WIPOE

SCCR/14/7

ORIGINAL: English

DATE: May1, 2007

WORLD INTE LLECTUAL PROPERT Y O RGANI ZATIONGENEVA

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHTAND RELATED RIGHTS

Fourteenth SessionGeneva, May 1 to 5, 2006

REPORT

adopted by the Committee

1. TheStandingCommitteeonCopyright andRelated Rights(hereinafter referredtoas the“StandingCommittee”,the“Committee” or “SCCR”) held its fourteenthsessioninGenevafrom May 1 to 5, 2006.

2. ThefollowingMemberStatesof WIPO and/or members of theBerneUnion for theProtectionof Li teraryand Artistic Workswere representedin themeeting: Algeria,Argentina,Australia,Austria, Azerbaijan,Bangladesh,Belgium,Benin, Bolivia,Brazil,Bulgaria,BurkinaFaso,Canada,Chile,China,Colombia, CostaRica,Côted’Ivoire,Croatia,CzechRepublic, Denmark,Egypt, El Salvador,Ecuador,Estonia,Finland,France,Germany,Ghana,Haiti, Hungary,India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republicof), Iraq, Israel, Italy,Jamaica,Japan, Kenya,Lesotho,Latvia,Lebanon,Malaysia, Malawi, Malta,Mexico,Morocco,Netherlands,New Zealand,Nigeria,Norway,Oman,Philippines,Poland,Portugal,Qatar,Republic of Korea,Republicof Moldova,Romania,RussianFederation, SaudiArabia,Senegal,SerbiaandMontenegro,Singapore,Slovakia,SouthAfrica, Spain, Sri Lanka,Sudan,SyrianArab Republic, Sweden,Switzerland,Thailand,TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia,Tunisia,Turkey,Ukraine,United Statesof America,United Kingdom,Uruguay(81).

3. TheEuropeanCommunity(EC)participatedin themeeting in amember capacity.

SCCR/14/7page2

4. Thefollowing intergovernmentalorganizationstookpartin themeeting in thecapacityof observers:UnitedNationsEducational,Scientific andCultural Organization (UNESCO),World TradeOrganization(WTO), Organisation Internationale delaFrancophonie (OIF),Arab Broadcasting Union (ASBU), SouthCentre(5).

5. TheFollowing non-governmentalorganizationstookpart in themeeting as observers:Alfa-Redi,Asia-PacificBroadcastingUnion (ABU), Association brésilienne des émetteurs deradio et de télévision (ABERT), Associationof Commercial Television in Europe (ACT),CanadianCableTelecommunications Association (CCTA), Central andEasternEuropeanCopyrightAlli ance(CEECA),Centre for Performers’ Rights Administrations(CPRA) ofGEIDANKYO, Civil SocietyCoalition(CSC),Computer andCommunicationsIndustryAssociation (CCIA), ConsumersInternational (CI), CopyrightResearchandInformationCenter(CRIC),EuropeanBroadcasting Union (EBU), EuropeanFederationof JointManagementSocietiesof Producersfor PrivateAssociationof Audiovisual Copying(EUROCOPYA),EuropeanPerformers’Organisations(AEPO-ARTIS), Digital MediaAssociation (DiMA), ElectronicFrontierFoundation (EFF),Electronic InformationforLibraries(eIFL.net),EuropeanInformationandCommunicationsTechnologyIndustryAssociation (EICTA), Ibero-Latin-AmericanFederationof Performers(FILAIE), IndependentFilm andTelevisionAlliance (IFTA), InternationalAssociation of Broadcasting (IAB),InternationalChamberof Commerce(ICC), InternationalConfederation of SocietiesofAuthorsandComposers(CISAC), International Federation of Actors(FIA), InternationalFederation of Associationsof Film Distributors(FIAD), International Federation of FilmProducersAssociations(FIAPF), International Federationof Library Associations andInstitutions(IFLA), InternationalIntellectual Property All iance (IIPA), InternationalLiteraryand Artistic Association (ALAI), InternationalFederation of Journalists(IFJ), InternationalFederation of Musicians(FIM), InternationalFederationof ReproductionRightsOrganizations(IFRRO),InternationalFederationof thePhonographicIndustry (IFPI),InternationalMusic ManagersForum(IMMF), International PublishersAssociation (IPA),InternationalVideo Federation(IVF), IP Justice,Max-Planck-Institutefor IntellectualProperty,Competition andTax Law (MPI), NationalAssociation of Broadcasters(NAB),National Association of CommercialBroadcastersin Japan(NAB-Japan),NorthAmericanBroadcastersAssociation(NABA), Third World Network (TWN), Union for thePublicDomain(UPD), Unionof NationalBroadcasting in Afri ca(URTNA), UnitedStatesTelecomAssociation (45).

OPENINGOFTHE SESSION

6. Thesessionwasopenedby Mrs.Rita Hayes,Deputy Director General, whowelcomedtheparticipantsonbehalfof Dr. Kamil Idris, Director General of theWorld IntellectualPropertyOrganization (WIPO).

ELECTION OFA CHAIR AND TWO VICE-CHAIRS

7. TheStandingCommitteeunanimouslyelectedMr. JukkaLiedes (Finland)asChair, andMs. ZhaoXiul ing (China)andMr. Abdellah Ouadrhiri (Morocco)asVice-Chairs.

SCCR/14/7page3

ADOPTION OFTHE AGENDA

8. TheDelegationof Brazil referredto thepresentationsunder Item5 of theDraft Agenda.At a formal meeting of theCommitteepresentationsshouldnot beincludedasanitem of theagenda,in particular,whentheyhadnot beenagreedto before. An examplewastheopenforumon theSPLT wheretherehadbeen aclear indication from theGeneralAssembly’sdecisionasto howto proceedin orderto geta geographically andsubstantially balancedprocedurefor theselectionbothof theissues andtheparticipants. Beforetheopenforumtherehad beenaprior seriesof informal consultationsin Genevawhereall Membersagreedtoaverybalancedprogramof issuesand abalancedselectionof presenters,bothin termsofgeographicalpresentationandin termsof theviews thattheyheld oneach particularissue.However,if theChairsowishedto propose,theDelegation could supportthatthosepresentationscould bemadeinformally asasideevent.

9. TheChair suggestedabreakin themeetingof theCommitteeonTuesdaymorning inorder to haveaninformalmeetingwith presentationsof theinvitedacademics. Af ter thepresentationstheofficial partof theCommitteesessionwould resume. Consequently,theAgendashould bemodifiedin suchawaythat thepresentationswould not beincludedin theofficial itemsof theprogram.

10. TheCommitteeadoptedtheAgendawith theamendmentproposedby theChair.

ADOPTION OFTHE REPORT OFTHE THIRTEENTH SESSION

11. TheChair recalledthattheReportof thethirteenth Sessionhad not beenpreparedbefore theendof themeeting,but aDraft Reporthadbeen madeavailableto thedelegationsafter themeeting. Therehadbeena request thattheformal adoptionof theReport would takeplaceat thepresent sessionof theCommittee. TheReportwasnow availablefor formaladoption. TheChairtooknoteof statementsfrom theDelegationsof Iran,Argentina,Chinaand Australia, andstatedthattheseandother corrections,whichwouldbecommunicateddirectly to theSecretariat,wouldbeincludedin thefinal Report.

12. With thesecorrections,theStandingCommitteeadoptedtheReportof its thirteenthsession.

PROTECTIONOF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

13. TheChair suggestedthatthework underItem 5 bedividedinto two mainparts. Thefirst partwouldconsistin presentationanddiscussionof thedocumentsandproposalsthatwereon the table. At thelastsession of theCommitteeproposals by Brazil andChilehadbeenbriefly presented,but therehadnot been time for theCommitteeto considerthoseproposals in depth. In themeantime,a third proposalhas beenmadeby theDelegationofColombia. Thatwouldbeaddedto theitemsto bediscussed.A fourth proposal from theDelegationof Peruwouldbeavailableduring theweek in thedifferentlanguageversions,andit might beadvisable to havealsoapresentationof thatproposal alreadynow. A generaldiscussion couldbethefirst partof theprocedure.If therewereanyimportantinformationonnational positionsor recentdevelopments,thatcould beconveyedunderthe first part. Asmall Draft Work Programin written form wouldbedistributed,but according to thedecisionjustmade, thepresentationsof theAcademicswould not bepartof theofficial work of the

SCCR/14/7page4

Committee.Thesecondpartof thework referredto thedecisionof theGeneralAssemblyinSeptember/October2005. It haddecidedthattherewouldbetwo additionalmeetingsof theStandingCommittee. First, to acceleratediscussionson thesecondRevisedConsolidatedText, i.e. thepreviousworkingpapersthat wereon thetableof theNovember2005sessionoftheCommittee. Second,thepresentsessionshould aim to agreeandfinalizeabasicproposalfor a treatyon theprotectionof therights of broadcastingorganizationsin orderto enablethe2006General Assemblyto recommendtheconveningof thediplomatic conferenceinDecember2006,or at anappropriatedatein 2007. For that reason,thetitle of thefirstworkingpaperfor themeetingwasDraft BasicProposal. Thedecisionby theGeneralAssembly impliedthatafterthepresentsession,theactual basicproposalwould beprepared.Eventhatbasicproposalwouldbejust aworkingpaperto besubmittedto thediplomaticconference.Suitable timeshouldbereservedfor all delegationsto studyit beforethediplomaticconferenceand engageinto necessary consultationsandotherstepsthat might beneededin preparation of thediplomaticconference. Therefore, thepresent sessionshoulddeal with thesubstantiveitemsin amoreconclusivewaythanbefore, in order to haveanunderstanding on thecontentof thebasicproposalto beprepared. For thatpurpose,hesuggestedthat thedeliberationsbeorganizedundereight points, in sucha way thattheywouldcoverall itemsthathadto bediscussed,bothin theworkingpapersandin thenewproposals.

14. Thefi rst substantiveissuewould becertainselecteditemsfrom thenewproposalsthatwerepresentedlastNovember,whichhaddistinctive substance andnature,comparedto theother contentsof theDraft Basic Proposal. Theycontained newsubstance,whichshould bediscussed. TherewasaproposedArticle in theproposalof Brazil oncertainpublic interestlanguageto beaddedin thetreaty. Therewasalsoaproposedarticle referring to theprotectionandpromotionof culturaldiversity, with referenceto theUNESCOConventionontheProtection andPromotionof theDiversity of Cultural Expressions(theConventiononCultural Diversity),andtherewasaproposalto includein theinstrumentan articleon thedefenseof competition. As aseconditem, theCommitteecould then discussArticles5 to 11on rights in theDraft BasicProposal,includingthosealternative clauseson rightsthatwerefound in theWorkingPaper. A third packagewouldbeall material on thetable regardinglimitationsandexceptions,with specialreferenceto thetreatyon theprotectionof therightsof broadcastingorganizations. Therewasin theDraft BasicProposalan articleon limitationsand exceptions,andin theworking papertherewereproposalsby ChileandBrazil onarticlesthatwereelaboratedin a differentway compared to theDraft BasicProposal,and thoseproposals shouldbeconsidered,togetherwith theproposal by Peru,wheretherewouldalsobeaproposal on limitationsandexceptions. Packagefour wouldbetechnological measuresand rightsmanagementinformation. Packagefive woulddeal with theterm of protection.Packagesix wouldconsistof clauseson thescopeof application. Regardingpackageseven,therewere two main philosophieson theeligibility to becomepartyto thetreaty. It referredto Article 22of theDraft BasicProposalandto theproposal by Brazil. In orderto servetheinterest of all delegationsthatmight haveother itemsin mind thatdid not belongto thesubstantiveareasof thosepreviouspoints,therewould beapackagewith anyotheritems thedelegationsmight raiseandthenjoint analysis andconsideration. Theambition shouldbethattheCommitteeshould beableto establishanunderstandingonwhat shouldbethecontentsof thebasic proposal,anunderstandingthatshouldnot excludethepossibility ofintroducingalternativeproposalsin thebasic proposal.

15. TheChair notedthattheCommitteeagreedwith thatorganizationof thework. Hereferredto theDraft BasicProposalin documentSCCR/14/2. It wasbasedon the formulainthedecisionof theGeneralAssembly. It wasapresentation of all substantive itemsin aclean

SCCR/14/7page5

form with noalternatives,squarebrackets or underlining. Thehistory of eachelementcouldstill betracedin thesecondRevisedConsolidatedText. All changesthathadbeenmadecould beidentified,evenif thefreshestchangeswerenot explicitl y marked.Thathadbeendonein orderto facilitate theCommittee’sconsiderations. However,all previousproposalsby delegationsmadebefore thelastNovember meeting wereincludedin theWorking Paper(SCCR/14/3). In thesecondRevisedConsolidated Text thereweremorethan tenareaswithalternative proposals,which hadall beenincludedin theWorkingPaper,togetherwith theelementsfrom theproposalsby Brazil and Chile. Therefore, thetwo documentswereon thetableat thesametimeandshouldbeconsideredsimultaneously.Oneof themainquestionswouldnowbein whichareassomething in theDraft BasicProposalshouldbereplaced bysomethingin theWorking Paper,or something in theWorkingPaper should bebroughtintotheDraft BasicProposalasanalternative. Theremight of coursealsobesuggestionstoreformulatepartsof thedocuments,etc. In general, theCommitteeshould try to keepthenumberof alternative proposalsassmallaspossible. Only in thoseareaswhere therewerevery importantproposalsotherthanthosepresented in theDraft BasicProposalalternativesshouldbepresented.

16. TheChair drewtheCommittee’sattention to definition of broadcastingin Article 2 intheDraft BasicProposalwheretheincorrectterm“public reception” has beenreplacedby“receptionby thepublic”. Severalreferenceshad beenmadeto thatlanguage. Thesamecorrectionhadbeen made in oneor two otherplaceswheretheexpression“public reception,”which probablywasanerroralreadyin thelanguageof theRomeConvention, hadbeenused.In Article 5 onnational treatment,thelanguagein paragraph (1) had beenreformulatedinsuchawaythatnational treatmentcoveredalsotheright to prohibit. TheformerArticle 7 ontheright of communicationhadbeendeletedandwasnow in theWorkingPaper. TheformerArticle 10on theright of distributionhadalsobeenmovedto theWorkingPaper, sotherewasno longera right of distributionof copiesof fixed broadcasts.In theformerArticle 11whichwasnowArticle9 in theDraft BasicProposal, thelanguageof paragraph(1) hadbeencomplementedby adding thewords: “by any meansandfor thereceptionby thepublic” inorder to offer for considerationanextensiveright to control retransmissionandcontrol newtransmissionsbasedon fixation, therebyavoidingany non-intendedloopholesin theprotection. Article17,which listedthepermittedreservations,hadalsobeenrevisedin orderto exhaustively list thecasesof permittedreservations. In anAppendix to theDraft BasicProposal,therewasanewpresentationof webcasting andsimulcastingwhichwaspreviouslyin aseparateworkingpaper.Thethreedifferentmodels in thepreviousworkingpaperhadbeenmergedinto anon-mandatoryAppendix. Whenconsideringadherenceto thetreatyitself,or at anylater time, theadherenceto theAppendixwouldbesubjectto aseparateactdecidedby theGovernmentor decidedby theappropriateproceduredealingwithinternational obligationsof theMemberState. Only by explicitl y, separately notifying acountrywould adhere to theAppendix. TheAppendixincludedasomewhatnewdesignofthePreamble thathadbeentailoredfor thepurpose. Article1 in theAppendix explainedthenatureof theAppendix. It wasanon-mandatory integralpart, andonly thosewhohavemadeanotificationwould beboundto applyits provisions. A few definitionswerenecessarytoextendthescopeof thetreatyin theareaof webcasting. Small furtherclarification hadbeenmadein thedefinitionof webcastingascomparedto thepreviousversionin thenewlanguage“by meansof aprogram-carrying signal which is accessiblefor themembers of thepublic.”Article 3 of theAppendixoperatedthroughthescopeof theapplication of thetreatybyextendingtheapplicationof thetreaty to webcastingorganizationsandbroadcastingorganizationsthataresimulcasting,i.e.webcastingsimultaneouslythesamesignaltheyarebroadcastingovertheair. Article 4 onnational treatmentprovidedapossibili ty for reciprocaltreatment. Article5 dealtwith theentryinto forceandbecomingboundto theAppendix.

SCCR/14/7page6

Both theDraft Basic Proposal andtheWorkingPaperwereup for discussion.Theyhadthesamestatus andboth hadcontentsconcerningwhich therewas noagreement. He invitedthosedelegationsthathadmadenewproposals, in particular, to takethefloor, followedbygeneralstatements.

17. TheDelegationof Colombiastatedthatits proposalcorrespondedto Article16of theDraft Basic Proposalon technologicalmeasures. Oneof theissuesdiscussedat theregionalconsultationof thecountriesof Latin Americaand theCaribbean,held in July2005,was thepossibilityof establishinga criterionto establish limitationsto technologicalmeasuresin theproposed treaty. While it wastruethat thecurrentproposalwassimilar to theprovisionsontechnologicalmeasuresin the1996WIPO InternetTreaties,theproposalwasamandateforthecontractingpartiesandprovidedappropriatelegalprojection through technologicalmeasureswhichwouldbedevelopedin national legislationby thecontracting parties.Technologicaldevelopmentshadgivenriseto concernsthattheexceptionsand limitationsenjoyedby usersof productionscouldbeunderminedby thetechnological measuresimposed.A holderof rights in copyright or abroadcastcould, on thebasisof a technologicalmeasure,decideto prohibit accessto userswherethetechnical measurewassorobustasto excludeenjoymentof thework by theuserunderthatlimitation. Theproposalby Columbiahadtheadvantageof avoidingproblemsthatcouldarisein maintaining accessto information,educationandcultural events.Providingcriteria for limitationson technological measureswouldassistnationallegislatorsto resolvesuchissues.An excessof regulation couldcauseproblemsfor theusersof copyrightedworks. Accordingto theproposal,contractingpartiescould providethatthecircumventionof aneffective technological measureimposedbybroadcastingorganizationsin orderto obtainaccessto abroadcastfor thepurposeof anon-infringing useof thatbroadcast, shouldnot constitutetheinfringementof themeasuresimplementedby virtueof sucharticle. Theproposalrespondedto oneof thequestionsdiscussedat theCartagenaregionalmeeting,specificall y thepossibili ty thatabroadcastingorganization intendingto transmit lastminutenews might beunableto dosoandwouldtherebydepriveits audienceof breakingnews andcausedifficultiesfor personssuchaseditors and journalists. Theproposaldid not resolvethepersistent concernsraisedby thedevelopmentof thoseparticulararticles. In 1996,whentheInternet Treaties wereprepared,thoseconcernshadbeenraised,anddelegationswereenthusiasticaboutestablishingamechanismto ensurethatcopyright would prevail in Internetactivities. However,thosetreatiesdid not resolvethoseconcerns, whichhadto beincluded in anynew treaty regulatingtechnologicalmeasures.

18. TheDelegationof PeruthankedtheDelegation of Columbia for its interestingproposal,and noted thattheDelegationsof Brazil andChilehadalsosubmitted documents at thelastSCCRthatenabledinformeddecision-making. Theproposals emerging from the LatinAmericanandCaribbeancountriesrepresentedacompromiseandrecognitionof theimportanceaccordedto copyright. TheDelegation then describedits own proposal,firstnoting thatthedelay in submittingtheproposalwasdueto a lengthy processof consultationat thenationallevelundertheleadershipof theNational Institute for theDefenseofCompetitionandIntellectualPropertyProtection (INDECOPI), thePeruviannationalauthority on intellectualproperty. Thoseconsultationswerebroadened,in light of theimportanceof theissue,to involvebroadcasting organizations,representativesof performers,thewriters’ guild, publishingcompaniesandmembersof thepublic. In light of theproposeduseof thetreatyfor theprotectionof broadcastingorganizations,abalance wassoughtbetweentheprotection of existing rightsandthepublic interest,while recognizing andensuring therights of holdersof copyrights andrelatedrights. Such a treaty shouldnot limitaccessto informationnor hindertechnological development, andshouldnot underminethe

SCCR/14/7page7

public sector noraffectculturaldiversity. Links werenotedbetweencopyrightandtherecentConvention on thePromotionof CulturalDiversity, andsupportwas expressed for theBrazilian proposalconcerningthearticleon accessto information andtheprotectionofcultural diversitywithin theframeworkof thetreaty for theprotection of broadcastingorganizations. Supportwasalso expressedfor theChileanproposal, whichprovidedadequateprotectionof competitionin thelight of therightsprovided in thetreaty for theprotectionofbroadcastingorganizations. In its country,a link hadbeenmadebetween thedefenseofcompetitionon theonehandandof intellectual property on theother. Referencewasmadetoits earlier proposal, togetherwith Chile, at theregionalconsultation meetingof LatinAmericancountrieson theprotectionof broadcasting organizations,heldin July 2005,toundertakestudieswhich woulddetermineimplicationsonbroadcastersandusersof suchatreaty for theprotectionof broadcastingorganizations. Such taskcouldbeapartof theinternational cooperationpromotedby WIPO. Delegates shouldnot betoohastyto organizeadiplomaticconferencefor a treatyuntil all thestudieshadbeen undertakento understandimmediateneeds.Work shouldbeundertakenin partnershipwith othercountriesof theregionanddeveloping countriesthatattachedimportanceto theprotection of traditionalknowledgeandfolklore, bearingin mind theDevelopmentAgendaof theOrganization.TheDelegation madetwo specific proposalsrelating to four points. Thefirst related to limitationsand exceptionscontainedin Article 12 of theDraft BasicProposal.It was importantto redraftArticle 12on thebasisof acorrectdefinition for theinterpretationof exceptionsandthelimitationsthatwouldenablethebalancebetweentheinterestof thebroadcastingorganizations,performersandperformer-authors,and thegeneral public whichhada right ofaccessto informationandto culture. Particularconcernwasexpressedaboutworks in thepublic domain, whosemeretransmission raisedissuesof relatedrights. Supportwasexpressedfor minimum standardsor specific provisionsrelatedto theprotectionof thepublicinterest, whichwouldassist in maintaining thebalancebetweenbroadcasters,authorsandother titleholders.Furtherdetailsneededto beincludedin Article12 relating to privateuseoffixationsfor privateuse,to scientific research anduseby libraries,databanks,academicinstitutionsandsoon, thatcouldbereviewed when delegationsreceivedthewrittenproposal.A specificpoint wasraisedconcerningtechnological measuresin Article14of thebasicproposal. Theobligationit containedshouldbeconsideredin thelight of theapplicability oflimitationsandexceptionsandaccessto information by thepublic, andto whatdegreetheyeffectively protectedtherightsof performers. Supportwas not givento inclusionof Article14 in thetreaty,because theeffectiveapplicationof exception andlimitationsto copyrightwasthreatenedby thetechnologicaldevelopmentsandlicensingrestrictions,whichcreatedanimbalancein favorof commercialinterestsandagainst theinterests of users,particularly indevelopingcountries.Technologicalmeasuresshould not beusedto generate rightsthat didnot earlierexist. Therealrisk of technological measuresandtheir protection wason theeffective implementationof limitations. Thethird point concerned Article 15of thedraftbasicproposal.Therewasconcernthat Article15could beused to characterizebroadcastersas creators,andprotectedon thatbasisonly. Furtheranalysis andstudy of thatissuewererequiredbeforeanyconclusioncouldbereached.Thefinal point wasthat webcasting,whichhad beenplacedin thenon-bindingappendix,wasincreasinglyimportantandhadmajoreconomicimpact. It wasimportantto evaluateto whatdegree therealworld, and therulesoncopyright and relatedrights, couldbeeffectively implementedandenforced in thevirtualworld of theInternet.Webcastingshouldbelinkedto thetreaty,but dealt with separately,ashad beendonein thebasicproposal.

19. TheChair notedthatthegeneralapproachof theproposalfrom Peru,as well asitsspecific items,waslargelycoveredby thework programproposedfor considerationby the

SCCR/14/7page8

meeting.Newproposalswouldbedebated,togetherwith itemsincluding limitationsandexceptionsandtechnologicalmeasures.

20. TheDelegationof Thailand,onbehalf of theAsiangroup,noted thattheGeneralAssembly in 2005haddecidedthattheSCCRshould continueandaccelerateits worktowardspreparinga consolidatedtext andworkingpaperon theprotection of broadcastingorganizations. It wasrecognizedfrom theChair’s introductory remarks thattherewasyet noagreementon thecontentof theproposedtreaty. TheAsian Groupsupportedprogressin theSCCRtowardsabroadcastingtreatyfocusingonprotectionagainstsignal piracywhileensuring thattherightsof concernedownerswerenot compromised.Therewasscopeforsubstantialreformulationof thedraft treatyto facilitateaccessto knowledgeandreward tocreators. Therewasacall for moretransparency,clarity andsimplicity in theworkproceduresof theSCCRthroughinclusive engagementof all MemberStates. Thetreatyshouldtake intoaccountthetechnological natureof thedigital environment,in particulartheimplications of technologicalprotectionmeasures onaccessto information,knowledgeandmaterial in thepublic domain,andtheexisting frameworkof limitationsandexceptions.Technologicalgapsanddigital devicesremainedmajorchallengesfor developingcountries.Theevolvingnatureof suchInternet-based technologiesandits unclear implicationsrequiredmorequalification andunderstanding,andthereforeopposition wasexpressed to theinclusionof webcasting andsimulcastingin thetreaty. Supportwasgiven for aminimumdurationofrights of 20 years,asMemberStatescould maintain theoption to extendthatperiod throughnational legislation. Finally, thetechnical natureof thedocumentunderdiscussiondemandedacomprehensiveandthoroughdeliberationof thearticles in aclear andfocused manner.

21. TheDelegateof Brazil statedthatthedraft basic proposalin documentSCCR/14/2wasnot acceptableasabasisfor negotiations.Theproposal wasnot inclusiveof all proposalspresentedby MemberStatesin thelastsessionandin previousmeetingsof theSCCR.Proposalsthathadbeenrejectedby someMembers wereincludedin thenewdraft of theChair,suchaswebcasting, leadingto unequaltreatment of Membersandtheir views. Thenew text hadundergoneconsiderableredrafting, incorporating provisionsthathadnot beenadequatelyconsideredor discussed. Members’proposals shouldbetreatedonanequalfooting, andthedocumentsshouldevolvein a linearandpredictablemannersothatcountriescould engagein themeetingandmakesubstantive contributions. Theprovisionsof thedrafttext posedaseriesof newconcernsandtechnical uncertainties that representedastepbackwardsin manyrespects,andrequiredcarefulre-evaluation andstudies as to their impact,especially in developingcountries. Negotiationsshouldproceedon thebasisof onedocument, whichshould includecontributionsandproposals of all MemberStates.TheDelegationdid not offer to presentits proposal,as it wasunderstoodthatit had beenpresentedin theprecedingthirteenthsessionof theSCCR,as representedin thereport of thatsession,paragraph61of whichsetout theDelegation’s proposal. Paragraph81of thereportof thethirteenth sessiondescribedtheDelegation’s understandingthatits proposalwassubmittedfor incorporationin a revisedversionof thecurrentconsolidateddocument,andtherefore it wasfrustratingto seethatits proposalhadnot beenincorporated. Discussionscould not proceedon the basisof adraft basicproposalthatdid not includeproposalsofMembersStates,andincludedproposalsof MemberStatesthat werenot theobjectsofconsensusor agreement.

22. TheDelegationof Bangladesh supportedtheposition of theAsianGroup,whichstatedthattheproposedtreatyshouldtakeinto accountthetechnological natureof thedigitalenvironment. However, theprovisionsconcerning technological protectionmeasures,astheystoodin thebasic proposal, did not addresstheDelegation’s concerns.Technological

SCCR/14/7page9

protectionmeasuresshouldnot stifle innovation or deny accessto material availablein thepublic domain, asgreatbenefitshadbeengainedby suchaccessand it wouldbeunfortunateto prohibit decryptionof signalsin thepublic domain. A lack of accessto scientif ic journalsmight alsohaveanegativeimpacton freedomof expression,andledto monopolisticeffects.Therewasno rationaleto restrict accessto knowledgewhenthecreator himself waswilling tosharetheinformation. As amatterof procedure,referencewasmadeto thedecisionof theSCCRandtheGeneralAssemblyof September2005,whichstatedthattherewouldbeaconsolidatedtext, includingall proposals.However, thereappearedto betwo components,onebeingthecleantext of adraft treaty andtheotheraworkingpaperandclarificationwasrequestedon thestatusof suchtexts.

23. TheDelegationof Austria in its capacity asPresidentof theEuropean CommunitycongratulatedtheChaironhis ability to handlediffi cult situations andguidetheSCCR to apositiveoutcome. On thesubstanceof issues, theDelegation of theEuropean Communitywould taketheflooronbehalfof its memberStates and theaccedingStates,Bulgaria andRomania.

24. TheDelegationof Ghananoted thatits countryhadpassedanew copyright law,includingprovisionsfor theprotectionof broadcastingorganizations. Clarification wassoughtrelating to the regionalconsultationof a groupof African countries,held in Nairobi in2005, to considertheproposedtext for thetreaty. Theoutcomeof thatmeeting wasnotrepresentativeof theentireAf ricanGroupbecauseNorthernAfri cancountries hadparticipatedin adifferentforum. Therefore,theoutcomeof thatconsultationcouldnot besaid to bethepositionof thewholeAfricanGroup. Nevertheless,thosepresentat theconsultationin Nairobi haddiscussedthedraft text andmadecertainproposals,someofwhich wereintendedto bepublicizedwith theassistanceof theSecretariat of WIPO.Clarification wassoughtasto whetherthoseproposalshadbeen published,andasto thestatusof theoutcomeof theNairobi regionalconsultation.

25. TheChair statedthatexaminationwasrequired of thedocumentthathad beendistributedaftertheseriesof regionalconsultations, includingthedocumentsfrom theNairobi consultation.

26. TheDelegationof SenegalthankedtheInternational Bureaufor its work in enablingMemberStatesto holdconsultationson theimportantissueof broadcastingorganizations.Fromtheperspectiveof theRomeConvention, therewas recognitionof theimportanceofusesof intellectualpropertyrights, particularlyasbroadcastingorganizationstransmittedsignalsthatcontainedcontentthatwasprotectedunderrelated rights. Thedocumentspreparedby theSecretariathadhelpedinform Members aboutthedevelopmentof thoseissues,andit wasclearthattheprocess wasnearing completion and,with somefine-tuning, adiplomaticconferencewasincreasingly likely. Globalization hadturnedtheworld into asmall village,andobstaclesweredisappearingespecially fastin theareaof broadcasting.Therewasgeneralawarenessthatthosewhobenefitedfrom protection of intellectualpropertyrights hadsufferedasa resultof increasingpiracy of signals, andtherefore moreinternationalprotectionmechanismswereneeded.Harmonizationof thosemechanismsof protectionwouldhelpprotectbroadcastingorganizationsagainstcertain typesof exploitation, fixation,transmission and reproductionof their signals. Theproposedtreaty,as expected,containedproposals for protectionfar beyondthatbasic need, andfor thatreasonsupportwasgiven forfurthernegotiationanddiscussion. Therewasconcern abouttheproposed appendix onwebcasting, andexplanationwassought,particularly in thecasethatsilenceon theissuewould imply its rejection. If, upondepositinganinstrument of accessiona Statedid not

SCCR/14/7page10

explicitly accede to theappendix,would theresult bethattheStatewasnot boundby theinstrument?It wasnotedthat,in 1996,it was soughtto raisethelevel of protection foraudiovisual performersto address theproblemof protection,andhopewasexpressedthatsuchdiscussionscouldresumein orderto finalizethatprocess. Strongsupportwasthereforegiven to holdingadiplomaticconference,in accordancewith thespirit that hadresultedin theWIPO PerformancesandPhonogramsTreaty(WPPT) in 1996.

27. TheDelegationof Japanstatedthattheultimategoalof themeetingwas to agreeandfinalize thebasicproposal for thetreaty,in orderto enable theGeneral Assembly torecommend theconvening of adiplomaticconferenceat an earlystagethefollowing year, andtherefore theefforts of theChairandSecretariat to preparetheDraft Basic ProposalandWorkingPaperwereappreciated.As thebasicproposalto beagreedwouldbeadraftproposal, andthearticlesof thetreatywouldbediscussedat thediplomatic conference,Memberswereencouragedto reachconsensuson thebasicproposalsoasto proceedto thediplomaticconferenceand to adoptthetreatyas soonaspossible. Onaspecific point,withrespectto Article2 of thedraft basicproposal,clarification wassoughtas to themeaningof“ transmissionsovercomputernetworks”.

28. TheDelegationof theRepublicof KorearemindedMemberStates of thecooperativespirit sharedat thethirteenthsessionof theSCCR,wheretheoverwhelmingmajority ofMembershadagreed that it wasprudentto update theexisting rightsof traditionalbroadcastersto keeppacewith therapidprogressof thetechnology,which could leadtoincreasinginfringementof their rights. TheDraft BasicProposalofferedsolidgroundforrapidly conveningadiplomaticconference, leading to theadoptionof a treaty on theprotectionof broadcastingorganizations.It washopedthat agreementcouldbereachedat thepresentmeeting, soasto grantproperprotection to broadcasters.

29. TheDelegationof Mexico recognizedthat thedraft proposalreflectedtheChair’sefforts to incorporate theviewsandproposals madein pastsessionsof theSCCR. Thebroadagendaof themeeting wouldenabletheexpressionof remaining concerns,andenablecontinuedconstructivework towardsachieving agreementon thelanguageof thetreaty.

30. TheDelegationof Jamaicarecognizedtheeffortsmadein preparing thedocuments,andgavesupport to thefinal text for thediplomatic conferencebeing oneintegrateddocumentthatwould reflectall views. Supportwasexpressed for theviews presentedby otherdelegationsfrom Latin AmericaandtheCaribbeanregion in relation to limitationsandexceptionsandtechnologicalprotectionmeasures.It wasof critical interestto developingcountriesthatall rightsshouldbefairly balanced,sothat commercial interests wereequallybalancedwith thepublic interest. TheSecretariat wasurgedto undertakestudiesto determinetheimpactof provisionson limitationsandexceptionsand technological protectionmeasureson developingcountries,aswell ason developedcountries,sothat propercomparisonandcontrasts could bemade to ensureanequitableresult. Provisionsonwebcastingshouldnot belinkedto the treatypresentedto thediplomatic conference. Thetermof protection, whichhadimplications for thepublic interestandfair play,wasadequateat 20 years,andStatesretainedtheright to increasethe termof protection by domesticlegislation. Thereshouldbenoprerequisitefor eligibility to thebroadcasting treaty,andany WIPOMembershouldbeentitled to beasignatory.

31. TheDelegationof India expressedsatisfaction thatthefocusof themeeting wason thedraft text concerning theprotectionof rightsof broadcasting organizations,as themeetingwasconvenedin view of thedecision of theGeneralAssembly of 2005to hold two meetings

SCCR/14/7page11

of theSCCRto expeditetheprocessleading to adiplomatic conferenceto concludethetreaty.The focusof theproposedtreatyshouldbeonprovidingbroadcastingorganizationswith therights to preventpiracyof content-carryingsignals,andanyenhancement of thoserightsbeyondprevention of signal piracywould becontrary to thepurposeof thetreaty. Discussionshouldalwaysrefer to theconceptof theright of information, and thataccessto knowledgeshouldnot beimpededby any improvementof therights of broadcastingorganizations,thatno exclusive rightsof broadcastersshould overlay therightsof contentproviders,andthattheprotectionwould beaccordedto signalsprior to andduringtransmission.Webcastingshouldnot beincludedin thetreaty,andtherewasno reasonto gobeyondArticle 14.3of theAgreement onTrade-RelatedAspectsof Intellectual PropertyRights (theTRIPSAgreement)regarding therightsof broadcasting organizations. Referencewasmadeto thedecisiontakenat thethirteenthsessionof theSCCR, asreported in document SCCR/13/6,andthefinal viewtaken by theChairthata partialor completeconsolidation of thetext would continueto bedoneandthatthethird consolidatedtext wouldbemadeavailable to Membersassoonaspossible.TheDelegationpreferredto havereceived a third consolidated text insteadof aDraft Basic Proposalfor thebroadcastingtreatythatincluded anon-mandatory opt-inappendixin relation to webcasting. Manydelegationshadopposedtheinclusionofwebcasting in any form in thetreaty,andIndiahad opposed anydirect or indirectreference towebcasting in themainbodyof thetreaty. However,it was notedthatsuch referencesremained,for example in Articles2, 6 and9, in addition to thenon-mandatory appendixin theopt-in facili ty to thetreaty. Further,document SCCR/14/2still contained basic elementsthathad beenopposedby many delegations,andmany of theviableandwidely supportedalternativeswerepresentedasalternativesin theWorkingPaperSCCR/14/3.That appearedto regressonprogresstheChairhadacknowledgedto havebeenmadein thepreviousSCCR.As a result,it wasrecommendedthatanarticle-by-article,clause-by-clausediscussionshouldbeconductedto acceptor rejecteachclausein thedraft basicproposal, soas to achieveresultsacceptable to all delegationsandto assist theChair to consolidatethetext sothattheviewsof all delegationsweresuitably reflectedin theresulting text. Thediscussionsof themeetingshould focusonsubstantiveissues,ratherthantimingof adiplomatic conference,soas to leadto better results.

32. TheDelegationof Croatia,on behalf of theregional groupof Central EuropeanandBaltic States,statedits confidencethatthemeetingwould timely reachits objective,asdefinedby theGeneralAssemblyin 2005. Appreciation was expressedto theChairandSecretariat for thepreparationof thecomprehensivedocuments,aswell as to delegationsthathad submittedproposals. At theregionalconsultationheld in Bucharestin June2005,it wasnoted thatinternationaldiscussionson theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationshadtakenplaceovera long periodof time,with significantresults,althoughsomesubstantive issuesremainedoutstanding.Supportwasgivenfor activeandconstructive resolutionof theremaining‘horizontal’ issues, including in night sessionsif required, with aview to achievingprogresstowardsthetreaty.

33. TheDelegationof Argentinareferred to theChair’sdraft workingprogram, andobjectedto theinclusion of agendaitem three,in linewith theviewexpressed by theDelegationof Brazil. Suchpresentationsshould not bepartof theworkingprogramnor of aformalmeetingof MemberStates.Supportwasexpressedfor thestatementsmadeby theDelegations of Brazil, Bangladesh andIndia, whichshareda commonunderstandingthat thepaperwouldbea third reviseddraft thatwouldallow Members to agreeabasicproposal,andthatproposals madeby all Memberswould beconsidered onanequalfooting. Theparticularstatementsmadeby Argentinarelatingto theproposals of Brazil andChileshouldhavebeenreflectedin thetext. Therehadbeendifficulty understandingwhatcriteriahadbeenusedfor

SCCR/14/7page12

theintroductionof therevisedtext,andhow issuesonwhich therewasno agreementhadneverthelessappearedin thedocument,in particular, theAppendixconcerningwebcasting.Accordingto theAssembly’s decision,thereneededto beanagreement on languageof thebasicproposalbeforetheconveningof adiplomatic conference,which required considerationof all interests andwork wouldcontinuetowardsthatendwith goodwill . In light of theimplications of thetreaty,andtheconcernsexpressedby themajority of MemberStates,itwasconsideredprematureto considercalling adiplomatic conferencebeforeholdinganothermeetingof theSCCR.

34. TheDelegationof Kenya restatedits earlier position, with regardto theprovisionsoftheproposedtreaty,andexpressedoptimismthatsubstantiveprogresswouldbemadeduringthesession. Protectionof broadcastingorganizationshadbeen thesubject of debateat theStandingCommitteesince1997,andthetimehadcomefor formulationof aninternationalinstrumentfor theprotectionof therightsof thebroadcastingorganizationswhichbalancedtherightsof all interestedpartiessuchthat nopartywasin a losingposition in theeventthatatreaty wasformulated. Theproposedtreaty should balancethe interestsof right holders,creatorsin particular, andconsumersin thepublic at large, andensurethat thefreeflow ofinformation is not obstructed.All Memberswerecalled uponto reach a compromiseby theend of themeeting.

35. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica emphasizedthat theGeneral Assembly hadgiventheSCCRamandateto accelerateits work in preparation for adiplomatic conference.Thatdependeduponproperpreparationbaseduponrespectfor theprinciplesof transparency,inclusivenessandconsensus. A balancebetweenincentivesfor investmentandaccesstoinformation andknowledgeshouldbeachieved. In thatconnection, noneof theinterestsofright holders should overshadowthelargerpublic interest,whichshouldinsteadbebalanced.While therewassomebenefitin theideaof encouraging innovation throughgrantingsomeform of monopolyto recoverthecostof investment incurred,accessto knowledgeandinformation shouldnot beendangered.A termof protection of 20 yearswasmore thansufficientto recoverthecostof investmentincurred as well assomenominal profits, andthereforenosupportwasgivenfor extendingthetermof protection to longerperiodssuchas50 years. Seriousconcernwasexpressedregarding theinclusionof some issuesinto thedraftbasicproposalwheretherehadbeennoagreement, whereasotherissueswerecontainedin aseparatedocument.Thepreparatoryprocessshould balancetheinterestsof all partiesin orderto achieveasuccessful diplomaticconference.

36. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Irannotedthat themeeting shouldadoptinclusiveandtransparentprocedures,particularly in light of thenewtechnologies,emergingstakeholderrights andthecomplexity of thedigital environment. An openapproachwasrequiredto achievebalancein theproposedtreaty, andby incorporatingexceptionsandlimitationswithoutanypreconditions,particularly in light of changingconditionsin thedigital environmentandpublicconcernson theissue.Thenegotiationsshouldnotcompromisetherights of right holders,should protectbroadcast signalsandnot content,andshouldrecognizethatrelatedrightswereof adifferentnature. Al l provisionsof thetreatyshouldbebalanced to ensurethattheoutcomewassatisfactory to all MemberStates.Supportwasgivenfor a termof 20 years,andStatesshouldbeable to extendsuchtermin nationallaw. With regardto theprocedureof thework, theguidingprinciplesin concludinginternational treaty law wereinclusivenessandtransparency,flexibil ity andcompromise. Inview of theGeneralAssembly’sdecisionto accelerate thework of theCommittee,theviewsof all MemberStatesshouldbereflectedin onesimpledocument. As therewas noagreementon thebasicproposalin documentSCCR/14/2,Membersshouldfocustheir negotiationson

SCCR/14/7page13

document SCCR/14/3and,if therewasagreement on its elements,then focuscould transfertodocument SCCR/14/2asabasic proposal.Thework had not beenapproached onanequalfooting. Forexample, althoughall MemberStateshadbeenopposedto theinclusionofwebcasting in thetreaty,it wasincorporated in theappendix.Also, theproposalput forwardby Chilehadbeensupportedby all MemberStates,but it hadbeen treatedasanalternativetoother proposals.Therefore,while support wasexpressed for constructive,cooperativeandflexiblenegotiations,all theviewsof MemberStates shouldbeincorporatedin onedocumentas abasisfor futurework.

37. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheChair andSecretariat for their work in preparingthedocumentsfor themeeting,andespecially for thetranslationof several documentsinto theArabic language. It washopedthattheSecretariat wouldcontinueto considerArabiconeofits working languages. Supportwasexpressedfor anyeffort thataimedto protectcopyright,including theproposalfor thetreaty on theprotection of broadcasting organizations,andsuchsupporthadbeenexpressedat earliermeetings. No opposition wasexpressed, in principle, toholding adiplomatic conference,but beforedoingsoMembers neededto haveasufficientlymaturedraft treaty thatwouldbetheobjectof consensus,sothat thediplomatic conferencedid not becomeanarenaof disputebetweendelegationsovermattersthat could havebeenconcludedmoresatisfactorily within theframeworkof theSCCR. Therewasnoconsensusregarding thequestion of webcasting, anda largenumberof delegationswereof theview thatwebcasting shouldnot beincludedin thedraft treaty. While therewasnoobjection to theprotectionof webcastingassuch,previousmeetingshad indicated thatwebcasting wasnot yetsufficientlyconceptually matureto enjoy aseparate internationalinstrumentof protection,and thereforenosupport wasgivento aseparatedocumentonwebcasting in thetreaty.Support was expressedfor thetreatyitself, which should balance theinvestmentrightsofbroadcastingorganizationsandthesocial rights of thepublic to information andknowledge.Somedegreeof conflict hadto bereconciledbetweenthepeople’sright to informationandknowledgeon theonehand,andcopyrighton theotherhand,andbetweentheprotectionofbroadcastingorganizationsandtheprotection of copyright. Thebalanceneeded to beestablishedin thetreaty onbroadcasting,asin theConvention onBiodiversity that hadbeenrecentlyapprovedby UNESCO. Referencewasmadeto Article 12of documentSCCR/14/2,referringto therightsof contractingpartiesto stipulatein nationallegislation limitationsandexceptionssimilar to thoseplacedon copyright. Suchrightswererelated but alsodifferent,and shouldthereforebegrantedon thebasisof careful studyby a groupof experts whocouldmakerecommendationson thenatureof rights thatwouldachieve thedesiredbalance.

38. TheDelegationof theRussianFederationstated thatthedraft basicproposal providedagoodbasisfor discussionof theprovisionsof thedraft treaty for theprotection of thebroadcastingorganizationsand,togetherwith thenon-mandatory appendix onprotectionofwebcasting, providedasufficiently flexible approachto resolvingany problems. Thedrafttookaccountof thedifferentpositionsof delegationsfrom precedingdiscussions. It washoped thatprogresscouldbemadetowardstheadoptionof thenewtreaty, which waskeenlyawaitedby broadcasters,andthatcompromisesolutionscouldbefound,in particularwithregard to thenewproposals.

39. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America appreciatedthat theDraft BasicProposalfor aTreatyon theProtectionof Broadcasting OrganizationsandtheWorking Paperincluded consideration of its treatyproposal.Theobjective of preparingthedraft basicproposal was to indicateareaswheretherewasasubstantive convergencein thevariousproposals by theMemberStatesin orderto fi rm up thebasis for thework of theSCCR.

SCCR/14/7page14

40. TheDelegationof Beninnotedthattheresultsof theconsultationsonprotection ofbroadcastingorganizationsheldat theregionallevel, organizedby theWIPOSecretariat inKenya,constitutedaplatformfor ongoingwork. Such work wasbroadlywelcomedby thatgroup of countriesand,asstatedby theDelegation of Senegal, morebroadly by theAfricanGroup. Supportwasmaintainedfor thenewtreaty, andfor abalanceof rightswhichdid notgo beyondthatin the1996treaties.Broadcastingwasaninstrumentfor development,particularly in developingcountrieswhereit wasresponsible for transmitting knowledgeandfor educationof themostvulnerablesectorsof thepopulation. Issuesof controlandrestrictionof protectivemeasuresandclarificationof exceptionsandlimitationsshouldbeconsideredin light of promotingthedevelopment objectivesof theAfrican countries.Theexclusionof anyappendixrelatingto webcastingshould beof concern to all Members,becausestudyof thatissuecouldbethesubjectof futuredeliberationsratherthanforinclusionin thecurrenttreaty. Discussionscould takeplaceon issuesonwhich thereweredividedopinions,in orderto achieveagreement,sothattheGeneral Assembly couldconveneadiplomaticconferenceduring2007.

41. TheDelegationof Columbiaappreciatedtheworking papers,andin particularthedocument ondigital rightsmanagementandexceptionsand limitations,prepared byMr. Nic Garnett. Efforts wereneededto work on thebasic proposalsoasto givebroadcastersthenecessary rights to supporttheirwork. Memberswerecalleduponto give favorableconsiderationto theproposal from Colombia,whichwasintendedto improvethebasicproposal andfind themeansto harmonizetherights of broadcasting organizations andbringtheminto line with theinterestsof othersectors. No specific contribution could bemadewithregard to webcasting, asnationalconsultationshadestablished thatsupportcouldnot begivento its inclusion in thetreaty. Thebasicproposalshouldomit all referencesto webcasting.

42. TheDelegationof Uruguayappreciatedtheproposals from ColombiaandPeru, whichsharedseveralpoints with theUruguayanposition. Therewas concernthat thenewconsolidatedversionof thetext did not includeall proposals from all delegations. Someproposals, suchasthe appendixonwebcasting, hadraised seriousconcernsby manydelegations,includingthat of Uruguay,but were neverthelessstill includedin thetext. Asstated by theDelegationof India,a goodway of reflecting all proposalswasto considerthemarticle-by-article, insteadof by topic. It was prematureto conveneadiplomatic conferenceuntil a text wasagreedandfinalized. Impactstudiesneededto becarried out to assessthecostsof thevariousproposalsfor users andownersof copyright.

43. TheDelegationof Algeriacommendedtheprogressmadein theSCCR’sdiscussions,which indicatedthatMemberswereon theright pathtowardsdevelopinga treatyfor theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationswithin thecontext of adiplomatic conference.Therewasaneedto adoptlimitationsandexceptionsto enabledevelopingcountriesto gainknowledgeandprotectculturaldiversity. Thescopeof Article 12neededextensionsothatdevelopingcountriescouldenjoy protection for rightsfor translation of li terary works andsimilarareas.It wasprematureto consider thequestion of webcasting.

44. TheDelegationof Nigeriaexpressedconfidencein theChair,andoptimismthatbroadcastingorganizationswouldbeaccordedprotection to updatetheir rightsandprovideadequatesafeguardsto meetthechallenges of thedigital environment. Supportwasexpressedin principle for thepositiontakenat theNairobi meeting by anumberof Afr icancountries. Whilesupporthadbeengivenfor theongoingwork of theSCCR,therewasconcernthat anyallocationof rightsshouldalwaysbedoneresponsibly, andbalancedagainsttheoverridinginterestsof societyat large. For that reason,theinclusionof webcastinghad

SCCR/14/7page15

not beensupported.Therewasrecognition of theChair’s attemptto dealwith webcastinginlinewith themajority view expressedin previousdiscussions;however,thereremaineddissatisfactionwith theoutcomeandthepossibleconsequences of including webcastingasanappendixto thedraft text. All proposalson thatissuewouldbeconsideredin thespirit ofconsensusbuilding. Concernsremainedon theissues of rights managementinformation,technologicalprotectionmeasures,andthebalancingof thescopeof protection againstlimitationsandexceptions.Theinterventionsfrom variousdelegationsdemonstratedwill ingnessto engageand assist in thedevelopmentof acceptabledraft proposals.

45. TheChair notedthatresponsesto the interventionswould follow in duecourse,andthatdiscussions wouldcontinueon finding waysahead.

46. TheDelegationof Ukraineexpressedconfidencethatprogresswould bemadeindiscussing theDraft Basic Proposal andreferredto thenon-mandatoryappendixonwebcasting which wouldnot changeany of theobligationsunderthe treaty andwhichwouldleaveanycontractingpartyfreeto accedeto it at anypoint in time. Considering thatflexibility left to MemberStates, it wouldnot befair to deprivecountriesof theopportunity toprotectwebcasting if theyso wished. If thenon-mandatory appendix was to betakenout oftheframeworkof thetreaty,webcastingwouldbecometopical for all andthediscussionsonanew draft treaty onwebcasting wouldbeavery longprocess.Thereforeit wasessentialtokeepin thedraft treatytheappendixasit had beendiscussedandapproved at theregionalconsultationmeetingheldin 2005in Moscow.

47. TheDelegationof Chile referredto theinformation sessionwhichhadbeenheldin themorningandindicatedit hadbeenanuseful exercisewhichshould berepeated with speakersrepresentingdifferentapproachesandnot only legal but alsoeconomic pointsof views. ItsupportedtheDelegationof Brazil andconsideredthatall proposalsfrom MemberStateshadto begiventhestatusof workingdocuments. In particular,theproposalsof Brazil andChilehad to belookedat in theframeworkof themain document sincevariousdelegationshadsupportedthem. Additional studieswith aview to measuringtheimpactof thevariousproposals on consumersandothercategoriesof rights holdershadto beundertaken.Theabsenceof adequatestudieswasparticularly evidentin thecaseof webcastingwherenoanalysisof theconsequenceof aneventualprotectionhad beenundertaken. Theprotection ofbroadcastingorganizationswasconsistentwith intellectual propertyrulesandthepromotionand encouragementof creation.Additional meetingswereneededto agreeona text thatcould betakento a DiplomaticConference.

48. TheDelegationof Moroccorecalledthedecisionadopted at theprevioussessionof theGeneralAssembly concerningthetermsof referenceof theCommittee,whichhadstatedthatit hadto stepup its work so thatit could convenea Diplomatic Conference at thelatestin2007, in orderto strengthentheprotection of broadcastingorganizations. TheDraft BasicProposalwasabalanceddraft but in orderto makesufficientprogress in thediscussionitwouldbepreferableto developaconsolidatedtext andto work onanarticle-by-article basis.TheStandingCommitteehadshowngreatflexibilit y in thepastandbeen successfulin itsmeetings. It wasconfidentthattheCommittee’s work would find asuccessfuloutcometomeetchallengesof digitalizationandto improvetheprotection of broadcastingorganizationswithout prejudicing theinterests of authorsor ownersof copyright or relatedrights. Also, theinterest of thepublic hadto betakenduly careof since theprotection could havefor effecttolimit accessto knowledgeandculture. Exclusiverightswas anotherareawhichhadto bethoroughlydiscussed.It hadbeenreiterated in thepast thatthediscussionshadto beconfinedto traditionalbroadcastingorganizationsandit wasfelt thatdiscussionshadto matureenough

SCCR/14/7page16

before theCommitteecouldaddress anyother topic. TheDiplomatic Conferencewastheappropriateforum to finalizediscussionson theseissues.

49. TheDelegationof ChinathankedtheSecretariat for thetranslation intoChineseof theworkingdocumentsandfor theexcellentintroductory presentationsgivenby thetwo expertsin themorning. Thesearrangementswouldprovideaverygoodfoundation for ensuringprogressin thediscussions.

50. TheDelegationof MoldovastatedthattheDraft BasicProposalwasaddressingseveralof theareasof concernandtheCommittee’swork wouldcontributeto furtherclarify someofthose.Thediscussionsshouldnot takeplacein a hasty way, but it wasrecalled thattheyhadalreadybeencarriedout for manyyearsandhadinvolvedexpertscommentsandstudieswhich had shownhow importanttheadoptionof theinstrument was. Moreover,therightsprovidedfor in theDraft Basic Proposal werealreadyprovidedin thenationallegislationofmanycountries,includingMoldova. TheAppendix onwebcastinghadto becarefully lookedat, but it reflectedthecurrenttrendtowardsprotecting investments. TheDraft BasicProposalhad to besupportedasa goodbasis andthediscussionshadto look at each articlewhichwouldallow thepreparationof aconsolidatedtext to besubmittedto thenextGeneralAssembly in viewof theapprovalof aDiplomatic Conference in 2007.

51. TheDelegationof Bangladesh referred to theprotection of copyright in its countrysincethedraggingforcefor thegrowthof theireconomy was increasingly changing from naturalresourcesto intangible goodssuchasknowledgeor intellectual property assets. Copyrightwasconcernedwith protectingtheworks of human intellect. With thegrowingdevelopmentof information,technology,etc.,mostof thecountriesin theworld, includingBangladesh,werenowfacingproblemsof piracyof intellectual andliteraryworks. Therefore,international andnationalcopyrightlaws hadto beenactedto safeguardintellectualproperties. Copyrightprotectionhadbeenintroduced in Bangladeshin 1962andin 2000,anew law calledCopyright Act 2000hadbeenenactedto harmonizethenational law withinternational norms. TheCopyrightOfficewasnow workingundertheMinistryof Cultureand the2000Copyright Lawhadbeenfurtheramendedin 2005. Computerprograms,databases, rental rights,broadcasting rights,performance rights andphonogramsrightsweregrantedprotectionunderthatAct andthecountryhadacceded to theBerneConventionin1999and thelegislationalsocompliedwith theUniversalCopyright Convention administeredby UNESCO. As amemberof theWorld TradeOrganization (WTO), Bangladeshalsorespectedtheconditionslaid out in theTRIPSAgreementsince therewas nowa generalcommitmentof thecountryto strengthenits copyright system. TheWIPO GeneralAssemblyhad mandatedtheCommitteeto engageconstructively in thediscussionsfor theadoptionof aTreaty for theprotectionof therightsof thebroadcastingorganizations. Theissuewasnotwhetherthatgoal couldbeachieved,but ratherhow it couldbeachieved. Discussionshadtobeconductedin a transparentandinclusiveway andasmandatedby theGeneralAssembly,two additionalmeetingsof theCommitteeshould takeplaceto agreeandfinalize thebasicproposal. Convergenceof viewshadto besought for, andthecommonconcernsof thedelegationshadto beaddressed. It wasalsorecalled thatapartfrom theprotectionofbroadcastingorganizations,theprotection of folklorewasimportantand each countryhadtobegiventheright to recognizeandprotectits traditional knowledgeassets.Additionalflexibility shouldbeprovidedin Article 12. In relation to thetermof protection, theCommitteewasadvisedto opt for aminimum timeof 20 years.Themeeting’s deliberationswouldcertainly enablethepreparationof abasic proposal for thetreaty.

SCCR/14/7page17

52. TheDelegationof Australia recalledits position thatprogresshadto continuetowardstheconveningof thediplomaticconference, to consideradoptinga treaty on theprotectionofbroadcastingorganizations.While reservingthe right to makefurthercomments on thedetails, it agreedwith confiningprotectionin thetreaty itself toward thebroadcasters andcablecasters. Australiawasstill consideringtheoptional Appendix relating to webcastingandtheimplicationsof theproposal,thattheAppendixwouldenter into forceat thesametimeastheproposedtreatyitself wouldenterinto force. Australia wasin favorof theoptionofconfining thebeneficiariesof protectionof thetreaty to thoseorganizationsthatbothtransmittedfrom andhadtheheadquartersin thesametreaty memberState. Australiawasstill concernedabouttheimplications of Article6 of theDraft BasicProposalfor its domesticretransmissionarrangementsandin thatregard notedthatpreviouslycountrieshadproposedeither thepossibility of reservationor someothersortof qualifi cationson therightsinArticle 6. Australiawasstill consideringtheimplicationsof Article 11on theprotectionofpre-broadcastsignals andreservedits position on that. Australia couldotherwiseagreeto theprovisionsof theDraft Basic Proposalfor considerationat adiplomatic conference.

53. TheDelegationof thePhilippinessupportedthestatementof theDelegation of Thailandon behalfof theAsianGroup. Theconclusionsof theregionalconsultation on theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationsfor someAsiaPacific countriesheld in Manila in July2005were recalled. TheDelegationshadagreedthattherightsof broadcastingorganizationshadto beupdatedin thefaceof thechallengesposedby newtechnologies,and thattheRomeConvention, whichhadbeenformulatedin 1961,had beenrenderedinadequate to protectbroadcastersrights. In view of thewideconvergenceonmostprovisionsof thetreaty,thedelegationshadreachedaninformal consensusfor putting thingsforward in apossiblediplomaticconference. TheDelegationwasheartened thattheCommitteehad achievedconsiderableprogressin thelastyears.Thework programwouldserveas an excellentguidefor makingclearandefficientdiscussionson theDraft Basic ProposalandtheWorking Paperrepresenteda clearcommitmentof theCommittee to themandate given to it by theGeneralAssembly. Broadcasting organizationsserved both asapartnerin nation building, aswell asaverystrongpillarof democraticinstitutions. Their rolewascrucial in keepingpopulationswell informedandeducated.If democracy wasindeedgovernmentof thepeople,by thepeopleandfor thepeople,it wasonly whenthepeoplewerewell informedof thethings thatconcernedthemthattheycouldfully participate in public life andbreathelife into themeaningof democracy.It wasin theinterestof its countryto haverobustbroadcastingorganizations,whichwouldoperatein a freeandvibrant environment. It was in thatcontextthata treatywhich wouldensuretheprotectionof therightsof broadcastingorganizationswassupported.TheDelegationwasonly preparedto support a treatywhosescopewouldbelimited to theprotectionof traditionalbroadcastsignals,but it wasnot ready to endorseanyprovision that would includewebcastingandsimulcasting. TheCommittee’swork hadachievedconsiderableprogress, but consensuswouldonly beachievedif thediscussionsfocussedonareasandissueswherebroadagreementcouldbereachedandcarriedforwardtotheGeneral Assembly. After 10 yearsof discussion it wasnowfair to moveon.

54. TheDelegationof Sri Lankasupportedthestatementof theDelegationof Thailandonbehalf of theAsian Group. Theearlyconclusionof themandate received by theGeneralAssembly wassupportedandconsensushad to bebuilt on thedivergentviews. In hiscountry,divergentpositions hadbeenput forward by thekeystakeholders concerned.Broadcastingorganizationshadexpressedsupportfor theproposedTreaty, but otherkeystakeholdersrepresentingusercategories hadindicatedcertain reservations.It wasthereforecrucial to build consensuson thedivergentviewsexpressed beforeany conclusionon thesubjectmattercouldbereached.

SCCR/14/7page18

55. TheDelegationof Japanstatedthatan article-by-article discussionwouldbeextremelytimeconsuming,whereasthemaintaskwas to finalizethebasicproposalasit hadbeendecidedby lastGeneral Assembly. Thediscussionhadto focuson theeightpackagespreparedby theChair.

56. TheDelegationof BurkinaFasobelieved thatin leastdevelopedcountriestheintroductionandconsolidationof democracy had increasedtheroleof broadcastingorganizationswhichhadbecomedevelopment tools. Thedevelopmentdimensionof theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationshadto beclearly recognized. Supportwasexpressedfor awell-balancedprotection,whichwould accommodate theinterestof all parties,but theurgentcharacterof updatingexisting instrumentswas emphasized. Today’s world requiredtheimmediateadoptionof anewinstrument. ThereforetheGeneralAssembly hadto conveneadiplomaticconferencethatcould,in a fairly shortterm, adoptthetreaty. Regardingwebcasting andsimulcasting,moretimeshouldbegivento better understandthesenewtechnologies.However, therewasnodoubtthataninstrumentwasnowneededto updatetheprotectionof traditional broadcasting organizations.

57. TheDelegationof Indonesiaexpressedits concernson thecontentsof theDraft BasicProposalfor aTreatyon theProtectionof Broadcasting Organizationsandnotedthatthemainrationaleof concludinga treatyon theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationswasto addressincreasingpossibilities andopportunitiesfor unauthorizeduseof broadcast within andacrossborders. Therefore,theDraft BasicProposal hadto focuson theeffort to protect signalsfrombeing pirated,but thelanguageof thedraft treaty grantedbroadexclusiverightstotransmitters,regardlessof theiractualneeds.It gaverightsbeyondtheRomeConventionandtheTRIPSAgreement.Thatlanguagehad causedmuchconcern amongdevelopingcountries,sinceit couldhaveanadverseimpactonpublic interest, accessto knowledgeor information,accessto materialsin thepublicdomain,cultural diversity andtherightsof copyright holders.Broadcastswereanessentialsourceof informationof crucial importance for education.Broadcastingorganizationshadobligationsin promotingsocial welfare andensuring accesstoinformation. Any newnorm settingonprotectionof broadcastingorganizationsshouldnotcompromisethoserulesandrightsof thepublic at large. Limitationandexceptionwerenecessaryto safeguardthepublic interestandhadto beformulated in awaywhich wouldfacilitatetheir useby developingcountries. TheDelegationsupported theproposalsubmittedby theDelegation of Brazil onageneralpublic interest clause. Any referenceto webcastinghad to beavoided. Time wasnot right to introducenormsof protection of amodeofcommunication theimplicationsof whichhadnot yet beenfully understood. Thesessionwouldhave to beusedto forgecommonunderstanding,but widedifferencesof viewshadtobeclarifiedbefore theholdingof adiplomatic conference.As hadbeen stated by theAsianGroup, furthertransparency andclarity andinclusiveengagementof all theMemberStateswasrequired,andall proposalshadto betreated onanequal footing.

58. TheDelegationof Singaporeindicatedits supportfor theconveningof adiplomaticconferenceandtheconclusion of a treaty, providedthatthevariousinterestsandcontributionsof members wereheardandtakeninto consideration in theprocessandits final outcome.

59. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity expressedits supportto theDraft BasicProposalandfor aninclusivedebateandurgedall thedelegationsto have a structureddebateaccording to keytopicsratherthananarticle-by-articleapproach.Thediscussionhadto focuson somekeyarticles,sinceanarticle-by-article approachwouldbeextremely timeconsuming.TheChair’soutlinewasavery goodbasis for discussionsandtheDelegationhadvery concreteproposalsto makeon theissueof rights,of exceptionandlimitations,of

SCCR/14/7page19

technologicalmeasuresandrightsmanagementinformation, includingonhowtechnologicalprotectionmeasuresshouldbestructuredin awaywhich would not deprivethebeneficiariesof exceptionandlimitations.

60. TheDelegationof GhanainformedtheCommitteethat anew Copyright Act hadbeenpassedin its country whichhadcomeinto forcein June2005. TheAct met theminimumrequirements of theTreatiesadministeredby WIPO in theareaof copyrightand relatedrights,as well astheTRIPSAgreement,andit alsoprotectedtherights of broadcastingorganizationsin their broadcasts.Broadcastersweregrantedtheright of reproductionof thefixation of thebroadcast,makingavailablefixationsof broadcastto thepublic and theright of authorizingthefixation of thebroadcast.Thebroadcasting organizations’ rightswerelimitedto thesignals. TheCommitteehada responsibilit y to enhance theprotection of therightsofbroadcastingorganizationsasprovidedin theRomeConvention. Phonogramproducersandperformersandauthorshadalreadyhadtheir rightsupgradedby theWPPTandtheWCTmorethan10 yearsago. TheDelegationwasconvincedthatno further delay shouldtakeplacein theadoption of theTreaty,sincetheoutdatedprotection grantedto broadcasters didnot only prejudicethembut alsoaffectedtherightsof owners oncopyright andrelatedrightswhoseworks or performanceswereembodiedin thebroadcasts. DocumentSCCR/14/2servedasa goodstartingpoint for theCommittee’s work, providedMember stateswouldshowenoughpolitical will to movetheprocessforward. It requestedthattheconclusionsoftheAfrican consultationmeetingheldin May 2005in Nairobi, Kenyabecirculatedsincetheycould assistin thedeliberations.As already stated at theNairobi meeting, thelinking of theprotectionof webcastingto traditionalbroadcastingcouldbepremature. Protection ofwebcasting couldbeanagenda item for futuredeliberation. Technological measuresofprotectionshouldbeprovidedfor broadcastingorganizationsin thesame wayasin theWCTand WPPT,while theyshouldnot beusedto stifle information thatwouldberequiredby thepublic for researchandeducationpurposes.

61. TheChair repliedto someof thecommentsandsuggestionsmade. TheCommitteewasworkingon a technicallevel preparing abasis for theconcludingpartof theproject,namelythenegotiationsthatwould takeplaceat thediplomatic conferenceto beconvened.Theproposals by MemberStatesandby groupsof Membershadbeen consolidatedinto oneor, asin thecaseof in thelasttwo meetings, two workingdocumentsto beable to negotiateon thebasisof fewer drafts. For thatpurpose, therehad beenaprocessof consolidating theproposals into apresentationwhereall importantelements or moreimportantnuanceswere tobe found. Thedecisionof theGeneralAssemblyin Septemberwasto accelerate thework onthebasisof thepreviousworkingdocument.Thesecondtask wasto agree andfinalizeabasicproposalto bepresentedto thediplomatic conferencein orderfor theGeneral Assemblynext Septemberto decideabouttheconveningof a diplomatic conference. Thetaskof thepresentsessionwasto try to agreeandfinalizethebasicproposal to bepreparedthereafter.ThentheGeneralAssemblywould takenoteof thestatusof thedeliberationsin theCommitteeandwouldconsidertheconveningof a diplomatic conference. Thebasicproposalwouldbepublishedandwouldbethesubjectmatter for many seminars and conferencesinvariouspartsof theworld. Thebasicproposalwasaworkingpaper reflecting areaswheretherewas lesscontroversyandareaswherethere wascontroversy.Thebasicproposalmightcontainalternativesreflectingdifferentopinionsondifferentissues.And eventhough thesealternativesmight not satisfyall delegations,thedelegationswouldmakeotherproposalsforconsiderationat thediplomaticconference. A diplomatic conferencenormally lastedtwo orthreeweeks. Normally, therewasacommitteeto deal with substantive issues.Thecommitteemight launchinformal consultations,openendedwhereall might participate,todeal with asinglearticle,anumberof articlesor with thewholetreaty. Thediplomatic

SCCR/14/7page20

conferencemight setup differentbodiesto deal with issuesandthosebodieswould reporttotheplenary. In manycases,diplomaticconferences broughtaboutresults which werein theform of a treatyagreedby amajorityor agreedby consensus.Thediplomatic conference,inorder to solvesomeof theimportantpolitical issues,might alsoadoptapolitical declarationexplainingthepurposesandtheobjectivesof thedelegations. Manythingscouldbesolvedinthecontext of thediplomaticconferenceby themeansthat couldbeseenin theresult from the1996Diplomatic Conference.Thereweredoubtsandconcernsconcerning theinterpretationof certainclausesthatwerealready negotiatedandreadyto beadopted.But theDiplomaticConferenceitself adoptedagreedstatementsabouttheinterpretationof anumber of clauseswhich werequiteanimportantpartof theresults of thatConference.Theywereabindingpart of thetreaty andtheyrepresentedakindof bindingguidelinefor theinterpretation.Agreedstatementswerevery importanttoolsto makethingspoliti cally andlegallyeasier.The task of theStandingCommitteewasto try to finalizeabasicproposal.A basicproposalfor adiplomatic conferencewasjust aworkingpaperpreparedto facilitate thehandlingof theissues. TheGeneral AssemblyhadaskedtheCommitteeto prepareabasic proposal.Severaldelegationshadnotedthatthereshouldbeasingle document. All elementsthat hadbeenproposed in theproposalsup to thenwerefoundin thetwo documentspreparedfor themeeting. Every delegation,eventhose thathad not yet decidedon theconveningof adiplomaticconferenceimmediatelyor in thenear future,had expressed willi ngnesstocontributeto thatwork.

62. Thedelegationof Brazil statedthatit wasamong thosewho felt that it couldnot goalongwith suggestionsto expressspecific points of view onadraft basicproposalthathadnot includedtheproposal thatit madein thepreviousmeeting. All theproposalsformallypresentedby Membersin thediscussionsshouldbefully integratedinto thedocumentsconsidered.Therewerefour issuesof concernsto its Delegation that would needto beconsideredbeforeproceedingto theexaminationof aspecifi c elementof thedocument.Itwasreadyto commenton specific issues,however,not on thebasisof adocumentthathadclearly anddeliberatelyexcludedthefour proposals put forth in thethirteenthsessionof theSCCRandthat hadincludedproposalsmadeby otherdelegationsthatwere not consensual.Ithad clearinstructionsnot to acceptany procedureof discussionsthatleft out its proposalsorthattreatedits proposalsonadifferentfooting from theDraft Basic Proposal. Fourimportantissuesshould becommentedon. Onewasthatits Delegationhastakennoteof thewide andconsiderableoppositionto theinclusionof webcasting,in whateverdraft basicproposal. Thathad becomeacentralissuethatshouldbeaddressedbeforemovingon,becausetheDelegationdid not seehowonecouldactually engage in discussingsuchdelicateandcomplex issuesastheextentof rightsif thescopeof thetreatywasuncertain. Therewasamajority of viewsagainsttheinclusion of webcasting in thatexercise. Thesecondelementwastheissueof non-inclusiveness of proposals anda formal solutionshouldbefoundto leadto theactualinclusionof all proposalsasanintegralpartof thedraft basis proposal.Thethirdelementwastherepeatedreferenceto the1996treaties as a reference for that particularexercise. Its country wasnot partyto the1996treatiesand it couldnot considerthe1996treatiesasa referencepoint for thediscussions.It did not think thatthosetreatieswereabasisfor negotiationsor for thepreparationof new updatedversionsof abasictext or otherkind ofworkingdocument.Membershipof thosetreatieswasrather small; they did not representthemajority of membersof theorganization. Finally, it underlinedthatnot everythinghadto beagreeduponbeforeconveningadiplomaticconference,but a reliablebasis,asignificantandconsiderableamount of convergencewasneededbeforeconveningdiplomatic conferencesthatwereveryexpensive for boththeorganizationandits Members. It would not recommendconveningsucha conferencewithout havingsomekind of certainty thattheMembers agreedsufficientlyon thecoreissues.And oneof thosefundamental aspects wastheissueof

SCCR/14/7page21

inclusionor non-inclusionof webcastinginto thetreaty,amongothers. It wishedto bebothpositive andconstructive,but to besorequiredtreatmentof all Membersonanequalfooting.

63. TheChair notedthattheDelegationof Brazil hadsuggestedadoptingthefollowingprocedureasa wayof movingforwardin aninclusivemanner: it would like theChairtoproposeto theCommitteethatit formally decidethattheproposals madeby Brazil andChileas contained in thedocumentSCCR/14/3wereanintegralpartof theDraft BasicProposalfortheWIPOTreaty on theProtectionof BroadcastingOrganizations,documentSCCR/14/2.This wouldprovideanassurancethatthoseproposals wereanintegralpart of theDraft BasicProposalfor thetreatyand would receivean equaltreatmentalongwith theproposalsfromother countries.

64. TheDelegationof Colombia,in connection with theproposalof theDelegationofBrazil, requestedto considerincorporatingin thebasicproposalits proposalon technologicalmeasuressubmittedthedaybefore.

65. TheDelegationof Canadawishedthatits proposalon retransmissionbeaddedat theend of theWorkingPapersinceit would beusefulif Memberswere remindedof it.

66. TheDelegationof Indiasupportedthepropositionsthatthetwo documentspresentedlasttime,whichhadbeen shownasworking papers,weretreatedon aparwith theDraft BasicProposal.

67. TheDelegationof Senegalmentioned thatit would like theAfricanGroupproposal tobepartof theDraft Basic Proposal too.

68. TheChair notedthatall theproposals for Articlesin thetreaty languagemadeby anyAfrican Delegationwerein thedocumentsandif sodecidedasproposed,they wouldbeconsideredto bepart of theDraft BasicProposal.

69. TheDelegationof Perusupportedthestatements madeby Brazil , ChileandColombiaand would like to benefitfrom thesametreatmentin respect of its proposal.

70. TheChair statedthathewouldproceedin thedirectionproposedby thedelegationofBrazil secondedby othersconcerning differentproposals.HewouldextenttheproposalofBrazil to coverall thesubstancein theseparateWorkingPapersothatit would restorebydecisionall thealternativesin orderfor theCommitteeto treat all theproposals equally.

71. Thedelegationof Indiadrewtheattentionof theChair to thefour pointsthat hadbeenraisedin thesession. With theapprovalof all concerned,theChair hadsettledoneissuewhich wastheinclusiveness of all proposalsmadeby MemberStates. Another issuethatneededto belookedat wastheissueof webcasting. Therewasavery fundamental difficultyin addressing issueswithout first settling thestatusof webcasting, its natureandthekind oftreatmentto give it in theproposedtreaty. TheCommitteeshouldfi rst look at thescopeandnatureof webcasting thatneededto bethere,or not,andhowthen theissueof webcastingshouldbetreated.

72. TheChair said thattheproposalhadbeenmadeandexplainedthattheissueof thescopeof applicationwasincludedaspoint 6 in theworkingprogram. Thatwasbecauseof theneedto ensurefor all delegationsthepossibility to considerit thoroughlybeforecomingto thatpoint in thediscussions.

SCCR/14/7page22

73. TheChair notedthatit wastheendof thefi rst partof themeeting. Thedraft workprogramfor Item 5 hadbeendistributedandamoreelaboratedversionof theprogramfor thesecondpartof themeeting hadbeenpreparedin orderto accommodatethedifferentapproachesproposedto avoid a full article-by-article discussionsoasto dealwith themosttopical and important itemsfirst instead. Manydelegationshadaskedfor sometime to dealwith theissueof webcastingbeforediscussing it in theCommittee. Item6 of theworkprogramwould thereforebetackledin thebeginning.

74. TheDelegationof Moroccoproposedto speed up theCommittee’swork. TheDraftBasicProposalhadto beconsideredarticle-by-articlesoas to determine thepoints ofconvergenceanddisagreement on theissueof theprotection of broadcasting organizations,and thenonecould discusstheissueof webcastingafterwards.TheDelegation disagreedwithclassifyingthepointsof disagreement accordingto apriority ranking.

75. TheChair explainedthattheDraft Basic Proposal wouldbediscussedissue-by-issue,which in manycaseswould bethesameasarticle-by-article. SomeDelegationshadindicatedthatit wouldbequitedifficult to saythattherewasagreementoncertain articles. Thosearticles, whichwouldnot bediscussedimmediately, werequalified aslesscontroversial. TheCommitteecould list, in anon-bindingway, thoseissues andarticlesof no controversy,but atthesametime it couldstatethattherewasno final agreement. Following theproposalmadeby theDelegation of Brazil, secondedby otherdelegations,theCommitteewouldbeconsidering thewholesetof workingpapersin its entirety astheDraft BasicProposal.ThatmeantthatdocumentsSCCR/14/2,SCCR/14/3,SCCR/14/4, andSCCR/14/6wouldbedealtwith onanequalfooting. Therewasalsooneelement to betakenintoaccountin theworkingpapersof SCCR/13 regardingtheareaof retransmission,proposedby theDelegationofCanada.Therewerenewproposalsthatdeservedconsiderationby theSCCRDelegationsastheyhadnot beenproperlydiscussed,namely theArticleson generalprinciples,on theprotectionandpromotionof culturaldiversity andon thedefenseof competition.

76. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthatthereferenceto newproposals gave theimpressionthattheywerenot partof theDraft BasicProposal. It suggestedreferring to themwithoutindicatingwhether or not thoseproposalswerenew. Following theproposalfrom theDelegationof India, theCommitteehadto lookat theissueof webcastingasan objectofprotection. If therewerenocommonunderstandingregarding thatcoreissue,theDelegationwouldhavesomedifficulties in engagingfully in a discussionof specific articles of thetreaty.

77. TheChair said thattherewerecertainArticlesof a generalnature,which had not beendiscussedbefore,andwerepartof thefirst packageof discussions.As theseconditem, therehad beenaseriousconsiderationon theIndianproposal. TheDelegation of Brazil wasnotpresentwhenthatissuehadbeentackledand when manyDelegationshad expressedthatmoretimewasneededto consult amongthemon it.

78. TheDelegationof IndiasupportedtheChair’sproposal. However, it suggestedthatitem1 betakenup immediatelyby theCommitteeandthat items2, 3 and4, relatingto rights,limitationsandexceptionsandtechnological measures,astheheart of thetreaty, werediscussedafterhavingdiscussedthescopein termsof webcasting. Theother two issuescouldbediscussed lateron,namelytermof protectionandeligibilit y, astheywerealmostindependentof therightsissues. Finally, theCommitteecouldmoveontoitems5 and7, iftimepermitted.

SCCR/14/7page23

79. TheChair explainedthatitem 1 wouldbethemostsuitable itemto betackledbeforewebcasting. Timeallowedalsotacklingitems5 and7. He inviteddelegationsto commentonthegeneralpublic interestobjectives,thelanguageon theprotection andpromotionof thediversity of cultural expressions,asprovidedby theConvention onCultural Diversity,and thedefenseof competition.

80. TheDelegationof Senegalhadnoobjectionson theissuesof public interest,culturaldiversity anddefenseof competition, astheywerethereflection of avery strongconcern,which nearly all delegationsshared.Thepromotionof cultural diversitycouldonly beassuredif thecreators of workswereprotected. Broadcastingwas oneof theessentialfactorsfor promoting cultural diversity. Therefore,theprotectionof diversityof cultural expressionscould beaffordedonly if therewasasufficient protection for creatorsandsufficientsecurityfor theculturalindustries,includingbroadcasting industries.

81. TheDelegationof Japanthoughtthat theArticles proposedby theDelegation of Braziland other countrieswereinconsistent with theWIPOCopyright Treaty (WCT) andWPPT, aswell aswith otherWIPOtreaties.Theyweremisleadingandcouldbeperceivedasbroaderlimitationsof rights. Concernswerecausedby provisionsreformulating basicprovisionssuchasthethree-steptest,whichwasincludedin traditional WIPOtreaties.

82. TheDelegationof New Zealandrecognized theimportanceto makeprogressto movetowardsadiplomatic conferenceandto have aconstructive discussionon thekeycontroversialissues.It soughtclarificationonhowArticle [x] of thegeneral public interestprovisionsproposedby Brazil couldinteract with its recommendedprovisionon limitationsand exception. It suggestedthatthepublic interest issues beadequately addressedby aprovision relating to limitationsandexceptions. It alsosoughtclarification onhowArticle [y]of theproposedgeneral public interest clausesreferring to theConventiononCulturalDiversity would interactwith Article 1 of theBasic Proposalasit requiredthetreatyto befree-standingandin substancenot linked to anyother treaty.

83. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity thoughtthattheprinciplesunderArticle [x], asgeneralprinciples, were in thenatureof apreamble. General principlesshouldnot bein anarticleof a treaty,namely accessto knowledge,information andeducationalobjectives. Moreover,intellectualpropertyin generalandaccessto knowledgeshouldnot bepaintedas opposingeachother. Theprimaryaim of copyright was to foster accesstoknowledgeandtheyshouldnot beseenascontradictory goals.

84. TheDelegationof Chilesoughtclarification regarding thedoubtexpressed by theDelegationof Japan.With regardto theinconsistencyof thegeneralpublic interestclauseswith previousWIPOtreaties,it askedwhetherthatDelegation referredto all theobjectivesthatwerepursuedthroughthegeneralprincipleclausepresentedby theDelegation of Brazil,or only to someof them. Anti-competitivepracticeswere in principle consideredby theTRIPSAgreementandtheBerneConvention for theProtectionof Literaryand ArtisticWorks(theBerneConvention),andevenby theWIPO Internet Treaties.

SCCR/14/7page24

85. TheDelegationof Brazil saidthatits proposalwasself -explanatory. Theobjectivesofpromotingaccessto knowledgeandinformation, andthenationaleducationandscientificobjectiveswerepartof thepublic interestin mostMemberStates,if not all. Theyshouldbesafeguardedfrom any possibleencroachmentthatmight ensuefrom theestablishmentof newrights in thenewtreaty. Theimprecisionregardingwhether thetreatywouldapply only tosignalsor would extendto contentcouldbeanexampleof that risk. It wasessential toincludeas a generalobjectivethesafeguardingof countries’ freedomto promoteaccesstoknowledgeandinformationandto educate theirpeople,aswell as to pursuelegitimateobjectivesin termsof theprogressof sciencefor thebenefit of mankind. TheDelegationsawno difficultiesregardingtheDelegationof Japan’scomment onwhetherthatgeneral objectivewascompatibleor not to theWCT or WPPT. Brazil was not party to thoseTreaties,sotheDelegationdid not acceptto negotiateon thebasisthereof. TheInternetTreaties innovatednot necessarily to thebenefitof consumersor developingcountries. In addition, it did not seeany incompatibili ty, aspointedout by theDelegationof New Zealand,regardingtherelationshipwith Article 1. Article 1 simply stated thatnothing in thetreaty wouldderogatefrom existing obligationsthatContractingPartieshadto each otherunder any international,regional,or bilateraltreatiesaddressingcopyrightor relatedrights. Thesubject mattercoveredby theConventiononCulturalDiversity was relevant to copyright andrelatedrightsin manyrespects. In addition,aWIPOnorm-settingactivity could not encroachupontheobjectivesof thatConvention.As regardedthecommentsmadetheDelegation of theEuropeanCommunity regardingthegeneralprinciplesandtheir preambularnature, it citedArticle 7 of theTRIPSAgreementasanexample of aprovisiononobjectives whichwas justas generalin natureastheoneproposedfor thepresent treaty. If reallocated into thepreambularpart,theclauseproposedwould loseweight andbecomelegally ineffective asareminderof safeguarding thefreedomof ContractingParties to promotethegeneral publicinterest objectivesonequalfootingastheobjectivesof protectingprivaterights. It waspartof thebalancebetweenpublic interestandprivate rightsthatshouldbecarriedforwardintothetreaty

86. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America foundtheproposalinvolving thethreeconceptsunclearandvagueandpotentiallyvery broad. It agreed with thecommentsmadebytheDelegationsof theEuropeanCommunity andJapan.

87. TheChair recalledthatwhenformulating theoperative clausesof thetreaty itself,generalobjectiveshadto bebornein mind.

88. TheDelegationof Egyptsupportedthearticleson general principles andon theprotectionandpromotionof culturaldiversity. Theremight bedivergentviews amongdelegations,particularlyconcerningthelanguageof Article [x] ongeneralprinciples. Itsuggestedredrafting it in orderto makeit morespecific. It disagreedwith theproposalmadeby theDelegation of theEuropeanCommunity. Thelegal weight of thePreamblewasnotequivalentto theweightof thesubstantivearticlesin thebodyof thetreaty. In addition,theprovisionsof thetreatyshouldnot bein contradictionwith theConventiononCulturalDiversity.

89. TheDelegationof Kenya supportedtheproposalof theDelegationof Brazil, whichmeritedbeingincludedin thetreaty. However,that particularprovisioncould verywell fit intheexceptionsand limitations provisions sothatcountrieswouldhavea leewayto developparticularactivitieson thepromotionand protection of cultural diversity,informationandnational education andscientificobjectives.

SCCR/14/7page25

90. TheChair notedthatthequestionwaswhethertheclauses proposedwouldallowlimiting rightsin away,whichwouldexceedthoselimitationsspecifically authorizedandpermittedin thearticleon limitationsandexceptions.

91. TheDelegationof Senegalreferredto item3 and theagreementson intellectualproperty in thefieldof trade. Competitionshouldbeequitableandfair, but rules aboutunfaircompetitiondependedon domesticlegislation. Therewerepractices,which might beconsideredunfair or anti-competitivein onecountry but not in another. It sought clarificationregardingwhatwasmeantby ananti-competitive practice.

92. TheDelegationof Japanrecognizedthevalueof thenewproposals, but it questionedwhetherthoseprovisionscouldhavesomespecifi c meanings,or couldbeabusedor bringabout new unforeseenarguments.It wasirrelevantwhethercountrieswerepartyto theWCTand WPPTprovidedthattheyabidedby them. TheDelegation urgedto keepconsistencywith theWIPOtreatiesandto work for adiplomatic conference,whichwould includediscussions on theissueof webcasting.

93. TheDelegationof Australiaagreedwith New Zealand’sDelegation in pointingout thatthosemeritoriousobjectivescouldbeinconsistentwith theprotection of broadcasters. Therewasaneedto find anappropriatewordingfor thoseprovisionssoas to not impair theproposed protection. TheTRIPSAgreementcouldbean example in thatregard. Article [x]of documentSCCR14/3couldreadthatnothing in thetreaty would limit thefreedomof acontracting partyto promoteaccessto knowledgeandinformation,and to takenecessaryactionsagainst anti-competitivepractices,providedthat thoseactionswereconsistentwith theprovisionsof thetreaty. As regardedArticle [y] of document SCCR14/3,theDelegationexpressedits concernsasto whetherthedraft treatyshouldincludeanobligation to ensurecompliancewith anotherTreaty,namelytheConvention onCultural Diversity. It believedthatArticle 1(3),of thedraft treatyadequately preserved anyobligationsthat ContractingPartieshadunderothertreatiesthatwerein forceandto which they wereparty. In addition,Article [x](1) onpage6 of documentSCCR/14/3seemed to imposeapositive obligationtoimplementcompetition principlesin relation to intellectual property rights in general,not justtherightsundertheproposedtreaty. In thatregard,theDelegation echoedtheconcernexpressedby theDelegationof Senegalconcerning thenatureof thatobligation andcompetitionpractices. Article [x](2) and(3) alsoseemedto havethesame broadapplicationthatwentbeyondthesubjectmatterof thedraft treatyonbroadcasters’ rights.

94. TheDelegationof theRussianFederation thoughtthattheprovisionsof theConventionon CulturalDiversity reflectedin Article [y] of document SCCR/14/3shouldbein thePreamble.ThatConventionwasaself-standing international agreement, which requiredadditional discussion.Includingsuchprovisionsin anarticleof a treatymight leadto anerroneousinterpretationof limitationsandexceptions.

95. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica supportedtheproposalput forward by theDelegationofBrazil. It believedthattheintroductionof thatparticular text addressed someof theconcernsthathad arisen.

SCCR/14/7page26

96. TheDelegationof TheIslamicRepublic of Iransaid that, in view of thenewtechnologicaldevelopments,public interestneeded to besafeguardedin a newinternationaltreaty on the rights of broadcastingorganizations. Accessto knowledgeandinformationwasalsoakeypartof thepublic serviceelementof broadcastingorganizations. TheDelegationsupportedtheincorporationof thesetwo issuesin thetreaty,andsaid it wasflexible regardingthelanguageto beusedin thatrespect.

97. TheDelegationof Brazil recognizedthesupportfrom theDelegationof Egypt,andsaidtherewas amargin of flexibility regardingsuggestionsfrom Membersof possiblere-drafting,as longasthesubstanceandtheobjectiveof thoseproposalswerekept. As regardsthesuggestion madeby theDelegationof Senegal on therelocation of thoseproposalsto thearticleonexceptionsandlimitations,it endorsedthestatementof theDelegationof SouthAfrica, andstatedthatsuchrelocation would reducethecoverageof theclauses.As to thestatementof theDelegationof Japanregarding theneedto attain consistency with theWCTand WPPT,it indicatedthat,asmembersof theParisandBerneConventions,sincethe19th century, MemberStatesshouldbeconsistentwith thosefundamental agreements onintellectual property rightsthathadbeenthebackboneof WIPO,andwith theTRIPSAgreement, ratherthantheInternetTreatiesthatwereof avery sui-generis andatypicalnature,andsubscribedto sofar only by aminority of countries. Thetreatyundernegotiationledto unchartedterritory. Signalscouldcarry anything,includingscientific information,cultural information, news, or evenmaterial related to thecultural identitiesof nations,whichwasasubject matterof theConventionon Cultural Diversity. Strongsafeguardsfor nationaland cultural identitieswereneededto counterbalancetheimpactof thebroadcasters’ newprotection.

98. TheDelegationof Mexicourgedto becautiouswhendrafting theproposed treaty.AlthoughtheWCT andWPPT werequiterecenttreaties, theyhadbeen broadlyaccepted bytheinternationalcommunity. Articles [x] and[y] containedveryvaluable ideas,but bothwereoutside thescopeof thetreaty. Nothing radical or revolutionary wasbeingproposedasanewprotection, but ratherasimpleupdating of theprotection of broadcasting organizations.

