Discussions regarding exceptions for Libraries & Archives (and maybe Conclusions?) on last day of the SCCR 28

Day 5 of the SCCR 28, July 4, 291410Am to 1:15PM

On this last morning of day 5 of the WIPO SCCR28, delegates are still discussing exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives but they will have to turn to limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions… at some point in time. The noon time that was announced at the start of the session has already been postponed. According to the Chair and the Secretariat, we are running late mostly because many of the regional coordinators are in a side meeting regarding conclusions (deciding what conclusions would be acceptable is obviously a difficult and highly political task). But the Committee need the coordinator to be present to give their group statements on the next topic (education and people with other disabilities).

There are also two other remaining agenda items: the approval of the report regarding SCCR27 and the contributions to the Development Agenda. Not to mention the discussion on the conclusion of this week meeting. Some delegates are already talking about how long the night might be. They have to agree on the fate of broadcasting treaty (ready for Diplomatic conference in 2015 or later?) and where they are at regarding global exceptions for libraries.

So, the program for today is absolutely packed but delegates are now sharing national experiences and are discussing the principles organized in 11 topics. The elephant in the room is whether the delegates will “stick” to talking only about principles or will they mention text (or consolidated text/proposal). As the most distinguished Delegate from Kenya put it “the idea is to replace all of those proposals from the African Group, Brazil, India, with one text” (see end of the session interventions). Many delegations are supporting the idea of a simpler text. However, words such as text-based, binding instrument, international agreement, or, of course, “treaty” are apparently not to be pronounced or the EU (and the US) will have a diplomatic fit.

In summary, this morning the delegates dealt with 3 of the 11 topics:

Topic 1 is Preservation. One of the issue is whether it should include unpublished works. So far there is some emerging consensus since this is in fact the libraries and archives ‘ mission at a minimum.

Topic 2 is right of reproduction. One of the issue is the difference between countries depending for example on the purpose of the reproduction. Reproduction for purpose of preservation seems to be quite common of course among countries that actually have working libraries.

Topic 3 is Legal Deposit. Should these designated repositories systems (national archives or libraries) be mandated or encouraged (as in the US principles)? We’re not even sure this is a copyright issue and libraries did not really ask for this. The International Publishers Association made a detailed intervention (see below) explaining the risks of having digital files in repositories that publishers might not trust.

The core topics i.e. library lending, parallel importation, crossborder uses, orphan works, liabilities, tpms, contract and right to translate works are for later.

Here are some interventions:

The floor is open for your contributions
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we refer to the role of preserving literary works which is one of the typical attributions of libraries and archives, the purpose of the exercise we have been doing in this committee has become even more obvious. The public service is from the mantle from the perpetuation of knowledge and all of its possible formats. The preservation of works is at the heart of the mission in archives and is one of the main activities undertaken by libraries, public libraries. We share the view that libraries and archives should be able to reproduce works without authorization of the right holder for the sake of preservation. We also agree with the United States when they refer to the objective of preserving works as a guideline for our discussions.

Furthermore, we coincide that with the assessment that limitations and exceptions to make published and unpublished works for purposes of preservation and replacement. Consequently, it is our view that it might be necessary for libraries and are achives to be able to employ new technologies to store those copies.

Limitations related to preservation are already provided by many national legislations and should be extended and adapted considering the digital technologies. In this regard, we share the understanding that we should use concepts that are technology and informative so there’s no need to revisit when new developments occur.

In order to subscribe the right of published and unpublished works for purposes of preservation and replacement, we believe that they should be allowed only for nonprofit uses in the general interest of the public and for human development without conflicting with the normal exploitation of the work or prejudicing the work.

Finally as suggested by many delegations of the last SCCR, the delegation of the Brazil, India and Uruguay have created a consolidated text for topics 1 to 11. We would like to submit our proposals contained in SCCR/26/3. The idea is to simplify the document SCCR/26/3 by having one single draft text instead of having the different proposals as presented by our delegations. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Chairman, if we should present the consolidations after the discussion on principles.
Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Brazil, for your explanation of the principle of preservation. That should be followed by libraries as part of their public service mission. These ideas are very welcome, and I would appeal to you to try to consolidate them in one principle that sums up all of these interesting reasons that you have put forward. And I would like to thank you for the effort you have put into this and at this stage, we are discussing the principles, we’ll have to coordinate all of this when we get on to the document itself, probably at a later stage. So thank you very much for all of that.
I give the floor to Chile.

>> CHILE: Thank you. We consider that preservation is a very important topic. It has two main facets. It’s essential, among the exceptions that preservation of knowledge is one of the main functions of From the practical point of view, too, as we said in the past, it’s important to have an exception that allows tore the reproduction of works for the purposes of preservation or replacement in case of loss or damage. We would like to know where the countries that have those exceptions requires certain conditions and what they are, if so.
Regarding the textual proposals, we are grateful for them and we see with great interest that there’s one from India that expressly includes preservation through digital replacement or preservation which is very important in view of the — the advance of technology, because it is a more efficient way of preserving or replacing the works.

[…]

EU, we have a provision that allows Member States to introduce exceptions and limitations to the reproduction right in respect of specific acts by public libraries or museums or by archives which are not direct or indirect commercial advantage. This is the same exception that I mentioned yesterday when discussing museums.
This exception does mention preservation in its text but it is widely used mainly, I would say, for preservation purposes across the EU Member States who have implemented it in different ways. One important point to consider is the general preservation exceptions are exceptions to the reproduction right and therefore they do not in their own, per se, allow, for example, the making available.
In the directive that I just mentioned there’s a recital that it does not cover acts made in the context of online delivery of protected works of phonograms more precisely.
Therefore, it will be useful in discussions like this to keep in mind that if the digitization activities are done with the objective of subsequently making available, for example in the context of museums or memory institutions. In the preservation activities, falling under an exception, the regime must be duly considered and rights will have to be cleared as required, as appropriate.
In the European Union, initiatives have been taken to facilitate the latter process. For example, we have a memorandum of understanding in out of commerce work and in some countries extended collective licenses is also used.
The document that the United States have tabled referred to published and unpublished works and on this specific point, I would also like to make a few remarks. Again, in the European Union, the EU legal framework is silent as to the application of exceptions to works that have not been published or legally made available, and this is a general point. It doesn’t only apply for libraries and archives, with one exception included in the orphan directives but it’s a very specific one. In that directive, it is allowed that — the directive allows for the application of specific exceptions mandated by the directive itself to also phonograms that have never been published or broadcast, but they have been made publiclicly accessible.
It’s presumable that the right holders would not oppose for the uses provided by the directive. So it’s a very strict and limited provision, which — and the allowed use, therefore, is based on the condition that the original right holder in the work is, yes, unidentified or could not be located, but that is still given in the past its authorization to make the work publicly accessible by the institutions.
Other than that, the matter of the application of exceptions to unpublished works is left to the choices of Member States, who generally, however, exclude the application of exceptions to these works through either a general exclusion or as applicable to specific exceptions or a customary norm. But more broadly, just a general remark, generally speaking, there is a right of devoidation for authors recognized in many countries and it therefore remains their decision to divulge their work or not. And this decision can depend on many factors, including artistic factors or other — or other reasons.
And finally, I would like to say something on the reference that the United States document also makes to the fact that preservation needs might be there for a variety of media and that formats might become obsolete. It is an important and interesting issue in the context of preservation. We heard about it from at least one of the library organizations that spoke yesterday in this room and it’s becoming more and more topically with the rapid substitution of digital formats and the reduction of devices that can read the old formats.

