking about. In the language the U.S. has proposed for discussion we're not presuming that the existence of a fixation at any point along the way negates the right, not at all. In fact, you certainly could have a simultaneous, near simultaneous near transmission of the public even where the retransmission is made from a fixation and indeed some technologies may require the use of a fixation to enable the retransmission.

I think what we're focusing on is the idea that there is no right to control the fixation itself or what is otherwise done with subsequent copies, including consumer copying, that would not fall within the right.

Then, just to say that we appreciated the comments from the Delegate of Brazil and also wanted to clarify our proposal was really a matter of process, not substance. We agree with Russia that we're looking to move this forward and so even though our view is that a single right rather than a combination is the most likely way to be able to make progress and move the debate forward, and achieve an outcome, we also think we could make progress here this week if we could simplify the full range of rights that are on the table and figure out a way to present two options for consideration and further negotiation.

That would only be for purposes of the negotiation rather than an agreement on substance at this point, that that's the right approach so then each of us could still be able to convince other Member States of our own view or to find some way to accommodate the concerns once we see what the two approaches clearly are.

It is a matter of process to be able to move forward from the complex text that we currently have before us.

Then just finally, we also agree that we still have open the exact wording of what the right would be in Article 9, is it a right to authorize, exclusive right to authorize, a right to prohibit, prevent, maybe at this point in time we need to keep those things in brackets also for further consideration, negotiation, including the issue razed by the E.U. Delegate that possibly the exact wording may be different depending on what the right is that we're talking about.

Following the US intervention, India discussed the very many different kind of piracy. Then, the Chair gave the floor to the NGOs and before lunch, the NAB (the demandeur for the treaty) made some clarifications related to the Monday presentation by the BBC (the red button or on demand webcast of BBC programs). Which was followed by KEI which stated:
quote.

This is not a treaty about copyright piracy but a special ride for broadcasters. I think it is not a good idea to sort of refer to cases where there is already a right, the copyright owners have (kei) unless you make it relevant to what's discussed here this week. IP rights are a form of regulation, and they create monopolies, rights to exclude, new layers of rights to clear, a shrinking of the public domain, and more obligations for consumers, libraries, businesses to pay more money not to copyright holders,but to the distributors of content. Don't go overboard. Don't approach this like you're a rich relative giving gifts to nephews and nieces, interventions should be narrow and only where they're actually needed to solve a problem like signal piracy to the extent that it is understood and can be remedied through an instrument, or to achieve a predictable, a desired redistribution of income to broadcasters. You're in this case extending rights to entirely new beneficiaries, it is not just people that broadcast in radio and television which was what the Rome convention addressed and make the service available that no one could charge for. Now you're talking about pay services protected by under legal protections such as regulatory provisions, contracts, theft of service laws, you're talking about cable tv service shut off if you didn't pay, cable -- satellite services that are shut off if you don't pay, you're talking about a wide-range of internet delivery issues and people are talking about post fixation rights.

You have what the BBC has described, you have people talking about services now provided under services in the United States such as hulu using platforms like these decidings, tablet computers, the explosion of services, and most of the people doing most of the innovative services outside of BBC are not here demanding a WIPO treaty but doing things, it is working, exploding and it is happening without this new form of regulation. So, I would say conclude by saying that the Rome convention or the WPPT or the Beijing treaty should not be the basis of the rights. Those rights already exist, they address different issues. You're talking about something new today and this new thing should be justified by some coherent explanation of a problem you are trying to solve and should be comfortable because of the cost of the regulation you're introducing to the information society is somehow justified by the benefit.

The Chair called then on the American Society of Archivists:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the society of American Archivists, the largest organization of archivists, we want to commend you for the continued wise chairmanship of the srcr and thank you to the Secretariat for the excellent support of the Committee's work. For decades archives included not just paper records but also important sound and video recordings, many of which have come from broadcasters. These are invaluable documents for connecting society to its past. Think of a major event in the past 15 years, the fall of the Berlin wall or the collapse of the twin towers on September 11th, without the video images that were created, these are the documents that will provide the stuff of history that connects future users to the archives. Thus, regardless of whatever measures are put into place to provide the signal protection that broadcasters need, the new rights should not add any further layers on the already existing copyright protection that exists in the content. Over the long passage of time the archives have to span, and given the vigories of institutions that disappear with regularly, adding a new right on broadcast content would add imher rationally for the orphan work in providing abscess to the dock ministry sector that is such an important part of society's historical record. After the lunch break, eIFL took the floor. The giddy mood of "moving forward" that we had witnessed in the morning was slowly changing (the momentum keep changing said a broadcaster sitting behind me).
[...]
eIFL: As stated at previous sessions of this Committee we see no compelling public policy reason for a new international treatment on the protection of broadcast organisations because piracy of broadcast signals is adequately dealt with under existing laws and treaties as outlined in the earlier statement by KEI. And the creation of a new layer of rights that affects access to content is of great concern to librarians because it imposes an additional barrier on access to knowledge especially to content in the public domain.

As stated which the Delegation of Ecuador, a new layer of rights will in addition to creating problems for users create froshes rights holders of content that will impact on their ability to freely licensed their works. Libraries have practical experience of such over protection caused by multiple layers of rights. For example, a library in northern Europe wanted to publish a sound recording from their archive that was originally broadcast in the 1950s. The recording was taken from a rebroadcast in the 1980s. And all of the performers'rights had expired and the authors waived their fees due to the importance of the work, the library had to pay $10,000 for the permission to use the recording because the signal protection applied also to the the retransmission.

So for many libraries, as you can imagine, such costs are out of the question. As a result, socially valuable works remain inaccessible in libraries and archives, depriving the public of the enjoyment of their work. So Distinguished Delegates, please consider the costs to taxpayers and society as well as the perceived benefits of this proposed treaty. Thank you.

After the Libraries, --except for the European Broadcasters under ACT which came to support the NAB and the proposed treaty--, other consumer/public interest groups such as TACD and CIS (India) followed by many many right holders (copyright holders or as they say at WIPO content owners) such as IFPI, FILA, BCC and FIAPS (representing authors, performers, music producers) took the floor one after the other to express their strong opposition to the proposed treaty. The main point for the Music industry representative was that before the broadcasters get a new exclusive rights, they should first recognize the rights of the music producers and pay for music that they broadcast. While this is actually happening in many countries already, the US broadcasters do not pay and that should change first according to the IFPI. Finally (and that was a surprise for many), a representative from Direct TV attending the SCCR for the first time expressed its strong concerns for a treaty that would give broadcasters exclusive rights and thus more power to control the media market.

Here is the Indian NGO CIS statement:
We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:

First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.

Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal.

Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach.Notes during the excellent IFPI statement as well as statements by the other copyright owners will be in my next blog for your enjoyment.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/knowledge-ecology-international-manon-ress-april-29-2014-is-wipo-treaty-for-broadcasters-moving-forward-at-sccr-27

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