99. TheDelegationof Indiastronglysupportedtheinclusionof all threeclausesin thetreaty. In viewof theissuesraisedabouttheir placementandthebroad sweep of theimpacttheymight have,it suggestedto reformulate clause4, whichwasalreadyin thedraft proposal,or to replaceit with Article [x] ongeneralprinciples,astheywereverymuchakin to theprinciplesmentionedin thepreamble.Thewordingof Article [x] couldbemodified inaccordancewith thePreamble,andwould readas follows: “shall limit thefreedom of aContracting Party to promoteaccessto knowledgeandinformation andnational educationalscientific objectivesandto curbanti-competitive practices.” Article [x] wasabroadstatementof generalprincipleswhich resonatedwith thepreambleclause: “recognizing theneedto maintainabalancebetweentherights of broadcastingorganizationsandthelargerpublic interest, particularly education,researchandaccessto information.” Theideabehindits proposalwasthat,in caseof conflict betweenthetwo Articles,legalexperts couldthenreferto thepreamble to knowtheintentof thetreaty. As to thesecondclause,Article [y], theDelegationdrewtheattentionof theCommitteeto Article1(1) in themain text, which read:“Nothingin this Treatyshallderogatefrom existingobligationsthatContractingPartieshaveto eachotherunderinternational,regionalor bilateraltreaties addressingcopyrightandrelatedright.” That,again, wasabroadsweepingstatement regarding theContractingParties’obligationsunderthetreaty. Article [y] on theprotection andpromotionof cultural diversitywasessentiallypinpointingtheCommittee’sattention to aspecific Treatyor Conventionandtheobligationsof theContractingPartiesthereto. TheDelegationproposedthatArticle [y] be

SCCR/14/7page27

accommodatedunderArticle 1 in asuitablemanner,either asacorollary to paragraph(1), orin any othermanner. Finally, regardingthethird issueon thedefenseof competition, theDelegationsaidthat, althoughit recognized thattheanti-competitive provisionsshouldbemaintainedin thetreaty, thedefenseof competition clausecouldwell bereadwith therestoftheproposalof Brazil on limitationsandexceptions,andcouldbeappendedthereto. In otherwords, thethreeclausesunderconsideration could belocatedin differentpartsof thetreaty,rather thanin Article1. Article [x] wouldgoundergeneral principles; Article [y] would gounder Article 1, andArticle [x] on thedefenseof competition wouldgoaspartof Article 12on limitationsandexceptions.

100. TheDelegationof Beninacknowledgedthatthegeneralpublic interest clauseswerevery positiveandvaluable,astheydrew theCommittee’sattention to certain issuesto beconsideredwhennegotiating therights to begranted to broadcasters.It full y supportedtheprinciplesof theConventiononCulturalDiversity. However, theDelegation expressedareservationonArticle [x] on thedefenseof competitionasto whetherthat provisionshouldbeincluded asaseparatearticlein thetreatyratherthanin its preamble.

101. TheDelegationof Moroccosupported thegeneral principlesof Articles [x] and[y], butdid not agreewith their vagueandobscurewording and theplaceproposedfor their insertion.Provisionsof internationaltreatiesmust belogical, clear andaccurate. It supportedtheproposal madeby theDelegationof India regarding theinclusionof a referenceto theConvention onCultural Diversity in Article1. RegardingArticle [x] on thedefenseofcompetition,theDelegationfoundit difficult to understandthereference to practices,whichunreasonably restrainedtrade. TheCommitteewas not qualifi edto judgewhethercertainpracticeswereright or not. As to theaccess by thepublic to information,theDelegationproposed to locate theprovisionundertheArticle on limitation andexceptions.

102. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity stated thattheprovisional generalprinciplehad thenatureof apreamble. However,ascurrently formulated,it did not satisfy theDelegation’sconcerns, evenif it wereto beincludedin thePreamble. It thereforesupportedto acertainextenta reformulationalongthelinesof theproposalof theDelegation of India.Therewasalsoadegreeof repetitionandoverlapbetween Article [x] ongeneral principlesand Article [y] on thedefenseof competition regarding thereferenceto anti-competitivepracticesandaproposedoperativearticle. As to Article [y] on theprotection andpromotionof culturaldiversity,theDelegationremindedtheCommitteethatRecital 17of theConvention onCultural DiversityprovidedthatParties recognizedtheimportanceofintellectual property rightsin sustainingthoseinvolvedin cultural creativit y. Theview of theCommunityandits MemberStateshadalways beenthateventheWCT andWPPTwenthandin hand with culturaldiversity soasto fosterthepromotionanddisseminationof culturalworks. Article1, ascurrentlyformulated,would sufficein termsof its relationshipbetweentheConvention onCulturalDiversityandotherconventions,namely theWCT andtheWPPT,and theTRIPSAgreement.Insertingaspecific reference to onetreatyput at risk theStates’compliancewith otherpre-existing treaties,in particular thosethatgaveprotection to othercategoriesof right holdersandtherelationship betweenthoseothercategoriesof rightsholders, authorsandperformers, andthebroadcastingorganizations. As to theprovisiononthedefenseof competition,theDelegationstatedthattheprovisionsof theTRIPS Agreement,and in particular Article 42of thatAgreement,would suffice. If thepreamble languagewascombinedalong thelinesof Article [x] with anotherspecific proposalin Article [x], anotherlevelof defenseof competitionprovisionswould becreated,which wouldcall into questionwhathadalreadybeenagreedundertheTRIPSAgreement.

SCCR/14/7page28

103. TheDelegationof Chile referredto thequestionput forwardby theDelegationofAustraliawith respectto thefirst paragraphof Article [x], “Defenseof Competition”, astowhetherit maybeunderstoodor interpretedin a way thatwouldapply to other intellectualproperty rights than thosegrantedunder theproposedtreaty. As Chile had proposedtheArticle in question, theanswerwasthat therewasnoobligation with regard to othertypesofintellectual property not coveredby theproposedtreaty. Referencewas madeto thequestionfrom theDelegationof Japan,expressing concern thattheobligation or possibilities allowedby Article [x] couldinterferewith interpretationof theWCT andWPPT. TheArticle inquestionwasnot intendedto affectanyotheragreement, andspecifically theprovisionsof theproposed treatyconcerningtherelationof theproposed treaty with other agreements,anditwaspreferablethattheproposedtreaty did not haveanyeffect onother agreements,includingtheWCT. Referencewasmadeto thequestion from theDelegationof Senegalregardingtheuncertainty connectedwith paragraph(2), whichstatedthat“nothingin this TreatyshallpreventContracting Partiesfrom specifying in their legislation licensingpracticesorconditionsthatmayin a particularcaseconstituteanabuseof intellectual property rights”.That provisionmirroredexistingArticle 40.2of theTRIPSAgreement andwasastandardprinciplein internationallaw, andthereforetheproposedprovisiondid not createadditionaluncertainty. Notewastakenof thecommentmadeby theDelegationof Egypt, thattheprovision relating to defenseof competitioncouldbewell placedundertheheadingofexceptionsandlimitations,andit wasnoted thatcompetition law hadtraditionallybeenconsideredoneof thelimits of intellectual property. Therefore,it wasagreed thatthearticlesrelating to competition couldbeincludedwithin thescopeof an article on limitationsandexceptions,if undera generaltitle suchas‘Limi tationsin General’.

104. TheDelegationof Jamaicareferred to theproposalfrom theDelegation of BrazilconcerningArticle [x] in relationto General Principles,onpage5 of documentSCCR/14/3,and statedthatsuchArticle hadsufficient merit to standaloneandbeincludedin Article 1 ofthedraft basic proposal.Supportwasexpressed for thewordingproposed by theDelegationof Australia to accommodateits inclusion in Article1, asit concerned general principles.With referenceto Article [y] onpage5 of documentSCCR/14/3, concerning theprotectionand promotionof culturaldiversity,it statedthatthatsubjectwasalready sufficiently coveredin Article 1, onpage11of documentSCCR/14/2,referring to therelation of theproposedtreaty to other conventionsandtreaties.Supportwasgiven for inclusionof Article [x] onpage6 of document SCCR/14/3within Article12,relating to exceptionsandlimitations,althoughfurtherclarificationwasrequested.

105. TheDelegationof Algeria remarkedthat theprinciplesof general interest andaccesstoinformation andtheprotectionof culturaldiversity, assetforth in Articles[x] and[y] ofdocument SCCR/14/3,werefundamentalto developingcountriesandcouldthereforeusefullyappearin thepreamble,while Article 12onexceptionsand limitationscouldcover theotherarticle.

106. TheDelegationof NigeriaconsideredthatthetaskbeforetheSCCRwasnot asdiff icultas it appeared.TheDelegationsupportedthefundamental objectiveof theproposedtreatyinterms of thepromotion of accessto knowledgeand information, aswell as thepublic interestobjectives,theprotectionandpromotionof cultural diversity andthedefenseof competition.Thepriority was to ensurethatthepromotion of thepublic interestwasexpressedin thesubstantivelaw, because thenewrightsfor broadcasters wereessentially privateandcommercial in nature.Article [x] andArticle [y] onpage5 werenon-negotiableand

SCCR/14/7page29

self-sustainingarticlesin thetreatywhichshouldnot bealtered or dilutedin anymanner,andthosearticlesweresupportedasgeneralprinciplesof theproposed treaty. Supportwasgivenfor thethematic schemeemployedin Articles[x] and[y] onpage5, andArticle [x] onpage6,with appropriate textualmodifications as wererequiredto give effect to its purpose.

107. TheDelegationof SudannotedthatArticle [x], ongeneralprinciples,wasimpreciseand neededredrafting. Article [y], concerning theprotectionandpromotion of culturaldiversity, madeit possibleto promotecultural identity duringa timeof greatculturalchange.In view of thefact thata UNESCOConventionexistedalong thoselines,Article [y] shouldthereforebeincludedin Article 1, in relation to other conventionsand treaties.

108. TheDelegationof Japan,in responseto thesecondquestion,statedthat therewasnoprovision for defenseof competitionin theWCT andWPPT. As a result, if Members limitedcopyright protectionundertheWCT andWPPT,therewould benoprovision in defenseofcompetition. Sucha limi tationof copyrightwouldbeperceivedasif theWCT did not allowsuchlimitation,because WCT did not contain anysuchprovision. However, thethree-steptestdid allow sucha limitation, andprotection in defenseof competitionwasnot usually aviolationof theWCT. Therefore,suchaprovisionwasnew.

109. TheDelegationof Brazil notedthatmany issuesdefinedin thedraft basic proposalwerenot defined in theWCT andWPPTand,therefore,thosetreatiescouldnot serveasabasisfornegotiation becausetheydid not definemanyof termsunderdiscussion.Further,broadcasterswerenot beneficiariesof protectionundertheWPPT. Thenegotiationprocessfor thenewtreaty wasbasedonunchartedterritory, andspecial safeguardswererequiredtoreachconsensus.

110. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americasupportedthestatementmadeby theDelegationof JamaicaandtheRepresentativeof theEuropeanCommission,thatArticle 1 oftheDraft BasicProposalwassufficient to cover thereference to theConventiononCulturalDiversity. Considerationcouldalsobegiven to languagein thePreamblethatwouldexpresstheimportant considerationswith respectto cultural diversity andtheir relation to theprotectioncreatedunder theproposedtreaty.

111. TheChair statedthat,on thebasisof anenlighteningandanalyticdiscussionof theproposals, considerationcouldbegivento futurework. Themainoptionsfor theplacementof certainprovisionswere,in additionto being self -standingarticles: in thepreambleorintegratedinto Article 1 with respectto their relation to othertreaties; in thearticle onlimitationsandexceptions; in thearticleon thepublic interest; andpossibly in theprovisionsconcerningcompetition. Referencehadbeenmadeto theneedto reformulatesomelanguagein thePreamble.Furtherdraftingwasrequiredto demonstratehowthedifferentmodelsworked. On theissueof thetermof protection, referencewasmadeto documentSCCR/14/2,Article 13,providinga termof protectionof 50 years. Thealternative proposedtermof 20years wasfoundin WIPOdocumentSCCR/14/3,Article15,basedon the proposalby theDelegationof Singaporetwo yearsearlier. Subjectto theSCCR’sdecision,applyingtheprincipleof inclusiveness,bothalternativeswould bepresented in thebasic proposal.FromtheNovember2004meeting,it wasrecalled thatseven Delegationshadlent support to theshorterperiodof 20 years. Therewassupportfor both alternatives,which were recognizedasreasonableproposalsfor consideration by Members.

112. TheDelegationof Brazil requestedclarification of Article 13,basedon theconcernsofsomenationalstakeholdersregardingits wording. Explanation wassoughtasto howtheterm

SCCR/14/7page30

of protectionwasto beestablished,andwhatactiongeneratedits commencement: whetherbroadcastingfor thefirst timeor anyactof broadcasting,evenif a repeatbroadcast.It askedwhetherrebroadcasting generatedanewtermof protection.

113. TheChair clarified thatneitherproposalconcerning theterm of protection indicatedthecommencementof theperiodof protection,which wastheyearthat thebroadcasting tookplacefor thefirst time. Eachbroadcastenjoyed its ownprotection, andeachbroadcastindependently enteredthepublicdomain50or 20 yearsafter its initial transmission.Thecriterionfor commencementwasdeliberately omitted by theChair when drafting theconsolidatedtext soasto avoidconfusingwhat wasprotectedfrom whatwas not protected.Each signal enjoyedprotectionindependently, and it wasfor Membersto considerwhetheradditional elementsshouldbeaddedto therelevantprovisions. It wasthoughtthatto dosocould blur theprotectionof thebroadcastto coverprotectionof content, andit wasthereforesoughtto avoidrisk by omitting theextracriterion.

114. TheDelegationof Brazil notedthatit was thebreadth of theArticleon termofprotectionthat hadraisedconcerns.If broadcastswereto beprotectedthenthetreatyhadtoclearly excludeprotectionof content,whichhad not been done. Theword ‘signal’ hadnotbeenusedthroughoutthetreaty, but should beusedandnot equatedwith ‘program’or othersuchundefinedwords. If theproposedprotectionwerebroadenoughto provide50 years ofprotectionto anybroadcast, whetheranoriginal or first broadcastor not, then it wasconsideredtoobroadandimprecise,would behard to implement andmonitor,andgenerateconfusion. Thetreatyshouldclearlyexcludeprotection for content,programs andall othercontentsof thesignal. Otherwise,the languageof thearticle in question shouldbeimprovedto indicatethatonly first or original broadcastswouldenjoy protection. Thereneededto besomecreative inputto justify thelong termof protection. In addition, thetelecommunicationsauthoritiesof Brazil hadnotedthat, if thetreatydealt only with signalprotection,it would beinappropriateto grant protection throughintellectual propertyrightsbecausesignals werenot creativeworksandbecausetheyhadnooriginality, therewould beno traditionalsubjectmatterto justify dealingwith their protection undertheintellectualproperty regime. It wasthenmoreappropriate for other organizations,suchastheInternationalTelecommunicationUnion (ITU), to considermeansfor preventing signalpiracy. Thosesubstantiveconcernsrequiredclarification asto whatthetreatyaimedtoachieve. Thetreatyshouldeitherprecisely limit its protection to signals,or morenarrowlydefinethegenerationof suchrights.

115. TheChair statedthattheconcernsexpressedby theDelegationof Brazil wouldbereflectedin thereportandcouldbesolvedtechnically, includingadecisiononan adequatebut not excessiveterm of protection,taking intoaccountall thenecessaryconsiderations.

116. TheDelegationof Indiastatedthat,whetherthetermof protection was20or 50 years,sincethethirteenthSessionof theCommittee,two importantrightsthat hadbeen consideredearlierhadbeenomittedfrom therevisedtext,namely theright of distribution and rightsrelating to post-fixationuse. Therefore,thelogicand rationalefor a longer-termprotectionhad becomediluted. The issueof whether protection wasbeingaccordedto signalsor contentwasalso animportantissue. Article 3, dealingwith thescopeof application, statedthatprotection grantedunderthetreatyshouldextendonly to signalsusedfor transmissionby thebeneficiaries of suchprotectionandnot to worksandotherprotectedsubjects carriedby suchsignals. In viewof thefactthatasignaloncereceived simply disappeared,aperiodof20 years, let alone50 years,for its protectionwas acontradiction in terms. However, thesecondclauseand thearticlesonscopeprovidedthatthetreaty should applyto protectionof

SCCR/14/7page31

broadcastingorganizationsin respectof theirbroadcasts.If theprotection werelimited to thebroadcast,thenit shouldapplyto thefirst broadcast. “Broadcast” did not necessary meancontent,but theoverallbroadcastwould includecontentandotherelements. While it wasrecognizedthatMembersshouldnot spendtoomuchtimeon thesubject, there remainedconcernsthata20-yearperiodfor protection of signals representeda contradiction in terms,and therefore furtherconsiderationneededto begivenas to whetherprotectionshouldfocuson signalsalone,or broadcasts. If it weredecidedto grantprotection to broadcasts,thenclarification wasneededof theterm“broadcast”, andwhatelementof thebroadcastshouldbeprotected.Therewasno objectionto eitheroptionbeing retainedfor furtherconsideration,althoughthe text neededfurtherelaborationon thetwo issuesmentioned.

117. TheDelegationof Chileclarified thatit had noobjection to thetwo possible termsofprotection,20or 50 years,beingpartof thebasic proposal. However,clarificationwassoughtas to theconnectionbetweenagreementon theissueof termandtheissueof whetherwebcasting would beprotectedunderthetreaty. If agreementwaslater reachedon theinclusionof webcasting,thetwo optionson term wouldbesufficient for thattypeoftransmission.

118. TheChair clarified that,in connection with webcasting, there wasoneproposalby adelegation,andoneproposal concerning simulcastingput forwardby theEuropeanCommunityandits memberStates. Thecurrentproposals were to protect webcastingin abroader or narrowermanner,andtheproposedterm of protectionwas50 years. However,bothalternative termswouldbeapplicableto anyresulting decisionto protect webcastinginthetreaty,andoneor othertermwould be thegeneraltermfor protection underthetreaty.

119. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreanoted thatit had previouslysupportedaminimumtermof protectionof 20 yearsbut,after further national consultation,hadchangedits view andconsideredthat50 yearsof protection wasmorepractical and logical, in view ofthetermof protection givento holdersof relatedrightsundertheWPPT.

120. TheDelegationof thePhilippines,notingtheremarks from theDelegationsof Braziland India, requestedcleardefinitionof theterms under discussion,particularly concerningsignal protection. From theDelegate’sexperienceasChairman andChief ExecutiveOfficerof anational televisionandradiobroadcasterin thePhilippines,therewas alwaysacleardistinctionmadebetweenthesignal asthetechnical aspect or vehicle of communication,andprogramsas content.Thetermsshouldbedefined, particularly astherewasgreaterconsensuson protectingsignalsbut nouniform understandingof whatconstitutedasignal. Referencewasmadeto theChair’s statementthattheremustbea legal precedentfor definitionof“signal”, andthatshouldbeput forwardin thediscussionsof theimportanttreatyunderconsideration.

121. TheChair askedwhetherit would facilitatethediscussionsif oneelement wereaddedtoboth thelonger andshorterproposals,namely, to add“for thefi rst time” within squarebrackets. Upontakingnoteof asilentindication from Members,theChairrecognizedthattherewas no consensuson draftingsuchaproposal.

SCCR/14/7page32

122. TheDelegationof TheIslamicRepublic of Iran recognized theneedfor clarification putforwardby theDelegationsof IndiaandBrazil , andnotedthattheproposed termof protectionfor 20 yearsshouldbeconsidered,asthatissuealsoremained under negotiation. Thesuggestedbrackets shouldalsobeon thetable for discussion.

123. TheDelegationof Mexicosupportedtheretention of thetwo articles,andnotedthatitwouldput forwardaproposalthatwouldaim to dispelthecontroversynotedby theChair.

124. TheDelegationof Egyptexpressedits concernthat thevariouspartsof thetreatyshouldbe internally consistent. Thetermof protection, whether20or 50 years,wasin itself acontroversialissue.Support wasgivento aperiodof 50 years,but thequestion remainedasto when theperiodof protectionshouldbegin. In answeringthatquestion, referencewasmadeto Article 3 of thetreaty, dealing with scopeandthesubjectof protection by thetreaty.It wasstatedthatthetreatywouldprotectfirst signals,andthenprograms.Sothe treatywould literally protectsignals,andeffectively protect content,namely programs,retransmissionsor rebroadcastprograms.Clarification wasneeded asto thedifferencebetweenprotectionof programsandthecontentsof thoseprograms,and thedifferencebetweentheprotection of programsandtheprotection of copyrightof theauthors of theprograms. Considerationneededto be given to whetherthetreaty grantedprotectiontosignalsandprogrambroadcasts, andalsowhensuchprotection began,whetherat thebeginningof thesignalandprogrambroadcast,or at adifferenttime for signalsandforprogramsor broadcasts.

125. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica notedthattheconcernsthathadbeenraised,particularlyby theDelegationsof IndiaandBrazil, hadnot beenadequately addressedby thetext containing thetwo alternativesfor termof protection, becauseit left unresolvedtheunderlying subject matterof protection. Therefore, thetext should,in addition to theterm,specify thesubject of protection. Thereappearedto begeneral consensusonprotection beinggrantedto signals,andnot content,andthatshouldbespecifically statedin thetext. Article 3,while implying protectionfor signals,still left roomfor interpretation, dependingon theviewpoint.

126. TheDelegationof Colombiaagreedthat thequestionof theterm of protectionshouldbeexamined in thecontextof thesubjectof protection itself. Theinternationalcommunityhadworkedto defineschemesof protectionoverthepreceding45 years.TheRomeConventionhad granted 20 yearsof protectionto performersandproducersof phonograms,althoughfewnational legalsystemshadmaintainedthe20-yearperiod in practice. In Colombia,wheremanycopyright worksincludingaudiovisual works existed,thetermof protection waslonger,so asto avoid therealsituationthatworks which should haveremained in theprivatedomainhad enteredthepublicdomain,andpiracycould occur. Practicehadshownthat extensionofthetermof protection wasnecessaryin manylegal systems,including theEuropeanUnion.Thewideadherenceto suchprotectionfor holdersof copyright andrelated rightshadmadeitpossibleto maintain levelsof protectionsatisfactory to authorsandalso to investors whoprovidedthe resourcesthatenabledauthorsto make their worksavailable. Therefore,supportwasgivento a termof protectionof 50 years, in line with Colombia’s legislation,andmakingit possibleto establish rulesto governrelationsbetween authorswithin theAndeancommunity.

SCCR/14/7page33

127. TheChair explainedthattherewasno reasonto creatediffi culty in theareaunderdiscussion. Membersneededto decidethedesired objectof protection, asnoted by theDelegationsof Brazil andIndia. Thatdecisiondid not needto betakenin thecontextof thetermof protection. If it weredecidedthat theobject of protectionwasabroadcast,thenbroadcastingwouldhavebeendefined,becausea broadcastdid not existwithoutbroadcasting. And broadcastinghadbeendefinedas transmission.Transmission tookplaceby theuseof asignal,andthesignal-carriedcontent. Theinitial moment when thesignalcameinto existenceprovidedthestartingpoint for calculating thetermof protection.Therewere two possibilitiesfor determiningsuchstarting point: (i) thefirst timewhentheresult ofcertainprogramming cameinto existence;or (ii) anymomentwhentheresultofprogrammingwascarriedby thesignal. However, thechoicebetweensuchalternativeswastoocomplexfor decision at this stageof theprocess. A separatequestion,thatremainedpending,waswhatconstitutedtheobjectof protection. Therehadbeenuseful debateonconcernsrelating to thecalculationof the termof protection, andtheprovisionscouldbeformulatedaccordingly, with decisionsmadeonothergeneral issuesrelating to thetermofprotection. Therefore,accordingto theconclusionofferedat thebeginningof thedebate,twoalternativeswouldbeprovided,andtheconcernswouldberecordedto providematerial forfurtherconsideration whenthetimecameto formulatethefinal wordingof theclauseon thetermof protection.

128. TheDelegationof Brazil notedthatMembershadexpressed manydoubtsand inquiriesconcerningnot only thetermof protection, but alsothewordingof theconnectionbetweensuchprovisionandArticle 3 on thescopeof application. Further questionswere raisedby theDelegationof Chileasto thepotentialrelationship betweentheterm of protection andapossibleextension of coverageto includewebcasting,wheresomeMembersmayprefer thatwebcasting shouldenjoy adifferenttermof protection dueto thedynamics of theInternet.Therefore,it wasproposedthattheentireArticle13shouldberedraftedto takeaccountof thedebate,andthatbracketsshouldbeusedfor thewholeArticle, andnot only thenumberofyears,until themeaning of thescopeof protection hadbeenclarified. An alternativeshouldalsobeprovidedfor theprovision on thetermof protection,using theword “signal” insteadof “broadcast”to give moreprecisionandgreater consistencywith themajority of theagreement.Supportwasalsogivento theChair’s suggestionto restore“fo r thefirst time” inthesentence,evenif all within brackets.

129. TheChair clarified thattheissueof webcasting wouldbedealt with asearly aspossible,sincethework hadbeenvery productiveandsomeconclusionswould beoffered at theendofthedebate.A full setof conclusionswould besubmittedto theCommittee. Hewouldnow,as it hadbeenproposedby theDelegationof India,proceed into thequestionof thescopeofapplication,whichwasitem 6 of theworkingdocument. Thequestionsconsistedof two mainelementsof theBasicProposal.Thefirst element wastheArticleon thescopeof applicationin Article 3 of theDraft BasicProposal,aswell as theAppendix onwebcastingandsimulcasting whichoperatedthroughthescopeof application of thetreaty. In relationto theextensionof thescopeof applicationto webcasting andto thequestionwhetherwhenadoptingthe treaty ContractingPartieswould beboundto apply thetreatyto webcastingorsimulcasting, or both, immediately,thereadingof Article I of theAppendix wasrecommendedsinceit clearlyclarified that theAppendix wasintendedto bean integral partof thetreatybut thattheobligationscontainedwouldnot beapplicableif theContractingPartieshadnot madeanotification. It was only throughapositiveactthataMemberStatewouldbecomeboundto theAppendix. Theareaof webcastingandsimulcastinghadbeendiscussedmanytimessincethemeetingof theStandingCommitteewheretheUnitedStateshad madeknowntheirproposal.Therehadbeenvery broadopposition to includewebcasting

SCCR/14/7page34

in abroadway in theinstrument,but at thesametime therehadbeen growingunderstandingthatit representedanimportanteconomic andcultural areawhich was similar to broadcasting.Oneopinionput forwardwasthattheitem hadto beaddressedasaseparateprojectaftertheconclusionof thetreatyon traditionalbroadcasting. Theproposalof theEuropeanCommunitiesandits MemberStatesonsimulcastinghad alsobeenput forward andseveralother delegationshadexpressedtheir support for its inclusion in thescopeof protection.Simulcasting enjoyedquiteconsiderablybroadersupportthanwebcasting doneby webcastingorganizations,whowerenot engagedat thesametime in broadcastingactivit ies,with thesamecontent, programand investment.SinceNovember2004,anumber of doctrineshadbeenput forward: During the2004meeting, theDelegation of Chinahad stated thatwebcasting shouldnot beincludedasamandatory element. Anotherdelegationhadsaidthatif webcastingwaspartof anoptionalpackage,someprotectioncouldnot beexcludedandthosedelegationsinterestedin thatprotection hadto begiventhepossibili ty of grantingthatprotection. Thatwouldallow countriesto gain someexperiencefrom thatform of protectionand to betterunderstandtheimpactof that protection. Thefi rst consolidatedversionof thedraft treaty hadincludedthreedifferentoptionsbased on two rather similar optionsandaprotocol which hadproventoocomplex. Thedrafting had to besimple and as clearaspossiblealthoughthesubstancewasdifficult. At that stage, thediscussionhadto focuson thenew elements of thediscussionandnot onwell-knownpositions.

130. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastatedthat it hadtaken theapproachofinclusivenessin relation to theDraft Basic Proposal, andtheCommitteehadagreedtoconsiderseveralproposals,only recentlyintroducedby someMember States. Theprincipleof inclusivenesshadto applyto theissueof webcasting,althoughtheconcernsexpressedbysomedelegationscouldbeunderstood.A non-mandatory form of protection for webcastingin thesamewayas thewell-knownopt-in component of theBerneAppendixwouldallowcountriesto providefor suchprotectionat amoment chosenby them. TheDelegationofUkrainehadclearlystatedthatif thetreatyfailed to addresswebcastingin a flexibleapproach, that would representa failedopportunity likely not to ariseagain before a longtime. Someconfusionexistedaroundtheconceptof webcasting,since thecommonunderstanding of thetermwastoobroadwith respectto what wasto beprotected underthetreaty which wasnot intendedto coverordinaryweb pages,e-mail, blogsandothercommonactivity taking placeon theInternet. Only thecasewhereawebentity assembledandscheduledprogramandcontentanddeliveredit to thepublic, in thesamemannerasabroadcasteror cablecaster, throughtheuseof computernetworks,rather thanthroughtheradio spectrumor asystemof cablewires,wasintended to beprotected. Additional languagewith respectto thescope of thedefinition of webcastingwith aview to furtherlimiting thedefinition could beworkedon. Thediscussionhad to continuewith aview to includingwebcasting in a flexible way in thetreaty.

131. TheChair thankedtheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America for its statementinfavor of amorenarrow definitionof webcasting whichwouldallow meeting someof theconcernsexpressedin thepublicdebate.

132. TheDelegationof Egyptreferredto Article2 of theAppendix, whichcontainedthedefinitions,andaskedwhethertheAppendixhadto bepartof thedraft treaty. Transmissionsby Internetreferredto thebroadcasting of soundsor imagesor imagesandsoundsfor thereceptionby thepublic,whetherby wire,which presented closesimilarity to transmissionsbyInternetwith thedifferencethatthepublic hadaccessin realtime to theprogram.Thedefinition drewadistinctionbetweentransmission by Internetandretransmission.Broadcastingwasdoneover theradioor televisionwhereaswebcasting was doneby Internet.

SCCR/14/7page35

Distinctionsbasedon themeansof transmissionwerenot sufficient. Article 2 of theDraftBasic Proposalhaddefinedwebcastingasavery different vector andthequestionwaswhetheranewkind of webin parallelwith Internetwouldemergein a few years,which wasentirely possible from a technologicalpoint of view. Therefore,althoughtheAppendixcouldbe justified for thetreaty, thepossibility thatit could beoutdatedin acoupleof years existed.Discussionshadto belimited to legalmatters

133. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity referred to thescopeof what wasactuallymeantin thenon-mandatoryAppendix. A procedural proposalwassuggestedasapossiblewayforwardto enhancingthecommonunderstandingof whatwasactually meantbywebcasting. TheEuropeanCommunityand its MemberStatesdid not considerthatawebcastcould beanycommunicationof webpages,web blogs,e-mails or anyotherdistancecommunication usingelectronicmeansbasedon theInternet. TheDraft BasicProposaldidnot intendto protect thesimplecommunicationof webblogsor webpages or amateurwebstreamsor evenprofessional webstreams.A privateperson’swebblogsput onawebpageshouldnot receive anyprotectionunderthetreaty. Therewasnoneed to incentivizesuchactivity neitherto protectsuchactivity. Thereforethescopeof theprotection neededto beclarified aswell astheissueof thesimultaneoustransmissionof abroadcastthroughtheInternet. Thebeneficiaryof protectionunderthenewtreaty hadto remain thebroadcastingorganizationsandnonewbeneficiariesof protection shouldbecreatedunderthenewtreaty.However,if thebroadcastingorganization wasto usethenewmeansof transmissionsto reachits public, thenthatadditionalform of communication, wouldhaveto beprotected. No newbeneficiary, noneworganizationof any sortwould have to beprotected. A clarif icationwasneededin thecaseof cablecastingwhena cableretransmitteror acablecompanywould takeaseriesof broadcastchannelsandretransmits thosechannels via its cablenetwork system,which in that casewould haveto beprotected. If a telecomoperatorwasto offer aseriesofbroadcastchannels by electronicmeansovertheInternetandnot by cable distribution,thatwouldnot constituteanewcategoryof protectedparties but would still betheoriginalbroadcastingorganizationsusinganewmedium to reach its audience. Only theexistingcategoriesof beneficiariesusingnewadditionaltechnological meanshadto beprotected.TheAppendixhadto beunderstoodasa logical kind of progressionfrom abroadcastingorganization broadcasting to a cablecasterwho received broadcast,assembledit into abouquet of channels andbroadcast it throughhis cablenetwork. Thatlogic wasbehindtheEuropeanCommunity’s simulcasting proposalwhich couldbeextendedto anyactivity whichby usingbroadcasting materialandcarryingit overnewmediacould beassimilatedtobroadcasting.

134. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica referredto theAppendix whichassumedthatbothoftheaffectedpartieswouldberesiding in onestate. If thenon-mandatory characterwassupportedonecouldhaveabroadcastingorganizationactive in several countries whichmightor might not haveratified theAppendix. Clarificationas to what would happenin thatcasewasthereforesought for. Theissueof liability wasnot addressedin theworkingdocumentsand representedanissueto beclarified in relation to theexclusive rights to begrantedtobroadcastingorganizations.An assumptionwas alsomadethatthebroadcastingorganizationwastheentity actually involvedto theexclusionof othersector services suchas telecomservices.Theinclusionof webcasting in thescopewould extend thescopeof entitiesinvolved in theprocess. Thedraft treatygavethe impression thattheauthority wasdelegatedto aparticular sectorto theexclusion of theothersectors,whereastheimplementationof thetreaty couldhaveasignificantimpactonmanyothers as well.

SCCR/14/7page36

135. TheDelegationof Bangladesh supported thestatementmadeby theDelegationof SouthAfrica andfelt thatwebcastinghadto beconsideredasaseparate itemsinceit hadadirectlinkagewith theissueof cybersquattingor cybersecurityandcyber piracy. WIPOwasactivein that areabut it raisedsomeissueswhich neededsomemorediscussions.Somecontractualarrangementor licensing agreementscould befound,but somebroaderquestionswerestillunresolved,such astheissuesof Governmentcontrol overtheInternet. Unlessthoseissuescould find somesolutions,it wouldbeprematureto rushfor aprotective clauseor a treatyonwebcasting, which requiredmorediscussion.

136. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iranexpressed concernin relation toArticle 3(1)of DocumentSCCR/14/2,stating that theprotection only extendedto signals usedfor thetransmissionsby thebeneficiaries of theprotection of thetreaty,andnot to works andother protected subjectmattercarriedby such signalsandparagraph(2) of thatsameArticlewhich providedin adifferentwording that theprotection of broadcasting organizationsonlyapplied in respectof their broadcasts.ProfessorLucas in his presentation hadalsousedadifferent languagein relationto thescopeof thetreaty andindicating that it would bemoreappropriateto refer to programssincethebroadcastingorganizationswerenot investinginsignalsbut in programs. Thescopeof theprotectionunderthetreatyhadto clearlydistinguishasignal transmissionfrom abroadcastor aprogram. Additionalclarificationwasnecessary.

137. TheDelegationof Algeria referredto theissueof webcasting as a fairly newdevelopmentwhichwasnot coveredby all domesticlegislation. For that reason, theadoptionof anappendix, evenif optional,on thatitem,wasnot yet ripe. Broadcasterstransmittingprogramsover theInternetdid not havethesameresponsibilit ies,thesameobligationsasconventionalbroadcasters. Article 6 of theDraft Basic Proposal, which referred toretransmissionafter fixation providedanappropriate responseto theconcernsof broadcastingorganizations. Theissueof webcasting couldbeincluded on theagendaof futuremeetingsoftheCommittee.

138. TheDelegationof Brazil expressed concernsin relation to theAppendix. It wouldbequiteprematureto engagein negotiations regardingwebcasting aslongastheprocessof rapidtechnologicalconvergencewasmovingon. Fora developingcountry suchas Brazil, it wasevenmorepremature to envisagebecoming party to theAppendix. Brazil hadinvestedconsiderablyin thelastyearsto developamodelof digital TV andtheconsequencesof thatAppendixto anewmediasuchasdigital TV, whichwould integratebroadcastingandwebcasting, werestill unclear.Additional discussionwasrequired on theAppendixaswell ason theverydefinition of webcasting,andtheelaborationof animpactassessment, whichwould takeintoaccountthespecificprospective of developingcountries in regard towebcasting, couldbeof useto developingcountries. TheInternethaddevelopedrapidly inmostcountriesincludingBrazil, dueto thefact thatthemediahad remainedout of regulation.The InternationalTelecommunicationsUnion (ITU), WIPO,andeventheInternetCorporationfor AssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN) did not haveany specific mandateto regulatetheInternet. During theWorld Summit on theInformation Society it wasthesamedelegationswhichwerenowpushingforwardthe webcasting issuewhich hadstatedthattheInternetshould remainasit wasandbekeptout of regulation. ThedefinitioncontainedinArticle 2(a),which referredto webcasting as thetransmissionby wireor wirelessmeansoveracomputernetwork,did not providefor anytechnical definitionof computer network, neitherdid it referto transmissionsoverIP protocol. It couldalsobeaskedwhether thedefinitionofwebcasting organizationswhich referredto legalentitieswouldcorrespondto thedevelopmentof theInternetin Brazil, andwhether thelargepart of thecontentproducers

SCCR/14/7page37

would fit in thatcategory. Also, althoughtheAppendixwaspresentedas an option,that wasnot really thecase,sincecountrieswhichwoulddecidenot to adhere to theprotocolwouldhave to facetheburdenof not havingtheirwebcastingtransmissionprotectedin anothercountry. Thequestion thenwouldbeif theprincipleof themostfavorednationscontainedintheTRIPSAgreementwouldstill beapplicable.

139. TheDelegationof SenegalnotedthatnodelegationshadrejectedtheAppendixalthoughit wasgenerally felt thattheissueof webcastingwas not matureenough.Therefore,capacity building, discussiongroups, seminars,etc. wereneeded to further enhancecommonunderstanding of theissuesinvolvedaroundwebcasting to allow everybodyto considera textaddressingits possibleprotection.Thecreation of newbeneficiariesof protectionwasnot theissueat stake, but this wasaneffort to try to regulateadifferent form of broadcastingactivity.Therewasaneedto moveforwardandto addressnew developmentswhile establishingalegalframework, which wouldnot providetoomany loopholeswhendigital broadcastingwould finally develop. Manydevelopingcountriesandleastdevelopedcountrieswereparticipatingin theCommittee’sdiscussions.Thosecountriesneededscientific andtechnicalprogressandhadto protecttheir creativecommunity, whichhadprovided importantachievements to humanity. Creatorshadto beprotectedwhileeconomicgrowthwouldnot beachievedwithout domesticandforeigninvestorswho requiredsomeform of protectionoftheir investments. Oneof thecritical elements for encouraginginvestmentwas theeffectiveprotectionof andrespectfor rights.

140. TheDelegationof Croatiaindicatedthatthe15countriesof theCentral EuropeanandBaltic Statescould supporttheinclusionof simulcasting in thescopeof protection asproposed by theEuropeanCommunityandits MemberStates. That positionhad beenexpressedat theregional consultationsmeeting held in Bucharestin 2005. Therewassomelogic to protectthesamebeneficiariesin respectof thesameobject of protection in achangingenvironment.

141. TheDelegationof Australiastatedit wasstill considering its position with regardto theadoptionof theoptional Appendix. In relation to Article3(2)of theAppendix,thepossibilityof extendingprotectionto simultaneousandunchangedwebcasting by broadcastingorganizationsof theirbroadcastswasquestioned. Could any reasonfor not extendingorincluding theextensionof protectionto cablecastingorganizationsthat would simulcasttheirtransmissionson theInternetberaised?Finally, theDelegation questioned howtheoperationalmutatis mutandis clauseswouldwork in thecaseof Article 4(2)of theDraftTreaty itself which establishedthepointsof requiredconnectionsbetweenthebroadcasterandtheContractingParty. TheDelegationwaswonderingabouttheapplicationof thesecondpoint of attachment,namely, thelocationof thetransmitter, andaskedwhattheInternetequivalentof thetransmitterwouldbe.

142. TheDelegationof Ghanaexpressedconcernsin relation to Article2 of DocumentSCCR/14/2whichdid not clearlystatewhatbroadcastingwas. Broadcastingcouldnot beunderstoodasincluding transmissionsover computernetworks.Theproposalput forward bytheEuropeanCommunityonsimultaneoustransmissionof broadcastovertheInternetrepresenteda goodcompromiseto introducesome form of broadcasting over theInternet.Efforts hadto bemadeto find analternative andseparateway to protect webcastingandtostreamlinedefinitions.

143. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iranstatedin relation to thescopeof thetreaty thatit consideredit prematureto incorporate webcastingin thetreatysinceits nature

SCCR/14/7page38

wasquitedifferentfrom broadcasting.In thetraditional broadcastingarea, broadcasters didnot haveanycontrol on their signalsaftertransmissionandafterbroadcasting. Regardingwebcasting, thereceiverwasactivatingthetransmissionoverthetelecommunicationpath,which meant thatthewebcastersin a waycouldcontrol thepublic. Eightypercentof webcastusersdid not belongto thedevelopingcountries,which meant thatthosecountriescouldbeconcernedabouttheimplicationsof suchprotection. Regarding thenon-mandatoryAppendix,theDelegationbelievedit wouldhaveamandatorycharacterbetweena countrywhich would acceptthetreatyandits Appendix andasecondcountry. A two-tier stageofratificationandaccessionwassuggested.Thefirst waswith thetreatyandthesecondwasthedeferredoneaccordingto Article 5(1)of theAppendix. If theAppendixwereto enter intoforcesimultaneouslywith thetreatythatwouldmeanthattheAppendix andthetreatywouldhave thesame legal status. Againstthatbackground,Article3 on thescopeof applicationwould thenbecomemandatory,andthatmeant that webcasting andsimulcastingwouldbewithin thescopeof thetreaty. TheAppendixwasnot mandatory by naturebut wasconnectedto the treaty. All referencesto webcasting shouldberemoved from theotherpartsof thetreaty, suchasArticle2(d). It shouldbeclarified thatsimultaneoustransmissionorretransmissionovertheInternetshould not beincluded. In Article4(1), dealingwith thequestionof thebeneficiaries,referencesto Article 2(a)and(b) shouldbeindicatedin ordertoclarify thebeneficiaries. Thesameclarificationshould bedonein Article4(2)(ii) with regardto transmitter. In Article 6 thewords“by any means” and “retransmissionsover computernetworks” shouldbedeleted,aswell asArticle9(1). Authorizinga transmissiondid not meanthatthebroadcasterhadtheright of transmissionover theInternet. It addedthatinArticle 10(1), thesentenceafter“suchaway”, to theend,shouldbedeletedand inArticle 10(2) thesamesentenceat theendshould bedeletedaswell. Thesetwo sentenceswere thereflection of thelast paragraphonpage6 of documentSCCR/12/5 Prov. It wasassumed thatit wasnot mandatory in theprevioussession,andalsoit waswrittenin theWPPTlanguage.