[…]>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, European Union, for your views on that. I think it would be interesting too, apart from our describing why basically you think this is an important principle, to try as far as possible to achieve a consensus.
I think this is something that we are aiming acto reach a consensus on what these principles should be. So from that point of view, the delegation of the United States has made an effort in submitting the document. At the have tried to express a principle. So I call on that delegation as it did yesterday, since we have now got on to this topic to, perhaps, present how it deals with this topic and this document.
Next speaker on the list is Australia.

>> AUSTRALIA: Thank you, Chair. Just a fairly small point but I think an important one. I think in any discussion of principles, I think we need to reflect the importance of libraries and archives working with one another across borders in relation to the preservation task. I know that in Australia, a number of our libraries work with countries in the region to assist with preservation and I think it’s very important to acknowledge that kind of assistance and to facilitate that assistance through our principles.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Australia. Thank you for making that additional point. I’m sure it will be taken into account as we hear additional comments. Canada.
Canada has the floor.

>> CANADA: I thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everybody. My delegation wanted to reiterate its support to the objective and the principle captured by our distinguished colleagues from the United States in their excellent document underlying how limitation and exception should enable library and archive to carry out their public role. We have shared elements of our national statutory approach on this topic and we are grateful that other delegations did so as did so as well. We wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate our interest in exploring further best practices in order for us all to understand concretely what our main and common features of effective limitation and exception to support preservation functions and hear from library and archives institution on its implications. I would echo also the Australian comment just made in relation to the principle behind these activities.
To be more specific, we recall that in Canada, we have adopted exceptions and limitations for purposes of maintenance and management of collectives and we would be interested to hear notably what kind of activities are covered in the legal systems of members. And how our museums are considered in that perspective.
We really wanted to reinforce the value of not only sharing information about our practices, but also trying to identify from these practices what are those that are common and that we could consider being best practices which we believe could usefully be adopted by all Member States. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Canada, for referring to the latest developments in Canadian legislation.
When I was referring to a consensus on the principle, that means also considering the points expressed in the principle on which we can’t achieve consensus. For example, it’s already been said that as regards unpublished works, there are differences of view, and that will help us to define the areas under the principle where this is consensus.
I see the United States asking for the floor and they are accepting our invitation to clarify, but before I give them the floor, we do have document SCCR/26/3, and now we have this new document where preservation appears and there’s to innovation, for example ephemeral material.
So I would like them to explain, for example, why they have put these additional subjects into their new proposal in 26/8. The United States.

>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As reflected in the working document, as well as our objectives and principles, we think it’s essential for WIPO Member States to encourage the development of the limitations and exceptables that enable libraries and archives to carry out their public service role of preserving works while leaving flexibility to each country and help us to do so. The preservation functions of libraries and archives helps to ensure that the public is able to have access to wide variety of works, published and unpublished, as we heard and does not have to depend solely on vagaries of time, place, marketplace and other items, that this provides a constant access. We have noted that preservation in the digital era includes digitization of born analog works, as well as born digital works. And we have heard over the last few days and the SCCR meetings the importance of making sure that we have continued access and — and for this reason we support exceptions and limitations in this area.
In the United States, just to answer a couple of questions, our preservation exceptions appear in Section 108, as well as some of the general use exceptions. These cover a variety of areas, including preservation or security or deposit for research use, and preservation of library materials.
We put forward an objective to enable libraries and archives of preserving works and we put a variety of principles. As we said, we have been hearing a lot about the special challenges of preservation in the digital environment. So in addition to the principles that we have set forward, we also think it’s important to identify the digital technologies are changing how libraries and archives preserve and provide access to digital content and that limitations and exceptions should appropriately ensure that libraries and archives can preserve and provide access to information developed and/or disseminated digital form and through network technologies. We tried to put these general principles and objectives in our recommended document.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for this explanation. Ecuador has the floor
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to what was mentioned from the delegation from Brazil, it was various delegations we made anest to have a consolidated Tex on several proposals which are found in document 26/3. And this is why you will be able to guide us at some point in time when it will be submitted for the delegation of Ecuador preservation is one of the most important topics in the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. The Ecuadoran delegation has been demonstrated, it’s essential to have a greater development of this aspect and we are working on this locally. This shows us that this local legislation is not sufficient. It’s necessary to have legislation at an international level which would regulate this issue. We must bear in mind that a limitation and exception in terms of preservation in favor of libraries and archives should undoubtedly take into account the nonprofit uses of these reproductions which are carried out for the purposes of preservation.
What we do with reproductions which involve the favor of our citizens in each and every country. What do we do there?
>> CHAIR: Well, thank you for the Distinguished Delegate of Ecuador. Thank you for your comments on this issue. The Russian Federation has the floor.

>> RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you, chairman. The Russian delegation also wanted to give its view on what we are discussing. We support the document that was submitted by the United States and the principles contained in that document.
On the subject of preservation for libraries and archives, in you’re view, it’s extremely important to have the possibility of making copies of materials that require substitution, that is that needs to be replaced. More than once we have spoken of a number of provisions along this line in our legislation. We already have these provisions on the preservation and the right to reproduction so as to preserve copies. Our legislation says that generally accessible libraries and archives have unlimited access to archives on the condition that there is no lucrative purpose.
So in that case, libraries and archives have the right without permission from the rights holders to do this, to reproduce one of the copies of these — of this document. This is aimed at replacing or preserving unusable or deteriorated documents. And apart from that, this extends to the to the reproduction of other documents in generally accessible libraries or archives that need to be replaced. So these provisions do exist, as they are valid in the context of this document we are discussing, and we believe that these provisions could become binding and would enable us to resolve this task, which we are discussing in this document.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate from the Russian Federation
when there is a problem of understanding, or a technical failure, lack in the interventions from the delegates, which you might pinpoint, detect, then we have to ask you to provide us with this complimentary information. And in this way, you are not watering down the discussion with general comments which already have repercussion on what the delegates are saying.
But to make the comment to be more useful. Right. Well, allow me to try to give shape to the principle that we have heard up until now, considering that we have tools which enable us to carry out this work.
Now, when there is a problem of understanding, or a technical failure, lack in the interventions from the delegates, which you might pinpoint, detect, then we have to ask you to provide us with this complimentary information. And in this way, you are not watering down the discussion with general comments which already have repercussion on what the delegates are saying.
But to make the comment to be more useful. Right. Well, allow me to try to give shape to the principle that we have heard up until now, considering that we have tools which enable us to carry out this work.
Now, regarding this issue of preservation, it has been pointed out that indeed the exceptions and the limitations, not just can, but also should allow for the fact that libraries and archives fulfill their role of public service and within this role, we find the issue of preservation, which facilitates the fact that the knowledge and the heritage of people’s and nations be maintained.
Now, specifically, we also understand from what you have pointed out, that these exceptions and limitations regarding preservation should allow for libraries and archives to make copies of the published works, whereas regarding its application to unpublished works, there there are different points of view, considering the different legislations and current treatment of said works. But the copies of these published works, there we do understand that they can be made, from what I heard or that there’s a common understanding that we could not just apply this to preservation, but also replacement under certain circumstances, which will be pointed out quite definitely in legislation, that is national legislation, and that the need for this preservation must provide an efficient answer to the obsolescence of certain media or formats, so that one can carry out, if necessary, have a migration of — a migration to a new format.
So that is the way in which I see that there’s a consensus around these elements coming from the different delegations, stressing the fact that the difference that I pointed out regards the unpublished works.

>> BRAZIL: I believe you have made a good summary of what we have presented. I would like to add maybe the comments made by the delegation of Australia, because we also share the understanding that we need to take a look at this cross border cooperation that libraries already have regarding preservation and how the limitations could support this process. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate from Brazil
to remind me of a very valuable contribution from the Distinguished Delegate from Australia, as is customary regarding this cross border cooperation which exists so as to bear it in mind.
Well, since this can be linked to other topics that we have before us, it is possible that at the end we can assess the best way of taking care of this suggestion, whereas we also hear points of view regarding the same issue from other delegates, irrespective of this fact, my proposal, unless some delegate would like to also compliment what has just been said, I would like to move on to topic two right of reproduction and safeguarding copies.

And we invite the delegations to submit their points of view on this issue. I see before beginning the discussion of this topic, I see a request for the floor from STM. STM, it’s an NGO. And they listened to me. I said that general statements, we invite you to accept that these general statements have already been delivered and that very timely, as far as this topic is concerned. It will be very timely and very relevant. I don’t want to discriminate against any NGO. You understand that when we are making progress, not to have 20 interventions at this point in time, so without running the risk. This is supposed to be transparent. We could think it — we could envisage specific contributions to these topics that we have looked at.
STM has the floor. STM.

>> STM: Thank you, Mr. Chair for allowing this brief contribution. Preservation, indeed is very close to the interests of libraries and rights holders and publishers and libraries work in PPP, public, private, partnerships together, particularly when it comes to cross border or electronic contribution. I would mention portico or locks, these are systems that have been presented at the WIPO workshop on preservation that the Secretariat has information on, and this is really the specific contribution I wanted to make, to say that in today’s complex world, you have many joint statements by the national libraries and the federation of European publishers. You have the portico project . It is really a curation and preservation these days to restore sometimes documents going far back so that they are available in modern formats. And to assume that rights holders are not taking an active part in this would be not fully correct.
Thank yo
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for contributing this, referring to some preservation projects which are being developed, which I’m sure have to be taken into account.
Now, indicating the same format, I see that we have two further requests for the floor from the NGOs. As you know, it’s not a debate that we are initiating. We are restricting ourselves or limiting ourselves to give some specific clarifications on the topic of preservation. If this exercise works in this, we can repeat it. In not In not that unpublished works must be excluded and not at all. That’s not what I meant. In the consensus, this extreme still requires greater discussion. That’s what I was saying, because there are different visions regarding unpublished works, but your contribution is very useful.
Thank you.
KEI has the floor and I’m going to ask our — or the person requesting the floor to be brief, as your predecessors and to be quite concise, as far as preservation is concerned. Thank you.
>> KEI: I would just add in some countries, the term of unpublished works is considerably longer than the term for published works.
>> CHAIR: Thank you
> CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you for this reference so that we can take this into being, so the different delegates can take it into account. I would like to thank you for your kindness for clearing this up.
SSA has the floor.
>> SSA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to appreciate the clarification you made on the point from my colleague from the international council on archives regarding unpublished being an area in which consensus doesn’t exist yet, but may need to be developed later, because as he noted, without the ability to copy unpublished works, archives will cease to exist for the future for what is in the future, but the reason I raised my flag was to raise attention to one of the things in last line on the principle because there’s some factual information about the practice in archival domains today that renders the limitation to copying for preservation purposes for obsolete storage formats inoperative.
In an example I provided at the side event on Monday, I cited a — the papers, the personal archives of the geneticist who is of true international status, and will be found eventually to be on the level of Darwin. We took in 10 linear meters of paper files and 17 gigabytes of files, in order to ensure that the 17 gigabytes could be arranged, described and assessed, that requires preservation copy of his laptop and his shared drive before we could even begin.
There are 1450 different file types any one of which may or may not be obsolete. We can’t go through the process of hooking at 1400 different file types before we make the coppy to begin with. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. This enables me to give the clarification that the principle that I have tried to express, listening to the contributions from the delegates here, points out that we can include the migration works for purposes of education, research, private study and interlibrary supply. In this regard, it is important to ensure legal certainty so that libraries and archives can fulfill their missions including in the digital environment. Some countries already provide for limitations and exceptions that allow libraries an archives to provide copies of work for education and research, private study and library supply services but few have provided an adequate framework that takes into account the new technologies.
Limitations and exceptions should allow libraries and archives to contribute the copy of copyright work or materials by related rights — protected by related rights, lawfully required or accessed, for the aforementioned purposes or for other purposes as allowed by the national legislations in line with existing international obligations.
The relationship between the activities of reproducing and supplying copies and they are purposes should be clearly established in order to ensure legal certainty for libraries, right holders and users.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, distinguished dell bait from Brazil. Thank you for her presentation of the topic of reproduction and safeguarding copies. Trying to give us the bases of this principle.
The United States has the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to speak about some of the general principles, objectives and principles in this area. For the United States, we thought that this was a — a key part of the public service role of advancing knowledge and research for libraries and archives. So I thought that was one of the very key objectives here and for our principles, we have — we think it might be helpful to — or we might be able to find some agreement with the fact that libraries and archives advance knowledge by providing access to their collections which together comprise the world’s — the cumulative knowledge of the world’s nations and people and that libraries and archives are essential to the knowledge of the 21st century, that reasonable exceptions and lippations can and should establish the framework enabling libraries and archives to supply copies of materials to researchers and other users directly or through intermediary libraries.
We also will follow up with what Brazil has said, that digital technologies are changing how libraries and archives obtain, and preserve and provide access to digital content and so limitations and exsettions should appropriately ensure that libraries and archives can preserve and provide access to information developed and/or disseminated digital form and through network technologies.
We also note that other exceptions and limitations, including general use exceptions may also may an important role in enabling libraries and archive
We also note that other exceptions and limitations, including general use exceptions may also may an important role in enabling libraries and archives to carry out this mission. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, United States of America. Thank you for this opinion, which agrees and compliments.
>> CHILE: Thank you. Is to possible to produce a work for library which we think is essential to be able to comply with the function of public service, promoting research and knowledge.
In our country, the current legislation envisages just the possibility of reproducing fragments of work without making reference to percentages or proportions. And this is why that in practice the management of library archives has determined a specific number of pages per book that libraries are allowed to copy and then deliver to the users.
However, often this is insufficient to be able to carry out the different functions and the specific needs of users. Therefore, so as to be able to reproduce the photographs and the maps, the libraries have serious problems to determine what do we understand, but could be understood, sorry, by fragments in light of these difficulties. We think that an international exception of this sort must envisage the possibility of reproducing and distributing complete works, as long as we comply with the ends which are sought.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, the Distinguished Delegate from Chile, thank you for her comments regarding the issue of reproduction of the complete work.
The European Union has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. As regards the European Union, we have in our legal framework exceptions — an optional exception for the reproduction right, notably the one that I mentioned already before, and so I’m not really doubtful the third time. I would like to point out that the provision included there is — is general in the sense that it doesn’t specify the purpose of purpose of the reproduction, although as I said before, it is widely used for preservation, but it is on the other hand very specific as to the acts — to the fact that the acts that are allowed have to be specific. So it’s not a blanket type exception.
And the acts must not be for economic advantage and there is a list of beneficiaries that I have already mentioned before, which includes museums by the way.
On the other hand, since it seems that the — this topic focuses on reproduction in general but more specifically to the practices like the ply of copies, to patrons or interlibrary supply, I would like to say that the framework is not specific as to the reproduction for these uses, which are recognized in certain Member States.
Generally speaking the two users that supply to other libraries or individual patrons are normally considered separately. The conditions are generally very precise and well defined to ensure compliance with the three-step test. With these exceptions, Member States are free to provide for compensation, obligations to the benefit of right holders and, again, to pick up on the point I made yesterday,

[…]

whether published or not may be copied if the original is in the possession of the collection but only a single copy may be made.
According to the second option, the published work may be copied in several copies, on condition, that the work is out of print or has not been distributed in the sufficient number of copies.
All copies may be, particularly copies provided, they are produced only for noncommercial ends. Legitimate copy may be lent and displayed on senior work stations, on the premises of the establishment. The preservation copy must not be used as an item additional to the original work in the collection, but must be use instead of the original work. In case that a copy has been made of the published work which is not part of the collection, it is a precondition for such use of a copy, that the original is out of print, while using the copy.
Thus, the provisions serves two purposes. The first option allows for what is commonly referred to as the preservation copy. Any work may be copied in the original is in the possession of the collection but only a single copy may be made. The presevennation copy will typically be made when an item is not available to the public access due to conservational or security reason or for documentation and the object is, for example, lent to third parties. Preservation copies may also be needed for safeguarding digital assets.
The second is usually referred to as the archival copy, and serves the purpose for allowing public access to out of print works. The reproduced object must be a publish work that is out of print or has not been distributed in a sufficient number of copies.
It allows for several and not only one copies as long as it’s out of print. Let me end by highlighting that these are allowed by the copy right act are not for free but subject for remuneration.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Austria, for giving us comments on your national experience and your legislation. I give the floor to Chile.
Sorry, I give the floor to Guatemala.
>> GUATEMALA: Thank you, Chairman. Our — in our legislation, Article 64 of our copyright law says that copies can be made for non-lucrative purposes and if they are part of the permanent collection, and if the aim is to preserve that copy or o replace a similar copy when it’s become lost, destroyed, or become unusable, providing it’s impossible to get another replacement under reasonable conditions. The aim is for us to encourage the development of culture as under our constitution.
Now, we have to look into how many copies the library or archive is authorized to make for the purposes of this reproduction and we must also examine whether it’s possible to change the format of that particular copy. Under the legislation, we have a clear constraint that says which works are not covered and in this case we are referring to unpublished works, provided they have not been communicated to the public. So on that basis, we are prepared to be flexible to contribute to any aspect that will be discussed on libraries and archives.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Guatemala for that very precise statement and the references you made to your national legislation on the subject. You clarified that unpublished works are excluded from this treatment.
Canada now has the floor.
>> CANADA: Thank you, Chair as Canada has previously mentioned in other SCCR sessions, although it’s not reflected in the working document, 26/3, we do have in our law the ability for libraries, archives and fumes to make copies of printed material and to provide these copies to patrons of other libraries and archives and museums as part of their interlibrary loan. The current scope of copying by these institutions is the same pursuant to an interlibrary loan. It’s for the same of the libraries and archives and museums with their own patrons. They can make copies that the patrons pursuant to fair dealings and the library archive may also make a copy of an article contained in a newspaper, periodical or for a person requesting to use the copy for research or private study.
But what I guess I would like to add maybe to some of the things we have previously said, is that interestingly enough, we do have an — and we are talking about criteria that we maybe have in common. I think right now we are hearing from some people that, for example there are limited purposes

[…]
France… [no audio]So when we speak of principles of the right of reproduction and safeguarding in general, we concentrate only on preservation or conservation and access to materials in libraries and archives. We do not have any principles or general objectives that are connected very broadly with the right to reproduction and safeguarding copies.
The very concept, actually is absent from the legislation of libraries and archives. Safeguarding copies is really connected with software, which is, of course, not germane to our discussion here today. So the objectives and principles would only — so under our legislation, it is permitted for certain institutions but not all of them to preserve or make available certain materials and they are allowed to do so for nonprofit purposes as other delegations have stressed.
So I just wanted to say that a general principle on reproduction and safeguarding copies is something that as we see it is connected to two different subjects, one, that we have just spoken about, which is preservation and reproduction and the other, which would be the subject of other discussions on access to materials deposited in certain institutions.
Thank you