144. TheDelegationof India welcomedtheinterventionsmadeby theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americaandby theDelegationof theEuropeanCommission in settingsomeof theapprehensionsaboutthenatureandscopeof webcasting. It hadbeenclarified thatwebcasting in thebroadest senseof thetermwasnot whatwas intendedto beincludedin thetreaty. It was essentiallyto look at another platform, theInternet,for broadcastingorganizationsto makeuseof, andto givesomekind of protection for thatadditionalplatformrather thanmerely oncablenetworksor overradiofrequencies. Theclarificationshelpedtodispeltheapprehensionsanddoubtsaboutthedimensionsof theoptionalAppendixandeventhemain text of thetreaty. If thesuggestion now madewasthatwebcastingandsimulcastingwere to belimitedandtheprotectionalsohadto belimitedto broadcastingorganizationsassaid by theDelegation of theEuropeanCommunity, therewere certainotherpracticalconsiderationsto beconsideredandfor which clarificationsshouldbesoughtbeforeproceedingfurtheron the basictext. Thenatureof therightsin Articles6 to 10predicatedthatit waseithera right to authorizeor a right to prohibit unauthorized transmissions.In thecaseof broadcastersandcablecastersand othercitizensor legalentitieswho might beinvolved in aContractingPartyor aMemberState, it wouldbeeasyfor anycountry toregulatethatprotection. In thecaseof theInternet, thatwould becomemoredifficult asaccessto thewebsitescouldbehadfrom anywherein theworld, andsimulcasting in thedigital formatwasextremelyflexible. Therefore, asaContracting Party,asa regulatorybody,aMemberStatewould find it difficult to conveythatprotection to thebroadcastingorganizationsoverthe Internet. Thatpoint hadalsobeenraised by oneor two otherdelegationsandclarificationswereneededasto howtheset of rightswouldactually beenforced,or theprotection actually providedto thebroadcastingorganizationsoverthe

SCCR/14/7page39

Internet. TheDelegationpointedout that,in terms of Article 4(2)on thebeneficiariesof theprotection,thepresentmaintext of the treatywasbasedon theassumption therewasaheadoffice or a transmitter,andthereforethedifferentcombinationsof thetwo wouldmakesomeorganization eligible for theprotection. If thatconceptwere transported to theInternetandcomputernetworks,it wouldmakeit diffi cult to implementtheprotection. Anotherissuewasthenatureof therightsin Articles6 to 10, andthelimitationsandexceptionsin Article 12,which would alsoneedto beexaminedin thelight of thenew proposal,evenin thelimitedsenseof webcasting. The readingof Articles6 to 10andalsoArticle 12was thatthescopeoflimitationsandexceptionsaswell asthescopeof therightswould needto be reworkedasfaras thelimi tedversionof webcastingwasconcerned.While acleareranda narrowerfocuswouldbesuggested for webcasting,therewas a needto understandthe implicationsof anarrowerfocusandperhapsto work into aself integratedtext of theAppendix itself. Thatwould facilitate thenonmandatorynatureof theAppendix in thesensethat, if it were astandalonedocumentor protocolasconsideredearlier andmoreself-contained in its provisions,itwouldprobablybeeasierfor theMember Statesto examinetheimplicationsandto takeadecisionon its signature.Thesecondadvantageof differentiating thetwo texts wouldbethatonecouldthenproceedfurtherwith examining therights and limitationsfor themaintraditional broadcastingandcablecastingorganizations,andcleanup thetext assuggestedbyseveralotherdelegations, so thatthemaintext would focuson thebroadcastingorganizationsand their traditional broadcastsandcablecasting. Therights andobligationswouldbediscussedonly in thatcontext. Lastly, theDelegationpointedout anissue,whichhadbeenraisedby someotherdelegationsabouttheliabilitiesof theintermediaries,whetherit wasatelecomcompanyor any otherwebcastingcompanythat cameintoplay. It would addon thedistinctionbetweenbroadcastingorganizationsandcablecastingorganizations. Broadcastingorganizationswereessentiallytheoriginatorsof broadcastsandcablecastingorganizationsactuallydid not originatebroadcasts,theyonly retransmittedthebroadcasts of others. On thesamefooting,whetherit wasa telecomcompanyor anInternet company,they wouldalso beproviding broadcastingnetworkservices,andwhetherit was acablecastingcompanyor anInternetcompanytheywerebothprovidingnetworkservices,whereas theoriginalbroadcastingorganizationswaswhatprovidedthebroadcastingservice,which wastheprogramcarryingsignalsretransmittedeitherononeor anothernetwork. Therefore,anyrights andobligations discussedhereshould basically focuson thebroadcastingorganizations’ rightsandtherefore,evenin themain text, adifferentiation shouldbemadebetweentherightsof cablecasting organizations,whichweremerely repackagingtheoriginalbroadcastsandputting themthroughtheir networks,andthoseof entitiessimulcastingoncomputernetworks. TheDelegationrequestedfurther clarificationsfrom theDelegationoftheCommissionof theEuropeanCommunity and theDelegationof theUnitedStatesofAmericaonsomeof theconcernsexpressed by manydelegationsandon thepracticalissuesrelating to theactualclausesin thetreaty andtheimplicationsof theAppendix.

145. TheChair clarified that,in thecontext of retransmission,whenapersonwas not theoriginatorof abroadcast,or possibly aprotected webcastor cablecast,that retransmittingpersonwould,according to themodelthatwas presently proposed,neverenjoy its ownprotection. Retransmittersweresecondary users. If abroadcaster engaged in broadcastingactivities andthena third personpackagedthosebroadcastsandwebcastthemon thebasisofthosesignals, thatretransmission would not beprotectedasa webcast. It wouldbetheoriginal broadcasterwho wouldenjoy protection for thefi rst signal thatit hadtransmittedover theair andfor thesignalthatwasretransmitted. Theretransmitterwouldhavenoseparateownright. In thecaseof simulcasting by broadcasters,thewebcasting componentwouldnot create anewbeneficiary; it would bethebroadcasterwhowouldenjoy theprotectionin its capacityof beingawebcaster, too,andit would bethesamecontentthatthe

SCCR/14/7page40

broadcasterwassimultaneouslybroadcastingandmakingavailableas transmissions over theweb. As far astheproposalfrom theUnited States of Americawasconcerned,theChairnoted thatit would coveralsothosepersonswho,withoutbeingbroadcasters,wereoriginatingwebcasts,by makingsimilar investmentsin scheduling, programming andassemblingprogramcontentandthenmakingthatcontent,according to aprefixedschedule,availableastransmissionsovertheweb. Thosepersonswould beverysimilar to broadcastersas far astheoperation wasconcernedfrom thepoint of view of thewebcastingorganizationand from thatof thereceiverswho receivedthosetransmissionsin thesamewayastheyreceivedbroadcastsignals.Regarding the interventionmadeby theDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity andtheapproach,supported amongothers by theDelegationsof Kenyaand Croatia, to extendtheprotectionto simulcastingmadeby thebroadcaster itself, theChairrecalledthedistinctionbetweenthatproposal andthatof theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof America, whichwasthattheoriginalwebcastingwouldbesimilar to broadcastingandwouldalso enjoy protection.These threepointsshouldbekeptclear,andtheproponentsofthedifferentapproachesmight explainfurthertheir positions.

146. TheDelegationof Argentinastatedthatthatwas a key issuefor reachinganagreementas mandated by theAssemblylastyear. While sharingviewsof otherdelegations,it reiteratedits position,having in mind theobjectiveto achieveadiplomatic conferenceassoonaspossible.While somedelegationshadlookedat it from a legalpoint of view, theDelegationpreferredto seethenon-mandatorycharacter from apoliti cal point of view. Theargumentthatit wasnon-mandatoryandthattherewasno risk involved sinceall countrieswouldbefreeto contract,or not,wasnot valid in thereal world. In bilateral freetradeagreementsornegotiationsof thattype,thecharacterof non-mandatorywouldnot constituteanobstacletonegotiationson theprotectionof broadcastingorganizations. Not much progresshadbeenmadein thenegotiationof thebodyof thetreaty. It would indeedbevery difficult for theDelegationto agree to a basicproposal,which would retainsuchanappendixor indeedanyreferenceto thematterthatit dealt with.

147. TheDelegationof Chile referredto themandatory or optionalstatusof theAppendixand questioned whetherit wasreallywhattheInternet andtheinformationsociety deservedfor thefuture. Webcastinghadits ownnature,different from broadcasting andcablecasting,and thosewhoproposedthatthesamenormsasfor broadcasting should applyfor webcasting,shouldprove theneedfor thosenorms. Thereweremanyunansweredquestionswith regardto thepractical effectsof thosenormswhenappliedto real life. TheDelegation referredtosoftwaredevelopersandentitieswhoproducedigital devices, to Internetserviceproviders,affected by theseproposednorms,andin general,to digital innovationand thebiggerissueofaccessto knowledge. It furtherreferredto orphanworks,to theidentification of therightsholdersand to thepublic domainwhich wasalreadyavery big issue,andit was wonderingwhy oneshouldcreatea newseriesof rightswhile still nosolution hadbeen foundto identifyorphanworks. TheDelegationsharedtheviews of theDelegation of India thatbroadcastingshouldbediscussedseparately.

148. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America thankedtheDelegation of Indiafor itshelpful clarification with respectto theproposalonwebcasting in its current formulationintheDraft BasicProposalandfor theconstructive suggestionsasto howsuchaprotectionwouldoperatein thecurrentstructureandthecontext of thebasic proposal. It would bepreparedto consideralternativeprovisionsandlanguagethatcould beincludedin anappendixthatwouldaddressspecificconcernsrelated to theprotection for webcasting, andconsistentwith thepositionthatit statedseveraltimesin theStanding Committee. It repeatedthat,for thescopeof protectiongrantedto beneficiaries under thetreaty, it wouldconsider

SCCR/14/7page41

broadcastersandcablecastersasbeneficiariesunderthetreaty. Webcastersmight alsobeconsideredto ensurethatthosebeneficiaries had whatthey would needto fight againstpiracywhilenot cominginto conflict with therightsof underlyingcontent holders,norwith thepublic interest. Balancingtheinterestsof creators,performers,consumers,disseminatorsandothers who interactedwith contentandsignals,underlaytheDelegation’s proposal.Withrespectto therightsproposedto apply to thebeneficiaries,a two-tier set of rightshadbeenproposed to addresssomeconcernsabouttheintersectionbetweentheprotectionof thetreatyand other legitimate interests. Thecritical question of focusshould behow broadcasters,cablecastersandwebcasterscouldbeprotectedagainst theunauthorizedinterceptionandtransmittalof their signals.Achievementof this goalshould determine theprotectioncontainedin thetreaty. A narrowfocuson theprotection of thesignal wouldbethebestcoursefor theCommitteeandonethatcould leadto asatisfactory andsuccessfulconclusion.As theDelegationof Indiahadsuggested,focusing theprotectiononsignal piracy wouldbetheappropriateapproach,andgettingthatprotectioncorrect wouldalsohelp to alleviateconcernsaboutapplyingthatprotectionto webcastingandwebcastingorganizations.TheDelegationthankedtheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity for its interventionconsidering alternative ways to coverwebcasting,andits very recentproposalthatseemedtogo beyondsimply allowing thebroadcastingorganization or cablecasting organizationtosimulcasttheir original transmissionsthroughacomputernetwork like theInternet. It wouldalsoapplyto originatedprogramming thatmight not bethesubjectof anunderlying broadcastor cablecast; it might alsobeprovidedby abroadcasting organization or a cablecastingorganization overacomputernetworklike theInternet. Both simulcasting andtheprovisionof originatedprogrammingovertheInternet,whetherdoneby abroadcastingorganizationoracablecastingorganization,or by others,shouldbetreatedsimilarly. TheDelegationwouldhave reservationstrying to shoehornactivities thatwereessentially thesame,but donenot byabroadcastingorganizationandnot by acablecasting organization, into thedefinition of thoseentities, becausethosedefinitionsandthoseorganizationshada relatively establishedmeaningin domesticlaws andinternational treaties. It might benecessaryto continueto haveaseparateset of beneficiaries,whetherthey were knownaswebcastingorganizationsor bysomeothermoreaccurateterm,in orderto reflect thattheywereconducting activities verymuch like broadcastingor cablecasting, but simply on theInternet,and theywerenotthemselvesbroadcastersor cablecasters.It would behelpful in allowing MemberStatestoconsiderandunderstandtheproperscopeof protectionandtheeffectof such protectionintheir countries. It waswilling to continue thediscussionover theparticularsof how toaddressthenewtechnologieslike webcasting. As amatter of both technological neutralityand competitive parity,whichhadbeenconsistentprinciplesbehindits proposalfrom thefirstinstance,oneshouldnot limit thenewprotection to organizationssimply becausetheywerebroadcastersor cablecasters. It might alsoapply to otherorganizations,astheChairhadindicated, who investthetimeandeffort to scheduleandassemble contentfor deliveryto thepublic in verymuchthesamemanner,thoughsimply throughadifferentplatform.

149. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity reiteratedonepoint on thenon-mandatoryAppendix,whichwasreflectedin thetopologyof thepublic internet,whereby certainInternetuseswheremadein a closednetwork, andshouldnot becoveredby thetreaty. In makingthatdistinction, it wasof theview thattheconcernsof theDelegationof India onhowthoserightsshouldbeenforcedwouldalsobeaddressed. Thetopologyof theopenpublic Internetwasbasicallyanetwork of networks,involving a lot of communication thatwas not broadcasting.Therewasnearly aconsensusamongdelegationsthat theopenInternet wasnot within thescopeof thetreaty. However,someusewasmadeof theInternet by broadcastingorganizations,by cablecompaniesor by telecomcompanies,which bundledbroadcastingcontentandused theInternetasameansof transmission. Wheretheydisseminatedscheduled

SCCR/14/7page42

content,theymadeuseof theInternetasa closednetwork, as asystemwherebybroadcastingcontentwas offered to subscribers,for instance,in aclosed user group. This hadnothingtodo with thepublic Internetandwasaspecial useof electronic meansto reacha closedaudience.TheDelegationsof theEuropean Community andits MemberStateshadalwayssupportedtheview thatif abroadcasterused theInternetin thatway, thentheissueofprotectionarose.That clarificationmight avoid many misunderstandingsthat hadpollutedthepresentdebate. TheDelegationunderlinedthatthedebateshouldfocuson theactivitiesthatweresimilar to broadcasting or theuseof the Internet in a closedsystem, wherebysubscriberswould bereachedby thetelecomnetwork, instead of a cable retransmitter. In thenotionof theclosednetwork, therewasnonewbeneficiary.

150. TheDelegationof Brazil saidthatafterhearingall theinterventionstheissuehadbecomeevenmoreconfused.As theDelegation of Argentina,it pointedout thatit wouldbebetter to stick to theoriginalmandateof theCommitteeand to haveonly discussionsonbroadcasting. It had newdoubtsregardingthebeneficiariesof protection and thedefinition ofanational broadcasting organizationor a foreignbroadcastingorganization. It wouldbeverydifficult astheAppendixonwebcastingwasto beinterpretedmutatis mutandis from theprovisionsof thebroadcasting agreement.Thedefinitionof national webcastingorganizationwouldbequitediffi cult in theInternetcontext, aswell as thecriteriadefiningwhowasandwhowasnot national. Would it beawebcastingorganization holding, for instance,adomainnameunder thenationaldomainof Brazil, the“.br”? Thatwould imply thatit wasanationalbroadcastingorganizationfrom Brazil. Other criteriacouldbethelocation of theheadquarters,or thelocationof theserver.Furtherclarification wasneededandnodecisioncould betakenon theAppendixat thepresentstage.

151. TheDelegationof Croatiastatedthat it understoodthework in theCommitteeasanorm-settingexerciseon a technicallevel,andnot asanegotiation in apolitical framework,which would bethejob of adiplomaticconference. It believedthatthemajority ofdelegationsdid not haveamandateto enter into any politi cal negotiation.

152. TheDelegationof Indiasaidthatit would placeasuggestion to theCommittee,in thelight of thequestions it hadraisedwith manyotherdelegationsandtheresponsesreceivedfrom theDelegationsof theUnitedStatesof AmericaandtheEuropeanCommunity. It wasobviousthatmuchmorework neededto bedoneon theissues relating to webcasting.Itssuggestion wasnot to continueto discussanddebateon thatissueat theexpenseofconsidering otherarticleswhichwereplaced before theCommitteeasapartof its Agenda,interms of rights, limitationsandexceptions, technological measures,in themoretraditionalsenseof broadcasting andcablecasting organizations. If elementsof webcasting continuedtobe in thedomain of themaintext onanyof thoseissues,therewouldbelackof consensusbecauseof theimportanceof theissuesto webcasting. It was in favor to engagein aconstructivedialogueon thatsubject,but would stronglyurgeto lookat theotherremainingitemsof theAgendain themoretraditional format.

153. TheDelegationof Mexicosupportedtheprotection of simulcastingwhich it consideredessential. It continuedto studytheproposednon-mandatory Appendix andpointedout that,sinceit wasnon-mandatory andnot binding, asexplainedby Dr. LipzsycandDr. Lucas, therewasnoneedto worry aboutit.

154. TheChair said thattheonly wayaheadto makeprogressin thesubstancewasto discussrights, limitations,technologicalmeasuresandscopeof application,keepingonly traditionalbroadcastingandcablecastingin mind. Thequestiononhowto treatwebcastingwouldbe

SCCR/14/7page43

revisited in thelight of theseveralpossibilitiesmentionedby thedelegations. A middlewaycould beachievedbetweentheviews of thosedelegationssuchastheDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americathatwantedto keeptheAppendixandthosein favor of excludingthewebcasting item. He proposedto establishtwo differentbasic proposals:oneontraditional broadcastingandcablecasting,andtheotherbasicproposalonwebcasting,includingsimulcasting, takinginto accountthespecificitiesreferredto by theDelegationofIndia. In orderto continuethework on rights,limitations,technological measuresandscopeof application,eligibility, keepingtraditionalbroadcastingandcablecasting only in mind, theChair invited theCommitteeto considerin which areas therights andlimitationsconcerningwebcasting shouldbedifferent,in order to establishaproject separating thebasicproposals.Theproposalsonwebcastingcould bebasedon theapproach of anannexor aprotocol.

155. TheChairinvitedtheCommitteeto holdasilentmomentfor thememory ofMr. AndrésLerena,SecretaryGeneralof theInternational Broadcasting Association,whowasattendingtheSCCRwhenhesuddenly passedawayin his hotel. Mr. Lerenaparticipatedinmostof thesessionsof theSCCRdealingwith broadcastingandtheChairpronouncedthathewouldalwaysberememberedasa good friendandcolleague.

156. TheChair reiterateda tentativesetof conclusions. It seemedthattheprotection oftraditional broadcastersandcablecastershadto beseparatedfrom webcasting includingsimulcasting. He invitedtheCommitteeto indicatewhatdifferencesthereshouldbefor eachof thesubstantive issuesin thetwo areas.Thepossibili ty of establishingtwo separatebasicproposals shouldbekeptin mind. Thereweredelegationsthat acceptedthenon-mandatoryoptionalAppendix aspartof thepackage,including theclausesonwebcastingandsimulcasting. It wasevidentthatweb-originatedwebcastingenjoyedmuchmorelimitedsupportthansimulcasting,which was“simultaneous”broadcastingover thewebwhile thesamebroadcaster wasat thesametimebroadcasting over theair or by cable. Thereweredelegationsthatdid not at all accepttheideaof having anAppendix in thepackage,andforsome,thatoppositionextendedalsoto the inclusionof simulcasting.Another importantissuewastheissueof form, andwhetherthereshould beanappendix,aprotocolor an instrumentthatlookedmorelike aseparatedraft treaty,aswell aswhat shouldbethelink betweenthatinstrumentandthetraditionalbroadcasters’andcablecasters’treaty. TheChairproposedtoenter into discussionson limitationsandexceptions,technological measures andeligibility,thendiscussionconcerningpublic interestclauseswouldalsobeundertaken. Therewasanumberof delegationswhichmaderatherconcretesuggestionson thoseissues,andthedelegationsthat hadmadeproposalsshouldbeinvitedto presentthem.

157. In the areaof limitationsandexceptions,therewerefour main proposalsin treatylanguage.TheDraft BasicProposalfor theWIPO Treatyon theProtection of BroadcastingOrganizationsIncludingNon-MandatoryAppendix on theProtection in Relation toWebcasting, documentSCCR/14/2,containedtwo proposalsfrom thelastNovembersessionof theSCCR. Proposalsmadeby Brazil andChilewere reflectedin theWorkingPaper,document SCCR/14/3,onpages14and15.Therewasthenewproposalmadeby Peru,whichwasdistributedduring themeeting.Onpages4 to 5 of that documentthere was,almostfully

SCCR/14/7page44

in treatylanguage, aproposal on limitationsandexceptions. In sum, therewerefourmainproposals on thetable. Thereweresimilaritiesbetween someof thoseproposals. In thefurtherprocessof preparinganewconsolidatedtext for furtherconsideration in theareaoflimitationsandexceptions,someof theseproposals,whichweresimilaror parallel,could bemerged.

158. TheDelegationof Australia inquiredwhetherthediscussionon therightsshouldnotprecedethaton limitations.

159. TheChair agreedwith theDelegationof Australia. Therights hadbeencategorizedinthreegroups. In thelargerdocument,which coveredthewholetreaty, thereweretwo articleswith exclusiverights,Articles6 and7. Thentherewasthesecondcategory,Articles8, 9 and10, whichwerepresentedasproposalsto considera two-tier systemof protection,exclusiverights astheformula foundin thefirst paragraph,andthenin subsequentparagraphstheopeningof thepossibilityto, insteadof that exclusiveright, to accordto broadcastingorganizationsandcablecastingorganizationstheright to prohibit in aspecific way,nowformulatedandsomewhatrefinedin thenewworking document. And thentherewasthecasethatwasnowunderArticle 11,protectionin relation to signals prior to broadcasting,whichrepresenteda third modelof howrightsandprotectioncouldbedesignedusingtheexpression“adequateandeffectivelegalprotection”. It wasproposed thatthediscussioncoverall threecategoriesof rightsin conjunctionwith each otherasoneentity, whichcouldbesaidto beanarticle-by-articledebate.

160. TheDelegationof Japanstatedits supportfor theprinciple of inclusiveness. Regardingtheright of communicationto thepublic and theright of distribution, whichwereincludedinthesecondrevisedconsolidatedtext andhadbeenincludedin theworkingpaper(documentSCCR/14/3),theDelegationbelievedthatthosetwo rightsshouldbeincludedin thetreaty. InArticles8, 9 and10, theright to prohibit wasadoptedasthealternativeto theexclusive rightof authorization. Theconceptof theright to prohibit wasstill vague.A discussionshouldensueonwhetherthe right to prohibit wasenoughto prevent piracy, andwhetherbroadcastingorganizationswereproperlyprotected underthat model.

161. TheDelegationof EgyptraisedsomeissuesregardingArticle6 on theexclusiveright ofauthorizingretransmissions. Sinceretransmissionovercomputer networkswassubjecttoobjectionsfrom severaldelegations,it could bedeleted. Moreovermany agreethatbroadcastingandcablecastingorganizationsshould betreatedequallyasregardedrights,especially asArticle 3, whichdeterminedthescopeof application, coveredtheprotectionofthesignal. However, cablecastingorganizationsdid not prepareprogramsbut rebroadcasttheprogramsthathadbeenpreparedby thebroadcastingorganizations. Thatdifferencein thenatureof theactivitiesof thosetwo organizationscould haverepercussionson therightsregime. It wasimportantto knowwhether thecablecastingorganizationsshouldhaveexclusiverightsto authorizetheretransmissionof programswhentheirmissionwastorebroadcastbroadcasts that hadbeenpreparedby other bodies.Thatalsoapplied to therightsto makeavailablethoseprogramsto thepublic. It was possibleto questionwhetherthecablecasting organizationshouldhavethesamerightsasthebroadcastingorganizations,whereasthefunctionsof broadcasting organizationsweredifferentfrom thatof cablecastingorganizations. Cablecasting organizationsmerelyretransmitted,whereasthefirstorganizationsactually devisedtheprograms.

SCCR/14/7page45

162. TheChair statedthatthecablecasting organizationswhoserightswereto becoveredbytheproposedtreatywerenot thosecablecastingorganizationsthatonly transmittedprogramsby otherbroadcasters. In fact, thosebroadcasters andcablecasters whoonly retransmittedother broadcasters’ or cablecasters’broadcasts or cablecastswereoutsidethescopeofapplicationof thewholetreaty. In Article 3(4), thefirst sub-paragraphstatedthatthemereretransmissionof anybroadcastor cablecastwasnot within thescopeof theprotectionat all.Only thosecablecastingorganizationsthatinvestedin their ownprogramming, assemblingand schedulingprogramcontentandthen transmitting it by cablecasting, werewithin thescopeof theproposedtreaty. Thatwasalsoclear from Article2(b)with thedefinitionofcablecasting, paragraph(c), with thedefinitionsof broadcasting andcablecastingorganizations. Only thosecablecasting organizationswhoseactivitiesweresimilar tobroadcastingorganizationswith theirprogramming activit iesandtheirown programsupplywouldbecoveredby thetreaty.

163. TheDelegationof EgyptthankedtheChair for clarifying that importantquestion.However,in thatcase,theDelegationwondered whetherit was necessaryfor theArticle ondefinitionsto speakof cablecasting organizations. If cablecasting organizationsmerelyretransmitted programsandif Articles3 and4(1) did not providethem with rightsregardingretransmission,it would bepreferablenot to mention themat all.

164. TheChair consideredthatif thedefinitionof cablecastingandcablecastingorganizationswasnecessarybecause, in manycountriestherewerecablecastingorganizationswhowereengagedin similaractivitiesas traditionalbroadcastingorganizations. Theywhowerenot only retransmittingprogramsof others,but had their ownprogramactivity in thecablenetworks.So, for thosecablecasters, definitionshadbeenincluded, andin somecountries,thosewerevery important,andbig cablecastingorganizationsthathadveryimportantactivities in big townsor evenin therural areas.

165. TheDelegationof Australiahadseveral comments with regardsto Article 6 of theDraftBasicProposal. Without takingaposition on thenatureor scopefor anyqualification of theright in Article6, theDelegationrecalledits earlier statementin thesensethatit wasconcernedabouttheimplicationsof theArticle for its domesticretransmissionarrangements.Until it could resolve thoseconcerns,it remainedinterested in maintaining theopportunitytofurtherconsideranyproposalsmadeby other countries to qualify therights in Article 6,including thoseof ArgentinaandCanada.TheJapaneseDelegation in anearlier interventionproposed thereinstatementof formerArticle7 on theright of communication to thepublic.TheDelegationof Australiawould, if that proposal werefoundacceptableby theCommittee,arguestrongly for the inclusion of additional provisions,in orderto allow making areservationto thatright asit hadarguedonseveral previousoccasions.It questionedwhethertherewas a repetition in thewordingof thedefinitionof retransmissionandArticle 6, in thatbotharticles includedtransmissionsby anymeans.RegardingArticle7, theDelegationqueriedthat typeof provisionwhichsimply establisheda right of fixation of thebroadcasts.By contrast,thereproductionright in Article8 covereddirector indirect reproductionin anymanneror form. Thepracticalconsequencesof thedifferencebetweenthoseformulationscould bethattheright of fixation in Article 7 couldbeinterpretedas failing to cover themakingof a fixation from anunauthorizedretransmissionof abroadcast,asopposedtodirectly from thebroadcast. With regardto thealternativesin Articles8 to 10 i.e., thealternative of imposing anobligationoncontractingcountries to prohibit, it remainedto beassessedwhethertheauthorizationrequired by thoseprovisionsto avoidtheprohibitionshouldbegivenby thebroadcastingorganization that madethebroadcast,or couldbegiven

SCCR/14/7page46

by asuccessor in title. In otherwords,thequestion was whethertheeffective right overtheactivity subjectto aprohibitionwasa transferableright.

166. TheChair notedthatthepointsmadeby theDelegationof Australia had to beconsideredandeventhat sometechnicalrefiningmight benecessary, especially wheretherewasadoubling in wordingin thedefinitionandin thesubstantiveprovision. It wasreasonableto question whichelement,theoneor theother,should bekeptin. Theotherquestionscould beleft pending,astheywould find ananswerin theprocess. Undermostjurisdictions therights of broadcastingorganizationsweretransferable rights and there couldbesuccessorsin title.

167. TheDelegationof Brazil expressedits concern regarding thewordingof the provisionon nationaltreatment. Accordingto thepresentwordingof Article5(1)eachcontractingparty shouldaccord to nationalsof othercontracting partiesthetreatmentit accordedto itsown nationals. In Brazil, doubtshadbeenraisedwith regardsto theutil ization of thatlanguage,and asto whetherthelanguageusedin theTRIPSAgreementwhich referredtotreatmentno lessfavorablewouldoffer abetter solution. Moreover,it fearedthattheprovisioncontainedin Article 5(2)woulddiscouragetheContracting Parties from makinguseof theprovisionin Articles8(2),9(2)and10(20. In casetheydid makeuseof theprovisionsin those threeArticles,it remainedunclear whattreatment theywould receive. It wasuncertain whetherthesecountrieswould remainoutsideof thenationaltreatmentprovision, orwhethertheywould receiveany treatmentat all. Theinitial impressionwas that Article 5(2)shouldbemadeclearer,or better,its deletionshould beconsidered. RegardingArticle 6, theDelegationrecalled theinterventionby theDelegationof Egyptandshared its concernsregarding theexpression“transmission over computernetworks”,to befoundin Article 6in fine. If such languagewasadmitted,thescopeof theTreatycould beextendedtowebcasting. Moreover,it appeareddoubtful that“computer networks”was a technicallyappropriatelanguage,asit raisedquestionsasto whether all devicesconnectedto theInternet,includingcell phones,wouldbecovered.Another concernrelatedto Article 6 andexhaustionof rights. It seemedthatbroadcasting organizationswould begrantedfar-reachingandnever-endingrights. It wasnot clearwhen broadcastrightswere exhausted. TheconcernsregardingArticle7 relatedto thescopeof theTreaty. Article3 madeclear thattheprotectionextendedonly to signalswhile in Article 7 protectionwasextendedbeyondthatin ordertocover fixation. Thatcouldresultin encroachingon therights of performersandotherrightsrecognizedby theWPPT, theRomeConvention andeven theTRIPSAgreement. Article 6 oftheWPPT establishedthatperformers shouldhavean exclusive right of authorizingthefixation of theirunfixedperformances. In Article 7(b)of theRomeConvention, it wassaidthattheprotectionprovidedto performersby theConventionshould includethepossibilityofpreventingthefixationwithout consentof theunfixedperformance.Evenin Article 14.1oftheTRIPSAgreementtherewasasimilarprovision regardingtheright of performers.In casebroadcastingorganizationsweregrantedanexplicit right of authorizing fixation it wouldbeunclearhow thenewholderof theright of fixation wouldpreserveits right regarding therights which hadalready beenrecognizedby otherConventionsto performers. In otherwords, it would benecessaryto clarify therelationshipbetweenbroadcasting organizationsand performers,bothentitledto thesamerights.

168. TheChair statedthatmaybethedelegationsthat hadproposedthoseprovisionswouldbeableto commenton thenatureof fixationandalsoonArticle 6, whereconcernshadbeenexpressedabouttheright of broadcastersto control theretransmissionof their broadcastsovercomputernetworks.

SCCR/14/7page47

169. TheDelegationof Canadarecalledits proposal,madeapproximately threeyears ago,ontheright of retransmission,reflectedin documentSCCR/9/10. Thatproposalhadnot beenincluded in theDraft BasicProposal,nor in theWorkingPaper.However,it couldwell formasecondparagraphin Article 6, with thefollowing wording: “Any contracting partymay, inanotificationdepositedwith theDirectorGeneral of WIPO,declare thatit wil l applytherightto authorizeor prohibit thesimultaneousretransmissionby wire, only in respectof certainretransmissionor thatit will limit it in someotherways,or thatit wil l not apply it at all.”Countriesshouldhavetheflexibility to allow theretransmissionof anunencrypted,freeovertheair, wirelessbroadcastwithout theconsent of thebroadcaster. Thecontentowners, forexampletheproducersof television programsor movies,wouldbeentitled to their normalcompensation,asrequiredundertheBerneConvention. A number of technical amendmentswerepossible to thewordingproposed,andtheDelegation wouldbehappy to discusswithother delegationseitherpossibletechnicalimprovementsor thepurposeand natureof thatprovision itself. It would operateasa reservation, andthereforeasaderogation from nationaltreatment. If aparticular countrywantedtheability to retransmit freeovertheair signalswithout consent, it wouldmeanthatfreeovertheair signal originating in thatcountry couldalsoberetransmittedin othercountriesfreely. TheDelegation read thecomment madeat thetime it submittedits proposal andpointedout that theterminologywasslightly dif ferentbecause it referredto anearlierdraft. That wordingamountedto a limitation to thecommunication right, whichappearedin othersubmissions.In makingthatsubmissiontheDelegationdid not indicatesupportfor anyparticularproposal on thecommunicationright, orany other right, especiallywheresuchproposal exceededtheright of therightsownersof thecontentbeing broadcast.

170. TheDelegationof Bangladesh supportedthestatementof Brazil regardingArticle 5, onnational treatment. TheDelegationpreferredthesecondalternative regarding thatissueincluded in documentSCCR/14/3,wheretheobligation wasto accordto broadcastingorganizationsfrom otherMemberStatesa treatment no lessfavorablethanwhatit accordedtoits ownbroadcasting organizations. As indicated by Brazil, therewasa link to theTRIPSAgreement. It waspreferableto havesomereference to Article3.1of theTRIPSAgreement,in respectof relatedrights,whichwould imply that nationaltreatmentonly extendedto therights grantedunderthetreaty, not anythingmorenoranything less,andnot somethingfuturistic. Second,regardingArticle 10, theright of makingavailableof fi xedbroadcast,itwaspreferablethatthesamelanguageof theWPPTwas retainedandthat membersof thepublic hadaccessfrom a placeandat thetimeindividually chosenby them. Thenotionofmakingavailableto thepublic wasvery important, aswasthenotion of anexclusiveright inthatarea. TheDelegation preferredthewordingin Articles 10and14of theWPPT.

171. TheDelegationof Iran reiteratedthat,regardingArticle6, retransmissionovercomputernetworksshouldbeomittedbecauseof its connection to webcastingandsimulcasting. InArticle 9(1)on theright of transmissionfollowing fixation, theexpression“by anymeans”shouldbeomitted, asit shouldnot beassumedthat thebroadcaster had rightsof transmissionover theInternet. OnArticle 10(1),last sentence,“ in suchawaythat membersof thepublicmayaccessthemfrom a placeandat a timeindividually chosenby them” and thatsamesentenceunder thesecondparagraphshould beomittedfrom theArticle. RegardingArticle 11,onprotectionin relationto signalsprior to broadcasting, thereferenceto Articles6to 10 should beomittedbecausein Article 2(c)and its explanatory note2.05it hadbeenindicated thatthethird functionof abroadcasting organization wasassemblingandschedulingof thecontentsof thetransmission.In pre-broadcastsignals therawmaterialsweresentto thebroadcasterswithout anyassemblingandscheduling,sowithoutassemblingand scheduling thesignaldid not merit thesamestatusas abroadcastsignal.

SCCR/14/7page48

172. TheDelegationof GhanainformedtheCommitteethat its countryhadadoptedanewcopyright legislation,whichgrantedexclusive rights to broadcastingorganization somewhatsimilar to theprovisionsin Articles6 to 10of theDraft BasicProposal.TheDelegationemphasizedthattheexclusiverightsshouldbeconfinedto traditional broadcastingorganizationsor to broadcastingorganizationsthatsimultaneously transmittedtheirbroadcastsovertheInternet. Thetext shouldberedrafted to meettheconsensusthattheDelegationhadcontributedto spread.

173. TheDelegation of Mexicoemphasizedtheimportanceof theright of retransmissioninArticle 6. Broadcastingorganizationsshould enjoytheexclusive rightsof authorizingtheretransmissionof theirbroadcast. If thatright werenot conferred,it would beimpossibleforbroadcastersto control theuseof theirbroadcastsby third parties. TheDelegation expressedan unreservedsupportfor Article 6 asit stood.

174. TheDelegation from theUnitedStates of Americasuggested,with respectto postfixation rights in Articles8, 9 and10, thatthepossibili ty beleft opento grantonly a right toprohibit as aminimum standardrequired from thecountriesthatsignedon to this Treaty.Countrieswouldbefreeto provideahigherlevel of protection in theform of anexclusiveright. In thatwaythepotentialconflict betweenthe rightsof broadcasting organizationsandtheunderlying right holderswouldbelimi ted. It wouldalsohelpto makeclear thattheprotectionin thetreatyaddressedsignalpiracy.

175. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreastatedthat therehadbeen anumberof casesknown to thepublic in whichpre-broadcastsignalsof national broadcasters had beeninterceptedandusedwithout theauthorizationof broadcasters. In that regard,theDelegationhoped thatArticle11would remainin theDraft Basic Proposal sothattheissueof protectionof pre-broadcastsignalswouldbesubjectof considerationat thediplomatic conference.

176. TheDelegationof India referredto thelist of rights suggestedby theChair andconfineditself to thefi rst three. Regardingtheright of transmission in Article6, theissueofwebcasting andtransmissionovertheInternetshould form aseparate text for considerationand it proposedthatin Article 6 thewords“by any means”and “retransmissionovercomputernetworks” bedeleted,so theright of transmissionwouldbeconfinedto traditional broadcastsand cablecasting, includingrebroadcastingor retransmissionby wire. In addition, in Article 6asecondclauseshouldbeaddedaccordingto which “any contracting partyin anotificationdepositedwith theDirectorGeneralmaydeclarethatit will establish for broadcastingorganizationsinsteadof theexclusive right of authorizing, providedfor under paragraph(1)theright to prohibit thetransmissionof theirbroadcastor cablecastby third partieswithoutauthorization,or whenit is not permittedby thelaw of thecountry” . Thereasonfor this wasthatbroadcastersneededacertainprotection,not only of their signals,but alsoof theirbroadcastswhile thebroadcasttookplace. But subsequentto thebroadcasthavingtakenplace,if theright wasleft asit was,it would assumethat re-broadcastcould bedoneanynumberof timesandthat it wasaninherentright of thebroadcasterto rebroadcastasandwhenherequiredor desired.Thatwouldconflict with therightsof thecontentowner. Thecontentownermight only have grantedtheright to thebroadcasting organization for onebroadcast. If thescopeof theright of thebroadcasterswerenot restrictedto therights,whichtheyhadbeen licensedor assignedby thecontentowners,that potential conflict waslikely totakeplace. Secondly, therewerecertaindomestic lawswhich prohibited unauthorizedretransmissionby cableoperatorsor by unauthorized cableoperatorsand therefore, therightto prohibit shouldextent,not merelyto thebroadcasters,but evenif thebroadcastersdid notexercisetheir right to prohibit vis à vis anunauthorizedcableoperatorthen thatright should

SCCR/14/7page49

not operate, asindicatedin theproposedclause. RegardingArticle7, theDelegationhadsimilar reservationsastheDelegationof Brazil. Whendiscussing to protect therightsofbroadcasters in respectof theirprogramcarryingsignals,oneneededto defineat whatstageand at whattime thoserightswouldextinguish.Oncetheyweregranteda right to fix thebroadcasts,thatright wouldcontinuebeyondtheactual domainof broadcasting. A fixationcould beat two differentlevels, for thepurposeof broadcast, for thepurposeof rebroadcastand, in certaincircumstances,without anysubsequentbroadcast or re-broadcast in mind.Therefore,theright of fixation shouldbeaninterim right, grantedto abroadcastingorganization only to enableit to exercise its original right of broadcastingwhich it might havecontractedwith thecontentownersor the copyright owners. If theyneeded to fix or toprohibit fixation in orderto avoidsomebody elsein anunauthorizedmannerbroadcastingtheir signals,to thatextentit wouldbevalid and justified to providefor thebroadcasters’ rightto prohibit fixation. Anotherclauseshouldalsobeaddedto Article7 accordingto which“anycontractingpartymay,in anotificationdepositedwith theDirector General,declarethatit will establishfor broadcasting organizationsinsteadof theexclusiveright of authorizingprovidedfor in paragraph(1), theright to prohibit thefixationof their broadcasts,necessaryto enjoy theprotection recognizedunderthis Treaty”. It shouldnot bea right to prohibit forany or sundrypurposes.It shouldonly bewith aview to enjoy theprotectiongrantedto themunder thetreaty. RegardingArticle 8 andArticle 10, theDelegationsawno justificationforgranting broadcastersrightsof reproduction,of distribution, of transmission followingfixation or of makingavailableof fixedbroadcasts,sincethoserightswentbeyondthetrail ofprotectionagainstpiracy of signalsandwerepost-fixation rights. Thoserightsshouldbedeletedfrom thebasictext andthescopeof application underArticle3 shouldbeextendedonly to theprotection againstpiracyof signals.

177. TheDelegationof Chilebroughtattention to theissueaddressedby theDelegationofBrazil regarding theoverlappingof rightsthatweregoingto beconferred underthetreatywith otherrights alreadygrantedto suchright holdersasauthors,performersandproducers ofphonograms. A specificsolutionshouldbefoundin thetreaty. Onesolution might beanoption for Contracting Parties, insteadof granting broadcastingentitiesanexclusiveright or aprivilegedright, to grantthemaremuneration right. In thatcase,suchotherright holderswouldbeableto communicateor retransmit their worksagainstcompensation to thebroadcastingentity. Thatoptionwouldalsoallow findingasolution to theissueof accessrights which might beundulylimited by theauthorizationwithin anexclusiveright.

178. TheDelegationof Colombiamaintained its positionthatwhile it would like tostrengthentherightsof broadcasting organizationsit did not supportprotection of webcasting.Its nationallaw hadnot takenthatstepandthat coincidedwith whatmanydelegationshadstated. Evenif a text werenot mandatory,it could at aparticular point bethesubjectofpressureor advicefrom onecountryto anothercountry thatit shouldaccedeto it. Thelackofinterest or understanding in its countrymight bedueto lack of practical knowledgeof whatmight bethepossibleconsequencesof cablecasting,but whattherewasno doubtaboutin itscountrywas strengtheningtherightsof broadcasting organizations. Broadcasting, bothradioand televisionhadbeenaroundfor manyyearsandit hadgreatly helpedin all spheresofactivity, economic, social andpolitical. Therefore, it had beenpartyto theRomeConventionfor theProtection of Performers,Producersof Phonograms and BroadcastingOrganizations(theRomeConvention)for manyyearsandits national legislationwent much furtherthanthepresentdraft regarding therightsof broadcasting organizations. Basedon thatexperience,while theDelegation did not agreewith theAppendix onwebcasting, it did, on theotherhand,believethatArticle 6 on theright of retransmissionwas technically andlegally correct.Today,onecouldnot claim to strengthentherightsof broadcastingorganizationsthathad

SCCR/14/7page50

beenrecognizedfor thefirst time in 1961andnot give themtheright of retransmissionthroughrebroadcastingor retransmissionby wire andretransmissionovertheInternet.Broadcastingorganizationshadthelegitimate right to protect their signals throughlegalmeansagainstall meansof retransmission nowknownor thatwould emergein thefuture. Itwasa typical copyright modelthattheright ownercould defendhimself not only againstknown forms,but also futureformsof communication. Since1993,for example,aprovisionin Decision351of theAndeanPactwentmuchfurtherthanArticle13(a)of theRomeConvention. Thatprovisiondealtwith retransmissionof broadcastsby anymeans,whetherknown or to beknown,andhadnot causedanydiffi culties,inter alia becauseprovidingbroadcastingorganizationswith a right of fixation did not goagainsttherightsof performersor authors.Thesewereissuesto besettledby contracts betweenthebroadcasters,theauthorsor theperformers,but broadcasting organizationsdid not only retransmit contentprotectedbycopyright. Muchcontenttransmittedby broadcasting organizationswasnot protectedbycopyright and relatedrights, andin respectof suchcontent,theorganizationswouldnot haveexclusiverights,neitherto counterpiracynor to controltheuseof their broadcasts.Onecould seewhatthebroadcastingorganizationsweredoingabouttheWorld FootballChampionship. Therewerealso manyotherareaswhere theorganizationswantedto controltheirprograms throughexclusive rightsandthatwas therationalebehindtheRomeConvention whichhadnot causedanyproblemsto thosewhowerepartyto it. To considertodaythattherewouldbeaconflict of rights wasnot correct. TheActs of theDiplomaticConferenceof 1961establishedtheprinciple relating to thebalancewith authorsexclusiverights,andaswell know performersandproducers werenot given exclusive rightsin the1996Treaties,but a right to remuneration,andin addition therewasastatement that whentheyrequired anauthorizationfrom theoneparty, it had to beobtainedfrom theothertwo aswell.Broadcastingorganizationscouldenjoy asimilar statement indicating thatwhen theyhadtoget anauthorizationfrom oneside,theyhad to getit from theothers aswell. Therewouldbevery few broadcastingorganizationsthatproduce ownprogramswhich wouldnot haveacquired all therights. Oneshouldnot overlook thattheissuewasnot alwaysabouttheregulation in treatiesor in thelaw, but in thenegotiatingcapacity of theperformers.Particularlyin Latin America,performershadvery little negotiating capacity. Therefore, theDelegation’semphasiswason thefollowing: regulation shouldbeat thenational level,andbasedonhow performerswerenegotiating,becauseit was assumedthatperformerslost theirrights becausetheyworkedfor hire andthereforetheproducers got all therights. Thatcouldnot beignored andtherecognitionof broadcasting rightsin retransmissionthroughdedicatedrights wasnot only prudent,but also absolutely necessaryin order to beconsistentinstrengtheningtherightsof broadcastingorganizationsin thedigital environment. Theycouldnot exercisetheir activitieswithout rights of that nature.

179. TheDelegationof Senegalsupportedcomments already maderegardingArticles6and 10. Regarding thedeletionof anyreferenceto Internetbroadcastingin Article 10, itsupportedparagraph(1). RegardingArticle7, it underlined thatpreviousto fixationabroadcastingorganizationmustlicitl y haveacquired therightsto broadcast thecontent.RegardingArticle8, it supportedparagraph(1) andproposed thatit beclarified thattheprotectionrelatedto fixation of aprogram-carryingsignal. RegardingArti cle9, it supportedparagraph(1). As to Article 11, theDelegationdid not supportit completely, andin view ofearlier suggestionsto deleteany reference to digital broadcasting, it proposedto deletethereferenceto Articles6 to 10.

180. TheDelegationof Kenya concurredwith thestatementsmadeby theDelegationofColombiawith regard to thedeletionof therightsfrom Articles 7 to 10. It believedthatthose

SCCR/14/7page51

rights should beretainedin thetreatyandbelegislatedat thenational level. However, itsupportedthedeletionof anyreferenceto retransmission“by any means”or “ throughcomputernetworks”, anissueit hadpreviously raisedin theCommittee.

181. TheDelegationof Mexicostressedthatthecatalogof rightsfor broadcastingorganizationsmeantthattheywerenot givenrights over thecontents. Therightsofperformersandproducersof phonogramswereall safeguardedandif rightsovertheirbroadcastswerenot grantedto broadcastingorganizations,thosebroadcasts wouldbeleft in alimbo. Whetheroneliked it or not, thatwouldalsoleavein avacuumtheprotectionof theauthorsand theholdersof relatedrightswhoseworks,performancesandrecordings werebroadcast.

182. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity revertedto thescopeof Article 5 onnational treatment, in thelight of theproposalsto eitherdelete certain rightsor reformulatecertainrightswith apossibletwo-tier level of protection, in which onecountrymight grantanexclusive right, andanothera right to prohibit only. Article 5 wascurrently formulatedandapplied to theprovisionsin theDraft BasicProposalin such awaythattheEuropeanCommunityandits MemberStatescouldsupport. However, theDelegation reserveditspositionin thelight of furtherdiscussions,dependingon theultimate fateof theformulationof therights. Onereasonfor thatwasthat national treatment wasconsideredhighly importantby theCommunity andits memberStates.It wasalsothebasisfor otherconventionstowhich theywereparty,andin particular they alsoabided by themostfavorednationprovisionsin Article3 of theTRIPSAgreement. If theprocesswithin theSCCRwere toresultin thedeletionor degradationor reformulation of therightsin away which theCommunityandits memberStatescouldnot accept, they would regrettably haveto consider,in the light of anyreformulation,amovetowardsgreater material reciprocity provisions.That woulddependon thestatusof theAppendix. Presently, theEuropeanCommunity andits memberStates’approachto webcastingwasthatsimulcasting should becovered,anditwascurrentlysubjectto a materialreciprocity provision. It seemeddifficul t to understandhow materialreciprocitywouldapplyin relation to simulcasting,becauseas far astraditionalbroadcastingactivities wouldbeconcerned,as currently draftedtherewouldbeanationaltreatmentobligation. Moreover,if the text were reformulated withoutsomeform of materialreciprocity thatwould at leastpreserve thepositionof Community broadcasters,it would notmakesense,because those traditionalbroadcasts wouldbesimulcastanywayandto thatextentwouldbesubjectto materialreciprocity.

183. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica askedtheDelegation of theEuropeanCommunitytoexplainandexpandon thematerialreciprocity ideathatit hadaddressed.With regard toArticle 6, concernshadbeenindicatedand thoseof theDelegation werealsoin termsof thescopeof theextensiongivento thebroadcasting companies in particular. TheDelegationwasalsoconcernedthattheCommitteeseemedto bereadyto transporttherulesandregulationsthatexist for broadcastersto yet anotherkind of servicewhichwasnewand wentbeyondthetraditional services. That causedconcernbecauseit meantgiving competitive advantagetobroadcasters.It wouldnot purelybepreventionof piracy. It thereforesupported theproposalto delete “by anymeans”andalsothereferenceto computernetworksthroughoutthetext.With respectto Article7, thereweretwo proposals whichcomplementedeach other, theBrazilian proposalwhich coveredtheauthorizing of communicationto thepublic, andinterms of limi tationstheCanadianproposal. Together,theywouldserveto balancethetext.In Article 10 thebroadcastingorganizationsweregivenexcessive rightsin thatthey couldevenprejudicetherightsin thecontent,eventhoughthatwas not whatwas intended. They

SCCR/14/7page52

could begiventhepower to preventright holdersin thecontent from making thatcontentavailableto thepublic.

184. TheDelegationof theRussianFederation reservedtheright to makefurtherspecificcommentson thedrafting,but generallysupported themin their present form, becausetheproposed draftingin its essencerepeatedtheprovisionsof Article13of theRomeConvention. To authorizeor prohibit wasnothingotherthan anexclusive right, which it feltshouldbereflectedin thoseprovisionsaswell. Theprotection of therightsof authorsandperformerswasprescribedin otherlegislation,and theprovisionsof thedraft underdiscussion andthoseprovisionsto protecttherights of authorsandperformerswereveryharmoniouslycompatible.

185. TheDelegationof theCommissionof theEuropean Community clarified thattheEuropeanCommunity andits memberStates werenot proposingamaterial reciprocityprovision. It couldcurrentlyabideby therule in Article5 of theproposalonnationaltreatment. However, in thelight of thediscussionon reformulation of therights,it wishedtoreserve its position andreturnto theissue later. Insofarasit applied to theactivities oftraditional broadcasters,Article 5 wasvacatedby theprovisionsthatappliedmaterialreciprocityto theactivity of simulcasting.

186. TheDelegationof Chileexpressedits interest with regard to apossibleoptionfor theright of retransmission,asproposedby theDelegation of Canada.

187. TheDelegationof Australia referredto theinterventionby theDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americain sofar astheywereadvocating there-inclusionof a right toprohibit as analternativeto theobligationon governmentsto prohibit certainunauthorizedactivity. It wouldbeinterestedin anyexplanation thatcould beprovidedon thedifferencebetweena right to prohibit anda right to authorize, in sofar astheright to prohibit wastheright to prohibit unauthorizedactivity.

188. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America expressedits view thattheright toprohibit was a right lessthantheexclusiveright to prohibit or authorize,andit wasdesignedto allow thebeneficiary of theright to preventtheactivi ty from occurring,but it shouldnot beconstruedto allow thatbeneficiaryto commercially exploit theactivi ty throughlicensingandthroughotheractivity astheycoulddowith anexclusiveright. Consistentwith thatinterpretation,theright to prohibit shouldnot betransferable. It should bepersonalto theentity andshould only allow it to prevent theactivity from occurring,but not to licenseorsub-licenseor transferanyright. If anyfurtherclarificationon thatdistinction couldbehelpful in thetermsof a text, theDelegationwasopento considerthat,consistent with itsgoal of protecting only againstsignaltheft andprovidinga level of protection thatwouldbeappropriatefor thetreaty.

189. TheDelegationof Ukrainesupportedtheproposalof theRussianFederation concerningArticles6 to 11, thattheyshouldbeleft astheystoodin their present wording in theDraftBasicProposal.

190. TheChair recalledthequestions that hadbeen asked.Therewas thequestionconcerningthearticleon nationaltreatment: whatkind of treatment would applytobroadcastersfrom thosecountrieswhichhadoptedfor theright to prohibit option inArticles8, 9 and10? It wasclearin Article 5(1) thatnationaltreatmentwouldapply,butunder Article 5(2) materialreciprocitywouldprevail concerning two countries wheretheone

SCCR/14/7page53

accordedanexclusiveright andtheothera right to prohibit. Probably in many practicalcases,whenimplementingthetreaty,countriesgranting exclusiverights wouldnot startdevisingaspecial right for reciprocitypurposes.Thehistory of theRomeConventionshowedthat thepossibilityof preventinghadbeen convertedinto exclusiverightsduringtheimplementation in practicallyall countriesthathad accededto theConvention. Thesecondquestionwaswhethertheexpressioncomputer networkwas adequate andtechnicallycorrect,aquestionthatmight beconsideredandclarified. TheCommitteehadto beconsistentandensure thatthelanguagewouldbevalid in termsof thedevelopment of technologyandalsovalid outsidethecirclesof learnedexpertsin theparticular legalfield who wereusingtheexpressionin acertainway. Therewereno rules onexhaustionor extinction of therightsofbroadcastingorganizations in theinstrument. Thedoctrine thathadbeenclarifiedsince1996wasthatthere wasnoexhaustionof rightsthatrelayedto communicationandtransmissionactivities. Exhaustion asanoptionwasconfinedto caseswherephysical copies werebeingdistributed. Therewasa questionhowright of broadcastingorganizationsrelatedtoperformers’rightsin theareaof fixation. Performersenjoyed a right of fixationandthatrightrelatedto situationswheretheperformancewas in theair, andtherewasa microphonethatcaptured thevoiceor the performancewhichwas thenrecordedfor thefi rst time, i.e. theperformancewasfixed. In thatcase,therewas no signal in theair. Therewerealsotherightsof performersunderArticle 7 of theRomeConvention,where theright of reproductionwouldprevail evenif theperformancewerealready abroadcast performance. Now therewasaproposal thatthebroadcastersshouldenjoy theright of fixation of theirbroadcast,includingtheformatof thesignalandincludingthecontent. Thesignal wouldstopat themomentoffixation. Theright of reproductionextended evenbeyondthatpoint, andsuchprotectionwasrecognizedin manycountries.Onecould observe theexperiencesregarding theexistenceofthatright andthecountriesin question in manycases alsograntedperformingartiststherightof fixation of thebroadcastsignal. In thatcase,thecontentownerwouldhaverightsconcerningthefixationandthebroadcastof thatperson’sperformance,and thebroadcasterwouldhave theright to authorizeor prohibit thefixation of its output whichwasherenicknamedsignal. Signalsceasedto bein existencebut theprotectionextendedinto theareawherethesignal wasnot anymore.It wastheinvestmentof thebroadcaster thatwasrepresentedby thesignal,andtheinvestmentcriterion hadgiven theargumentto extendprotectionbeyondthemomentwhenthesignalwas still a live signal.

191. TheDelegationof El Salvadorwasof theview thatArticles6 to 10 includingArticle 11shouldbemaintainedastheyhadbeendrafted in theDraft Basic Proposal. As otherdelegations,especially theDelegation of Colombia, had explained,thoserights,or someofthem,werealreadyrecognizedin theRomeConvention,andotherswerecoveredin othertreaties, theWCT and theWPPTfor example,andin additionmuchlegislation hadgrantedrights to broadcasting organizationsalongthoselines. Thatwasthecaseof its nationallegislationwhichhadbeenamendedin away generousto broadcastingorganizations.Therefore,thosearticlesshouldbemaintainedastheywere. It wasusefulthattheCommitteeexamined traditionalbroadcasting, becausewebcastingwasasubject that shouldbestudiedinmuch greaterdepth. An optionalappendix shouldbeleft on thetablesoif aStatewouldconsiderit in its interest,it couldratify it when it wasprepared to doso,and thenadoptit intoits legislation.

SCCR/14/7page54

192. TheChair clarified thatin his earlierexplanation hereferredto Article 7(1)(b) of theRomeConventionwheretherewasa fixation right of theperformingartist. In thatsense,therewas asituationwheretheperformer’s rights werequiteparallel to, andexistedsimultaneouslywith, theright of thebroadcaster to its signal. Theywould beparallelrightsinmanysituations.

193. TheDelegationof Brazil thankedtheChairfor his explanationswhich indicatedthecomplexities of theclausesandof thetreatyitself. It wasnot entirely clear to whichextent,for instance,theparallelrightsof performers andof broadcastingorganizationscouldoverlap,co-exist or nullify eachotherif thetreatywereenforced. Perhapsthat wasanareawherefurtherexplanationona technicalandlegalbasiswasneeded. Perhapsperformers enjoyedalsocertainrights,maybeevenmorerights,but it wasunclearhow theymight beoverriddenby therightsof broadcastingorganizations,or not,once thework of aperformerbecameabroadcastprotectableunderthetreaty. Herewasmarginfor a confusionof rightsif theywereto exist in parallel systems, theywouldnot beentirely compatible with each other. Therefore,theDelegationproposedthatfurthertechnical clarification beprovidedregardingthatsubject.National treatmentwasanareaof greatconcern. It wasnot clearhowArticle5(2) actuallywouldapply becausethosememberswhodid not opt for thesecondoption of Articles8, 9and 10would providejust asimplenationaltreatmentclausefor theexclusiverightsthat wereforeseenin thoseparticulararticlesandtheirnational legislation would probablyreflectthatlevelof protection. Wouldcountrieshaveto havespecial clauses in their nationallegislationthatwould foreseethehypothesisof not grantingnational treatmenton thebasis of therights?Theywerenot in theopt-in clauses,sowhen aContracting Partywouldmakean opt-in forprohibition, for example,whichwould be lessthan anexclusive right, would thosecountrieswhohadnot optedfor that haveto makearrangementsin their national legislation to provideno longernational but reciprocaltreatment?Would they haveto create aspecial provisionthatwouldaccommodatesuchcases?Thatmadethesystemvery cumbersomeandcomplexto implement.As ageneralrule theDelegationdid not favor nationaltreatmentclausesthatdeparted from thegeneralnationaltreatmentandmostfavorednationsclausesthatexistedintheTRIPSAgreement.In thepresentparticular treatyas it waswrittennow,apparentlylowerlevelsof protectionwouldhavenoeffecton thenational treatmentbasis. But theAppendixwouldapply only to ContractingPartieswhowould subscribeto it, sohereit departedfromnational treatmentandgrantedreciprocity, meaning thatthehigher levels of protectionprovidedby memberStateswhohavesubscribedto theopt-in protocol would not beextendedto all ContractingPartiesonamost favorednationsbasis,andother Contracting Partieswouldnot enjoy that level of protectionon thebasisof national treatmenteither. TheDelegationwasnot supportiveof that,it would runcounter to theprinciplesthatwereenshrinedin theTRIPSAgreementwhich statedasa general rule,althoughwith a few exceptions,thathigherlevelsof protectionshouldbeextendedto all other WTO membersStates onamostfavorednation basisandit also providedfor theapplication of thosehigher levels of protectiononanational treatment, meaningonanon-discriminatory, basis.TheDelegationwas not in favorof anagreementthatwoulddiscriminateagainstmemberswhohadoptedout of certainclauses. This wasin line with thetraditionalview of intellectual property thatthelevel ofprotectionshouldbecommensuratewith thelevelof developmentof theparticularcountry.That washowtheParisConventionhadalwaysworked andbeen applied. If acountrybelievedthatit had aneconomicenvironmentanddomestic conditionsthat weresupportiveofhigher level of protection,it should apply it onanon-discriminatory basis. On theotherhand,developingcountriesthathadnot attaineda levelof developmentthatwould justify adoptingsuchhigherlevels of protectionwouldnot apply thosehigherlevelsof protectiondomestically,but theywouldalsonot discriminatebetweennationals andforeigners. They

SCCR/14/7page55

shouldapplythatacross theboardwithin their frontiers. That wouldmake senseandbeinlinewith thedevelopmentagendaproposal. Brazil hadpresentedin WIPO thefactthatone-size-fits-all agreementsshouldnot beimposed upondevelopingcountriesand levelsofprotectionshouldbecommensurate,takingintoaccountthesituation of each particularcountryandits level of developmentin anon-discriminatoryfashion. Thewaytheprovisionswere written now,theyclearly discriminated. TheDelegation recalled theprovisionsof theTRIPSAgreementregarding,for example,bilateral or regionalfree-tradeagreements. If suchparticularagreementscontainedTRIPS-plusclauses,theywouldhaveto beappliedto allmembers of WTO on a mostfavorednation basis.Thatshould alsobethecaseregardingthepresentagreement.

194. TheDelegationof India recalledthat,in its previousintervention, it hadsuggestedthatsomeof thedownstreampost-broadcastrightsnot beconsidered for protection in thetreaty.All therights from Articles6 to 10,namely therights to transmission,fixation,reproduction,transmission following fixationandright of making available, related to theterm“broadcast”.Therewasnoexplanationof thatterm,asdescribedin note2.06of documentSCCR/14/2.Theobjectof protectionof thetreatywasthebroadcast,that wasto say,theprogramcarryingsignal constituting thetransmission. Thebroadcastrepresented theoutputof theactivity inwhich abroadcastingorganizationwasengaged, namely broadcasting, whichwasalreadydefinedin item 8. For thatreason, therewasnoneedfor adefinition of thetermbroadcast.TheDelegationconsideredthis situationanot veryhelpful conundrum.If theterm wasnotdefined,then at leasttheCommitteehadto fully appreciate andunderstandtheelementsthatwentinto thatbroadcast,for which intellectualproperty rightswerebeing demanded.In theDelegation’sview, therewerefour elementsin abroadcast,in thetraditionalsense. Thefirstwastheprogramcontent,whetherdrama,fil m or music eventor asports event. Thesecondwastheadvertisingthatwentin abroadcast. Thethird wasthepromotional material, thatwasto say,theticklersandotherelementsthat aprogramchannelmight put up in theirbroadcast.Finally, thefourth elementwasthelogo, thecolor skin, thelook andfeel of thechannelitself.It pointedout thatin thetwo of themajor components of thebroadcast, namely theprogramcontentand,maybe,theadvertisingcontent,intellectual propertyrightsbelongedto otherowners. What perhapsbelongedto thebroadcasterwasits ownpromotionalmaterial on thechannel,whetherit wasprogrammingguides or promotional material, or its logo, look andfeel,andsoon. Therefore,if theprogramcontained95pct.content,thatprogram wasnot theintellectual property right of thebroadcaster. Maybe,thebroadcaster addedvaluewhenpackagingthecontent,but thenprotectioncould begrantedfor that particular valuedaddition.However,if thebroadcastersimply rebroadcastthesameprogram, protectionshouldnot begranted. If it wasreproductionof thesamebroadcastwith all thefour elementsunchanged,thebroadcastercouldeitherhavetheright to prohibit it or to receiveanyremuneration,astheDelegationof Chilehadstated.

195. TheDelegationof Senegalpointedout thatbroadcastersshouldbeprotectedagainstanyform of illici t exploitationof their signals,includingdigital piracy.

196. TheDelegationof Brazil expressedits concern regardingArticles 8, 9 and10. First,with regardto theextensionof thetreaty,as statedby theDelegation of India, thoseArticlesreferredto post-fixationrightswhichposed therisk of extendingthetreaty beyondits scopeand objectiveof preventingthepiracy of signals andeven beyondtheareaof intellectualproperty itself. Second,therewasaconflict of therightsof performersandcontentproducersagainsttherights of broadcastingorganizationsunderdiscussion. Instead of runninginparallel, sometimes those rightscouldoverlaponewith theother. Finally, thethird concernwasregardingtheissueof theexhaustionof rights. Theprovisionon theterm of protection

SCCR/14/7page56

allowedawrong interpretationaboutthecreationof anever-endingright. Articles8, 9 and10and theotherarticleson rightscouldgive thefalseimpressionof thecreation of overreachingrights,which wereneverexhausted. As regardsArticle10on theright of makingavailableafixedbroadcast, theDelegationexpressedits concernaboutthepossibili ties of accessfrom aplaceandat a time individually chosenby thepublic, as it couldinterferewith thedevelopmentof newmediaanddigital TV in Brazil, whichallowed thepossibilit y thattheconsumerchosetheplaceandtimeof theprogram that hewishedto consume. Article 10neededto beredraftedsoasto not interferewith thenewmediaof digital TV. As regardsArticle 7, theDelegationaskedabouttheconflictsof rightswhenaperformercontractedwithonebroadcasting companytheright of broadcastinghis performance, andwith anotherbroadcastingcompanytheright of fix ing andreproducinghis performance. It proposedtofind a language to accommodateandto make clear therightsof fixation of differentstakeholdersandhowtheyrelatedto eachother.

197. TheDelegationof Egyptreferredto theissuesraised by theDelegationsof Brazil andIndia aboutthenatureand scopeof rights protected undertheinstrument, aswell astheirrelationshipwith theprotectionof thebroadcastin itself and thedifferencebetweentheprotectionof thebroadcast andtheprotection of contents,andalsothedifferencebetweentheprotectionof broadcastingorganizationsandtheprotection of performers. Al l thosematterswerevagueandnot clear,andthuscouldleadto controversyif theDraft BasicProposalwereto besubmittedto thediplomaticconference. As regardsArticle3, paragraph1 dealtwith theprotectionof signalsandparagraph2 providedthat theprovisionsof thetreaty appliedto theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationsin respect of their broadcasts. Theambiguity causedby that Article could beeliminatedif it readthat theprovisionsof thetreaty appliedto theprotectionof broadcastingorganizations,in respect of thebroadcast of their programs,soasto distinguishbetweenthe rightsof broadcastingorganizationsandtherightsof otherstakeholders.Article 12 on limitationsandexceptionshadto berevisedfor two reasons. Thefirst wasthatArticles[x] and[y] werebetterplaced in thatprovision,aspreviously stated bytheDelegationof Brazil. Thesecondreasonwasthat thelimitationsandexceptionswereonly mentionedin asummary way. Thewordingfoundin Article14,onpage15ofdocument SCCR/14/3,wasmoreadequate,asit mentionedall thecaseswhereexceptionscould beestablishedallowing nationallegislation to providemoreexceptionsandlimitations,if theywerejustifiedanddid not prejudicetheprotectionof theright holders.TheDelegationproposed to replaceArticle 12 in documentSCCR/14/2 by Article14,onpage15ofdocument SCCR/14/3.

198. TheDelegationof Moroccostressedtheneedto grantto broadcastingorganizationscertainrightsthatmatchedwith thedigital environmentdevelopmentsandthatenabledthemto combatpiracyof signalsandtransgressionsagainsttheir rights. Protectionneededto beholisticand total, as signalswerein themselvespartof theprotection, theDelegationsupportedanyfurtherelaborationof theword “broadcast” to distinguishit from thecontentand creativity whichbelongedto theright holders. It alsosupportedthepreparationof aseparatedocumentonclassicaltraditionalbroadcasting,andthegranting of rightsofreproduction,fixation, retransmissionandmakingavailablea fixed broadcastforbroadcasters.Thequestionof protectingsignals tendedto berather vaguein Article 11, thewordingof whichestablishedthatthebroadcastingorganizationsenjoyedappropriateandeffectiveprotection,but themeaning of adequateandeffectivewas not clear. It supportedtheright of makingavailableto thepublic in documentSCCR/14/3.

199. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity referred to Articles6, 7, 8 and9. As to thescopeof thoserights,andspeciallythewordingof “retransmissionby anymeans”,or

SCCR/14/7page57

“reproductionin anymanner”,it wasnecessaryto distinguishbetweenaprotective instrumentfor traditional broadcastersandtheuseof computer networksasanewbusinessmodelfor thefuture. As pointedout by theDelegationof Senegal, thearticleswhichwerein theDraftBasicProposalwereprotectiverights,andnot rightsfor new businessmodels in theInternet.Thosewererightsagainstthesignalthief, who could becaughtjust whenheusedanymeansto communicatethatsignalto his public. Therefore,a treaty againstsignaltheft,withoutgiving themeansto effectivelyfinding thethief of thesignal,wasanempty treaty. Nobodystoleasignalto keepit somewherein anonymity,but to retransmit it ill egally, withoutauthorization in any of thoseaforementionedmedia. Thefact thatthebroadcastingorganization hada right to preventthe theft or to catch thethief, did not meanthatit becamethethief itself, in thesense thatit hadacommercial opportunity to doexactly whatthethiefdid. TheCommitteehadto beveryclearthat theAppendix covered theuseof thosenewmediafor newbusinessmodels,andthetreaty itself coveredtheprotection of broadcastsagainstbeingusedin thenewmedia. If thereferenceto “by anymeans,”wastakenout, therewouldbelargeareaswherethethief could beseen,but wherenothingcouldbedoneagainsthim. While theDelegationhada lot of sympathy for a treaty whichwasbasedaroundtheconceptof signalprotectionandwhichbasically took as its startingpoint thegeneralprincipleexpressedin Article11,namelythatthereshouldbeadequateand effective legalprotectionagainstanyof thoseactsof theft, it alsothoughtthattheonly efficient, adequateandeffectivewayto getthatprotection wasto catchthe thief whereverhecouldbefound,andnot just inthetraditionalmedia.

200. TheDelegationof Algeriabelieved thattheexclusiverights thatwereproposedforauthorizingretransmission andfor fixation andreproduction, and theright of transmissionfollowing fixation,wouldenablebroadcasting organizationsto issuesuchlicenseswithoutauthorization from performers.Therefore, it wouldbebetter to grantaprohibition right thatwouldpreventthepossibility of piracyof suchmaterial, insteadof grantinganexclusiveright.The rightsto begrantedto broadcastingorganizationswerebasic rightswhichhadto berecognizedin theinterestof thoseorganizationsandadapted to thetechnologicaldevelopmentsaftertheRomeConvention.

201. TheDelegationof TheIslamicRepublic of Iransupportedthenegotiation on traditionalbroadcasting,includingcablecasting, althoughthat did not existin its country, andexcludingwebcasting andsimulcasting,dueto theuncertainty regardingtheir implications. In itsnational legislation, there weregeneralrightsonbroadcasting, andsomeamendmentswereinthepipelinewhichcouldberelevantto theaboveArticles6 to 10.

202. TheDelegationof Chileexpressedits doubtswith regardto therights after fixation,bearing in mind thatthemainobjectiveof thetreaty was theprotection againsta thief of asignal. It wasverydifficult to identify where thesignal wasfixed. In practical terms,onecould not find asignalin aDVD or aCD, or anothermediaor device. It was very importantto explorewhattheexhaustionof thatright was,asin manycasestherecouldbeanoverlappingof transmissions. Oncethetransmissionwasfixedandtransmittedmanytimesby otherbroadcasters,therewouldbeasecondright holder,a third, a fourth andsoon. Itwouldberathercomplicatedfor broadcasters to effectively managetheir rightsin theirsignals,particularly if theyhadto carry theauthorization for prior broadcasters.

203. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America, in referenceto thequestion raisedbytheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity on theretransmissionovercomputernetworks,theDelegationwasvery sympatheticto theconcernsaboutgranting to broadcasterssomelevelof control overtheretransmissionof their broadcastsignal overcomputernetworks.

SCCR/14/7page58

During theseveralyearsof negotiationof thetreaty, theDelegation hadgivenconcreteexamples wherecompanieshadestablishedservices on theInternet. For instance,broadcasttelevisionsignalsfrom its country receivedthroughaserviceoperatedin Canadacouldalsobewatchedby anyonevia computernetworks. Thatkind of activity promptedby thenewtechnologiesmadenecessary to updatethecurrentlevelof protection for broadcastingorganizationsin internationaltreatiesbeyondtheRomeConvention. Article 11 relatedtoPre-broadcastsignalsusedthelanguageof adequateprotectionandeffective measures,not thelanguageof exclusive rights,andnot eventhelanguageof theright to prohibit. It proposedtobe flexiblein consideringdifferentlevelsof protection for retransmissionovercomputernetworks,alongthelinesof adequateandeffectiveprotection.

204. TheChair observedthattherewasabroaddiversityof opinionsconcerning therights,thenatureandtheconditionsthatshouldbecombinedto therights of broadcastingorganizations. Therewasa rich materialfor consideration onhowtherightsshouldbedesignedin thefinal treaty. Discussionswouldbeconfined to therightsof broadcastingandcablecasting organizationsconcerningtheirbroadcastsandcablecasts.In thatrespect,heaskedwhetherthoseDelegationswhohadproposed to deletetheexpressions“any means”and “over computernetworks”from theprovisionon theright of retransmission, wereabletoreconsidertheir position. Theright of retransmissionwasextremely important andwaspresentonly in aprimitive andembryonicform in theRomeConventionas rebroadcastingover theair usinghertzianwaves,whichby far wasnot sufficientin thecurrent situationofthecommunicationsworld andthesignaltheft. In addition, heproposedto tacklepackagenumberthreeon limitationsandexceptions. Delegationsshouldconsiderdifferentmodels,namely themodelfoundin Article 12of document SCCR/14/2andothersfoundin documentSCCR/14/3,basedon theproposalsof Brazil andChile of November2005,and in themostrecentproposalmadeby Peru. Thequestion washowto combinethemsoas to simplify thefutureprocesson thattopic. He recalledthatsome Delegationshadsuggested thatthepublicinterest concernsweredealtwith partlyor totally in thecontext of Article12on limitationsand exceptions.

205. TheDelegationof Japanreferredto thevalueof theprinciplesof inclusivenessandconsistency.It wasnecessarythatnewproposals were consistentwith thethree-steptestfound in theWCT, theWPPTandotherWIPOtreaties. Any misreading might resultinbroader undesirablelimitations.

206. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americaopposedtheproposalmadeby theDelegationof Egypt to includethegeneral public interestclausesof Articles[x] and[y] in theoperativeArticle12on limitationsandexceptions. Theprinciplesof public interestandcultural diversitycouldbe reformulatedin thepreamble. It was unclearwhetherthoseprovisionsmight openup manyavenuesfor unintendedconsequencesandeffectivelyunderminethegoal of providingprotectionfor thebeneficiariesunderthetreaty. In addition,theywererelatively newto, anduntestedin, theinternational intellectual property system.

207. TheChair pointedout that,in anycase,the treatywouldhavea clauseon limitationsand exceptions. A classicalclausehadbeentabledwhich permittedthesamekindsoflimitationsasfor authors’rights. Therewasalsoaclauseon thethree-steptest, andanumberof proposalswhich includedspecifiedclauseson specifiedexceptionsin thestyleof theRomeConvention.

208. TheDelegationof Australiaexpressedits concernaboutthealternative Article 14,proposed onpage14of documentSCCR/14/3. TheCommitteehad to beconvincedthatthere

SCCR/14/7page59

wasadesirableor morepreferablealternative to thethree-step testwhichhad foundits placein theTRIPSAgreement,theWCT andtheWPPT. It sought clarificationabouttheBrazilianproposal along with theprovisiononpage15of documentSCCR/14/3. In paragraph(2) ofthatproposedalternative,it waspresumedthatthespecified uses constitutedspecialcasesthatdid not confl ict with thenormalexploitation of thework anddid not unreasonablyprejudicethelegitimate interestsof theright holders. Thatnew techniqueof establishingapresumedinterpretationdid not exist in otherinstruments andtheDelegationwasnot familiar with it.Another concernrelatedto subparagraph(g) of paragraph(2), onpage15,which proposedanexception for anyuseof any kind in anymanneror form of any partof abroadcastwheretheprogram,or anypartof it, whichwasthesubject of thetransmission,wasnot protectedbycopyright or anyrelatedright. TheDelegation askedwhetherthatprovisionwasintendedtomeanthat thebroadcast,for instance,of asportingeventor of currentnews happeninglivewouldbeeffectively deprivedof all protection.

209. TheDelegationof Chileunderstoodtheconcernsof someDelegationswith regardtothedefenseof competitionandlimitationsandexceptions,whichcould affect theinterpretationof previoustreaties. A goodsolution might beto clarify thatthenewtreatywouldhavenoeffectonany existingtreaties,in view of theViennaConventionof theLaw ofTreaties. In addition, theWCT andtheWPPTreferredto adifferent subject matter,namelytheauthors’,performers’andphonogramproducers’rights. Therefore,it wouldbeverydifficult to imply thata treaty ona fourthsubjectmatter,whichwasbroadcasting andevenafif th matter,whichwascablecasting,andasixth subjectmatter, thatwould bewebcasting,wasanapplicationof therightsandobligationsthattheParties hadagreedon in previoustreaties. Finally, Partiesmight also establish anagreedstatement to reiterate thatthenewtreaty wouldnot affect,expandor restrictthepossibilit ieswith regard to competitionor withexceptionsthat werealreadyin thoseother treaties.

210. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity supportedthescopeof Article 12,whichwassimilar to Article16 of theWPPT. For thesakeof inclusiveness,theBrazilian, Chileanand Peruvianproposalshadbeenintegratedinto thedebate,but not necessarily theprinciplethatanenumerativelist of exceptionshadto beaccepted. TheDelegationwould objectto anyreformulation of thethree-steptest,assetout in theBrazilianandChilean proposals,inparticular. If anyapproachwastakentowardslisting theexceptionsandlimitationsto therights of broadcastingorganizations,thestarting point should betheRomeConvention,but inany event,theyshouldalways besubject to thecorrectly formulatedthree-steptest,asreflectedin Article12(2). It supportedthecomments madeby theDelegation from Australiaon thesignificantlegaluncertaintythat wouldbecreated by theprovisionin Article 14(2)(g)proposed by theBrazilianDelegation,andthereference to any useof any kind. In relationtoof Article 14(3) of theBrazilianproposal, theattemptedrewording of thethree-steptestwas,in fact,anopen-endedinvitation to includeadditional exceptions,not necessarily of aminornature. It woulddrive coachandhorsesthroughthetruly accepted conceptthatunderlay thethree-steptest, asinterpreted,for example, in relation to therightsof authors in the2000IMRO ruling, handeddown by aWTO panel. Nevertheless,theDelegation, takingaconstructiveapproachto thedebate,consideredthat Article 15of theRomeConventioncouldbeusedasapoint of departure.It supported anexhaustive enumerationof exceptionsandlimitationsprovidedthatthebeneficiariesof thoseexceptionsandlimitationswere clearlydefined. To thatextent,andtakingasanotherpoint of departure themannerin which theEuropeanCommunity andits MemberStateshadimplementedtheobligationsunderthe1996WIPO Treatiesin theCopyrightDirective,a listing approach couldbeplacedon thetable.Contracting Partiescouldbegivencertainoptionswhichwould introduceor allow theintroductionof certainlimitationsor exceptionsfor cases suchas,by wayof example,private

SCCR/14/7page60

use,shortexcerptsin connectionwith thereporting of current events,usesolely for thepurposeof teachingandscientificresearch, usefor thebenefit of public institutions,such aslibrariesandarchives,useby peoplewith disabilit ies,public securityuses,useinadministrativeandjudicial proceedings,and for thebenefi t of certain non-profit-makingestablishments,suchaspublicly accessible librariesandequivalentinstitutions,aswell aspublic archives.Theremight becertainconsiderationswhich couldapply in relationto theseexceptionsor limitations, for example,in relation to anexceptionallimitation forNon-commercial, educationalandscientific researchpurposes.Therefore, asfar asdistancelearningwasconcerned,thenon-commercialnatureof theactivity in question could alsobedeterminedby thescopeof theactivity in question andtheorganizational structureandthemeansof fundingof theestablishment.TheDelegation hadprepareda list of thelimitationsand exceptionsonanexhaustivebasis,taking theRomeConventionasapoint of departure,and reservedtheright to makeit circulate.

211. TheChair said thatthose itemswould makeanyconsideration of theconcernedpublicinterest mucheasier.

212. TheDelegationof Indiasaidthatit hadlookedat thebasictext aswell astheproposalsof Brazil, Chile andPeruandit wouldbevery interestedin also lookingat theproposalof theEuropeanCommunity. It supportedtheproposal of Brazil for consideration by everyone.Inaddition, it mentionedthediscussionson theproposalof Chile in respect of Article 1. Itrecalledits suggestionthatthatproposedArticle [x] ondefenseof competition couldcomeunder Article 12on limitationsandexceptions.

213. TheDelegationof Brazil stressedthatits proposalonpage15of documentSCCR/14/3wasmotivatedby threeconcerns. Thefirst wasthepreservation of thebalancebetweenthepublic interestandtheinterestof broadcastingorganizations. Thesecondwasthepreservationof worksin thepublicdomain,andthethird waspreserving thenational spacefor developing countriesto developstandardsandnorms thataddressedtheirneedforscientific, technological andeducationaldevelopment. Fear hadbeenexpressed thattheproposal couldgeneratelegaluncertaintyand theDelegationwondered why thesameargumentcouldnot beusedagainstall therightsthathadbeenproposedto begrantedtobroadcastingorganizations.Fromits point of view, thesignificantlegaluncertaintywasposed by therightsthatwereproposedfor thebroadcastingorganizationsandnot by thelimitationsandexceptions.It wonderedwhy oneshould besoprescriptive in grantingrightsand onecouldnot use thesamecriteria,thesamestandardwhen designinglimitationsandexceptions. In documentSCCR/14/2,Article1(2), it wasprovidedthatprotectiongrantedunder this text shouldleaveintactandshall in no wayaffect theprotection of copyright orrelatedrights,in programmaterialincorporatedin broadcasts.Therewas noprotectiontheregrantedto worksin thepublicdomain. Its concern was thatbroadcastingorganizationscouldbegrantedrights in worksin thepublicdomain. Therewasaclearneedfor protectingthepublic domain; thatwasthereasonandthespirit of its proposedArticle14(2)(g). All thelimitationsandexceptionsproposedtherewerequite reasonable. Theydid not affect in anywaythereasonableexploitationby thebroadcasting organization of their rights. It underlinedits concernas adevelopingcountryregardingpreservingthenationalspace for designingandenacting laws thataddressedits needs regardingscientific , technological andeducationaldevelopment.

SCCR/14/7page61

214. TheDelegationof JapanthankedtheDelegation of theEuropeanCommunity for itscontribution. It stressedthatin its earlierintervention it did not say anythingdecisive,but justmentionedthepossibilityof abuseof this nearproposal. Treatieswerealwayssubject toamendmentandcouldneverbeperfect. But makingabetter treatywasbetter thanhavingnothing.

215. TheDelegationof Mexicounderstoodthelegitimateconcernsexpressedby theDelegationsof Brazil, PeruandChile to havea list of limitationsandexceptions. However, itwouldbeveryrisky to establish suchacatalogue. It might actually gobeyondthescopeofthebasiclegislationof manyof theStatesrepresented. To acceptsucha list wouldbegivingunequaltreatmentto thebroadcastingorganizationswhencomparedto therightsgrantedtoartists,performersandproducersof phonograms. TheproposedArticle12 in documentSCCR/14/2wasmoreprudentandmoreflexible. Theuseful substanceof theproposalsof theDelegationsof Brazil, ChileandPerucould perhaps bedealt with in domestic legislation.

216. Thedelegationof UnitedStatesof Americareferred to thequestion of anenumeratedlist of exceptionsin addition to thethree-steptest andtheotherprovisionscurrently in thedraft Article 12. It sharedtheconcernsexpressedby theDelegationsof AustraliaandMexicoabout departing from theapproachinvolving only ageneral andflexible three-steptestsandenumeratingspecific exceptionsfor several reasons.First, asapreliminarymatter, whateverlist wouldbedevelopedneededto bemadesubject to thestandardsof thethree-steptest,andnot asin somealternativeformulationsbedefinitive of theapplication of thetest. It thankedtheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity for its concreteexamplesof thekind of languagethatcouldbeincludedin suchacatalogue.That examplehelped to understandexactlywhatkind of endeavor thathadto beundertakenif thatapproachwerechosen,as opposedto theelegantandverybeneficialgeneralapproachcurrently in theproposal.Theeleganceof thatproposal wasborneout of thedocumentthattheEuropeanCommunity and its memberStateshad providedbecauseif onetookevena cursoryglanceat it, tenseparate provisionswouldhave to beconsideredanddiscussedandnegotiatedwith termsthat wererelatively newto theinternational intellectualpropertysystem.It would beaverydifficul t taskto try to reachanagreementandconsensuson languagefor suchspecific anddetailed provisions.An examplewastheexperiencein its countrywherecurrently exceptionsto copyright relating to libraries’abili ty to preservematerialin digital form werebeing reassessed.It had beenaverycomplicatedanddiff icult processto comeup with proposals and languagethatcouldmeet theneedof thelibrariesandthepublic interestin having such materialspreservedwhilesafeguardingthe rightsandinterestsof copyrightholders.Thelistingapproachcouldbeundertakenin theory, but it wouldbeverydiffi cult in thelight of thecomplexity of thearea.Onefinal point with respectto theprovisionsthatwerecontainedin theEuropeanpaper,andalso in theproposals from Brazil, ChileandPeru, wasthat theyseemed in somerespectto bedrawnfrom nationallaws andexemptionsto copyrightin particular thatwerealreadypresentin nationallaws. All thoseprovisionsin thosenationallawshadbeendeveloped,enactedandput in placeundertheumbrellaof thethree-step test in theBerneConvention, theWCT andtheWPPT andtheTRIPSAgreement.Thatdemonstratedthatsuchexceptionswereperfectlycapableof being developedandenactedundertheumbrella of that test, whichprovidedtheneededflexibility for countriesto addressspecific public interestsin definingexceptionsandlimitationsto intellectualpropertyprotection.

217. TheChair askedtheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity whether it wouldconsideraclausein thetreatythatconsistedof a referenceto thelimitationsandexceptionsundercopyright,combinedwith thethree-steptest andsupplementedby thelist it offeredforconsideration,somethingthatwasnot proposedunderArticle 12 in thedocument,consistent

SCCR/14/7page62

with thethree-steptest. In thelight of thecommentsfrom theUnitedStatesof America,negotiationsonsucha list of limitationsandexceptionscould becomeaverydifficult task.

218. TheDelegationof TheIslamicRepublic of IranbelievedthatregardingArticle 12onlimitationsandexceptions,particularattention shouldbepaid to thetreaty’s potentialimpactand consequencesfor developingcountriesandfor thegeneralpublic. It supportedthenewproposals receivedat thethirteenthsessionof theSCCR,as mentioned page14 in documentSCCR/14/3.

219. TheDelegationof Algeriaagreedwith theproposal in Article14of documentSCCR/14/3andwhich listedthecaseswheretheContractingParties might includein theirdomesticlegislation exceptionsto theguaranteedprotection. Thoselimitationsandexceptionsreflectedthegeneralprinciplesappearingin Articles[x] and [y] in thatdocument.

220. TheDelegationof SenegalsupportedArticle 12 as it appearedin theDraft BasicProposal. It hadsomedifficulty asto the feasibili ty of anenumeratedlist or catalogueoflimitations,andthoughtthatit shouldbeleft in thehandsof theMember Statesto determinewhich exceptionsor limitationswereappropriate to theirowncircumstances. In its country,theexploitation of thepublicdomainwasnot free. If therewaslegislation thatdeterminedthatthepublic domain mustbepaidfor, broadcasterswouldhaveto ensurethat theywereacting in licit mannerunderthelaw of thecountryconcerned.

221. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity notedthat,whetheroneopted for anArticle 12 typeapproachwhichwastheapproach in thedraft basicproposal of a generalprovisioncoupledwith a three-steptestwhich did not list exceptions,or oneoptedfor alist-typeapproachcoveredwith theapplication of thethree-step test,therewouldbenoguaranteethatresulting nationallegislationwould comply with thethree-steptestinconformity with theunderstandingat international level. Thebeauty of thelisting approachwasthatonecouldnegotiatetheformulation andat a later stagetheremight be,if there wereagreementonacatalogueof exceptions,agreater chanceof arguingthecompatibility of theformulation of thoseexceptionswith international obligations. Theopen-endedformulationin Article 12, left it in thefirst instanceto thenational legislatorto deviseanexceptionwhichmight at a laterstagehaveto berevisited,asfor example in theWorld TradeOrganization(WTO) IMRO ruling, wherethenationallegislator believedthattherewasconformity whichwasnot necessarily thecaseonceit cameunder furtherscrutiny. In thefi rst instance,thethree-steptestwasaddressedto thenational legislator,in thesecondtheapplication of thattestwasfor national courts or anyotherhigherauthority to which thosenational courtsmightbebound. In thecaseof thosethathadadheredto theTRIPSAgreement, it was theWTODisputeSettlingMechanism. TheEuropeanCommunity andits memberStatescouldnotsupportthepossible inclusionof theanti-competitive practicesprovisionsetout in theBrazilian proposalin theclauseonexceptionsandlimitations,suggestedby India. Thatwouldgive riseto greatlegaluncertaintyasto thenatureof theremedythat wouldbeavailablein relationto anti-competitivepractices. Moreover,any remedy proposedto correctanti-competitivebehavior,suchasanabuseof adominantposition, tended to godowntheroadof a compulsorylicense.No compulsorylicenses,other thanthosethathad gainedinternational acceptance,werein generalcompatiblewith thethree-step test. In relationto theinterventionby theDelegationof Chileasto theneedto treattheproposedtreaty in isolationfrom othertreatiesin thelight of Article 1(1)andin particular Article1(3) of theDraft Basic

SCCR/14/7page63

Proposal,it believedthatit wouldhaveconsequencesfor othertreatieswhere therewasanacceptedunderstandingof thethree-steptestandin particular therightsof other right holdersthatmight becarriedin broadcast. Therefore,theformulation for anewtypeapproachto thethree-steptestwould bein contraventionof Article1(2).

222. TheDelegationof Chilenotedthatthethree-steptestwasavery importantstandardbutit haddoubt whetherthetest wasunder international law themandatory standard for a rightfor broadcasting,cablecasting or webcasting institutionsin thesensethatthey wouldbeTRIPSplusrights. It wasdifficult to seehowArticle13of TRIPSshouldapply to suchnewrights. Any formulationof astandardof exceptionsandlimitationsthatwereto applyto therights grantedto broadcasting, cablecastingor webcastingentitiesmight affect the right ofother right holders,because theexceptionwouldapply only to theright of thebroadcastinginstitution. It agreedthat it wouldbetotally impossible to agreeonall theexceptionsandlimitationsthatmight beneededwith regardto thespecific rights thatweregoing to begrantedunderthetreaty. It wouldbemost usefulto havea combinedsystem. Mostlikely,thosewerestandards already understoodby Statesbecauseat leastfour of themhadbeentakenfrom Article15of theRomeConvention: privateuse; excerptsin connectionwithreporting of currentevents;ephemeralfixation; andusefor teaching or scientific research. Itwouldbevery importantto includethemspecificall y in thepresentprovision,becausethegeneralprincipleof thethree-steptestwassusceptibleof different interpretations.

223. TheDelegationof Brazil reiteratedthatits proposed Article14was presentedin aspiritof cooperationandits mainobjectivehadbeento ensurethatthebroadcasting treatywouldadequatelyrespect andpreservethebalanceof interests and rightsbetween thepublicandthebroadcastingorganizations. It thankedtheEuropeanCommunity for its proposalregardingalist that could provideabasisfor negotiation. It couldwork with otherdelegationsto try tofind awayout basedon thatapproachandpreferred thatapproachratherthanthethree-steptest.

224. TheDelegationof Moroccohadstudiedwith interest theprovisionsof Article 12 indocument SCCR/14/3.It agreedthatthelist oughtto belimited,but at thesametimeonethatcould meettheneeds of thepublic interestin general. Someof thelimitationsand exceptionsrepeatedprovisionsthatalready hadbeenincludedin otherconventionssuchasWPPT andtheRomeConvention. It wasreadyto discussthelist, providedthat repetition wasavoided,and it expressedits reservationwith regardsto subparagraph (h) becauseit carriedwith itcertainriskswhichmight haveanegativeimpact with regardsto therightsof broadcastingorganizations. It alsomadereservationwith regardsto thewordingof Arti cle14(3) andwasopento negotiation with regardsto the content aswell as to thewordingof that Article.