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, France, for those words.
And thank you too, for your clarification about the connection that this topic has with other ones we are discussing. And I take up your appeal to be precise, and not to repeat principles because in this way, we will simplify things and concentrate on the differences.
For example, preservation is being dealt with under the first principle and now we are discussing whether the reproduction is a principle that’s different from the principle on preservation. We have had a heard various views on the subject and although we are, of course, going to continue to listen to views, I would anticipate somewhat by appealing to try to identify what’s different in this principle. Is it going to be picked out as a principle that’s different from the principle of preservation.
If we do this, we are going to be clearer about the scope of principle two. I give the floor to the Sudan.
>> SUDAN: Thank you, Chair. Previously, we had dealt the question of didn’t legal or the legislation within the national frameworks. And in that context, we noted that archives on the basis of their regulations and legislation on the national level provide libraries and archives with a vast number of aspects of support in this field.
The updated legislation, in my country, in 2013, allows for reproduction in case of damage or for academic research or for certain other activities undertaken by libraries, be this for use in the media or on the official level or in the courts. However, the advent of the digital medium and the changes that have become wide spread in libraries and archives have sped up safeguarding and exchange of works, hence works preserves on the national level may be made available digitally or directly.
However, what is needed, in fact, is closer cooperation to provide better access to works and better cooperation between Member States. This would enable WIPO to allow the opening up of exchange and to bring about genuine benefiting of scientific research within the framework or the freedom of information.
Another aspect I wish to take up deals with new copies or I have not come across any clear studies on the matter. Most of the libraries in the scientific sphere do undertake quick exchange of new copies of studies

The author of the preserved material, even if he wishes to obtain copies is unable to do so and very often does not obtain an up-to-date copy.
So here we would like to see better cooperation that would enable libraries to exchange updated scientific works in the interest of development, which is the goal of this organization and to allow copies to be made available if they are not available on the national level without omitting, of course, the financial aspect and the fees to be taken by the author or the copy holder.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Sudan, for highlighting the need for cooperation on this subject.
Ecuador has the floor.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. On the right of reproduction and safeguarding copies, we should bear in mind that information — that education and research result from the existence and the working of a library or archive. An exceptional limitation allowing libraries and archives to be able to carry out this reproduction and circulation of these reproductions for the purposes of research and training is important in the developing countries such as Ecuador. Reproductions and the distribution of works by libraries and archives is an absolute necessity. The purpose being to have more research go on.
Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Ecuador, for your opinion on this subject.
Good. After the first round of statements, now, I share with you my view of where we are. People are permanently referring to the topic of preservation under this subject of reproduction and I think it would be very important in order to clarify our discussion to define — to define reproduction and say that it’s included in the first principle on preservation. The first principle on preservation. So we should concentrate on the discussion of reproduction for purposes other than preservation. There are proposals along those lines.
For example, mention has been made of the fact that these purposes may include not only preservation, but research, education, private study, or interlibrary loan, just to mention some of these other purposes.
People have also said that this reproduction is authorized in certain cases and for certain purposes. And normally, there are safeguards. This reproduction goes hand in hand with safeguards, as was clearly expressed by the delegation of Canada.
In addition, the topic of reproduction is connected with general principles, such as the support for research and human development, which is contained in the United States document.
But reading the United States document, the emphasis in their approach to this general principle is on access. And access is described as being — as meaning taking action necessary to allow researchers access to these materials. So the question I’m asking is: How can we determine whether reproduction is included in this general exception, in this specific exception that we are discussing or under other topics that we are going to be discussing later on.
If we don’t define that, we are going to lack clarity, as respects the delimitations of each topic. We are going to waste a lot of time by repeating topics such as preservation or interlibrary loan, for example.
So I would like to appeal to you, to make an effort to clearly define the boarders between each of these principles, the dividing line between each of these principles.
hese principle
>> CHAIR: Good. We recognize the complexity of this task. For example, we should be thinking it would be one way of doing it, of whether we separate the principles of reproduction, and this one, or whether we use reproduction under the first topic as necessary.
For example, under topic one, preservation requires reproduction, and then in the topic of, for example, interlibrary loan, which examined whether we need to include the topic of preservation there too. This is one way of doing this. Another way would be to have a principle on reproduction and then list all the possible purposes of that reproduction. So this is the job facing us.
Brazil has the floor.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think everybody is still considering your comments and I think that that seems to be the way forward, because the limitations to the right of reproduction, to the right of reproduction can be applied to many principles that we are discussing here.
At this point in time, we agree that when it comes to preservation, it should be dealt in the first topic. And maybe we could try to have a broader principle here, and then try to work on the right of reproduction in each topic, when it’s necessary. Because, for example when they talk about the purposes, I believe if we go to the different national legislations, you see that different purposes are indicated and that allow for our limitations to the right of reproduction and I think from what I heard, one thing that comes, as a common sense is that these reproductions should be made for noncommercial uses. I think this is a point that is common, and, of course this reproduction will be made in accordance with the international obligations already provided for in the international regime.
I’m still thinking about it, and it was just a — we are just trying to help, but we don’t have a final comment in this regard.
Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Brazil for your interesting ideas on this topic, and for your effort to achieve clarity.
The European Union described their national experience, pointing out they had a national exception for the right of reproduction, and they said that that was generally used for the purposes of preservation.
So what we should define, taking up Brazil’s proposal, is to have an initial exchange of views on whether the right of reproduction should be a principle, or when we get on to other topics, we should say that reproduction is necessary so as to comply with those other principles.
So let’s try to make this effort that Brazil suggested we do. It might be of interest. Anyway, I would be grateful if you gave this some thought. Perhaps not immediately but if you could give many more thought to this subject. European Union?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Just to ask for a bit of clarity on what you are inviting us to do.
Are you suggesting that since differently from other points that we have been discussing, this point or the title of this point refers to a right instead of a use that could or could not be done under a given exception or to subsume this point under one of the uses because it is assumed that the exceptions to the reproduction rights are ultimately mainly used for one or the other of the uses?
I just don’t understand exactly what this effort that you are asking us to do is, if you can clarify that, please. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, European Union, for that clarification. It’s the second option that you have described but we are only going to be in a position to have a full view once we have completed our discussion of the 11 topics. So it’s rather premature to say at this point whether we are going to have it in this topic and eliminate it from the other topics. I would like to note that, because we have to define it for purposes of clarity. We can’t have a preservation principle where we say it has to be preserved for purposes of preservation, because that’s very repetitive. We are just trying to clarify the principles. So this is the invitation I’m making to all of you since there are other purposes that are different from preservation, that we haven’t yet discussed. I’m sure we will be in a better position to better define that once we have completed topic 11.
Perhaps the invitation is a bit clearer. Thank you very much.
In any case, before moving on to the following topic, could you please tell me if anybody has any more comment
that since differently from other points that we have been discussing, this point or the title of this point refers to a right instead of a use that could or could not be done under a given exception or to subsume this point under one of the uses because it is assumed that the exceptions to the reproduction rights are ultimately mainly used for one or the other of the uses?
I just don’t understand exactly what this effort that you are asking us to do is, if you can clarify that, please. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, European Union, for that clarification. It’s the second option that you have described but we are only going to be in a position to have a full view once we have completed our discussion of the 11 topics. So it’s rather premature to say at this point whether we are going to have it in this topic and eliminate it from the other topics. I would like to note that, because we have to define it for purposes of clarity. We can’t have a preservation principle where we say it has to be preserved for purposes of preservation, because that’s very repetitive. We are just trying to clarify the principles. So this is the invitation I’m making to all of you since there are other purposes that are different from preservation, that we haven’t yet discussed. I’m sure we will be in a better position to better define that once we have completed topic 11.
Perhaps the invitation is a bit clearer. Thank you very much.
In any case, before moving on to the following topic, could you please tell me if anybody has any more comments about reproduction or no
Thank you. Thank you very much. The invitation has been made and now we are move on to the third principle of legal deposits. As it was announced, at a certain point, we need to move on to the — to dealing with the important topic of limits and exceptions for educational purposes.

Limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.
At this time we have received Brazil’s

Limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.
At this time we have received Brazil’s request to continue the work that we are doing and we would like to say that depending on how fast we advance, it would be interesting to not limit discussion. The suggestion that we have is to move on to the topic of legal deposits. I hope there’s no opposition to this. This would allow us to have this interesting exchange of views which we have had up until now.
European Union, you have the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Yes, thank you, Chair. I mean, would just warn that we would need to just invite you to consider the importance of giving enough time in the afternoon to discuss conclusions and recommendations as needed. So just please keep this — keep this in mind. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Well, done. We will take note of this. The regional coordinators are moving forward with their work. This should help us out with the work that we will be starting in the afternoon, thanks to the flexibility that I would like to thank you for, we can continue discussing this topic.
To move on to the next topic limitations and exceptions for research institutions, we would need to have the general statements from the regional coordinators who are not present at the moment because they are working on this important task of conclusions.
In hine with this, we are going to continue and I would like to open up the floor for any comments on legal deposits. The United States, you have the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Chair. Within our principles and objectives document, we note that legal deposit systems help develop national connections and may help in preservation efforts and other preservation reference, especially if they include many categories of works in multiple formats. US law provides for deposit of copyrighted works published in the United States in the Library of Congress. Deposit and registration, while frequently made at the same time are distinct systems in the United States and we note that our system is unique. That said, we understand that like our deposit system, deposit systems around the world are facing the challenge of managing digital works including web pages.
We look forward to an exchange of views and experiences with other Member States, on how they are adjusting to this but we want to say, it’s a helpful principle and we want to encourage the adoption of these deposit laws and systems. Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate to the United States for your explanation of the US’s vision that is in the document that you presented.
Brazil, you have the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Libraries and archives are not just institutions that lend books and store documents. One of the many ways by which they provide essential services to society is by sharing that published material is properly collected and preserved for the use of pewter generations.
In Brazil, the legal deposit is a requirement under the law number 10.994 and 12.192 from 2004 and from 2010. The Brazilian national library is responsible for storing a copy of every single pubcation in the country by any means or process in order to ensure the storage of Brazilian — the Brazilian intellectual production.
Brazil therefore supports the general objective of legal deposit norms and systems. We think it would be important to deepen the discussion of this topic, considering the special needs and concerns presented by libraries and archives. It should be permitted for the designated legal deposit repository or the repose Tory should be produced for the purpose of — the purpose of preservation and demanding the production of copy rights work and works protected by related rights which have been incorporated or made available to the public.
Thank you.

[…]
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate of Chile for her opinion and the question, which is really an invitation to other delegations to take into consideration.
Austria, you have the floor.
>> AUSTRIA: Thank you, Mr. President. In the analog world, the legal deposit was not an issue for the Austrian copy right rule. It’s covered by the media act. It contained mainly works of literature, however, in the framework of recently introduced legal deposit of digital works, some limited copyright issues arose, depending on the way the digital works are delivered, acts of reproduction may be necessary and thus have to be permitted.
As the receiving institution, which is the Austrian national library itself makes the copy of the delivered work. The distribution right does not exist with regard to these copies and the clarification in this regard seems necessary to us.
Furthermore, we created a legal basis for what is commonly referred to as web harvesting.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from Austria for the explanation that coming from the separate treatment they have the beginning with the media law to the new challenges coming from digital environment where there’s a connection with copyright, that’s an open invitation to every delegation to — to develop if we succeed to have this connection clear, we will have a principle here. If there’s a consensus that is an important matter but out of the topic of copyright, that might change our position regarding this topic, but I thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from Austria for finding these connections and I should refer to even invite the US, which is paper, made a connection with copyright specific that might be additionally commended.
We will now listen to the Russian Federation.
>> RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you, Chairman. This is a very interesting topic, in fact. The issue of legal deposit can be considered in two contexts. First of all, for the purposes of preservation, and in that case, any connect — it doesn’t have any connection with copyright. I wanted to say that the deposit system in the Russian Federation is not aimed at copyright but aimed at preserving copies of works produced by various authors and institutions. This system is based on a special law, which was adopted on legal copies, and it is aimed at preserving copies as part of our heritage. And we have a national fund — a national repository for preserving these works and and making them available to users. That’s as far as the law is concerned.
I should point out that the main aim of this is not copyright. I would like, in particular to bring your attention to the fact that we perhaps ought to consider how this will be connected, nevertheless, with copyright because one of the purposes of deposit is to create possibilities for the legal conservation of these works by the authors.
However, the Berne Convention does not require an obligatory deposit, or the obligatory restoration of these works.
It seems to me that together, we should find the golden means which

CHAIR: Thank you very much, the Distinguished Delegate from the Russian Federation for having brought up this interesting topic to try to clarify the relationship between the legal deposit and it being a principle within the topic of exceptions to copyright. We have heard contributions in line with this, and you have been able to give us some additional information that needs to be analyzed further.
Thank you very much for this comment.
I think that now it is the turn of India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to reiterate what the Russian Federation has said. There is a delivery of books, public library acts 1954, which mandates people to deposit one copy of their publications to national library and obtain a certificate of a legal deposit. Even newspapers and PD articles published in India how to be deposited into the the national library. This comes much from a legacy of latkas who said that libraries should contain all books written about India and in free India this has was taken up. We want to point out the UN depository system. The UN library depository system is operating in all the countries and even the institutions like our law school of certain legal instruments.
As you said, as pointed out by the honorable member of the Russian Federation, the linkage of this copy right or the reproduction seems to be following — it is haunting which needs to be given some thought. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from India for his contribution on this item. We would like to thank you very much for this additional analysis.
France, you have the floor
FRANCE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would just like to briefly mention something. My delegation joins itself to the appeal made by Chile to have exchanges on the specific implementation of this system. We think this would be an extremely useful exercise for us, especially within the framework of a digital deposit or a deposit of digital works. We are working at the national level on this issue. We would like to share the experiences that other delegations have had in this area, whether it is for voluntary or mandatory deposit.
Thank you very muc
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from France, for having backed the proposal made by Chile and for their availability to

CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from France, for having backed the proposal made by Chile and for their availability to contribute with their own national experiences.
Tunisia, you have the floor.
>> TUNISIA: , as far as the legal deposit is referred, in this question, there are many legislations which can be compared and which are not included in the question of — in the laws concerning copy right or artistic rights. UNESCO has, in fact, carried out a study on this legal deposit and its importance.
The study on this topic is a comparative study and it has showed the importance of legal deposit, particularly concerning the preservation of the cultural — of the heritage. This is the basic reason for legal deposit, and we must differentiate between a legal deposit and the deposit that can be done as far as organizations which take care of copyright.
Sometimes there is a legal deposit as far as into the national libraries or in depository units that are defined by law. And then there is a deposit which have — that is the — the management — the general management of copyright rights for the authors of works. We must also take into consideration the differentiation between legal deposit and between the deposit which is the management of copyright, which is normally voluntary as far as the legal deposit is concerned, the experiences differ from one country to another. Sometimes it is mandatory, and in other cases, some national legislation makes it voluntary. However, the basic target or object of this is to maintain the national culture, the national memories of this state and to maintain it for the succeeding generations and this is something that has been referred to by some delegations that the question of legal deposit is very important, and it should be followed up. And particularly within the context of the new technologies and particularly the

[…]

VENEZUELA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, in Venezuela, the copyright law makes legal deposits mandatory. Any publisher, any publishing house must send copies to the national library. This is done to preserve the work but also to ensure that it is available to the public.
Moreover, we believe that it does have something to do with the copyright because it would avoid future copies. It is clear that when it is not registered in a database, the work that has been published, then other people would be able to obtain this work and publish it under their name. They would take advantage of this already having been written by another author and publish in their name. We need to recognize that the person would is the author really created this work.
Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you to very much to the Distinguished Delegate from Venezuela to establish a linkage between legal deposits and copy rights.
Thank you very muc
>> ECUADOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ecuador has rules on legal deposit. I would like to mention that the practice has been of benefit. Legal deposit in Ecuador is developed under copyright rules, and rules on libraries and archives. Not only for the purposes of preservation, but also to allow access to contents available in libraries and archives, regarding the practice of legal deposit, there’s a double question referring to whether it’s compulsory or not.
For publishing houses, it is obligatory but for authorizes, it’s voluntaryary in practice, legal deposit involves the participation of the national copyright office, cultural institutions, and libraries.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Ecuador for describing your national experience on that. Senegal has the floor.
>> SENEGAL: Thank you. In Senegal, there’s no link between legal deposit and copyright legislation. Authors are encouraged

[…]

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Mexico has the floor.
>> MEXICO: Thank you Chairman. My statement will be brief if I keep an eye on the clock. It’s 20 to 1, and I wouldn’t like to be the cause of holding up everybody’s lunches. So I will be very brief.
I would just like to say that the Mexican copy right office has 57,000 registrations a year, and it set up a mechanism to facilitate and the handing out of registrations under a scene we call express author and it’s through that program that work can be registered in just one day. In just one day we issue a certificate to say that the work has been registered and also to help vulnerable — sectors of society, in other words, the disabled, the elderly, children and pregnant women. We have set up an even quicker program, where we grant registration certificates to those people in just one hour. So this is what we are doing in our country, so as to meet the great cultural demand by our population as to the registration of works, which we are very pleased to see in our country.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mexico. And congratulations on that service for the benefit of the authors of your country.
Good. The United States has the floor now.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States is somewhat surprised but pleased by the robust discussion of this — of this principle. Just to focus attention again on the principle itself, it’s fashioned in a rather careful way. We note that we simply encourage the adoption of national legal deposit laws and systems.
We do take note of the long historical relationship between deposit and copyright law and it’s not often that we get, in this forum, to mention the statute, but my understanding subject to further research is that deposit has that long pedigree, that long history that stretches back to that venerable statute.
And we took note in the interventions today that a number of countries continue

CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria for that statement. Sudan has the floor.
Thank you very much, Nigeria and to all of those who have taken part in this interesting exchange of views. Well, one way of — as one way of understanding this topic, it’s so much that if we are going to have a principle on legal deposit, it has to be — the connection with copy right has tore clearly demonstrated and we heard how under the various legislations this link is not made in legislation, although, they do recognize the tremendous — the tremendous importance for preserving the nation’s cultural heritage of these legal deposit schemes. This is something that can’t be denied, and that has been consensus on the importance of legal deposit. The point is whether we are going to have it as a principle in this discussion on national exceptions and limitations to copyright. So the direct question is: How is this going to work, so that we just don’t recognize the importance of the subject.
A specific contribution was made by Austria, who shed light on the fact that if legal deposit is to do with digital works, then there is a direct connection with copyright. Another way of dealing with it is contained in the United States document, which mentions and I quote — the materials should not limit and disseminate government works. So there is an express mention of the connection between copyright and the legal deposit regime, but we need to give this subject more thought. Your views have been very interesting, and once we have the outcome of this discussion, we’ll see whether we keep a principle that’s clearly connected with copyright or not. And secondly, whether we do that in such a way as to promote legal deposit systems or whether we go even further and say that it has to be dealt with under copyright legislation as regards any exceptions that may be provided for to strengthen its implementation.
These are the conclusions I come to after this rich exchange of views.
Thank you very much. The work for the meeting, we discussed the first three topics on the list for 11 and in view of the time, rather than going on to topic four on the list, which would be library lending, where probably — now, fortunately, I have to say that there’s been a request for the floor from the international association of publishers. That request was made a couple of minutes ago on this topic. And I passed over them so as to give the floor to other Member States but I’m sure they have something to say on the subject of legal deposit.

>> IPA: Mr. Chairman, please allow me to briefly summarize the very constructive discussions that are going on and have been going on over the years between libraries and publishers on the issue of legal deposit, that will explain to you why our position is that we should not discuss legal don’t as a elevator issue but all copyright aspects are actually subsumes under the other discussion issues, remote access, reproduction, et cetera.
From a publisher perspective, legal deposit is not a copy right issue initially, because the core issue is making sure that publishers give their works to libraries in the first place. That’s not an act restricted by copy right. That is an obligation, either under law or it is under a voluntary system. And discussions and exmorations with libraries and publishers have shown that compliance, whether you have a high compliance rate, which all desire or whether you have a low compliance rate does not depend on whether it was statutory or voluntary but it depends on the trust of the rights holders in the system that it works, that the works are being looked after, and that it, indeed, serves the preservation of this heritage. In the digital environment, the legal deposit has new challenges and these challenges are what are going to determine whether a legal deposit system, whether statutory or voluntaryary is going to be successful.
Among these criteria are IT security, because nobody is going to give a digital file, which is not well protected to a library if he himself has a very strong need for security. The operational issues, how easy is it to make legal deposit? The curational issues, is the library actually in a position? Is it capable? Is it funded to actually ensure the long-term preservation? And is it able to deal with all the new kind of digital products that publishers are creating, online databases, customary publishing, self-publishing, et cetera, et cetera. And one of the aspects of whether publishers trust and will collaborate with a legal deposit system is actually the copyright regime under which these copies, in particular, the digital copies are being held.
So if I give my legal — my digital copies, who will have access? Will it be safe — held safely? Will this legal deposit copy compete with my commercial product? If it does, we destroy the kind of trust and the need to collaborate and the will to collaborate because suddenly, there’s a real and heavy commercial burden on this.
Many areas where this collaboration is currently functioning now deal with the kind of embargo
so that this work is deposited, but it actually remains under a very restricted access policy for a time that is set by the publisher. So this is the other where copyright law comes in. Two wide exceptions, heard compliance, two narrow exceptions do not give the libraries what they actually need in terms of uses that they have and they are doing in the public interest.
This balance is hard to achieve, but all of these access issues, whether it’s taking a legal deposit copy, and allowing remote access, taking a legal deposit copy and allowing document delivery. Taking a legal deposit copy and providing it for education or copying it for preservation, all of these issues are secondary and are the copyright issues, the area where copy right actually intersects with legal deposit.
I do not believe, therefore, that legal deposit should be a separate issue there. All of these uses are actually covered by other topics we are raising, however, as we discussed them, we should bear in mind that a too lax copyright law will actually harm copyright compliance.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that contribution to the discussion.
Good. So I think we have now finished our discussion of the legal deposit topic. As I see it, this can be summed up as saying that we recognize the importance of legal deposit and various legislations that the connection with copyright is dealt with in various ways. And in some legislation, it’s dealt with separately, for example, and discussion is still pending on how copyright is connected with the legal deposit regime. And then we — so as to then define whether we need a separate deposit independent topic — principle, rather on legal deposit.
It has been pointed out that it could be dealt with under other topics as regards copyright. None of this distracts from the importance of the legal deposit regime, of course. So thank you very much, for everyone who took part in the discussion.

EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, yes, it’s just — I don’t know if this is a good time to say this but it’s to announce that we will have EU coordination meeting at 2 p.m. in Room 213.1. Brazil. This is a new proposal and perhaps you would like to specify more details about the proposal.
>> BRAZIL: Actually, we work on the proposals that we had on the table and we tried to merge them as we announced in the last session and the product of this work is one text that would be the proposal of one single text that encompasses the ideas that were included in the previous text, SCCR/26/3.
It’s a new proposal in the way that we — well, it’s own one proposal, but actually, it is the product of the compilation of the work that has already been done. So the idea is to — to streamline the positions and to make it easier for the discussion of this committee. So this is why we are offering this new 11 proposals to make the Tex and the discussions more — well — well, more dynamic and easier to follow in bringing some consensus in some points at least we could find consensus among these delegations and we understand that the text, we will help to reach the consensus with all Member States. Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Kenya, you have the floor.
>> KENYA: And just to support what my colleague from Brazil, I think in the last session, I think we indicated that we wanted to see some progress in terms of the proposals and what we did then in to work together and all the proponents and we have come to an agreement that we can now submit a consolidated text to replace the various proposals as one.
So basically the idea is to replace all of those proposals from the African Group, Brazil, India, with one text, where they indicate. And we hope with that kind approach, then we will be able to have a clearer view in terms of the issues which are under discussion and therefore help the Member States to make progress. I think it’s in that spirit for which that proposal, and we would like to see that proposal replace the current various proposals in each and every topic.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. Thank you for this clarification. Thank you to the delegate of Kenya. Japan, you have the floor.
>> JAPAN: My question is a little bit overlooked with what my distinguished colleague from Kenya said and for further clarification, I would like to ask the question to the distinguished colleague from Brazil. The paragraph are 15, the chair’s conclusion, for the last session said that the proponents of text have agreed to work on their proposal for each of the topics, taking into account the other suggestions and those made in the 27th session.
I would like to clarify the relationship between what was proposed and what was included in the Chair’s conclusion.

CHAIR: Thank you very much for this question.
Brazil, you can answer if you would like.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank Japan for the question. We had a very interesting debate in the last session, where we awe big areas of convergence between the three texts, the text that were proposed by Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, African Group and India, and the comments that were made were taken into being, in the process of the compilation. So this text that is being presented, it brings this — these ideas that were already in the document 26/3, but a compiled manner. Thank you, Chair, and I hope this has clarified the position. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, from the Distinguished Delegate from Brazil. Ecuador, you have the floor.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We would just like to give some more information. We would like to add to what Brazil said in the previous session, we had found during the discussion that we had on various topics, we saw that they were areas of convergence between the proposals that were brought up by Brazil, the African Group, India, et cetera, Uruguay as well. We carried out work between the proponents to try to make progress in this area. We think that this would be important for this to be noted and that the importance that should be given to it is — thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. United States, you have the floor.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think we would like to take a little bit of time before deciding on this. It seems like if we — if all of these proposals are merged into one, we may lose some of the comments that go along with them. So if we could maybe just take a little bit of time before we decide on this.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for these suggestions and we take note of them.
Thank you.

SOUTH AFRICA: We would like to support the Brazil’s proposal. In the last session, we had discussed this issue and it was agreed amongst of the delegations who put forward suggestions that, was Brazil, India, Uruguay and Brazil to merge the text so we are in support of that.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. Canada, you have the floor.
>> CANADA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. One additional consideration, perhaps that is linked to the proposal put forward by different delegations regarding the merging of these text, I think that for us we would also need to look at what needs to be done regarding the updating that would reflect the exchange of best practices. This was expressed in prior sessions, and this has not been reflected sufficiently in the draft documents.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Very well. As you can see, we have several suggestions about
EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you. I would look to ask a question to the delegate of Brazil and I apologize already if this has already been clearly explained and I didn’t quite get it.
The work that has been done by the delegation of Brazil and the other proponents of Tex has been to take those proposals that in document SCCR/26/3/R under proposed Tex and merged and streamlined as they considered it appropriate, right? Or is it something more than that? Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Brazil, you have the floor.
>> BRAZIL: So just to clarify for the — I hope this is the last time, on the — the work that we have been doing so far is just to bring the discussion that we had, that showed us the areas of consensus that existed among the proposals, and what the delegate from the European Union said is right. We compiled the ideas to bring one text for every topic that had proposals from two or three — two or three different text proposals from Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, African Group, and India. The way to support the work that we have been doing here of discussing these topics to make it easier and to make one more accessible document.
And, of course, we also took note of the discussions that we had, as it had been mentioned to make the text that makes sense.
Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from Brazil for having answered the question put forward by the European Union. The answer is positive, and you were talking about the term or rather or more.
Very well. Well, to have some coordination regarding proposal