225. TheChair notedthattheseinterventionsbroughttheCommittee to theendof thedebateon theitem 3 on thework programon limi tationsandexceptions. Therewasa lot ofconvergencein thatarea. Thereweretwo mainapproaches,themoregeneralclauseandtheapproachbasedon a list andtherewasno greatpassion there. Therewereof coursecriticalcommentsonsomeelements, but thatwasjust thestart of analysis. Technical presentationand simplificationcould benecessaryfor theCommitteeto decideaboutthestepsto betaken.He introducedthediscussionson item 4 relating to technological measures,explainingthat,indocument SCCR/14/2,Article 14corresponded to theformulafoundin the1996treaties.Now alternativeswerecontainedin documentSCCR/14/3andin theproposalof Colombiaindocument SCCR/14/4.

SCCR/14/7page64

226. TheDelegationof Senegalreferredto Article 14onobligationsconcerningtechnological measuresandnotedthatit wasof thegreatest importanceto provideprotectionmechanisms,sincesecuritywasanimperative of development. It wascompletely in favorofincluding thatarticle with theproposedcontents. It hadbeenshownthatthecircumventionofrights asregardedtechnologicalmeasuresshould betheobjectof anappropriateandjudicialresponse.

227. TheDelegationof Chile thankedtheDelegation of Colombia for its proposedArticle 16(3), andaskedwhatwouldbethecategoriesof technological measuresthatmight becircumventedunderthatArticle. Measures weregenerally classifiedaseitherprotectingagainstnon-authorizedaccess,or protecting againsttheill icit exerciseor use. It questionedwhethertheproposedArticle wouldpreventthecircumventionof both or just thosecontrolling access.

228. TheDelegationof Colombiastatedthatits proposalonexceptionsto technologicalmeasureswasbasedon thecopyright andrelatedrightstreaties administeredby WIPOthattraditionally coveredexceptionsrelatedto theobject of protection in harmony with thegeneralinterest, suchaseducation,communication andculture. Thatpossibility hadalwaysbeenenshrined in limitationsandexceptions,andsincetheTRIPSAgreement andthe1996Treatiesit hadgonebeyond theright of reproduction andnowcovered all exclusiverights.The1996Treatiesofferedsomethingin addition: theobligationsrelatingto technologicalmeasuresandthoseweretherealnovelty in theTreaties. Oneof thoseprovisions hadleadtocontroversies,questions, conferences,seminarsand thousandsof discussions,and all thosehad referred to thetwo categoriesof measures.A treatyshould dealwith bothaspects.Varioussolutionscouldbefoundin comparative law,but usually two servedas referencepoints, the2001EuropeanCopyrightDirective andthe1998Digital Mil lennium CopyrightAct of theUnitedStatesof America. Thedevelopingcountrieswhichhadintroducedsuchmeasuresandwhichhaddevelopedthemin national legislation hadusedthosestatutesastheir references.TheDelegationrealizedthatits proposalnecessarily had to generatedebateon thesubject, andexpressly did not referto theoneaspect or theother. It had simplyproposed thatContractingPartiescouldprovidelimitationsregardingall technologicalmeasuresin general, whichallowedthediscussion to go in onedirectionor another.Onecould saythat themainthingwastechnological measuresrelatedto access,but it believedthatthewisestthingwouldbeto leaveit general, becauselimitationsandexceptionshadalwaysbeentackled in general terms. Thetreatyshould bebasedona generalprovision,andlimitationsandexceptionsbeestablishedin thelight of theneedsof eachContractingParty.In anycase,boththeDigital Millennium Copyright Act andtheEuropeanDirectivehadreferencesto situationsthatwerespecific to technological measures.Alsoin free-tradeagreementsthatmethodologyhadbeenused.Technological measureswerean extremelytopical issuewhichdeservedin-depthdiscussionsin theSCCR.

229. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity agreed with theDelegation of Colombiathatin 1996theissueof therelationshipbetweenthebeneficiariesof exceptionsandlimitationsandtheprotectionagainst circumventionof technological protection measures hadnot beenaddressed.Today,however,thesituationwasdifferent. Thereweretwo mainmodelsat nationallevel. Onewastheonereferredto by theDelegationof Columbia,thelawof theUnited Statesof America. Theother,arguably moreflexible,onewastheone

SCCR/14/7page65

containedin EuropeanCommunitylaw. TheDelegation wouldbepleasedat a laterdate, tosharewith theCommitteehowtheoperationof thatprovisioncreatedamechanism,whichplacedaduty on theMemberStatesin certain circumstancesto ensuretheavailabilit y ofexceptions,which theCommunityand its MemberStateshadidentifiedasbeingin thepublicinterest.

230. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America clarifiedthatit consideredtheinclusionof a technological protectionmeasuresprovision in thetreaty essential, even critical, in thesensethat anyupdateof theprotectionto thedigital environment needed to supporttheemploymentof technological measuresto protect theinterestof broadcasting organizationsand others whowouldbeprotectedunderthetreaty. TheDelegation would not opposeincluding in thedocumentalternativesandmodificationsto thelanguagethathadbeenborrowedfrom the1996WIPO Treaties,but it was very concernedthatthosealternativesandmodificationscould doa greatharmto theadequate,effective protectionof technologicalmeasures.In thespirit of inclusivenessit wouldnot object to theinclusionof thoseprovisionsonsuchacritical topic,at leastin thedocument. Thestructurein the1996Treaties,which theDelegationfavored,did not mandate theuseof technological measuresbyrights holders. It simply set out rulesfor thecaseswhere rights holdersthemselveschose toadopt a technological measure.At thatpoint, thereis legalprotection against effortsto designand disseminatetoolsthatcircumvent thatprotection, andtheactof circumvention of theprotectionthat therightsholderhademployed. That wastheappropriateapproachto theissue,andonethathadservedits country verywell .

231. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica had,in principle, noobjectionsaboutproviding therequisite legalprotectionthroughnationallawsto anyentity employingtechnologicalprotectionmeasures, not just broadcasting organizations. It did, however, havemajorconcernsabouttheproposedArticle 14,which at theendof its lastsentencetalkedabout“not permittedby law”, whenreadin thecontext of thefirst sentencewhich was talkingabouttheprovision of “adequatelegalprotectionandeffective legalremedies”. It wouldseemthatit wouldnot beenoughfor countriesto haveaTRIPSlevel of protection. A countryseemedto have to broaden thescopebeyondthatby introducingadditional remedies,which again wasdifficult to understand. TheDelegationqueried whatweresuch additionallegalremedies thathad to beadoptedand expressedfearthattheymight bequiteonerous.

232. TheChair statedthattherewasalready asupplyof informationonwhatkind ofmeasurescouldbeintroducedandwhat weretheir effectsandlegaloperations.

233. TheDelegationof Brazil reiteratedits proposal for adeletion of theArticle. It did notsupporttheinclusionof anyprovisionin thetreaty thatwould directly or indirectlyprovidefor legalsanctioningof technologicalprotection measures,becausethatwasahighlycontroversial issue.Technologicalprotection measureswereequivalent to self-implementingrights for theindustry. It also hadimplicationsof anindustryfrom onecountryexercisingitsrights in another country, independentlyof whatthelegislation in thatothercountry mightprovide. Therewasanelementof extra-territorial application of self-established rightsby theindustry,whichwentagainstthenationalsovereignty of Statesto determinefor theirnationalterritorywhatmeasureswereavailableto protecttherightsthatwere granted underthenational legislation. It shouldnot beup to theindustryitself to actually providefor thosemeansof impedingaccessto contentthatwas acquiredthrougha legal saleof goods.Theauthorizedacquisition of goods,aswell astransmissionsthatwerereceived legally,shouldbewithout anymechanismsthatwouldpreventthosewhoacquiredsuchgoodsor transmissionsfrom havingaccessto themin anyfashionor any way. It should beup to national legislation

SCCR/14/7page66

to establishwhat wasallowedor not. Thetreatyalreadycontained definit ionsof therightsthatwouldbeprovidedfor broadcasting organizationsif thetreatywouldcometo fruition andwouldbeimplementedandenforcedby thenational authorities. Rights shouldnot emergethrougha technological devicewhichdid not necessarily complywith national legislation.

234. TheDelegationof Chilewassympathetic with theobjective of theproposalofColumbiain thesensethatit lookedfor a guarantee for theStatesimplementingprovisionsontechnologicalmeasuresthattheycouldallow thecircumventionof thosemeasuresfor theexerciseof exceptionsallowedby law. However,thecurrentversionof Article16 thatwastakenfrom theWCT andtheWPPT alreadyprovidedfor thatflexibili ty, becauseit waslimited to measuresthatrestrictedactnot authorized by thebroadcasting organizationor notpermittedby law. However,many problemsrelatedto theapplication of technologicalmeasureof protection werestill unsolved,andfor that reasontheDelegation wasnotcomfortablewith theArticle in its currentdrafting.

235. TheChair askedtheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity to describemechanism inthatrespectundercommunitylaw.

236. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity agreed with theview of theDelegationofKenya,becausein onesensetheformulationof Article14providedthespringboardfor theCommunityandits MemberStatesto createa link in its 2001Directive betweentechnologicalmeasuresandtheavailabilityof exceptions. Referring thestatementby theDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americathattherewasno requirementto usetechnological protectionmeasures,it notedthat neitherinternational law, theWCT, the-WPPTnor theCommunityDirectivemandatedtheir use. Whatthecommunity legislationput in place,in thefirstinstance,wasto enumeratecertainexceptions,which hadthequality of exceptionsin thepublic interest. In theenumerativelist, therewascertainexceptionswhich hadthecharacterof truepublic interestexceptions,andother exceptionswhichdid not havethat character.Havingin thefi rst instanceidentifiedthatlist, it wasfelt appropriateto createcertainmechanisms.It wasbelievedthattheadoptionof voluntary measuresto betaken by rightsholderswhere technologicalprotection measureswere in place;includingtheconclusionandimplementation of agreementsbetweenrights holdersandtheparticularusergroupsthatwerethebeneficiariesof therelevantexceptions,should beencouraged.Therefore,it wasappropriateto identif y exceptionswhichweretruly in thepublic interest.An examplewastheexceptionfor thedisabled. Thereweretypicall y at national level groups thatrepresentedthedisabled,suchasthevisually impaired. The Delegation remindedthecall madeonbehalfof thevisually impairedfor themakingof astudy which would castlight on theneedto haveaccessibleformats. Whereonecouldidentify groupswhich representedcertainusers, theconclusionof voluntaryagreementsin the first instancewaswhattheCommunity proposedand whatwas adoptedin its 2001directive. If therewasa failure to concludevoluntaryagreementsor measureswithin a reasonableperiod of time, theCommunity legislatorplacedaduty,not simply anoption,on its MemberStatesto ensurethat rightsholders providebeneficiaries of identified exceptionsor limitationswith theappropriatemeansof benefitingfrom them, by modifying animplementedtechnological measureprovision,or by othermeans,within anagreedprocedure.Particular attentionhad to bepaid to thelegal andcultural traditionsof theMemberStates, in particular,theirdispute resolution procedures.Theyhadchosenavarietyof mechanismsto ensurethat theidentified usergroupscouldbenefit from theavailableexceptions,suchas mediation, executiveor administrativeauthorityand recourseto courts,anotherexception, which wasmorecomplicatedat community level,wastheprivatecopyingor privateuseexception,whereadiscretion hadbeenplacedon thepart of MemberStates,to beappliedundertheappropriateprocedurefor dispute resolution

SCCR/14/7page67

and without prejudiceto theright holders’ability to limit thenumber of reproductionsthatcould bemade.TheCommunityhadnow consultedits MemberStateson thepracticethattheyapplied. Later in theyear,a reporton thedirective andits workingoperation in practicewouldbeissued.

237. TheDelegationof Colombianotedthat in Article 14, therewasapossibili ty oflimitationsandat theendtheArticle was worded: “restrict act in respect of their broadcastthatarenot to authorizedby thebroadcastingsorganizations”. Such non-authorizedactswerenot authorizedwhentheydid not correspondto thecontract concludedwith thebroadcastingorganization for theuseof thecontent,for instance. Sincethoseacts would not beauthorizedby law, theuserwouldhavethepossibility to havelegalremedies. Thenwhatwouldbeauthorized? Thoseactswhichwerein the list of exceptions. If auser thusneededto use aprotectedbroadcast, thatmight bepreventedbecauseit wasprotectedby technologicalmeasures.Theuserwould thenhaveto resort to thelimitation clause,andthusdocertainactsto overcomethetechnologicalobstacle,withoutbeing sanctioned. It wasfundamentallynot amatterof technology in itself, but amatterof overcoming casesof criminal sanctions.Thatwasimportantif theusers, for instancelibraries,nationalarchivesor teachingestablishments,were to benefit from thelimitationsandexceptions. TheDelegation agreedwith otherdelegationsthatit wasfundamentalto protecttherightsof owners of rights,but onealsohadto takeaccount of thefactthatthepracticesince1996hadshownthatthere werecaseswheretechnologicalmeasureshadto becircumventedin orderto avoidconflict with public interest.

238. TheDelegationof CanadaquestionedthedelegationswhichhadproposedArticle 14 inits presentform whether,giventhattherewasa fixation right in thetreaty, andif thetechnologicalmeasurepreventedfixation, therewasadangerthatthebroadcastwouldneverfall in thepublic domain. Thesituationwasdifferentwith theWCT andtheWPPT,becausetherewouldalwaysbea physical objectwhich would eventually fall into thepublicdomainand at thatpoint in time therelevantuseor library archive could alwaysdo whatevertheythought was possibleto circumventthemeasure. TheDelegation wonderedif therewasanyparticularimplicationof a technologicalmeasurewhichpreventedfixation.

239. TheDelegationof Brazil commentedonArticle 14 and its relationto Article 15,statingthatit hadgreat concernfor theimpactof technological measuresoncontentthatwasin thepublic domain or whichconsistedof works,protectedunderCreativeCommons-typeoflicenses, andhowtechnologicalprotectionmeasuresmight preventaccessto suchmaterial.Obligationsconcerning rightsmanagementinformationunderArticle15 wereundercertainlegislationalsoconsidereda typeof technological protectionmeasure, in particular whentheinformation wasencryptedandtherewassomekind of technologypreventingusers fromactuallybeing ableto interferewith theinformation. Here, therewasanissueof abuseofrights aswell, therewastheissuewhethertheinformation wascorrect andactually reflectedtherightswhich theparticularright holder would enjoyundereachnational legislation,butnothing seemedto addressthatsituation. If incorrect informationhadbeenplacedonaparticularbroadcastandtechnologicalprotection measures hadbeenemployedto preventremovalof suchinformation or adequatecorrection thereofandsuch information wouldnotbevalidated by anycompetentnationalauthority, it would basically again beaninterpretationof legalrightsby theright holderhimself. This wasalreadyquitecomplex anddiff icult ifconsideredin national terms,andit becameevenmoresowhenconsideredgloballywhenabroadcastingorganizationmight interjectinto its broadcast information regarding rightsthatitconsidereditself entitledto in anothercountry. People in thatothercountry could thenbepreventedfrom interfering with suchinformation thatmight not becorrect underthenationallegislation,asituation thatwouldposeconsiderablelegaluncertainty andquestionsthathad

SCCR/14/7page68

to beaddressed.TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity hadjustmentionedthatit wasnow beginning to get feedbackonhow thatparticularprovisionof theEuropeanDirectivewasactuallybeingimplementedandwhatwerethedifficultiesandtheresults of theimplementation of thatprovisionin thatvery developedareaof theworld, andtheDelegationwonderedhow muchmoreexperiencedevelopingcountrieswould needto actuallyengageand committhemselvesto thosekindsof right management provisions.

240. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity clarified in relation to thefixationandtheembodimentof thesignal,thatit wasits understandingthat thediscussionwasnot aboutthesaleof physicalgoods. Broadcastingwasaservice, andit needed to beprotected while theprovisionof theservicewasongoing,and thatwaswhy therewasaneedto protectthesignalthatembodiedtheprogram.Thefixation underArticle7 concernedmerelythefixationswhich werenecessaryto efficiently providetheservice,as it followedfrom thedefinition inArticle 2(e): “fix ationmeanstheembodimentof soundsor of images,or of imagesandsoundsor of representationsthereoffrom which they canbeperceived, reproducedorcommunicatedthrougha device.” Accordingly,first onehadto embodythesignal in orderfor it to perceivedby therecipientof theservice,and thereforetheentire issuewhethertherewasanexhaustion wouldnot arise,becausetheperformanceof theservicerequiredthatthephysicalexecution of theserviceitself was protectedandoncetheservice wasrenderedto thecustomerand thecustomerhadperceivedthesignal,thentheserviceand theentireprocesswasover. Therewasno otherfurtherembodimentor further fixation of thesignal at anystage. Theentire issueof exhaustion did not arise,becauseno goodwas being offeredto theconsumer,it wasjust necessaryto fix thesignal to providetheservice.

241. TheDelegationof Senegalconsideredtheinclusionof aproposalonobligationsconcerningtechnological measuresextremelyimportant.It was not enoughto give rights,conditionshadto becreatedwheretheywouldbeeffective. RegardingArticle15(1), onecould have gonefurther,becausethe referenceto civil remedies impliedthat thetreatywouldnot cover thosewho induce,enable,facilitateor conceal aninfringement. With respecttocivil remediesit wasenoughto establisha fault anddamage. Whatwasimportantwasto haveaclearunderstandingof whatwasto beunderstoodby theconceptof “ri ghts managementinformation” andto createa link betweenthatinformation andtheacts committedwhichinfringed rights. It wasextremelyimportantto establishremediesin orderto ensurethat itwouldnot beamootright.

242. TheDelegationof Chilestatedin responseto thequestion from theDelegationofCanadathat becausethe termof protection for abroadcast in accordancewith theDraft BasicProposalwascountedfrom thedateof thebroadcast, theissueof fixation wasnot aproblemfor broadcaststo fall into thepublicdomain. But if nobodyhadmadea fixation,evenif thebroadcastwerein thepublicdomainno library or archivewouldbeableto provideit to thepublic, andtherewould benopossibilityfor themto exercisetheexceptionsfor librariesorarchives. This situationwouldbeagainstUNESCO’srecommendationswith respecttopromotionof accessto thepublicdomain.

243. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iransawnoneed to havelegally sanctionedtechnological protectionmeasuresin theproposedtreaty,becauseon theonehand thatkind ofmeasuresthatwerelegallysanctionedcould not beusedfor worksthatwerealreadyprotectedby suchmeasures.On theotherhand,providing thatkind of measures wasagainst thepublicinterest in thecaseof unprotectedworks. It was,therefore,inappropriate to grant legalprotectionto furtherandbroadenthelevel of technical measures.

SCCR/14/7page69

244. TheDelegationof JamaicaaskedtheDelegation of theEuropeanCommunitywhetheritmeantthatthesignal would neverbeableto fall into thepublic domainand thatwaswhy thequestionwasreallymoot. Theexplanationson theconnection betweenlimitationandexceptionsandtechnologicalprotectionmeasureshadbeen useful andinformative,andhadshownthattherewasmuchwork to dobut it would not beinsurmountable. It queriedwhetherit wastheintentionin theEuropean Directive not only to provideaccessfor usergroups, but alsoenablethemto circumventtechnological protection measureswithout beingheld liable.

245. TheDelegationof Japansoughta clarification of theCanadianintervention regardingfixationsfor televisionbroadcastingbeingpreventedby technological measures.In practice,therewouldalwaysbeanauthorizedfixation of televisionbroadcasts,andtherefore therewouldbeno risk it wouldnot fall into thepublic domain.

246. TheDelegationof Canadarecalledthatnearfuturetechnologymight enable thebroadcasterto preventall fixations. In that case,theexistenceof anexceptionmight not berelevantastheviewer,library or anyconsumerwouldnot have thetechnical capabilitytomakethecopy. Theprimarypoint of thecomment wasto notethattherewasadistinction totheWCT andtheWPPT,wheretherewould always bean object which eventuallywould fallinto thepublic domain,afterwhichsomeonecoulddecrypt it or getaccessto listento it. Acurrentexamplemight bea live interview. If a fi xationwerenot possible, it wouldpotentiallybe lost forever.

247. TheDelegationof GhanasaidthatArticle14of document SCCR/14/2wentin therightdirection,asit wassimilar to theInternetTreaties andaccorded to thenewtechnologicalreality. During their consultationsin Nairobi,African countries had taken asimilar view. Incases suchaspublic use,educationandresearch,however, accessto information throughpublic broadcasting hadto beprovidedandnot beunduly blockedby suchmeasures.TheColombianproposalin documentSCCR/14/4addressedthat issue. In thatrespect,theDelegationsoughtclarificationfrom theDelegationof Colombiaasto whowoulddeterminethe“non-infringinguse”mentionedin theprovisionandhowonecouldavoid that thatprovisionbecame arecipefor crimeor illegitimateuses. TheDelegation suggestedthattheCommitteework ona list of circumstances wherethoseexceptionscould beapplied.

248. TheDelegationof Colombiarecalled that it hadnot proposedany provisionontechnologicalmeasuresbefore,andthattheprovision justaimedat creating abalancebetweentechnologicalmeasuresandtheresultsof their implementation. In responseto theDelegationof Ghana,it pointedout thatif theactwaspermittedasa limitation, thentheusercouldcircumvent themeasure,whichcouldbethecaseof awork in thepublic domain. However,situationsof thatkindof work wereoftennot thatsimple. For instance,a televisionorganization whichbroadcast aplay by Shakespeare,evenif thework wasin thepublicdomain,neededto haveits investmentprotectedin asecuredmanner. Thequestionwaswhethertheintellectualpropertylanguageshouldprotect that newform of wealth for thosewhodistributed knowledge.

249. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity referred to thequestion askedby theDelegationof Jamaicaaboutthenatureof thesignal. Thesignalwasthecarrier of aprogramto theend-user. Oncethetaskwasaccomplishedthesignaldisappeared,regardlesswhetherithad fallen into thepublic domainor not. Note2.09of Article2 stated thattherewerenoconditionsregarding thepermanenceor stability of theembodiment. TheDelegationdid notunderstandthedebatewhetherasignalcould fall into thepublic domain. Thesignalwas an

SCCR/14/7page70

electromagnetic impulseandwhatfell in thepublic domainwastheincorporatedversionorthereproductionof thebroadcastfor which there weredownstreamrights. Thedebatewasfocusedonasignal protectionsoasto preventthat othersexecuted,withoutauthorization,exactly thesameservicethatthebroadcasterwasproviding. Theaim of theEuropeanCommunitylegislator in adoptinga link betweentheavailabili ty of certain public interestexceptionsandtheuseof technologicalprotection measures wasto ensurethattherewasnohierarchybetweenthetwo provisions. On theonehand,it required thatMemberStatesprovidedadequateprotectionfor technical measuresagainst thecircumvention,andon theother hand,in theabsenceof voluntaryschemes,eitherunilateral or by wayof agreements,MemberStateshadto ensuretheavailability of theexerciseof theexceptions. In manyinstancesMemberStateshadprovideda forum to discussvoluntaryschemes. In oneinstance,aMemberStatehadadoptedawait-and-seeapproachwith regardto any failure of thosevoluntarymeasuresbeforepassingthelaw, in othersastatutoryexceptionhadbeendirectlyincluded, such asin thecaseof thevisually impairedpersonsandprisons.

250. TheDelegationof Brazil foundtheexplanationof theDelegationof theEuropeanCommunityon theissueof signalsinteresting. If abroadcastwasonly anelectromagneticsignal it would vanishafterthetransmission,andthereforetheDelegationquestionedwhy a50-year protection with exclusive rightswere grantedfor such signals by thetreaty. Onehadto beclearaboutcreating a treatyagainstpiracyof signals or for theprotectionof broadcaststhatwereembodied in somekind of a fixed manner. It soughtadditional clarification in orderto avoid mixingsignalswith broadcastsof content. TheDelegation wasnot ableto identifytheextentof thedefinitionsof thoseconceptsnor to seewhereoneendedandtheotherbegan.

251. TheChair said theCommitteehadnicknamedtheobject of protection asignalandwhatremainedafter thefixation of thesignalwasanembodiedfixedversionof that signal. Therewasstill somework to do in theareaof theconceptualbasissoas to makeit understandableand clearto everybody. Heclosedthedebateon theprotectionof obligationsconcerningtechnologicalmeasures,andsaidthatanyfuture-workingdocument,basedon theprincipleofinclusiveness,wouldbeequippedwith therelevant alternatives. Heproposedto tackleissue7on theeligibility, coveredin Article 22of documentSCCR/14/2. He invitedtheSCCRtoconsiderwhetherthepossibility to becomeaparty to thetreaty should beconditionedonbeing party to anexisting treaty. AlternativeAA referred to theWCT andWPPTastheTreatiesto which aStateshouldbeapartyto beable to join thebroadcasters’ instrument,andtheproposalmadeby Brazil at thelast sessionsetthecondition thattheStateshould bepartyto theRomeConventioninstead.

252. TheDelegationof Brazil askedwhethertheobserverdelegationswouldhavetheopportunity to makestatements, andwhetherit would bepossibleduringthesessionto revisittheissueof webcasting.

253. TheChair proposedto finalize thesubstantive roundsof discussionandtheninvitedelegationsto reiteratewhattheyhadproposed. After that step,theCommitteecouldconsiderto openthefloor for non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.

254. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americabelieved thataninclusionof a linkageto the1996Treatieswasanimportantstepto help ensurethat thenewprotection forbroadcasters,cablecasters andotherswould not interferewith therightsof copyright andrelatedrightsholders.With respectto theproposal of Brazil on theprecondition to bepartyto theRomeConvention,it supportedits inclusionas partof thealternatives oneligibility.

SCCR/14/7page71

255. TheDelegationof Brazil reiteratedit wouldhavedifficultiesin establishing a linkagebetweenthetreaty andthe1996InternetTreaties. ThoseTreatieshaddistancedthemselvesfrom traditional intellectualpropertylaw and international law, and theyhadin manyrespectstheytaken anorientationwith which theDelegation did not agree.Including thatlinkagewould reducethepossibility of abroadmembership of thenew treaty.

256. TheDelegationof Moroccostressedthat thetreaty hadto attractas manyaccessionsaspossible.TheCommitteehadto makesurethat theinstrument wasof interest to manycountries. It sawno justification to obstructtheaccessby conditioningaccessiononbeingparty to anyothertreaty.

257. TheDelegationof SenegalrecalledthattheWPPTofferedapartial protection forrelatedrights. Themembershipof existingtreaties,includingtheRomeConvention, was agoodbasisto establish thecriteriaof eligibili ty for accedingto thenewinstrument.

258. TheDelegationof Chinabelievedthatthetreaty shouldbeopento all WIPOMemberStates. It supportedthecurrentwordingof Article 22.

259. TheDelegationof Jamaicawasin favorof Article 22asit appeared in documentSCCR/14/2.

260. TheDelegationof Kenya supportedArticle22,asit wasfull y compatible withArticle 1(3)of documentSCCR/14/2,which readthat“This Treaty shall not haveanyconnectionwith, norshall it prejudiceanyrightsandobligationsunder,anyothertreaties.”

261. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity notedthattheEuropean Communityandits MemberStatescouldacceptArticle 22 in its current formulation,althoughit hadpreviouslysuggesteda link to theWCT andtheWPPT. It mentioned for thosewhowouldlike to create a link to theRomeConvention, that Article22of thatConventionstatedthat“contractingpartiesreservetheright to enter into special agreementsamongstthemselves inso far of suchagreementsgrant[…] moreextensiverightsthanthosegrantedby thisConvention or containotherprovisionsnot contrary to this Convention.” Theimplicationofthatwasthat countriesthatwereparty to theRomeConventioncouldnot signup to aRomeminusconvention; it wouldalwayshave to bea Romeplusconvention.

262. TheDelegationof EgyptaskedtheDelegationsthathadmadetheproposalin documentSCCR/14/3to explain theirproposal andwhy theywanted to addsomepoints to Article 22and to makea link betweenthepresent treaty,thetwo 1996Treatiesand theRomeConvention.

263. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastatedthat thepurposebehindsuch alinkageto thetwo treatiescamefrom theconcernexpressed by manydelegationsthatrecognizinga level of protectionfor broadcasting andcablecastingorganizationsmightinterfereor conflict with or otherwisediminishin somewaytheprotection of copyright andrelatedrights. TheDelegationof Senegalhad veryarticulately andpersuasively statedthatconcernon repeatedoccasions.It sharedthat concernverystronglyandbelievedthatonewayto ensure thattheholdersof rights in thecreative material thatwastheessenceofbroadcasts,cablecastsandwebcasts,hadtherights thatwereessential for their interests,andthatthoserightswereat leastequalto andconsistentwith theprotectionof thebroadcasters.It wouldbehelpful to makeclearthatall theparticipantsin theprocessof creation anddissemination of materialsto thepublicwereon a similar footingandit wasin no wayan

SCCR/14/7page72

attemptto restrictthespeedyandhopefully completeaccessionto any new instrumentby asmanycountriesaspossible. It wassimply a wayto helpensurethatthelevel of protectionforbroadcasterswould not outpaceor otherwiseconflict with theprotectiongrantedto otherrights holders.

264. TheDelegationof Brazil notedthattheunderlying right holdersin mostparts of theworld werenot protectedthroughthe1996Treatiesbecausethey had very limitedmembership. Underlying right holderswereprotectedbasically in theareaof copyrightthroughtheBerneConventionandif it wastruethatthenewtreatycould encroachupontherights of copyrightownersit shouldperhapsnot beadopted at all. Theinterventionby theDelegationof theUnited Statesof Americaseemedto recognize thatthetreaty mightencroachupontherightsof authors. If that werethecase,thetreatyneededredrafting, ratherthanlinkagesto agreementsthatwerenot broadly applied. Its proposalregarding theRomeConvention wasself-explanatorybecauseit wastheonly WIPOtreaty thatgrantedrights tobroadcastingorganizations. In fact, thework of theSCCRregarding thedraft wasmeanttobeanupdatingof theRomeConvention.Since theRomeConvention wasthesoleWIPOtreaty dealingwith theissueof broadcastingorganizations,it seemedlogical to acceptas aneligibility requirementthatmembershadto beaparty to theRomeConvention. TheDelegationwould not like to seethenewtreaty simply overrulewhatwascontainedin theRomeConventionor simply makethatConvention irrelevant.

265. TheDelegationof Ghanawascomfortablewith Article 22 in SSCR/14/2, but it wouldstill beopento anyfurtherproposalsor anyothersuggestionsfrom any otherDelegation.

266. TheDelegationof Sudannotedthatdespitetheclarification andexplanationstheproblem remainedcomplex. It wonderedhowonecouldmakea link betweenthe rightsofbroadcastersanddistributorsof programsandcopyright andrelatedrightsholders.Authorshad not only a financialright, but alsotheright to controlthedisseminationof theirworks.Theauthor, therefore,wasentitledto royaltieswherethework wasbroadcastby radioor bytelevision,beit asoundor audio-visualbroadcast,undertheBerneConvention. Thediscussion wasveryconfusingandthe Delegation no longer saw a clear relationshipbetweenthetwo instruments.

267. TheDelegationof Beninstressedthatthereshouldbeno limitingconditionsforbecomingapartyto thetreatyandno requirementsfor accessionto thetreaty, anditsupportedArticle 22asit appearedin documentSCCR/14/2.

268. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iransupported Article22(i) of documentSCCR/14/2.

269. TheDelegationof Egyptsaid thattheDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americahasprovidedclarificationwhich explainedthevariantlanguageunderArticle 22. TheDraft BasicProposalprovideda formal protection,protectedsignals andprotectedtheprograms,whichwerebroadcast.It askedif onecouldaccept that a countrywhichbecamepartyto thetreatyas reflectedin theDraft BasicProposal,wouldbeobligedto protect therightsof its authors.Couldoneacceptthatacountry becameparty to thetreaty if theywerenot partiesto aninternational instrumentprotectingperformersor authors?A kind of legal languageshouldbefound requiring thataStatepartyto thetreatywould haveinternational commitmentsandthatany partyto thetreatythroughits domesticlegislationprotectedthecontentof thebroadcasts.

SCCR/14/7page73

270. TheDelegationof AlgeriasupportedArticle 22 as its appeared in documentSSCR/14/2,becauseunderthat provisionall MemberStatesof WIPOmight becomeparty to thetreaty.

271. TheDelegationof Australiaclarifiedthatits proposalwith regardto documentSCCR/14/3,Article [x] onpage5, was, fi rst, to omit theopeningwordsup to theword“promote”andto substitutethewords“a contracting partymay”. As revised,theArticlewouldbegin“[a] ContractingParty maypromote”. Second,to omit theword “to” in front of“curb” andin front of “take”, andsubstitutetheword “may” in each case.And third, to addattheendof theArticle, thewords“providedthat any suchaction is consistentwith theprovisionsof this Treaty”.

272. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity recalled thattheEuropeanCommunityandits MemberStateshadproposedpreambular languagewhich could take into account thearticleson generalprinciples,i.e.Article [x] onpage5 of document SCCR/14/3,andArticle [y] on thesamepageon thepromotionof cultural diversity. ThoseArticleswereimportantbut hadthenatureof preambular languageasa guidanceto interpreting theprecisewordingof thetreaty. TheDelegationhadcirculatedits preambular languageproposalstothosedelegationsthathadexpressedaninterestin thatapproach.In thePreamble, thethreefirst paragraphsshouldremainin their currenttext of SCCR/14/2. After those,anewtextshouldbeinsertedwhich readasfollows: “Recognizing theneedto maintain abalancebetweentherightsof broadcasting organizationsand thelargerinterest,particularlyeducationalandscientific objectives,research and accessto knowledgeandinformation,andtheneedto promotethepublic interestin sectorsof vital importanceto MemberStates’socio-economic, scientificandtechnological development.” Therewould then betwo, eitheralternative or cumulativebut preferablycumulative, recitals on cultural diversity. Thefirstonewould read: “Stressingtheimportanceof promotionof cultural diversity, includingthebenefitsto authors,performersandproducers of phonograms of effective anduniformprotectionagainstillegal useof broadcasts.” Thesecondrecital would thenread: “Ensuringthemaintenanceanddevelopmentof creativity in theinterestof cultural diversity,includingthebenefitsto authors,performers,producers,consumersandthepublic at large.”

273. TheDelegationof India reiteratedthatthethreeconcernson general principles,culturaldiversity anddefenseof competitionshould beintegrated in thetreaty. In thePreambleof theDraft Basic Proposalits positionwouldbemoreor lesssimilar to thatmentionedby theDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity,andthewordingshould be: “Recognizingtheneedto maintainabalancebetweentherightsof broadcastingorganizationsandthelargerinterest,particularlyeducationalandscientificobjectives,research andaccessto knowledgeandinformation, andtheneedto promotethepublic interest in sectorsof vital importancetoMemberStates’ socio-economic,scientific andtechnological development.”. In addition,theDelegationwishedto placea culturaldiversityprovisionin Article 1, andit suggestedanadditional paragraph(4), whichshould readasfollows: “Nothing in this Treatyshall limit orconstraintthefreedomof ContractingPartiesto protect andpromotecultural diversity. Tothis effect,in modifying theirdomesticlawsand regulations,Contracting Partieswill ensurethatanymeasureadoptedpursuantto this Treatyis full y consistent with theUNESCOConvention onProtectionandPromotionof theDiversity of CulturalExpression.Contractingpartiesalsoundertake to cooperatesoasto ensurethatany new exclusiverightsconferredbythis Treatyareapplied in amannersupportive of thepromotionandprotectionof culturaldiversity”. In Article12 onexceptionsandlimitations,theDelegationproposed additionalparagraphs(3), (4) and(5) whichwould read:

SCCR/14/7page74

“(3) Contracting partiesshall takeadequatemeasures,especially whenformulating oramendingtheir lawsandregulations, to prevent theabuseof intellectual propertyrights or requestpartieswhichunreasonablyrestraint competition or adverselyeffect theinternational transfer anddissemination of technology.

“ (4) Nothing in this Treatyshall preventtheContracting Parties from specifying intheir legislation licensing practicesor conditionsthatmayin particular casesconstituteanabuseof intellectualpropertyrights having anadverseimpact oncompetitionin therelevantmarket.

“ (5) Eachcontractingpartymaytakeappropriatemeasuresconsistent with theAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsof Intellectual PropertyRights(TRIPS Agreement) to preventor control suchpractices”.

274. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthatsomeformulationsthatwerepresented by theDelegationsof Australia andtheEuropean Community changed thenatureof its proposals,and thereforebetter couldbepresentedasthoseDelegations’ particularproposals.It wouldstick to its own languagein SCCR/14/3. In theprincipleof inclusiveness,thatproposalaspresentedshouldappearin thenewDraft Basic Proposal with thecurrentlanguagein itsentirety. Theinclusionof Article [y] aspartof Article1 of theDraft Basic Proposalcouldbeacceptable,if theentiretyof theproposedtext wereincluded. Theproposalwaspresentedasan article of thetreatyandnot aspreambular languageandin thatrespect theproposalby theDelegationof Indiaon theprotectionandpromotion of cultural diversitywasin line with theproposal madeby Brazil. ThesamewasthecaseregardingArticle10on general principles.TheDelegationhad proposedto includeit as anarticle andnot aspreambularlanguageanditinsistedthatit wouldappearassuch in thenewDraft BasicProposal.If othercountrieswishedto reformulateit andpresentit aspreambularlanguage,theycould do thatundertheirown proposals.

275. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Irannotedthat many delegationshadindicated thattherewasnocontradictionbetweenthetreaty andtheConvention onCulturalDiversity so theycould besupportiveof eachother. Maintaining thatin anarticle couldrespondto theconcernsof MemberStates,andtheDelegation thereforesupportedthesuggestion of theDelegationof Indiato incorporate theproposed Article [y] in Article 1.

276. TheDelegationof Chilenotedthattheissueof exceptionsandlimitation wasstill notsettled,astherewerestill threedifferentwaysof presenting thestandard, eitherasa generalclause,a clauselist with thepossibilityof otherexceptionsandlimitationsunder a generalclause,or just oneexhaustivelist. TheDelegation maintainedits proposalregardingaclauseon defenseof competitionasastand-aloneclause, until theissueof exceptionsandlimitationswouldbesettled.

277. TheChair openedthefloor for discussiononany otheritems thatdelegationswishedtosubmit for considerationor put on recordasitemsthatwoulddeservespecial attentionin thecontinuedwork.

278. TheDelegationof AustralianotedthatArticle4 onbeneficiariesof protection hadnotbeenaddressed,but it supportedAlternative H of theworkingdocument. If formerArticle7on theright of communicationto thepublic wereto bereintroduced, Alternative M, whichincluded thepossibility of reservation,wasits preferredalternative. In relation to whatwastobeprotectedunderthetreaty,it couldperhapshelp to think of broadcasters as akin to

SCCR/14/7page75

performersof a live performance.In view of theephemeralnatureof theperformance,itseemedto besuitableanalogywhentrying to determine thenatureof abroadcast.

279. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iran referredto thefinal provisions,whichwere closelyconnectedwith thebalanceof thetreatyandits substantive part. Articles9 andfrom 19 to theend,hadto bereviewedandamendedafter thenegotiationson thesubstanceofthetreaty,in orderto makethatpartclearer.

280. TheChair notedthatduringDiplomatic ConferencesMain CommitteeII usually dealtwith sucharticles.

281. TheDelegationof India expressedits supportfor thesuggestionof theDelegationofAustraliarelating to theincorporationof subparagraph(3) in Article4.

282. TheDelegationof Brazil expressedits concern with theuseof theword “uniform” inthefirst paragraphof the Preamblesinceits meaningwasnot entirely consistentwith theobjectiveof thetreaty. Thetreatywouldhave to beeffective whereasuniformity wasnot themainobjective. Theword “balanced”could bea betterword andtheDelegation indicateditsopennessto othersuggestions.Brazil was not striving for uniformity in relation to intellectualproperty rights whichwereappliedthroughoutcountriesat differentlevels of development.In Article 17, theword “reservations”wasnot theproperword to beusedandawordingreferringto optional clauseswouldbemoreappropriate. Thelastphraseof Article19(2)regardingprovisionsonenforcementof rights wasalsoof concernsincethewordingwasintended to permit effectiveactionagainst anyactof infringementof rightsor violationof anyprohibition coveredby thetreaty. Thelastsentencewastoo far reachingsince therewas nowill to assumea legallybindingcommitment to providefor deterrenceof infringementswhichwouldbeanextremely difficult commitmentfor developingcountries. ThewordingofArticle 19as draftedcouldnot besupported. In addition, Articles 25,26and27did notmentiontheminimumnumberof ratificationfor entry into forceof theagreement. In 1996,thenumberof ratificationhadbeenfixed at 30,and it seemedthattheargument wasbasedonthefact thattheEuropeanCommunity included,at thattime,15countriesandthereforethedouble numberhadbeenchosen.TheEuropeanCommunity now counted25MemberStatesincluding two accedingstates,andin order for thetreatyto bemeaningfultheminimumnumberof ratificationshadto bedoubledto 60. That wasessential to providea trulyinternational treaty thatwouldcovera significantnumberof MemberStates. Also, thenumberof monthsrequiredfor entryinto forcehad beenfixed at threemonthsafter theminimumnumberof adhesionwouldhavetaken place. However, if aMemberStatewoulddecideto denouncethetreaty, aperiodof oneyear would haveto berespected. Thedifferentperiodof timeshadto beharmonizedin abalanced way.

283. TheDelegationof Chilesupportedthestatementmadeby theDelegation of Brazil onthePreamble containedin page7 of DocumentSCCR/14/2,paragraph (1) relating to thereplacementof theword “uniform” by “balanced”or “adequate”. In thelastparagraphof thePreambleon page9, the word “uniform protection” wouldhave to bereplacedby “effectiveand adequateprotectionagainstillegal useof broadcasts.”

284. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity referred to thepoint madeby theDelegationof Brazil in relationto Article 17,whichwasentitled “reservations.” In legalterms, thatwasthecorrecttermto beappliedsince it referredto thepossibility of applyingthenational treatmentobligationscontainedin Article 5. If anyonewouldchooseto godownthe

SCCR/14/7page76

routeof Articles8(2), 9(2)and10(2),reservations wouldhaveto bemadein relation tonational treatmentobligations.

285. TheDelegationof Brazil repliedthatthelanguagewasquitevaguein Article 17anddidnot referto reservationsto Article 5 of the treaty onnational treatment. Instead,thereservationswouldapplyto theexclusiverights,and therewasaneedto bemorespecific.

286. TheChair informedtheCommitteethat thenextissuewouldbehowwebcasting,includingsimulcasting, wouldhaveto beaddressed.It seemedfrom theprevious discussionsthatthoseitemswouldhavemorethanbeforeto beseparatedfrom thesubstanceof theprotectionof broadcastingorganizationsin thetraditionalsenseaswell as cablecastingorganizations. Severalreferenceshadbeenmadeto webcasting, andthepossibilit y ofestablishingtwo separatetracks,oneconcerning traditionalbroadcasting and theotherconcerningwebcasting andsimulcasting hadbeenofferedto theCommitteefor itsconsideration.Theopposition to includewebcasting in theDraft BasicProposalhadbeenbroader than thatof theideato includesimulcasting,for which activesupportand activeindicationsof acceptancehadbeenshown. It could not beconcludedthata singledocumentshouldbepreparedwhichwouldconstitutetheBasicProposal, sincenoconsensushademerged from thedebates. Thatopposition within theCommitteehadled to theproposalthatthework wouldneedto bedividedinto two partswhichwouldbepromotedeitherin aparallel wayor with adifferenttimeframe.Heput thequestion to theCommitteewhetherthatdivisionwould beacceptable.If two trackswereestablished,somedelegationshadsuggestedthat,in thecaseof traditionalbroadcasting,theelementswhichwould referto secondaryuses,e.g. retransmission,overthewebwouldhaveto bedeletedfrom theinstrument. Suchanapproach wouldconsiderablyreducetheeffective areaof protectionandevenempty thewholeinstrument. In thatrespect,Article 6 on retransmissionwasoneof themainprovisionsto functionagainstsignalpiracy. Theideawould beto protectbroadcasters againstsomekinds of usesof theirbroadcastswhichwould amount to acts of piracy, if donewithout theauthorizationof thebroadcastingandcablecasting organizations.

287. TheChair openedthediscussion regardingthescopeof thetreatynotingthatthetechnologycombinedelementsof traditional broadcasting andcablecastingwith thoseofcomputernetworks. He drewtheCommittee’s attention to thequestionwhetheraproposalfor includingwebcastingin thetreatyshouldbeincorporated asanappendix to thebroadcastingandcablecastingproposalor whetherwebcasting should bedealt with in its owninstrument. In discussing thatquestion,theChairnotedtheconcern expressed by somedelegationsthatit wasstill tooprematureto addresswebcastingtechnology. Healsonoted,on theother hand,thatsomedelegationsfelt apressingneed to protect traditionalbroadcastersand cablecastersagainst theillicit retransmissionof theirbroadcastsovertheInternet,but alsohereanumberof delegationshadexpressedobjections. Another question waswhether itwouldbea goodideato divide thewholeproject into two entities. Heopenedthe floor fordiscussion of whetherwebcasting shouldbedealt with in its ownproposalor incorporatedasan appendixto thebroadcasting andcablecasting proposal.

288. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America tooknoteof thelargenumberofdelegationswill ing to consideraddinganoptionaltext addressingwebcasting to thecurrentbroadcastingproposal.Otherdelegationshadstatedthat they consideredtheform currentlytakenin theDraft Basic Proposalaconstructive wayforward,andtherehadalsobeenexpressedwill ingnessto considertheissue,with theunderstanding thatwork wouldbedoneon narrowingthedefinitionandpossibleadditional provisions. It alsonotedtheimportanceof technological neutrality. Thatwaswhy it desiredthatwebcastingbecoveredin someform

SCCR/14/7page77

by thedocumentsdevelopedfor thediplomatic conferencein orderto avoid givingbroadcastersandcablecastersunfairadvantages over their webcastingcompetition. TheDelegationtooknoteof theconcernsthatcertain delegationshad thatsomeprovisionsin thewebcasting Appendixmight affectthescopeandnatureof other provisionsin theproposalinan unanticipatedway. On its ownpart,it alsohadreservationsto certain interrelatedprovisionsin theproposal,for example,it considered legal protection regardingtechnologicalprotectionmeasuresandrightsmanagementinformation absolutely essential to anyeffort toupdate theprotectionfor broadcastersandothers for thedigital age. Nevertheless,in light oftheinclusive spirit of theCommittee,it preferredto work onawebcastingproposalin ordertoaddresstheconcernsexpressed.It waswill ing to do thatin an acceleratedtimeframein orderto maintainprogresson thewebcastingissue.

289. TheDelegationof SouthAfrica expressedits concernoverthe inclusionof webcastingin the treaty. AlthoughtheDelegation had attemptedaninclusiveapproach, it did not believesuchanapproachwasfeasible because it would favor onetypeof playersoverothers.Evenin futurenegotiationsfor aseparatewebcasting proposal, it wouldbenecessaryto engageallthediverseplayersthatwereinvolved. Responding to aquestion from theChair,theDelegationreiteratedits concernsregardingArticle 6 of theproposal.If onetalkedaboutprotectingtheoriginatorof content,onehadto beveryexplicit, andthat was not thecasewiththeproposalin thecurrentdraft.

290. TheDelegationof Brazil recalledits insistenceon adraft proposalof thetreatyanditsconcernsregarding technicalprotectionmeasures anddigital rights managementclauses.Suchclausesshould besuppressed.It wasnot in aposition to commit to theArticle 6 issueofInternettransmission,basedon thebelief thatsuchaprovisionmight unfairly favorcertainentitiesover others. Therewerestill manyunanswered questionsregarding thetreatyasawhole,but therewasalsoamajority againstincludingwebcasting in any typeof documentstobepreparedfor coming sessions. Theissuewasneithermaturenor readyfor that,andneitherwasit covered by theCommittee’smandate from theGeneralAssembly. Furthermore,thedocumentsconsideredduringthesessionhadraised such ahighnumber of questionsandproducedsuchawidediversionof viewsthatthecontentsof thenext draft wasquiteuncertain. Therefore,theDelegationwasnot in a position to commit to theconveningof adiplomaticconferenceat present. Diplomatic conferencesdid not allow sufficienttime toreviewall technicaldetails,andthereforeonly allowed for little marginsfor changein thebasicproposalandinsteadsubmittedquestionsto votes. Whatwas neededwasprojectabililtyand opportunitiesto submitnewdocumentation for considerationof nationalauthoritiesandexperts, particularly in view of thecomplexity of thesubject involved.

291. TheDelegationof Argentinasharedtheview that webcastingshould not beincludedintheDraft BasicProposal,becausetheCommittee lackedamandatefrom theGeneralAssembly to discussthat issue.While inclusivenesswasanimportant principle of thework,thesubstancehadto beincludedin theCommittee’smandate,which wasto updatetherightsof traditionalbroadcastersundertheRomeConvention,andnegotiationsshould beconductedby partieswith anequalunderstandingof thetechnologyunderlying webcasting. In thetraditional broadcastingarea,progresscouldbemadeby continuing substantive discussionson anarticle-by-articlebasis,whichcouldestablishtheminimumconsensusfor holdingadiplomaticconference. However,noarticlesconcerningwebcastinghadbeen agreedon andtheywould remain unsolvedat adiplomatic conference. It was interestedin continuingtodevelopabasic proposal,althoughwebcastingwastoo immatureandnot well enoughunderstoodto beapartof thatproposal.It was necessaryto undertakea technicalanalysisofthelikely impactsuchregulationswouldhave. TheDelegation wasconcerned thatlinking

SCCR/14/7page78

webcasting discussionswith broadcastingwould undulydelay theprogressof thebroadcastingagreement.

292. TheChair statedthatit might tentatively bestatedthatmorework in theCommitteewasneeded,andthatthenext generationof theworkingdocumentation wouldstill not bethefinalbasicproposal.

293. TheDelegationof Senegalrecognized theimportanceof broadcasting for thedevelopmentof theICT sectorin its country. It wascommittedto participate in thecontinueddiscussion process,but capacitybuildingat theintellectual andtechnological level wasnecessary,asthatwasanewareafor its country. Information wasneededregarding thestructureof webcasting,whatit coveredandwhatthelegalandmaterial conditionsforcarryingout thatactivity were. Thatalso applied to simulcasting,but theDelegationconsideredthatissueeasierto comprehend,becausethattechnologydealt with thesamecontentdeliveredovertwo differentmediumsat thesametimeandthuswasanextensionofbroadcastingin theanaloguedomain. Thus,it was aquestion whether broadcastersusingthattechnologyshouldbesingledout, in which casean imperfect protectioncouldleadto animbalance.Therewasa risk for a lacunain theprotection if therewerenot sufficientmeasuresto provideprotectionto broadcastersfor their signals,whethertransmittedbyanalogueor digital means.

294. TheDelegationof Jamaicasharedtheconcernsexpressedby theDelegationsofArgentinaandSenegal.It wasinterestedin awebcasting treaty, but boththetext andtheCommittee’sdiscussion of webcasting werenot matureenoughto go to a diplomaticconference.Further in-depthdiscussionshouldtakeplacein order to reach agreementonabasicproposal.It might beusefulto set a timeframefor thosediscussions.TheDelegationhad concernssimilar to thoseof theDelegationof Brazil regarding theDraft BasicProposal.The test itself wasworthyof merit,but it was importantto knowwhetherthecurrentsessionwouldbeaninterim steptowardsdraftinga final proposalor thecurrenttext asit stoodwouldbe thebasicproposalthatwouldgo forwardto thediplomatic conference. It wasimportanttoensure thatsuchaproposalcouldbeduly analyzedanddiscussedat thenational level. TheDelegationdid not objectto Article 6’s inclusionof “retransmissionovercomputernetworks”or thelanguage “by anymeans”becauseits domestic legislation wasbroadandmedianeutral.TheDelegationalsosupportedthepositionof theDelegationof Senegal thatsimulcastingwasappropriateto includeat thepresentstageof thebroadcasting proposal,but it believed thattherecentdiscussionshadtiedsimulcastingsocloselyto webcasting thatthetwo issuesmightmoreeasily bejoinedin asingleproposal to bediscussedin aseparate timeframe.

295. TheDelegationof Japannotedthatwhile theDelegation of Brazil at the2005session oftheGeneral Assembly hadraisedtheproceduralissueof organizing regional consultationsattheparticulartime, theDelegationnowraisedsubstantiveobjections,evenif someof thosemight beunderstandable.However,evenif it would not besatisfying to theDelegation,itcould acceptacompromiseentailingtwo moreSCCR sessions.Under theprincipleofinclusiveness,all proposalsmadein theCommitteeshouldbeincluded in thenextfinal basicproposal. It was nowtime to finish a final basicproposalandproceedto adiplomaticconference.

296. TheDelegationof Kenya foundthat timewasripe for adiplomatic conferencespecificallydealingwith traditionalbroadcasting. Adopting a treatyonwebcastingshouldbean informed decisionwith regardto which rights andobligationsit wouldentail. Negotiatingit too earlymight resultin asituationwhereagreeingon its provisionsandenforcingit would

SCCR/14/7page79

becomeaproblem, whichcouldcauseblacklistingand internationalreproach. Therewas aneedfor aninformedpositionin orderto brief national policy makerson thespecificsofwebcasting beforeanyimplementationof thetreaty couldbesuccessful. TheDelegationsupportedthedelegationsthathadadvocatedadiplomatic conferenceon traditionalbroadcastingonly. It alsorecognizedtheneed to obtain amandatefrom theGeneralAssembly to addresstheissueof webcasting.Webcastingshould bedealt with in aseparatedocument from traditionalbroadcasting andwhennegotiated thatdocumentmight alsoincludeothertechnological developments in thearea. TheDelegation waswill ing tonegotiate rightsfor theretransmissionof broadcastsovertheInternet, becausebroadcasterswereprotectedagainstthatunderits country’s CopyrightAct, whichprotected broadcastersagainstretransmissionby anymeans.

297. TheDelegationof Indonesiawasconcernedaboutincludingany reference towebcasting in thedraft,becauseto its knowledgenosinglenational legislative actprotectingwebcasting hadyet beenpassed,andthus therewerenot yet any generally acceptednorms orpractices. As such,thetopicwasnot yet ripe for negotiation, andit should not beincludedintheDraft BasicProposal.

298. TheChair notedthattheCommitteeat sometimemight try to determinehowmanycountriesalreadyhadlegislationprotectingwebcasting. Becausesomecountries draftedtheirlegislationto betechnologyneutral,theymight havecovered broadcastingover theInternet.

299. TheDelegationof VenezuelastressedthattheSCCRshould resultin adecisionregarding traditional broadcasting only, in keepingwith theCommittee’s mandate. It couldnot acceptincluding webcasting,andit endorsedthearguments put forth by theDelegationsof SouthAfrica, Brazil andArgentina. TheDelegation reservedits position regarding theprotectionof traditional broadcastersagainstretransmissionof their broadcasts on theInternet.

300. TheDelegationof Colombiawantedin thelight of theCommittee’s mandatethatitfocus onprotecting traditionalbroadcasters in keepingwith theRomeConventionbeforeitaddressedtheissueof webcasting.Suchanew categoryof beneficiariesshould not beconsidereduntil thework on traditionalbroadcasters,whichhadbeengoingonsince1996,had beenfinished. It supportedArticle 6 of theDraft BasicProposal. It wasessentialthatbroadcasterswereableto controltheirbroadcasts in boththeanalog anddigital environments.All relevantelementsregardingtraditional broadcastinghad nowbeen discussed at length,and couldbefinalizedat a three-weekdiplomatic conference, which should bedecidedonnow.

301. TheDelegationof Bangladesh opposedtheinclusionof webcasting in thebroadcastingtreaty. TheDelegation wasnot againstholdingadiplomatic conference,but indeedsupportedthatit beheld in 2007,asmandatedby theGeneral Assembly. Many issueshadnot yet beenagreedon,andtheyshould remainopen,just asnew issuescouldbeopenedat theconference.It wouldbeusefulif theSecretariatwould recordtheobservationsmadeandpreparedocumentationshowingtheoutcome.TheDelegation observed thatevenwithin theframeworkof national treatment,or non-discrimination, in earlier treaties leastdevelopedcountrieshadbeengiventheprivilegeof non-reciprocity. Thedelegation expressedits desirethatcontracting partiesshouldhavetheprivilegeof givingpreferential treatment to leastdevelopedcountriesandthatthatissueshouldbediscussedat thediplomatic conferencewithaview to adopting anenablingclausein thetreaty itself or in theform of adeclaration.

SCCR/14/7page80

302. TheDelegationof El SalvadorinformedtheCommittee that its domestic legislationcontainedprovisionsconcerningtheliability of operatorswho rebroadcasttraditionalbroadcastswhetherwireless or by wire, including theInternet.

303. TheDelegationof India wishedfor thetext of thewebcastingandsimulcasting to befleshedout by thosewho wantedto includeit in thebasicproposal. Differentviewshadbeenadvancedregarding theinclusionof webcastingor simulcastingandit would thereforebeprematureto accepttheinclusion of anyof thosein thebasicproposalat present. TheDelegationwaswil ling to engagein adialogueaboutwebcasting, basedon elaborateproposals from thedelegationspromotingsuchprotection, but muchmorework hadto bedonebeforewebcastingcouldbeincludedevenasanoptional annexto thetreaty. In regardto Article 6, theDelegationwassympathetic to theconcernsof broadcastersregardingsignalpiracy overtheInternet. However,enactinga treaty would requireMemberStatesto enforcethatlaw althoughenforcementovertheInternetwould beverydiffi cult. While thepositionwasconceptually attractive,it wasfraught with practical diffi culties. Accordingly, Article 6shouldbecleansedof anymentionof computer networks,etc., but theissuecouldbecomeanintegratedpartof thecontinueddialogueregardingwebcasting andsimulcasting. As statedbytheChair,severalMemberStateshadtechnologically neutral domesticlaws,but manyhadalsomorespecializedandspecificlawsdealing with theInternet and thedigital world thatcould inform theCommittee’sdecisionsregarding internationalcommitments. TheCommitteeshouldthereforetakethenecessarytime.

304. TheDelegationof Chileagreedwith thosedelegationstaking thatview thatthemandateof theGeneralAssemblyhadnot yet beenachieved, andsupportedtheproposalby India thatat leastonemoremeetingof theSCCRshouldbeconvenedin orderto agreeto abasicproposal. In orderto makethatproposalpossible, theDelegation said thatthediversity ofopinionsconcerning theissueof webcasting indicatedthattherewasnot yet sufficientinformation availableandthattheissueshouldbesetasideandleft to futurework of theCommittee.

305. TheDelegationof Egyptreaffirmedtwo importantmajor elements;fi rst, thatthebasicproposal should excludetheissueof webcasting,and thatanothermeeting of theSCCRshouldtakeplacein orderto considerabasicproposaldealingonly with traditionalbroadcastingorganizations. Second,theDelegationstated thattheissueof webcastingshouldbedealtwith in anew,separateprocess.

306. TheDelegationof Brazil commentedon thestatementmadeby theDelegationof Japan,concerningaperceivedchangein thepositionof Brazil, since thelastGeneral Assembly.Brazil’s position regardingwebcastingandtheconveningof thediplomatic conferencebeforedocumentswerematureenoughfor consideration at thatlevel, waswell knownevenprior tolastGeneral Assembly. TheDelegationnotedthat thedecisionby theGeneralAssemblyoflastyear,which wasabig compromiseon thepartof Brazil, wastakenby theMembersofWIPO includingJapan.Thedecision of theGeneralAssemblydid not expressacommitmentto conveningadiplomaticconference.It committedto two additional meetingsof theSCCR,in orderto finalizeabasicproposal for a treatyon theprotection of rights of broadcastingorganizations,excludingwebcasters, in order to enable the2006GeneralAssembliestorecommend theconvening of adiplomaticconference. Proceeding to adiplomaticconferencerequired consensusona basic proposal,whichhadnot yet beenattained. And proceedingto adiplomaticconferencewithout suchconsensuscould risk a failure thatwouldbedamaging totheorganization’s interests.

SCCR/14/7page81

307. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity stated thatconsiderableprogresshadbeenmadeduringthepresentmeeting,to clarify themeaningof termssuchasbroadcasting,cablecasting, simulcasting,andwebcasting.TheDelegationemphasizedtheimportanceofretransmissionto thewholenotionof broadcasting,and thusof includingsuch rightsin thedraft treaty. Retransmissionrightswerenecessary to takeinto accountthefact thatasignalwastooweakto travel from coast to coastin acontinental landmass,including for territorieslike Canada,India,Brazil, andtheUnitedStatesof America, someof whichgranteda right toauthorizeor prohibit retransmissionof broadcast signals. TheDelegation thussupportedArticle 6. On theissueof retransmissionof televisionsignals “by anymeans”,theDelegationclarified thatcomputernetworkswereonly onemeansof transmitting digital signals,but thatsignalsweretransmittedandretransmittedoverlargeareas by manyothermeans.Thescarcity of radiospectrumwasleading somecountriesto planto replacehertzian wavescompletely by digital signals, evenassoonas2008and2009. In suchcases,digital televisionsignalsshould beprotected,andnot erroneouslyexcludedfrom thescopeof theright ofretransmission. Broadcastingorganizationsneededprotection in anevolving technologicalworld, andtherewouldbeavacuumif retransmissionwerelimited only to analoguemeans.Forsimilar reasonstheEuropeanCommunityandits MemberStatesincludedsimulcasting inits proposal,becausesimulcastingwasnomorethan traditional broadcastingorganizationsfindinganotherwayto transmittheprogramsand knowledgeto endusers. TheDelegationnoted thateducational andknowledge-basedprogrammingcontentdid not assembleitselfmysteriouslyandthenbecameaccessibleto thepublic. Suchcontentalsohadto beassembled,scheduledand disseminatedto thepublic at considerable cost. A basicproposalwasneededassoonaspossible,includingbefore thenext WIPOGeneral Assembly, in orderto proceedto adiplomaticconference.Whetherto conveneanothersessionof theSCCRshouldbeleft to thediscretionof theChair. To assist theChair, theEuropeanCommunityand its MemberStateswouldcirculatetheir proposal onexceptionsandlimitationsandontechnicalprotection measures,to makeclearthatsuchmeasuresshould not override accesstobeneficiaries of exceptionsandlimitations.

308. TheDelegationof Chinastatedthat, in light of thedecisionmadeby thethirty-secondGeneralAssembly, thepurposeof thepresentsessionof theSCCRwasto reach consensusonthebasicproposalof theprotectionof broadcasters and agreeona final proposal. TheDelegationdid not opposeanon-mandatoryappendixproviding for webcastingandsimulcasting, but given thesignificantdifferenceof opinionon this issue, took theview thattheissueshouldbeconsideredseparatelyfrom traditionalbroadcasting in orderto makeprogressconsistentwith themandateof theGeneral Assembly. However, informationshouldbecollectedconcerningnationalexperienceswith webcasting to facili tategreater in-depthdiscussions on theissue.TheDelegationsupportedretainingArticle6 concerning theright ofretransmissionin documentSCCR/14/2,which wasanimportant right of broadcasters in lightof technological evolution. On thequestionof adiplomatic conference,theDelegationsupportedtheproposalof India to holdanothersessionof theSCCRin orderto finalizeabasicproposal,andenablethe2006GeneralAssembly to recommendtheconveningof adiplomaticconference.

309. TheDelegationof thePhilippinesstated thatconsensusseemed to beemergingconcerningtheprotectionof traditionalbroadcastingorganizations,but noted manyreservationson theissueof webcasting.TheDelegation supportedpursuingtwo differenttracks,oneon traditionalbroadcastingandanotheronwebcasting, in orderto makeprogress.

SCCR/14/7page82

310. TheDelegationof Croatia,speakingonbehalf of theGroupof Central EuropeanandBaltic States,statedthattherewasanurgentneed to protect broadcasters’rights,especiallygiven thewidecontextof changesin moderntechnology. Thediscussionsoverthepreviousdayson theissueof broadcastingandcablecastinghadbeen productiveandexhaustive,andinits view thepresentDraft BasicProposalshouldbeamended to includesimulcasting, toenableconvening of adiplomaticconferencein 2007. TheDelegation expressedflexibilit yconcerningtheproposalof theDelegationof India to conveneanothersessionof theSCCR,yet attachedimportanceto theconveningof adiplomatic conference in 2007.

311. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iranstatedthat,in orderto comply with themandateof theGeneralAssemblyto agreeon a text andaccelerate theprocess,it wasnecessaryto developasinglebasictext on traditional broadcasting, alongwith a timeframeand clearframework andprocedurefor full discussion.Retransmissionovercomputernetworksshouldbediscussedin thecontext of webcasting,andthusthewords“by anymeans”shouldbedeletedfrom Article 6.

312. TheDelegationof New Zealandagreedwith manydelegationsthattherewasaneedtomove towardsadiplomaticconferencein 2007. Accordingly theDelegation supportedthattheissueof webcastingbedealtwith in aseparateprocesswith amoregeneroustimelineattached.The finalizationandagreementof abasic proposal for abroadcasters’treatyhadpriority, andthatprocesswouldbeundulystretchedby considerationof issues relatingtowebcasting. With regardto Article 6, New ZealandcouldsupporttheArticleasdraftedinorder to provideeffectiveprotectionto broadcasters,as explainedin detail by theDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity.

313. TheDelegationof theRepublicof Koreastatedthat thetiming was ripefor conveningadiplomaticconferenceto giveproperandappropriate rightsto broadcastersin a timelymanner,giventherapidpaceof technologicaldevelopment.

314. TheDelegationof Japan,commenting on theinterventionby theDelegationof Brazil,askedfor clarification concerningthenatureof thenewproposalstheDelegation wishedtomake. Theissueunderdiscussionwaswhetherwebcasting shouldbeincludedin thebasicproposal or beconsideredunderadifferentprocess.New proposalsshouldnot hinderconsiderationof thequestionof conveningadiplomaticconference.

315. TheDelegationof Nigeriacouldnot supportinclusionof webcastingin theproposedtreaty. It agreedwith thetext andthecontext of thearticles on general principles,protectionand promotionof culturaldiversity,andthedefenseof competition with thenecessarymodification to give effectto theintentof thetreaty. Concerning retransmission, theDelegationwasnot averseto protectingbroadcastersagainstretransmissionby anymeans,which might includewebcasting, on theunderstanding thatthebeneficiary of suchprotectionwasa traditionalbroadcaster. However,furtherdiscussionwasneeded on theeffectsandramificationof suchprotection.TheDelegation was not opposed to theconveningof adiplomaticconferenceor morework on theDraft Basic Proposal.

316. TheDelegationof Senegalstatedthat asregarded digital broadcasting organizations,itwasnecessaryto lookat theeligibility for protectionunderintellectual property rights,inorder to beassuredasto theactualstageof developmentof suchorganizationsin relationtothemissiongivento a traditionalbroadcastingorganization. Assurancewas alsonecessarythatsuchorganizationswould respectrights in content, in awaythatpromotedprogressanddevelopment.For traditionalbroadcastersthesecriteriawereeasyto identify in termsof

SCCR/14/7page83

broadcast,contentandrightsowners.TheDelegation supportedthefollowing procedure:draft treaty provisions shouldbepreparedon traditional broadcasting for exploitationin theanaloguefield andexploitationsin thedigital field, andsubsequently, appropriateconsultationsshould beundertakenon webcastingsothatadraft proposalfor aprotocolcouldbepreparedandsubmittedto theGeneralAssembly whenthetimewas right.

317. TheDelegationof Indiastatedthatthestatement of theDelegation of theEuropeanCommunitydemonstratedtheextentto whicheducationwasneededon thoseverybasicaspectsandconcepts. TheDelegationnoted,however,thatwhilecontent may bedigitized,itmaystill usespectrumandradiofrequenciesfor its transmission. Sodigitization of contentisquitedifferentfrom transmissionof thatcontent overradio wavesor frequencies,wherethecarrierwouldstill bein a numberof casesthesamehertzianwavesor radio frequencies.Onceasignal wasin digital form andwentontoradio frequencies, thesignaldid not abateand loseits strength. Thusretransmission hadaverydifferent connotationtodaythanearlier,whencoast-to-coastrelaywasimportant. In any case,thesubjectunder discussionwasthepossiblegrantof intellectualpropertyrightsoverretransmissions,whateverthemeaningoftheterm. Further, thedomainof theInternet was outsidetraditionalbroadcastor cablecasting,and copyrightowners did not havefull andadequate rights over Internettransmissionsin anumberof countries.Thus,giving anintellectual propertyright to broadcasters to prohibittransmissionsovertheInternetseemedeven moreuntenable. TheDelegationnotedthattheissueof rights in Internettransmissionsunderscoredtheneedto define“broadcast”clearly interms of how intellectualproperty rightswouldoperate. On thequestion of conveningasubsequentsessionof theSCCR,theDelegation clarified thatsuch ameeting shouldtakeplacepresumablybeforetheconveningof theGeneralAssembly, to enablefull,clause-by-clausevettingof aDraft BasicProposalby all theMemberStates before theGeneralAssembly.

318. TheDelegationof Norwaystatedthatit wasimportantthatthediplomatic conferencebeasuccess,andthata treatyon theprotection of broadcasting organizationsbeconcluded.TheDelegation hopedthatthediplomaticconference would beconvenedassoonas possible.Itagreedwith theDelegationof theEuropean Community concerning theright ofretransmissionin Article 6, whichwasimportantas ameansof countering piracy. TheDelegationwasflexibleconcerningwhenwebcastingshouldbeconsidered.

319. TheDelegationof Mexiconotedthat muchof theprotection thatwould beachievedthrougha treaty for protectionof broadcastingorganizationsalreadyappearedin thedomesticlegislationof manycountries.Certainly,asfarastheLatin Americanregionwasconcerned,manycountriesin onewayor anotherprovidedconsiderableprotection to broadcastingorganizations. TheDelegationstatedthatit was indispensableto protect simulcasting, andthatadiplomatic conferenceshouldbeheld as soonaspossible.

320. TheDelegationof Australiastatedthat it did not object to theconveningof adiplomaticconferencesubjectto theavailabilityof asuitablyagreedrevisedbasic proposal.TheDelegationwould not objectto theconvening of onemoresessionof theSCCRbefore thediplomaticconferencein orderto gaugethelevelof supportfor therevised Draft BasicProposal.

321. TheDelegationof Moroccostatedthat thetimewasripe to conveneadiplomaticconference,resulting from asolid frameworkof discussionsbasedon theproposalspreparedby theChair.

SCCR/14/7page84

322. TheDelegationof El Salvadorstatedthat adiplomatic conferenceshouldbeconvenedas soon aspossible,andthatanon-mandatory Appendix concerningwebcastingwouldbeuseful.

323. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity stated, in reply to theinterventionof theDelegationof Indiaconcerningretransmission,thattheway in which analoguesignalcommunication overlappedterritorieswould in duecourse, andat averyrapid pace,bereplacedby digital transmissionbecausethedigital signal wasstrongerandcarriedoverlargerdistances.Thustheswitch overto thedigital signal andtheconsequentneedfor aretransmissionright for broadcasterswasunderscoredby thefact thattheanaloguesignalsneededto beboostedandbecausetheanaloguesignal occupiedvaluablespectrum.Concerning therightsof contentownersin relation to rightsof broadcasters, theDelegationstated thatnever hadthesituationarisenin theEuropean Community thata broadcasterhadstronger rightsthanthecreatorswhoseworkswerebeing broadcast. Thatwas becauseauthors, creatorsandphonogramproducersin Europewere grantedabroadright ofcommunication to thepublicwhichcovered“by any means”, asreflectedin theupdateof theBerneConventionundertakenby theWCT. Article 8 of theWCT containedabroadlydefinedright of communicationto thepublic, whichspecifically addressedthefact thatsomeof therightsprovidedundertheBerneConventionwerenot considered strongenoughin thedigital environment. Thatwaswhy authorsshouldenjoy, underArticle8 of theWCT astransposedinto the rulesof theCommunity, an exclusiveright of authorizinganycommunication to thepublicof theirworks by wire or wirelessmeans.Thesamewastrueforother related rightsholders,notablytheproducers of phonograms in Article 15of theWPPT,whereperformersandproducersof phonogramsenjoyeda right to equitable remunerationif adirect or indirectusewasmadeof theirphonograms for broadcasting or for anycommunication to thepublic. Thustherightsof creatorsandperformerswouldalwaysbestronger thanthoseof broadcasters.

324. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof Americastatedthat it wouldbeopento anadditional sessionof theCommittee,bothto provideanopportunity to considerthenarrowerscopeof thedefinitionof webcasting,andpossible provisionsaddressedto webcasting,andtoconsidervariousprovisionsin themainbodyof thedocument with thevariousalternativesand proposals and languagesubmitted,which in somecasesraisedseriousconcerns. TheDelegationdid not agreewith suggestionsfrom somedelegationsthat theCommittee’smandatewaslimitedto updatingprotection for traditional broadcastingorganizations. It wasclear that delegationswerecomfortablewith updating theprotection for traditionalbroadcastingorganizationswhentheyassembled andscheduledcontent andinvestedin thefacilitiesto deliver contentovertheairwaves.Delegationsalsoseemedto acceptthatthedefinition of broadcasting coveredsatellite companies,i.e.,satellite technology to deliversignalsovertheair, includingsignalsthatwould beencrypted,whichwould result fromassemblyandschedulingof contentsandmaterial anddevelopment of facili tiesfordissemination of thatmaterial. Therewasapparently alsocomfortin extendingprotectiontocablecasters,organizationsthatinvestedin facili tiesandcreatedandassembledandscheduledcontentfor delivery overcablewiresto consumers.Soit wasnot correct thatonly traditionalbroadcastingorganizationswerecoveredby thecurrent proposal. TheDelegation soughtrecognition,in its proposal,thattheremight beothercompanieswhichwerenot broadcasters,which werenot satelliteproviders,whichwerenot cablesystems,but which assembledandscheduledcontent,investedin facilitiesandcreatedprogram-carrying signals anddeliveredthemnot through theair, not throughsatelli te,not throughcable,but over computernetworks.It wasasmallstepfrom thetypesof organizationsandactivi ties concerning which thereseemedto becomfort amongdelegations in regardto increasingprotection. TheDelegation

SCCR/14/7page85

wascommittedto providing furtherinformationon its proposal, in concreteterms,for theconsiderationof theCommittee.For thatreason,it might beuseful to have anadditionalsessionof theCommitteein orderto keepopenthewindowof opportunity to ensurethatupdateof theprotectionfor traditionalbroadcasters,for satellitecasters, for cablecasters,andto ensurethatanopportunity alsobeprovided to includethoseorganizationsthatusedcomputernetworksto maketransmissions.

325. TheDelegationof Egyptstatedits understanding thatthepurposeof anadditionalsessionof theSCCR, asproposedby theDelegationof Indiaandsupported by othercountries,wasto discuss issuesrelatingto a treaty onprotectionof traditional broadcasting.Thestatementof theDelegationof theUnited States of Americashowed thatthequestionofwebcasting couldnot bedealtwith in asinglesession,andincluding theissuein thetreaty ontheprotectionof broadcasting organizationscoulddelay theconveningof a diplomaticconference.Thetreaty wouldprotectcablecasters,but suchorganizationsdid not merelyretransmit, but according to theclarificationsat thelastsession, theyalsoproducedprogramming,whichmeantthatnot only retransmission,but indeedproduction,wasinvolved. As to webcasting, it did not involveasignal, asthetermwasunderstood in itsconventionalsense.Soinclusion of webcasting andsimulcastingwould requireexpandingthescopeof thetreatyandredefinitionof broadcasting to coverthoseconventional signalsand other formsof broadcasting.TheDelegation hadnoobjection to protectingbroadcastingover theInternet, but would like clearerdefinition of thoseissuesin orderto enableinformeddecision-making.

326. TheChair suggestedelementsfor theoverallconclusionof themeeting. On theissueofprotectionof traditional broadcasting, it wasfirst proposedthat onefurther meeting of theSCCRwould beconvenedbeforetheGeneralAssembly in 2006. Second,theagendaof thatmeetingwould beconfinedto theprotection of broadcasting organizationsandcablecastingorganizationsin thetraditionalsense. Third, a revisedDraft BasicProposalwouldbepreparedfor themeeting andall efforts wouldbemadeto makethedocumentavailableto theMemberStatesby August1, 2006. Thedocumentwouldbepreparedon thebasisofdocumentsSCCR/14/2andSCCR/14/3 andexistingproposals, takingaccountof thediscussions of theCommittee. Fourth,theprocesswouldbebasedon theunderstandingthattherewouldbea recommendationto theGeneral Assembly to authorizeconveningadiplomaticconferenceat asuitabletime in 2007. Separately, on theissueof protectionofwebcasting andsimulcasting,it wasfirst proposedthatthedeadlinefor proposals, asforeseenat the14th sessionof theSCCR,would beAugust1, 2006. Second,a reviseddocumenton theprotection of webcastingandsimulcasting would bepreparedon thebasis of documentSCCR/14/2andtheproposals,takinginto accountthediscussionsof theCommittee. Third,thematterwouldbeincludedon theagendaof asessionof theSCCRto beconvenedaftertheGeneralAssembly.

327. TheDelegationof Colombiasoughtclarification asto whethertheChair’s statementthatthefirst partof thefuturework would takeplace in aCommitteewhoseagendawouldbebasedon traditional broadcastingandcablecastingorganizations,and thesecondpart wouldinvolve aseparateagendaonwebcasting,meantthat therewould betwo committees.

SCCR/14/7page86

328. TheChair clarified thatthehypothesishadbeen thatthereshouldbeasinglesessionoftheCommitteethathadalreadybeendealingwith broadcasting,cablecasting,webcasting,simulcasting, andall issuesincludinglimi tationsandexceptions. That sessionwouldbeconvenedbefore theGeneralAssembly to addresstraditional broadcasting and,in asubsequentmeeting, thesameCommitteewoulddealwith thequestionof broadcastersusingcomputernetworks,calledwebcasting or simulcasting.

329. TheDelegationof Chile requestedclarificationon thescopeof theundertakinginitem4, becauseitems1 to 3 on traditionalbroadcastingwerebasedon theunderstandingthattheGeneral Assembly wouldbeauthorizedto conveneadiplomatic conference. It askedwhetheritem 4 meant thattheagreementon thebasicproposalwasgoingto beadoptedat thatmeeting, or at a futurecommitteemeeting.

330. TheChair clarified theunderstandingof item4 that, if possible, theSCCRwouldrecommend thattheGeneralAssembly authorize conveningadiplomatic conferenceon thecondition that it dealtwith traditional broadcasters.Thescopewassetby thefi rst fourpointson theprotectionof traditionalbroadcasting.

331. TheDelegationof Mexicogavefull supportto theChair’sproposal asa relevant,praiseworthy andpositiveeffort.

332. TheDelegationof Bangladesh soughtclarificationon two points. First, it askedwhetherthedeadlinefor proposalsof August5, 2006,appliedonly to proposals on thetraditional protection of broadcasting organizations. Second,it askedhow thegeneralprinciplesandcommentsmadeby Stateswouldbereflectedin thereviseddraft to beproducedafter theSCCRsessionon traditionalbroadcastingto beheldbefore theGeneralAssembly.

333. TheChair clarified thatthework on traditionalbroadcastingdescribedin thefourpointsand the reviseddocumentwouldbepreparedon thebasisof existing documents,basedonexistingproposals,andtakinginto accountthediscussionsof theCommittee. Timedid notallow for newproposalsin thatarea,andnonewdocuments wouldbeprepared.Clearly thatdid not excludeanyproposalslatermade,but theycouldnot beincludedin thetimelineofthatparticular partof theprocess. All effortswouldbemadeto maketherevised documenton traditionalbroadcastingavailableto thedelegationsby August1, 2006.

334. TheDelegationof El Salvadorgaveits supportto theChair’s proposal,and reiterateditsstrong interestin adiplomaticconferencebeingconvened for thetreaty. Thetwo sessionsoftheCommittee,onebeforetheGeneral Assembly andoneafter,wouldprovideawelcomeopportunity to exhaustivelydiscussanytechnical questions. Oneimportantcomponentof theprocesswasgoodwill.

335. TheDelegationof Indiasoughtclarification as to whethertheChair’sproposalunderitem4, thattheSCCRwouldmakea recommendation to theGeneralAssembly for adiplomaticconferencein 2007,wasconfinedto traditional broadcastingorganizations.Further,it askedwhether,if thediplomaticconferencewereto takeplacefollowing anSCCRmeetingonwebcasting,thesubjectof webcasting wouldstill not form partof thediplomaticconference.

336. TheChair confirmedthattheunderstandingof theDelegation of Indiawascorrect.

SCCR/14/7page87

337. TheDelegationof Kenya agreedwith theChair’s proposals to theCommittee,andalsosupportedsomeproposalsby theDelegationof theEuropean Community andtheDelegationof India,particularly with respectto thepreamble andthemeansfor addressinggeneralprinciples. It would beusefulto includean expertpresentation in thenextcommitteemeetingdealingspecifically with webcasting, sothatMemberscould havetheirquestionsandconcernsanswered.

338. TheDelegationof Beningavestrongsupportto theChair’s proposal,andnotedthatitcorrespondedwith theproposalmadeby theDelegation at thecoordination meetingof theAfrican Groupadayearlier. With referenceto thequestion posedby theDelegationof India,it welcomedtheChair’sclarificationof whatwork wouldbegivento thediplomaticconferenceandwhat work wouldbegivento eachsessionof theSCCR.

339. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America requestedmoreinformation on theexpectedoutcomeor anticipatedconclusionfrom asecondmeeting of theSCCRaddressedtowebcasting.

340. TheChair respondedthat it hadbecomeclear that, if delegationswith concernsaboutwebcasting andsimulcastingallowedthework to continuein thatarea, there wouldbemuchwork to bedone. Requestshadbeenmadefor a greatdeal of awarenessbuilding andeducationon thenatureof webcasting andsimulcasting. Perhapsmoregeneralizedheadingscould befoundfor theconceptsof theproposedinstrument, andthedenominations‘webcasting’and‘simulcasting’might beconsidered.Work neededto bedoneto put forwardviewsfor considerationof thetreatmentof webcasting, includingtheexclusive rightsand/orrights to prohibit andeffectiveandadequate legal meansof protection. At thesametime,other Memberswerestill questioningtheconceptual basisof suchprotection. Therefore, thework should continuein suchawaythat Memberswhowereableandwill ing to developtheelementsfor apossiblesystemof protection for webcasting,woulddoso,while otherMemberswouldhavetheopportunityto participate in a learningprocessto understandthephenomenon.Informationmeetingsandseminarsmight berequiredat an early stage,atwhich technologistswhounderstoodthephenomenoncouldbeinvitedto explain it to theCommitteein anunderstandableway. Hardwork remainedto bedone,principally on thetwomaintasks of educationandawareness,andpreparation of thetentativeelementsof thesystem of protection. It wouldbeunacceptableto progressby jumpinginto anunknownfuture. Thefirst meeting wouldbedevotedto webcasting andsimulcastingonly, andthentheprocesswouldevolve.

341. TheDelegationof Brazil statedthattheChair’s proposalsettheCommitteein therightdirection,andbroadly reflectedthemajority of views expressedat themeeting. Thereweresomespecific commentsto bemade.First, it wasindicatedin item2 thattheCommitteeat itsnext meeting wouldexaminethenewDraft BasicProposalon theprotectionof traditionalbroadcastingorganizationsonaclauseby clausebasis,as had beensuggestedby theDelegationof India. Thatwasimportant in orderto ensuretherewas a finalizedandagreedDraft Basic Proposalfor theconveningof adiplomatic conference. It wasimportantthattheadditional meeting of theSCCRwould haveaknownandagreedtext that hadbeenanalyzedon anarticle-by-articlebasis. Thetext wasnot too long,andcould beconsidered in thetimeallottedfor themeeting, solongastheCommitteeworkedeffici ently. Second,soasnot toprejudgethe issueof theconveningof adiplomatic conference, or re-opentheissueandriskenteringa long andprotracteddebate,theDelegation suggestedthatthepoint beformulatedusingthesamelanguageashadbeenusedin theGeneralAssembly decision. It couldbestated thattheadditional meetingof theSCCRwouldbeconvenedwith theaim to agreeand

SCCR/14/7page88

finalizeabasicproposalfor a treatyon theprotectionof therightsof broadcastingorganizationsin orderto enablethe2006GeneralAssembly to recommendtheconveningof adiplomaticconferencein December2006,or at an appropriatedate in 2007. Usingthesamelanguageasthedecisionof theGeneralAssemblywithoutredrafting it wasthesafestandperhapsleast controversial wayof formulating thecommitment of all Membersto theissueofconveningadiplomaticconference.Most important was to haveanagreementon abasicproposal, andthings would flow naturallyfrom that. Clarificationwas soughtwith respecttocertainproposalsmentionedby someMembers,suchastheproposalfrom theDelegationoftheEuropeanCommunity regardingexceptionsandlimitations,andtheproposal by someMembersto elaboratetherelationship betweentechnological protection measuresandexceptionsandlimitations,asit wasunderstoodthat therewould beanopportunity for suchproposals to besubmittedfor inclusion in thenext versionof thedraft basic proposal,eventhoughsuch proposalwasnot seenin writing during themeeting. It was not suggestedthatthewholeprocessbeopenfor newproposals,but that proposalsmentionedduring themeetingshould besubmittedin written form for theChairto considertheir incorporationin anew Draft Basic Proposal.Finally, it wasnot clearwhether theSCCRmeetingonwebcastingand simulcastingwould beconvenedexclusively for that purpose,or whethera regularmeetingof theSCCRwould includeanitemon theagendato deal with theissueofwebcasting andsimulcasting.It wassuggestedthatthemostnatural wayto proceedwouldbeto havea regularmeetingof theSCCRandincludeanagendaitemonwebcasting andsimulcasting, ratherthanholdingameetingexclusively for thatpurpose.It was important,ashad beenstatedby theDelegationof India, that therebeno linkagebetweentheconsiderationof theissueof webcasting andsimulcasting in anSCCRmeeting after theGeneralAssemblyand thediplomatic conferencethatwouldbeconvenedby theGeneralAssembly forconsiderationof traditional broadcastingtreaty.As to education andawareness,someexpertpresentationmight beuseful,but decisionsonpresentationsshould bemadein consultationwith theMemberStates. Thatwouldhelpensurediversity of viewsin thepresentationsaswasdonewith greatsuccessregardingtheSubstantivePatent Law Treaty. TheDelegationwouldalso supportthepreparationof studies by expertswhichmight containelementstoassistin thedefinitionsof termsandin thepotential impact of anagreement.

342. TheChair notedthatwhile astudy or animpact assessmentwouldbeuseful, thenexttext concerning traditionalbroadcastingwouldbepreparedon thebasisof existing materials,but takingon boardthepreviouslymentionedpoints whichcontainedhelpful elements.Thepromisedproposal from theEuropeanCommunity on theitemreferredto by theDelegationof Brazil on therelationbetweenlimitationsandexceptionsandtechnological protectionmeasureswould bevery welcome.

343. TheDelegationof thePhilippinesfully supportedtheChair’s proposalsasarticulatedand alsoacceptedthemodificationssuggestedby theDelegation of Brazil.

344. TheDelegationof theIslamicRepublic of Iranqueriedwhattheschedule for thecompletion of documentswouldbe,theduration of thenextsessionof theSCCR,andhowthedocumentswouldbelinked in substancewith aview to adiplomaticconference.

345. TheChair statedthatthedurationof themeetingwas subject to technical conditionsconcerningtheavailability of facilities. In order to comprehensivelyreview thematerialsmoretime thantwo dayswasneeded. Regarding thenatureof thedocument, thefirstdocument would dealwith traditionalbroadcasters’rights,based on theprinciple ofinclusiveness.Proposalsthatwereon the tablenowwould beincludedaswould theexpectedproposal from theEuropeanCommunity. No proposals wouldbeinvitedto bemade,in order

SCCR/14/7page89

to keeptheprocesscoherentandallow completion within theallottedtimeframe. Thenextdocument to bepreparedwouldbeonwebcasting. It would requireanothertimeframetoaccommodatethepromisedproposals. TheCommitteewould reporton theissueto theGeneralAssembly that thework wouldbe continuingat asubsequent meetingof theordinarySCCR. Thatwouldallow time for aworkingpaperonwebcastingandsimulcastingto befinished. There would bemuchlessconnectionwith thetraditional broadcasters paperandthewebcasting andsimulcasting paperbecausetheywouldbetreated separately. TheCommitteecould thenrestoresomeof theelements for aself-standingentity, recognizingofcoursesomeoverlap. Therewouldbeno references to webcasting in thetraditional broadcastpaper,apartfrom thepoint of view of theprotection of broadcasters’ rightsin respectof illicituseof their signals over theweb,which wouldbeconsideredalsoin thecontext of traditionalbroadcasters.Also,dependingon thelegal technique, otherusefulthingsmight beborrowedor usedasreferencepoints.

346. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America reiteratedits concernaboutthemissedopportunity thatwould result from separateconsideration of webcasting from theconsiderationof protectionfor traditionalbroadcastersandcablecastersandsatellitecarriers.It wouldbeverydiff icult to continueworking in a fruitful wayonwebcastingat adifferenttimewithout thesimultaneousconsideration of theprotection for thetraditional broadcastingorganizations. It took noteof theconcerns,particularly of thosedelegationsthathadanearnestdesire to seetheprotectionfor traditionalbroadcastingorganizationsimproved,anditshareda commitmentto improvingandprotectingbroadcasting organizations,particularly inthenewtechnological environment.It alsosharedtheconcernsof delegationsthathadendeavorednot to beneedlessly hamperedby what wasstill questionsandwork to bedoneontheproperscopeof protectionfor neworganizationsandnewentities. However, theDelegationwantedto seeprogressonapproving theprotection for broadcastingorganizationsin thenewenvironment,and,somewhatreluctantly, it couldaccepttheChair’s proposal, butwith onesuggestedadditionto it. Thatwould bethatif the2006General Assembly wouldnot makepreparation for adiplomaticconference,thentheDelegation’s proposalonprotectionof webcastingorganizationswould returnto themain bodyof thetext.

347. TheChair statedthatif theGeneralAssemblywould not decideonadiplomaticconferencefor theprotectionof traditionalbroadcasters,all matterswould remainon theagendaof theStanding Committee.Theemphasison themember-drivennatureof theprocessesin theorganizationhadto bemadeasclearasit couldbe.

348. TheDelegationof Bangladesh notedthattheChair hadproposed a revised draft,basedon theproposalsreceived for thepresentsession.It would like to elaborateon theproposalithad madeorally during thesession,andreservedtherightsto consultwith relevantstatesandactorsandthenstateit in written form in orderthatit couldbeincludedin thereviseddraftdocument andbediscussedin thenextsessionof theSCCR.

349. TheChair statethathewouldnot object to that. His ideawas to try to keeptheprocessin onepieceandnot to let it explode.

350. TheDelegationof Chilestressedtheneedto organizethework of thenext sessioninsuchawaythattheNGOs couldparticipate in suchawaythatthattheiropinionscouldbeusedduring thediscussionsof theCommittee.

SCCR/14/7page90

351. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity referred to thebifurcation proposedby theChairandtheprocedural implicationsthereof. A very important point for theEuropeanCommunityandits MembersStatesin relation to thebifurcated approachbetweenatraditional broadcastingtreatyandthewebcasting/simulcasting treaty with aseparateprocessat adifferentstage,wastheissueof material reciprocity thatwould cometo thefore in thenext broadcaster-focusedSCCRsession.It felt compelledto point out that,in manyof thelawsof its MemberStates,therewerevery widedefinitionsof thenotionof broadcasting,includingneutraldefinitionsof broadcasting thatdid not make referenceto themediumoftransmission. TheEuropeanCommunity andits MemberStatesunderstoodthatsincethework would bein theinternationaltreaty-making framework,specific wordingadoptedin theBerneConvention,RomeConvention andtheWIPOtreatiesmight not necessarily reflect thesituationin manyof its MemberStates. Thepossibleconclusionof a treaty whichwouldnothave its scopeformulatedin amediumindependent manner would impact thoseMemberStatesthenationallawsof whichwereneutral in scope, andtheissueof material reciprocitywould thenhaveto beaddressed. Another issuewasthesubmission of theEuropeanproposalon exceptionsandlimitationsandtherelationship between exceptionsandlimitationsandtechnologicalprotectionmeasures. Thewrittenoutlinedistributedby theDelegationearlieraddressedboth branchesof theproposedbifurcated approach,andthethrustof thoseproposals on exceptionsandlimitationsarosein thesecondbranchin amuchmoreacutemannerthan it did in thefirst branch.Nevertheless,it believedthat theexceptionsandlimitationsapproachwasalsoof critical relevanceto that first branch,andit thereforequeriedwhetherthepaperwasto besubmittedin thefirst branch, in thesecondbranch,or asanover-archingpaper.

352. TheChair statedthatasfor thefirst meetingof theSCCR,thetraditional broadcastersinstrumentwould bediscussed.Thenationaltreatmentitemhadto berevisitedin thenormalwayasdiscussionsprogressedarticle-by-article. TheDelegation’s considerationshadalreadybeenrecordedandtheDelegationwasmostwelcome to submitits elaborateanalysisandideasto thenextsession. Therewouldnot beaneedto haveproposals beforethatmeeting. Itwasnormal thattheitem of nationaltreatmentwasnormally settledasthelastitem in suchexercises.But if theDelegationwere readyto prepareaproposalon thatelement,it wouldbehelpful for theprocess andwelcomedby all. As for exceptionsandlimitations,if theDelegationwould makeit clearwhichparts would deal with traditional broadcastingandwhich onesweredirectedtowardsthewebcasting exercise,it wouldbefeasible for theCommitteeto considertheelementsin their propercontext.

353. TheDelegationof India expressedits appreciation andsupportfor theproposal,aswellas its hopethat,in thespirit of mutualaccommodation, theCommitteestruck aconclusionona treatyonbroadcasting organizations’rightsandaconsiderableprogresson thewebcastingissues. It madeanappealto theDelegationof theUnited States of Americato reconsider theconditionplacedsoasto moveforwardon thework on traditional broadcasting andwebcasting protection.

354. TheDelegationof Jamaicaexpressedits supportto theproposal put forwardby theChairandthecall madeby theDelegationsof Kenyaand Brazil to ensurethat,in nextSCCRinformation sessions,differentexpertsexpressadiversity of viewsin theareaof webcasting.

355. TheDelegationof theRussianFederationagreed with theproposalmadeby theChair,which wasa reasonablecompromise.

SCCR/14/7page91

356. TheDelegationof Colombiaexpressed its supportto theproposaland,asrequestedbytheDelegationof India,askedtheDelegation of theUnitedStatesof America to reconsideritscondition.

357. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity said that it hadto imperatively consultitsMemberStateson theapproachto betakenregarding theproposalmadeby theChair. Itrequesteda10-minutebreak.

358. TheDelegationof Mexico foundit very confusing that theDelegationof theEuropeanCommunityspokeonsomeoccasionsonbehalf of theEuropeanCommunity, insteadof theDelegationof Austria. Thelatterhadactually to decidewhetheror not therewasaneedfor aconsultationbreak.

359. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity explainedthattheEuropean Commissionparticipatedin theSCCRrepresentingtheEuropeanCommunity, its MemberStatesandtheaccedingStatesBulgariaandRomania.It spokeat a technical level onbehalf of thoseStatesand therefore it wasthe EuropeanCommunityand all thoseStates thatwereaskingjointly forabrief interruption. Austria hadthepresidencyof theEuropeanUnion,which wasgrantedtooneof theMemberStatesona6-monthrotational basis. Austriawas theheadDelegation.

360. TheChair explainedthathundredsof interventionswereavoidedwith thatarrangementand thoseEuropean Statesspokewith only onevoice.

361. TheDelegationof Mexico recalledthattheEuropeanCommunity wasnot agrouprecognizedat theSCCR. If theEuropeanCommunity or theEuropeanCommissionor theEuropeanCouncilweregoingto takeadecision,thenit hopedthat astatement camethroughtheregional groupor the individualStates,soasto makeclearwho wasstating what.

362. TheChair explainedthattherewerespecial rules of procedurefor theSCCRwhichread: “Subjectto thefollowing SpecialRulesof Procedurecontainedin this Annex,theGeneralRulesof Procedureof WIPOshall applyto theStandingCommitteeonCopyrightand RelatedRights. All WIPOMemberStates,aswell asMemberStatesof theBerneUnionthatarenot MemberStatesof WIPO,shall bemembersof theSCCR. In addition, theEuropeanCommunity shall beamemberof theSCCR, providedthat it shall not havetheright to vote.” Indeed,therewasaspecial statusbeing accordedto theEuropeanCommunity.

363. TheDelegationof Mexicounderstoodthefact thattheEuropean Community hadaspecialcondition. It wasnot referring to theEuropeanCommissionbut to theEuropeanUnion. It was not a regionalgroup,whichwasrecognized in theOrganization. If theEuropeanCommissionwastheoneconvening themeetingandit was goingto takesomekindof a technical decisionthen,afterthatmeeting, theonethat wouldexpressits technicalopinion wouldbetheEuropeanCommissionandnot theEuropean Union. It wouldbejustatechnicalopinionwhich wouldnot constituteanexpressionof theEuropeanCommunity.

364. TheChair explainedthattheEuropeanCommunity consisted of its MemberStateswhich had mandatedonebodyto speakonbehalfof them. Heruled thata 5-minutebreakshouldtakeplacefor thoseMemberStates to consult.

SCCR/14/7page92

365. TheDelegationof Moroccoexpressed its supportto theChair’sproposal. It endorsedtherequestmadeby theDelegationof India to theDelegation of theUnitedStatesof Americato showflexibility overtheissueof webcasting. It hopethat, duringthenext meetingto beheld beforetheGeneralAssembly,a revisedBasicProposalwould bediscussed soasto allowtheAssembly to conveneadiplomaticconferenceto adoptan international treatyon theprotectionof traditional broadcasting organizations. TheDelegation wasnot at all opposedtowebcasting, but thatmatterhadto befurtheranalyzedsoasto haveanunderstandingof themechanismsunderlying thatnewform of transmission. A diplomatic conferenceshouldnotbesubjectto conditions.

366. TheChair declaredashortbreakin thesession.

367. TheChair resumedthesessionstatingthat, for technical reasons,non-governmentalorganizationswouldnot makestatementsat thesession.Heproposedthatacompilationofthosestatements in written form bedeliveredto him, andthen hewould channel themto theSecretariat for distributionamongall Delegations. Intergovernmental organizationscoulddeliver theirwritteninterventionsto him following thesameprocedure. TheSecretariat hadindicated thatthatprocedurewaslegallyandtechnicall y possible

368. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity observedthat therewasa considerableconsensusto protect traditionalbroadcasting organizations. It couldgo alongwith thebifurcationproposedby theChairwithout prejudiceto simulcastingbeingat theappropriatemomentreintegratedinto themainpackage. Simulcasting wasaparticular way in whichtraditional broadcastingorganizationsreachedawideraudience. If thoseorganizationsdisseminatedknowledge,educationandentertainment,themostcompleteandcomprehensivepackageof protection hadto begrantedto them. If adecisionwas not takenat theGeneralAssembly in September2006to moveto adiplomatic conferencein 2007, thediscussionsonthesecondpackage wouldbereintegratedin thefuturediscussionsof theCommittee.Heobservedthat,regarding item 6 of theagenda, noothermatters hadbeenraisedby Membersof theSCCR.

369. TheDelegationof theUnitedStatesof America referredto thestatementmadeby theDelegationof theEuropeanCommunityon thepossibility of including simulcastingin theproposal preparedfor thediplomaticconference. Member stateshadexpressed concernsthatwebcasting andsimulcasting werebothnewtechnologies thatwerecomplex andrequiredfurtherunderstandingandeducationamongdelegations,sotheChair proposed thataseparatetrack for furtherwork wasneeded.TheDelegationhas reluctantlyacquiescedto suchanapproach,however, theDelegationwasconfused abouthow thework for traditionalbroadcastingorganizationswouldproceedif therewerethepossibili ty that protectionextendednot justto their traditionalactivities but alsoto their Internet activi ties. TheDelegation expressedits supportfor theChair’s proposal, whichbestrespondedto theconcernsthatall Delegationshad. If substantial progressona treatyfor traditionalbroadcastingorganizationsdid not takeplaceat thenext meeting to beheld beforetheGeneralAssembly, anappropriatework planwould have to go forward. TheDelegationsoughtclarificationwith respectto thesecondpartof whattheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunityhaddescribed,aswell asto howtheactivi ty of theSCCRwouldcontinue.

SCCR/14/7page93

370. TheChair explainedthatthenextSCCRwould dealwith theprotectionof traditionalbroadcasting. HeobservedthatoneDelegationhadstatedthat if the2006GeneralAssemblydid not decideabouttheconveningof adiplomatic conferenceon traditional broadcastingmatters, thentheparalleltreatmentof the traditionalbroadcastingwith webcastingandsimulcasting would resume.Therewasapleafrom another Delegation to reconsiderthatcondition. AnotherDelegationhadput asimilar condition regarding,not theweb-originatedwebcasting, but simulcasting.

371. TheDelegationof theEuropeanCommunity said it couldgoalongwith thebifurcationintoa traditionalbroadcasters’ treatyandanew mediapackage, withoutprejudiceto thestatusof simulcasting. Thatwould imply that,at anymoment, thenextSCCRcoulddeterminethattraditional broadcastingalso includedthetransmission in parallel of thebroadcastsignal ontheInternet. If adecision wasnot takenat theGeneral Assemblyin September2006to moveto adiplomaticconference,thenthediscussionson thesecondpackageor thenewmediapackageshould bereintegratedinto thefuturediscussionsof theSCCR.

372. TheChair encouragedthedelegationsnot to take thefloor anymore, astherewasnoneedto prolongthediscussion. All theviewswouldberecordedin thereport.

373. TheDelegationof Indiastatedthat,in thespirit of compromiseto work toward a treatyon traditionalbroadcasting,delegationshadto beequally diligentto work towardstheconclusionof a treatyon webcastingandsimulcasting, andother issuesrelating to theInternet. Eventhoughtwo Delegationshadexpressedtheir conditionsfor theparallelactivity,everyMember Statecouldexerciseasimilar right or review its position if theGeneralAssembly did not taketheview of conveningadiplomatic conferenceon traditionalbroadcastingorganizations’rights.

374. TheChair congratulatedall delegationsfor beingable to work in suchadisciplinedwayto reachasolution. Heclosedthemeeting.

[Appendixfollows]

SCCR/14/7page94

SCCR/14/7

APPENDIX 1

CONCLUSIONSBY THE CHAIR, AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE

On the protection of traditional broadcasting:

1. Onemoremeeting of theSCCRwil l beconvenedbeforetheGeneralAssembly.

2. Theagendaof this meetingwill beconfinedto theprotection of broadcastingorganizationsandcablecastingorganizations(in thetraditionalsense).

3. A reviseddraft basic proposalwill bepreparedfor themeeting andall efforts will bemade in orderto makethedocumentavailableto theMemberStates by August1, 2006.Thedocumentwill bepreparedon thebasisof documentsSCCR/14/2andSCCR/14/3,and nowexistingproposalsandtakinginto accountthediscussionof theCommittee.

4. This processis on theunderstandingthatthis additional meeting of theSCCRwouldbeconvenedwith theaim to agreeandfinalizeabasicproposalfor a treatyon theprotectionof therights of broadcastingorganizationsin order to enable the2006GeneralAssemblyto recommendtheconveningadiplomaticconference in December2006or in anappropriatedatein 2007.

On the protection of webcasting and simulcasting:

1. Thedeadline for theproposalsforeseenat the14th sessionof theSCCRconcerningwebcastingandsimulcastingwill beAugust1, 2006.

2. A reviseddocumenton theprotectionof webcasting andsimulcastingwill bepreparedonthebasis of documentSCCR/14/2andproposals,andtaking into accountthediscussionsof theCommittee.

3. Thematter wil l betakenon theagendaof ameeting of theSCCRto beconvenedafter theGeneralAssembly.

CLOSING OFTHE SESSION

[Endof Appendix, Annexfollows]

SCCR/14/7

ANNEXE/ANNEX

LISTE DESPARTICIPANTS/LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

I. MEMBRES/MEMBERS

(dansl’ordre alphabétiquedesnomsfrançaisdesÉtats/in thealphabetical orderof thenamesin Frenchof theStates)

AFRIQUE DU SUD/SOUTH AFRICA

Ingrid PONI (Ms.), Counsellor for Communications,Embassyof SouthAfrica,Paris

SimonQOBO, First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

ALGÉRIE/ALGERIA

Hakim TAOUSAR,directeurgénéraldel’ Office nationaldes droits d’auteuret desdroits voisins(ONDA), Ministèredela culture,Alger

YasmineBENDERRADJI (Mme),consultante,Ministèredelaculture,Alger

ALLEMAGNE/GERMANY

Jens STÜHMER,Richter,Division for CopyrightandPublishingLaw, Federal Ministry ofJustice,Berlin

ARABIE SAOUDITE/ SAUDI ARABIA

AbaidallahALOBAIDA LLAH, Director General,General Administrationof Copyright,Ministry of Information,Riyadh

ARGENTINE/ARGENTINA

AndrésTORRES,Asesor Legal,ArteRadiotelevisivoArgentineS.A.,BuenosAires

NicolásNOVOA, LegalAdvisor, SáenzValiente& Asociados,BuenosAires

AUSTRALIE/AUSTRALIA

Chris CRESWELL, Consultant,Copyright Law, Attorney-General’s Department,Canberra

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page2

SimonCORDINA, GeneralManager,Creators’ RightsandAccessBranch,ICT Division,Departmentof Communications,Information Technology and theArts, Canberra

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page3

AUTRICHE/AUSTRIA

GünterAUER, Ministry of Justice,Vienna

Christian AUINGER,Ministry of Justice,Vienna

VassilliosKANARAS, Councilof theEU, DG InternalMarket,Brussels

AZERBAÏDJAN/AZERBAIJAN

Eldar PRIMOV, Chairman,CopyrightAgency,Baku

BANGLADESH

Atm AtaurRAHMAN, Secretary, Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Dhaka

Mahbub-uz ZAMAN, Minister(Political Affairs), PermanentMission,Geneva

BELGIQUE/BELGIUM

Gunther AELBRECHT,attaché,SPFÉconomie,Officedela propriétéintellectuelle,Bruxelles

Michel GYORY, expert,Missionpermanente, Genève

BÉNIN/BENIN

SamuelAHOKPA, directeurduBureaubéninoisdudroit d’auteur(BUBEDRA), Ministèredelaculture,del’artisanatet du tourisme,Cotonou

YaoAMOUSSOU, premierconseiller, Missionpermanente,Genève

BOLIVIE/BOLIV IA

AnnaLAHORE (Ms.), SecondSecretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

BRÉSIL/BRAZIL

LeonardoMarcosALVEZ DE SOUZA, DeputyManager,Copyright, Ministryof Culture,Brasilia

GuilhermeAGUIAR PATRIOTA, Counsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

JoãoCarlosSTORTI, SecondSecretary, Ministry of Culture,Brasilia

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page4

BULGARIE/BULGARIA

GeorgiAlexandrovDAMYAN OV, Director, Copyright andRelatedRightsDepartment,Sofia

DessislavaPARUSHEVA, SecondSecretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

BURKINA FASO

LéonardSANON, juriste,Directeurde l’exploitation, dela perceptionet du contentieuxaubureaududroit d’auteur,Ouagadougou

CANADA

BruceCOUCHMAN, LegalAdvisor, IntellectualProperty PolicyDirectorate,DepartmentofIndustry,Ottawa

DanielleBOUVET (Ms.), Director,CopyrightPolicy Branch, CanadianHeritage,Ottawa

Luc-AndréVINCENT, SeniorProjectLeader,Legislative and International ProjectsDirectorate,Copyright Policy Branch, Department of CanadianHeritage,Québec

CHILI/CHILE

Luis VILLARROEL, AsesorDerechoAutor, Ministerio deEducación,SantiagodeChile

Maximiliano SANTA CRUZ, PrimerSecretario, MisiónPermanente,Ginebra

CHINE/CHINA

Xiu Ling ZHAO (Mrs.), Directorof Copyright Division,National Copyright Administrationof China(NCAC), Beijing

COLOMBIE/COLOMBIA

FernandoZAPATA LÓPEZ, Director General, DirecciónNacionaldeDerechodeAutor,Ministeriodel Interior y deJusticia, Unidad Administrativa Especial, Bogotá

COSTA RICA

AlejandroSOLANO ORTIZ, MinisterCounsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page5

CÔTED’IVOIRE

DennisBOHOUSSOU, directeurgénéraldel’ Office ivoiriendelapropriété intellectuelle(OIPI), Ministèredel’in dustrieet dela promotion dusecteur privé,Abidjan

CROATIE/CROATIA

Željko TOPIC, DirectorGeneral,StateIntellectual PropertyOffice, Zagreb

DANEMARK/DENMARK

Martin KYST, SpecialAdvisor,Ministry of Culture,Copenhagen

ÉGYPTE/EGYPT

MohammedNourFARAHAT, Chief,PermanentOffice for CopyrightProtection,Cairo

EL SALVADOR

RodrigoRIVAS,NegociadorDerechosdePropiedadInternacional, Ministerio deEconomía,SanSalvador

Francisco LIMA MENA, Embajador,OMC-OMPI, MisiónPermanente,Genibra

MarthaMENJIVAR CORTEZ(Sra.), Ministro Consejero,Misión Permanente,Genibra

ÉQUATEUR/ECUADOR

RalphSUASTEGUI, Misión Permanente,Ginebra

ESPAGNE/SPAIN

RaquelORTSNEBOT (Sra.),JefedeÁrea,Ministerio deCultura,Propiedad Intelectual,Madrid

ESTONIE/ESTONIA

Katrin SIBUL (Mrs.), Third Secretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page6

ÉTATS-UNIS D’A MÉRIQUE/UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

Ann CHAITOVITZ (Ms.),AttorneyAdvisor,Patent andTrademarkOffice,DepartmentofCommerce,Washington,D.C.

MarlaPOOR(Ms.), PolicyPlanningAdvisor,Copyright Office,Libraryof Congress,Washington,D.C.

JuleSIGALL, AssociateRegisterfor Policy andInternational Affairs, UnitedStatesCopyrightOffice, Washington,D.C.

EX-RÉPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACÉDOINE/THE FORMERYUGOSLAVREPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

OlgicaTRAJKOVSKA (Mrs.),Head,Departmentfor CopyrightandRelated RightsProtection,Ministry of Culture,Skopje

Aco STEFANOSKI,Head,Division of Copyright,Ministry of Culture,Skopje

FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE/RUSSIANFEDERATION

IvanBLIZNETS, Rector,RussianStateInstituteof Intellectual Property,Moscow

Igor LEBEDEV, DeputyDirectorGeneral,Federal Service for IntellectualProperty, Patentsand Trademarks(ROSPATENT),Moscow

ZurbekALBEGONOV, PrincipalSpecialist, International Cooperation Department(ROSPATENT), Moscow

Leonid PODSHIBIKHIN, DeputyHead,Departmentof TheoryandPractice, IntellectualPropertyProtection,FederalInstituteof Industrial Property(FIPS)(ROSPATENT), Moscow

NataliaBUZOVA (Ms.),SeniorResearcher,FederalInstituteof Industrial Property (FIPS)(ROSPATENT), Moscow

NataliaROMASHOVA (Mrs.), Head,Law Division,Ministry of Culture, Moscow

FINLANDE/FINLAND

JukkaLIEDES,Director,CultureandMediaPolicy Division, Ministry of EducationandCulture,Helsinki

JormaWALDÉN, SeniorLegalAdviser,CultureandMediaDivision, Ministry of Educationand Culture, Helsinki

AnnaVUOPALA (Ms.), SecretaryGeneral,Copyright Commission,Ministry of Educationand Culture, Helsinki

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page7

FRANCE

AnneLE MORVAN (Mlle), chargéedemission,Bureaudela propriété littéraire et artistique,Directionde l’administrationgénérale,Sous-direction desaffairesjuridiques,Ministèredelacultureet dela communication,Paris

GillesBARRIER,premiersecrétaire,Missionpermanente, Genève

GHANA

BernardBOSUMPRAH, CopyrightAdministrator, Copyright Office, Ministryof Culture,Accra

HAÏTI/HA ITI

EmmeliePROPHETE(Mme),attachéculturel,Missionpermanente,Genève

INDE/INDIA

MadhukarSINHA, Director(Copyrights),Ministryof HumanResourceDevelopment,Governmentof India,NewDelhi

N.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN, Director,Schoolof LegalStudies,Cochin Universityof Scienceand Technology, Icerala

SurinderKumarARORA, Secretary,Governmentof India, New Delhi

INDONÉSIE/INDONESIA

AchmadHOSSAN,Director,DirectorateGeneralof Intellectual Property Rights,Ministry ofLaw andHumanRights,Tangerang

Adi SUPANTO,Head,Subdirectoratefor Copyright, Tangerang

Abdul KADIR JAILANI, First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

IRAN (RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’)/IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)

GholamrezaRAFIEI, LegalAdvisor, Iran Broadcasting, Tehran

HekmatollahGHORBANI, LegalCounsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

IRAQ

AhmedAL-NAKASH, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page8

ISRAËL/ISRAEL

NoaFURMAN (Mrs.), Counsellor, Permanent Mission,Geneva

ITALIE/ITA LY

RicardoCIULLO, Attaché,PermanentMission,Geneva

Vittorio RAGONESI,LegalAdvisor, Ministry of ForeignAffai rs,Rome

JAMAÏQUE/JAMAICA

LonnetteAishaFISHER(Ms.), Manager,Copyright andRelated Rights,JamaicaIntellectualPropertyOffice, Ministryof Commerce,ScienceandTechnology,Kingston

JAPON/JAPAN

MasahiAKI BA, Director,International Af fairs Division,Commissioner’sSecretariat,Agencyfor CulturalAffai rs,Tokyo

RisaUEMATSU (Ms.), AssistantDirector,ContentsDevelopment Office,InformationPolicyDivision,InformationandCommunicationsPolicy Bureau,Ministry of InternalAffairs andCommunications,Tokyo

Koichi CHIYO, DeputyDirector,InternationalAffai rs Division,Commissioner’sSecretariat,Agencyfor CulturalAff airs,Tokyo

ShigechikaTERAKADO, First Secretary,Permanent Mission,Geneva

HONGRIE/HUNGARY

Péter MUNKÁCSI, DeputyHead,Division of Copyrightand Harmonization,DepartmentofLaw and International Affairs, HungarianPatentOffice,Budapest

IRLANDE/IRELAND

MichaelENGLISH, PrincipalOfficer, Intellectual Property Unit, Departmentof Enterprise,TradeandEmployment,Dublin

KENYA

SylvesterOKELLO OGELLO, SeniorStateCounsel, Registrar-General’s Department,Officeof theAttorneyGeneral,Nairobi

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page9

LESOTHO

Makhitle MONUANE, Registrarof Copyright, Maseru

LETTONIE/LATVIA

GuntisJĒKABSONS,Head,Copyright andNeighboringRights Division,MinistryofCulture,Riga

LIBAN/LEBANON

NazihHACHEM, Head,CopyrightUnit, Intellectual PropertyProtection Office,Ministry ofEconomyandTrade,Beirut

MALAISIE/MALAYSIA

Manisekaran AMASI, Directorof Copyright, Intellectual PropertyCorporation of Malaysia,KualaLumpur

MALAWI

SermanCHAVULA, Copyright Administrator andChiefExecutive Officer, CopyrightSocietyof Malawi (COSOMA), Blantyre

MALTE/MALTA

Tony BONNICI, First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

MAROC/MOROCCO

Abdellah OUADRHIRI, directeurgénéralduBureaumarocain dudroit d’auteur,Rabat

MEXIQUE/MEXICO

Víctor GUIZAR LÓPEZ,Director,Proteccióncontrala Violacióndel DerechodeAutor,InstitutoNacionaldeDerechodeAutor (INDA), CiudaddeMéxico

JuanManuelSÁNCHEZ,TercerSecretario,Misión Permanente, Ginebra

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page10

NIGÉRIA/NIGERIA

AdebamboADEWOPO, DirectorGeneral, NigerianCopyrightCommission,Federal Ministryof InformationandCulture,Abuja

JohnASEIN, Head,LegalDepartment,NigerianCopyright Commission,Federal Secretariat,Abuja

Maigari BUBA, First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

NORVÈGE/NORWAY

ToreMagnusBRUASET, Advisor, Departmentof MediaPolicy andCopyright,Ministry ofCultureand Church Af fairs,Oslo

NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDE/NEW ZEALAND

SilkeRADDE (Ms.), PolicyAnalyst, Regulatory andCompetition Policy, MinistryofEconomicDevelopment,Wellington

OMAN

FatimaAL-GHAZALI (Mrs.), EconomicCounsellor, PermanentMission,Geneva

PAYS-BAS/NETHERLANDS

Cyril VAN DER NET, LegalAdviser,Ministryof Justice,TheHague

DennisHESEMANS,LegalAdviser,Ministry of Justice,TheHague

PHILIPPINES

CergeREMONDE, Secretary, IntellectualProperty Office(IPO),GovernmentMassMediaGroup,Office of thePresidentof thePhilippines,Manila

Raly L. TEJADA, SecondSecretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

POLOGNE/POLAND

MalgorzataPĘK (Ms.), DeputyDirector,Departmentof EuropeanIntegrationandInternationalRelations,NationalCouncilof Radio andTelevision,Warsaw

Dariusz URBANSKI, Expert,LegalDepartment, Ministryof CultureandNationalHeritage,Warsaw

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page11

PORTUGAL

NunoManuelGONÇALVES, Directiondudroit d’auteuret desdroits connexes,Ministèredelaculture,Lisbonne

QATAR

AbdullaA. QAYED, Head,Copyright andNeighboringRightsOffice,Ministry ofCommerce,Doha

RÉPUBLIQUE ARABE SYRIENNE/SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

SayelSALLOUM ATEIM, Copyright Offi ce,Ministry of Culture,Damascus

RÉPUBLIQUE DE CORÉE/REPUBLIC OFKOREA

Hye-yunCHOI (Ms.), Specialist,Copyright Division, Ministry of CultureandTourism,Seoul

Jong-sooYOON, Judge,NorthernDistrict Court, Seoul

Hyung-jun KIM, SeniorResearchAssociate,Copyright Commission for DeliberationandConciliation, Seoul

RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA/REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

DorianCHIROŞCA, DeputyDirectorGeneral,StateAgencyon Intellectual Property(AGEPI),Kishinev

RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE/CZECHREPUBLIC

Pavel ZEMAN, Head,Copyright Department,Ministry of Culture,Prague

AdelaFALADOVA (Mrs.),CopyrightDepartment, Ministry of Culture,Prague

ROUMANIE/ROMANIA

RodicaPÂRVI (Mrs.), DirectorGeneral, Romanian CopyrightOffice,Ministryof Cultureand ReligiousAffairs, Bucharest

IrinaLucanARJOCA (Mrs.), LegalAdvisor,RomanianCopyrightOffice,Ministry ofCultureand ReligiousAffairs, Bucharest

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page12

ROYAUME-UNI/UNITED KINGDOM

DuncanWEARMOUTH, DeputyDirectorof theIntellectual Policy andInnovationDirectorateandHeadof Copyright, ThePatent Office, Newport, Wales

Ceri WITCHARD, SeniorPolicy Advisor, ThePatentOffice,Newport,Wales

MicheleHAMBRIDGE (Mrs.), Policy Advisor,ThePatentOffice,Newport, Wales

SAINT-SIÈGE/HOLY SEE

Anne-MarieCOLANDREA (Ms.), LegalAdvisor,PermanentMission,Geneva

SÉNÉGAL/SENEGAL

NdèyeAbibatouYoum DIABÉ SIBY (Mme), directricegénéraledu Bureau sénégalaisdudroit d’auteur(BSDA), Dakar

SERBIE ET MONTÉNÉGRO/ SERBIAAND MONTENEGRO

Lj iljanaRUDIĆ-DIMIĆ (Ms.), Head,Copyright andRelatedRights Department, IntellectualPropertyOffice - CopyrightDepartment, Ministry for Internal Economic Relations,Belgrade

SINGAPOUR/SINGAPORE

Sok YeeSEETHO (Ms.), SeniorAssistantDirector/Legal Counsel, Strategic PlanningandCopyright,Intellectual PropertyOffice, Singapore

SLOVAQUIE/SLOVAKIA

Zeljko SAMPOR, Copyright Division, Ministry of Culture,BanskáBystrica

SOUDAN/SUDAN

HalaGassimALI (Mrs.), Assistantto theSecretaryGeneral, Federal Council of Artistic andLi teraryWorks,Khartoum

SRI LANKA

JanakaSUGATHADASA, AdditionalSecretary, Ministryof Trade, Commerce,ConsumerAffairs & Marketing Development,Colombo

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page13

SUÈDE/SWEDEN

Henry OLSSON, SpecialGovernmentAdviser,Ministry of Justice,Stockholm

AlexanderRAMSAY, LegalAdvisor,AssociateJudgeof Appeal, Divisionfor IntellectualPropertyandTransportLaw, Ministry of Justice,Stockholm

SUISSE/SWITZERLAND

EmanuelMEYER, conseillerjuridique,Division droit d’auteur, Institut fédéraldela propriétéintellectuelle,Berne

THAÏLANDE/ THAILAND

SupavadeeCHOTIKAJAN (Ms.), SecondSecretary,PermanentMission,Geneva

TUNISIE/TUNISIA

Elyes LAKHAL, First Secretary, Permanent Mission,Geneva

TURQUIE/TURKEY

MujdeAVCIOGLU (Mme), conseillerjuridique,Conseil duhautconseild’audiovisuelle,Ankara

Nihaf ÇAYLA K, expert,Conseil duhaut conseil d’audiovisuelle, Ankara

YasarOZBEK, conseillerjuridique,Missionpermanente, Genève

UKRAINE

TamaraDAVYDENKO (Ms.),Head,Divisionof Copyright andRelated RightsIssues(SDIP),State Department of IntellectualProperty,Ministry of Education andScienceofUkraine,Kyiv

Mykola PALADYI, Director,UkrainianIndustrial Property Institute(UKRPATENT), StateDepartmentof IntellectualProperty,Ministry of Education andScienceof Ukraine,Kyiv

URUGUAY

AlejandraDE BELLIS (Sra.),First Secretary, PermanentMission,Geneva

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page14

II. AUTRESMEMBRES/NON-STATE MEMBERS

COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE(CE))*/EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (EC)*

Tilman LÜDER, Headof Copyright,EuropeanCommission,Brussels

Julie SAMNA DDA (Mrs.), LegalPolicyAdvisor,EuropeanCommission,Brussels

III. ORGANISATIONS INTERGOUVERNEMENTALES/INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

ORGANISATIONDESNATIONS UNIES POURL’ÉDUCATION, LA SCIENCEET LACULTURE (UNESCO)/UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFICANDCULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO)

PetyaTOTCHAROVA (Ms.), LegalOfficer,Cultural EnterpriseandCopyright Section,Paris

ORGANISATIONMONDIALE DU COMMERCE (OMC)/WORLD TRADEORGANIZATION (WTO)

Wolf MEIER-EWERT,LegalAffairs Officer, Intellectual PropertyDivision,Geneva

HannuWAGER,Counsellor,IntellectualProperty Division, Geneva

ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE(OIF)

SandraCOULIBALY LEROY (Mme), représentant permanentadjoint, Genève

UNION DESRADIODIFFUSIONSDESÉTATS ARABES (ASBU)/ARABBROADCASTING UNION (ASBU)

LyesBELARIBI, Director,ASBU ExchangeCenter,Tunis

* Sur unedécisionduComitépermanent,la Communauté européenneaobtenule statut demembresansdroit devote.

* Basedona decisionof theStanding Committee,theEuropeanCommunity wasaccordedmemberstatuswithout a right to vote.

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page15

SOUTH CENTRE

DalindyeboSHBALALA, ResearchFellow,Programmeon Innovation, Accessto Knowledgeand Intellectual Property, Geneva

IV. ORGANISATIONS NON GOUVERNEMENTALES/NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Alfa-Redi: PedroCANUT, (LegalServices, London)

Union deradiodiffusionAsie-Pacifique(ABU)/Asia-Pacific BroadcastingUnion (ABU):Shun HASHIYA (Copyright Center,MultimediaDevelopment Department, NHK-Japan,Tokyo); FernandoALBERTO(LegalCounsel,KualaLumpur); SeoHyun PARK (Seoul)

Association brésiliennedesémetteursderadioet detélévision (ABERT): DanielPIMENTELSLAV IERO (Vice-President,Brasilia)

Association canadiennedestélécommunicationsparcable (ACTC)/CanadianCableTelecommunicationsAssociation(CCTA): GeraldKERR-WILSON (LegalCounselto theCanadianBroadcasting DistributionAl liance,Ottawa)

Association del’i ndustrie del’informatiqueet delacommunication (CCIA)/ComputerandCommunicationsIndustryAssociation(CCIA): MatthewSCHRUERS(SeniorCounselforLi tigationandLegislativeAffairs, Washington,D.C.)

Association desorganisationseuropéennesd’artistesinterprètes(AEPO-ARTIS)/Associationof EuropeanPerformers’ Organisations(AEPO-ARTIS): Xavier BLANC (GeneralSecretary,AEPO-ARTIS); GuenaëlleCOLLET (Ms.) (Head,AEPO-ARTIS Office,Brussels)

Association destélévisionscommercialeseuropéennes(ACT)/Association of CommercialTelevision in Europe(ACT): Tom Rivers(LegalAdvisor,London)

Association internationalederadiodiffusion(AIR)/InternationalAssociationof Broadcasting(IAB): AndrésLERENA (Presidente,ComitéPermanentede DerechodeAutor, Montevideo)

Association littéraireet artistiqueinternationale(ALAI)/ International Literaryand ArtisticAssociation (ALAI) : Victor NABHAN président,Ferney-Voltaire); SilkeVON LEWINSKI(Ms.) (Head,InternationalLaw Department,Munich)

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page16

CentralandEasternEuropeanCopyright Al liance(CEECA): Mihály FICSOR(President,Budapest)

Centrefor Performers’ RightsAdministrations(CPRA)of GEIDANKYO:Yoshiji NAKAMURA (ViceChairman,ExecutiveCommittee,Tokyo);SamuelShuMASUYAMA (Director,LegalandResearch Department,Tokyo)

Chambredecommerceinternationale(CCI)/International Chamberof Commerce(ICC):DavidFARES(Vice-President,E-CommercePolicy, News Corporation,New York)

Civil Society Coalition (CSC): JamesLOVE; ManonRESS(Mrs.) (CSCFellow);Thiru BALASUBRAMAN IAM; JasonPIELEMEIER (CSCFellow); ManonRESS(Ms.)(Member,Washington,D.C.)

Confédération internationaledessociétésd’auteurset compositeurs(CISAC)/InternationalConfederationof Societiesof Authors andComposers(CISAC): FabienneHERENBERG(Ms.) (Sociétédesauteurset compositeurs demusique(SACEM), Paris)

ConsumersInternational(CI): SusheelaNAIR (Ms.) (ProgrammeOfficer,ConsumersInternational– Asia-PacificOffice, Kuala Lumpur)

CopyrightResearchandInformationCenter(CRIC): Shin-ichi UEHARA (Co-Director,GeneralAffai rs,AsahiBroadcasting Corporation,Tokyo)

Digital MediaAssociation(DiMA ): LeeKNIFE, GeneralCounsel, Washington,D.C.)

ElectronicFrontier Foundation (EFF): GwenHINZE (Ms.) (InternationalAffairs Director,London)

ElectronicInformationfor Libraries(eIFL.net): TeresaHACKETT (Mrs.) (ProjectManager,Dublin); Jan KOVACIK (LegalAdvisor,Martin, Slovakia)

EuropeanInformation andCommunications TechnologyIndustry Association (EICTA):BradBIDDLE (SeniorAttorney,Brussels)

Fédération ibéro-latino-américainedesartistesinterprètesouexécutants(FILAIE)/Ibero-Latin-AmericanFederationof Performers(FILAIE): Miguel PÉREZSOLIS(AsesorLegal, Madrid)

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page17

Fédération européennedessociétésdegestion collective deproducteurspourla copieprivéeaudiovisuelle(EUROCOPYA)/EuropeanFederation of JointManagementSocietiesofProducersfor PrivateAudiovisualCopying(EUROCOPYA): NicoleLa BOUVERIE (Ms.)(Paris)

Fédération internationaledesacteurs (FIA)/InternationalFederation of Actors(FIA):Dominick LUQUER (GeneralSecretary, London)

Fédération internationaledesassociationsdebibliothécaireset desbibliothèques(FIAB)/International Federationof LibraryAssociationsandInstitutions(IFLA):WinstonTABB (Deanof UniversityLibraries,Baltimore,Maryland); BarbaraSTRATTON(Mrs.) (Copyright Advisor, CharteredInstituteof Library and Information Professionals(CILIP), London); HaraldV. HIELMCRONE(Research andSpecial Collections,StatsBiblioteket,Universitetsparken,Aarhus)

Fédération internationaledesassociationsdedistributeursdefil ms(FIAD)/InternationalFederation of Associationsof Film Distributors(FIAD): AntoineVIRENQUE (secrétairegénéral,Paris)

Fédération internationaledesassociationsdeproducteursdefi lms (FIAPF)/InternationalFederation of Film ProducersAssociations(FIAPF): ValérieLEPINE-KARNIK (Mme)(directricegénérale,Paris); JohnBARRACK (Paris)

Fédération internationaledesmusiciens(FIM)/InternationalFederationof Musicians(FIM):Benoît MACHUEL (SecretaryGeneral, Paris); JeanVINCENT (Legal Advisor,Paris)

Fédération internationaledela vidéo/International VideoFederation (IVF): TheodoreSHAPIRO(LegalAdvisor,Brussels); Bradley SILVER (LegalAdvisor,Brussels)

Fédération internationaledel’industriephonographique(IFPI)/International Federationof thePhonographicIndustry (IFPI): ShiraPERLMUTTER (Ms.) (ExecutiveVice-President,Global LegalPolicy, London); UteDECKER(Ms.) (DeputyDirector,GlobalLegal Policy,London)

Fédération internationaledesjournalistes(FIJ)/International Federationof Journalists(IFJ):PamelaMORINIÈRE(Ms.) (Authors’ RightsOffi cer,Brussels); Mathieu FLEURY(Brussels)

Fédération internationaledesorganismes gérant les droits dereproduction (IFRRO)/InternationalFederationof ReproductionRights Organizations(IFRRO): TarjaKOSKINEN-OLSSON(Mrs.) (HonoraryChair,Ystad)

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page18

IndependentFilm and TelevisionAlliance (IFTA): LawrenceSAFIR (Vice President-EuropeanAffairs, LosAngeles)

InternationalIntellectualPropertyAlliance (IIPA): Fritz ATTAWAY (ExecutiveVice—President, GovernmentRelations,WashingtonGeneralCounsel, Washington,D.C.)

InternationalMusicManagersForum(IMMF): David STOPPS(London); Gillian BAXTER(Ms.) (Legal Advisor, London); Nick ASHTON-HART (London)

IP Justice: PetraBuhr (Ms.) (SanFrancisco)

Institut Max-Planckpourla propriétéintellectuelle, le droit decompétition et defiscalité(MPI)/Max-Planck-Institutefor Intellectual Property, Competition andTax Law (MPI):SilkeVON LEWINSKI (Ms.) (Headof Unit, Munich)

National Association of Broadcasters(NAB): BenjaminF.P.IVINS (SeniorAssociateGeneralCounsel,Washington,D.C.); JaneMAGO (Ms.) (Senior Vice-President andGeneralCounsel,Washington,D.C.)

National Association of CommercialBroadcastersin Japan(NAB-Japan): HidetoshiKATO(Copyright Department,ProgrammingDivision, TV Tokyo); Seijiro YANAGID A (DeputyManager,Copyright AdministrationRightsandContracts Management,ComplianceandStandards,NipponTelevisionNetwork Corp.(NTV), Tokyo); MitsushiKIKUCHI (PatentAttorney,Headof IntellectualProperty, TV AsahiCorporation, Tokyo); JunTAKEUCHI(Director,Digital Broadcast PromotionDivision,TheNationalAssociation of CommercialBroadcastersin Japan(NAB-Japan),Tokyo); Reiko BLAUENSTEIN-MATSUBA(ConsultantInterpreter,Geneva)

North AmericanBroadcastersAssociation(NABA): Miguel GUTIÉRREZ(LegalDirector,IntellectualProperty Rights,GrupoTelevisa); EricaREDLER(Ms.) (Chair, NABA LegalCommittee,GeneralCounsel,CanadianAssociationof Broadcasters); GerardoMUNOZ DECOTE(Member,Zurich)

Third World Network (TWN): Martin KHOR (Geneva);SangeetaSHASHIKANT (Mrs.)(Researcher,Geneva)

Union européennederadio-télévision(UER)/EuropeanBroadcastingUnion (EBU):Moira BURNETT (Ms.) (LegalAdvisor, Geneva); Heijo RUIJSENAARS(LegalAdvisor, Geneva)

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page19

Union for thePublic Domain(UPD): JamesLOVE (Headof Delegation,Geneva)

Union international deséditeurs(UIE)/InternationalPublishers Association (IPA): JensBAMM EL (SecretaryGeneral,Geneva)

Union of National Broadcasting in Africa (URTNA): HezekielOIRA (CorporationSecretary,KenyanBroadcastingCorporation,Nairobi)

UnitedStatesTelecomAssociation: SarahB. DEUTSCH(Ms.) (VicePresidentandAssociateGeneralCounsel,VerizonCommunications,Washington,D.C.); Kevin G. RUPY(Director,PolicyDevelopment,Washington,D.C.); Marilyn CADE (Ms.) (AdviserInternetIssues, Washington,D.C.)

V. BUREAU/OFFICERS

Président/Chair: JukkaLIEDES (Finlande/Finland)

Vice-présidents/Vice-Chairs: Xiuling ZHAO (Ms.) (Chine/China)

Abdellah OUADRHIRI (Maroc/Morocco)

Secrétaire/Secretary: JørgenBLOMQVIST (OMPI/WIPO)

VI. BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DE L’ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LAPROPRIÉTÉINTELLECTUELLE (OMPI)/

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OFTHE WORLD INTELLECTUALPROPERTY ORGANIZA TION (WIPO)

Rita HAYES (Mme/Mrs.),vice-directeurgénéral, Droit d’auteuret droitsconnexesetrelationsaveclemondedel’entreprise/DeputyDirectorGeneral, CopyrightandRelatedRightsandIndustry Relations

JørgenBLOMQVIST,directeurdela Division du droit d’auteur/Director, Copyright LawDivision

EdwardKWAKWA, conseillerjuridique/LegalCounsel

RichardOWENS,directeurdela Division ducommerceélectronique, destechniqueset delagestion dudroit d’auteur/Director,CopyrightE-Commerce,Technologyand ManagementDivision

Boris KOKIN, conseillerjuridiqueprincipal, Divisiondudroit d’auteur/Senior LegalCounsellor,Copyright Law Division

SCCR/14/7Annexe/Annex, page20

Víctor VÁZQUEZ LÓPEZ,conseillerjuridiqueprincipal,Divisionducommerceélectronique,destechniqueset dela gestiondudroit d’auteur/SeniorLegal Counsellor,CopyrightE-Commerce,Technologyand ManagementDivision

CaroleCROELLA (Mme/Ms.), conseillère, Divisiondudroit d’auteur/Counsellor, CopyrightLaw Division

LucindaJONES(Mme/Ms.), juristeprincipal,Divisionducommerceélectronique,destechniqueset dela gestion dudroit d’auteur/Senior Legal Officer,CopyrightE-Commerce,TechnologyandManagementDivision

GeidyLUNG (Mme/Ms.),juristeprincipal, Divisiondudroit d’auteur/Senior Legal Officer,CopyrightLaw Division

[End of Annexandof document]