Day 2 of SCCR31. The morning session was well attended and took place in the “old” and smaller meeting room. Delegates and NGOs can see each other in this room and it was leading to quite a bit of diplomacy and thus most probably consensus. Here is a selection of interventions regarding definitions of retransmission as stated in the Chair’s text under discussion:
(d) (1) “retransmission” means the transmission by any means of a broadcast [/cablecast] by any other entity than the original broadcasting [/cablecasting] organization, whether
simultaneous or delayed.(2) “near simultaneous retransmission” means a transmission that is delayed only to the
extent necessary to accommodate time differences or to facilitate the technical transmission of
the broadcast [/cablecast].
[(e) “pre-broadcast” means a transmission prior to broadcast [/cablecast] that a broadcasting
[/cablecasting] organization intends to include in its programme schedule and which is not
intended for direct reception by the public.]
CHAIR: […]
I will go to the section of retransmission. The retransmission is in paragraph D, of the section of definitions, still on page 2. We’ll start with the first definition there, the retransmission means the transmission by any means of a broadcast/cablecast by any other entity than the original broadcasting, in brackets cablecasting, organization, in brackets, slash cablecasting, and end of brackets, organization, whether simultaneous or delayed. As I mentioned in the presentation of the document this is a very broad definition of retransmission that could be helpful when we try to include rights in the rights section a way to avoid the illegal use of a broadcast over any other platform as it was expressed by several Dell nations. That’s why I intended to use a very broad definition of retransmission. That, of course, if however at some point we would like to restrict the scope of protection, a way to do that could be to add some objectives to the retransmission in order to point out which type of retransmission could be covered and which type of retransmission could not be covered. Of course, this is a very interesting point to discuss. It doesn’t mean that it is a unique approach. I’m sure that you have some opinions regarding that, and your opinions are welcome.We open the floor for comments regarding the definition of retransmission.
Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.
>> IRAN: Good morning, Chairman.
Thank you very much. We think that the definition of retransmission without the definition of transmission as in this document actually makes some ambiguity and the definition of retransmission much depends on the definition of transmission. I suggest we include the definition made by document SCCR/27/2Rev of transmission be included to the — to this document as well.
>> CHAIR: Thank you to the Distinguished Delegate of Iran for his suggestion to include a definition of transmission and to refer to the previous definition of transmission included in document SCCR/27/2 Rev. Particularly in page 4 we have a definition of transmission. Before getting there we could receive other views regarding this suggestion. We need a definition of transmission before we enter into a definition of retransmission. We’re still receiving comments
regarding this definition retransmission we have here in the text. E.U. has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair.
In our opinion, it is important to have this definition of retransmission and we agree with the suggestion but it should be a broad definition. We would leak to emphasize the important element of — this is in line also with the understanding of the retransmission in previous Treaties and in practices, but the main element is that the transmission is done by other entity but the original broadcasting organization. This is the core for us to under the definition of retransmission. We think that term, as defined here, we think it is important for our last point which is Rights To Be Granted. Where you propose to have a right to authorize or prohibit retransmission of broadcast so that it is also always the retransmission but it is done by other entity. For us, it is very important to understand that we all are on the same page here and that we are defining retransmission in order to define the right.
When it comes to the Object of Protection, of course you have under paragraph 2 the provision that the — the provision of this Treaty should not provide any protection in respect of mere retransmission, transmissions by any means, which we understand is supposed to mean but retransmissions by entities other than broadcasting organizations should not be granted protection which is also in line with the objective of this Treaty. We probably don’t need to say mere because we have the definition and probably we don’t have to say by any means because it is in the definition already in that case. In paragraph 3 — sorry foregoing a bit ahead, but it is all important for the understanding we think of the definition of retransmission. When we talk about Object of Protection, those transmissions that are protected we should not use the term retransmission but we’ll come back to this when we discuss the Object of Protection.
There is one maybe technical issue, one we would like to raise, it has been discussed previously on many occasions. It is a situation of where another entity, when the broadcasting organization is making a retransmission and then there is another entity that’s making a retransmission of the retransmission and in order not to lose the possibility of broadcasting organization to also be able to authorize and prohibit such retransmission of a retransmission. A chain of retransmission which would then fall outside of the definition of retransmission, we would propose to add here to the definition of retransmission that simultaneous transmission of a retransmission should be understood to be a retransmission. To make sure that we have a chain that’s protected. We will provide some wording on this to make it clear.
The idea is to make sure that when there’s a chain of retransmissions that broadcasting organization have the opportunity to authorize and prohibit the retransmissions.
On the whole, we’re very supportive for having this kind of definition and for having a broad definition of retransmission.
[…]
CHAIR: Thank you very much for that opinion. It has a lot of elements to consider and to discuss.
The first one is your understanding of the usefulness of a broad definition of a retransmission regarding the rights section and that was the intention behind the broad definition, as I explained. It is good to know that you recognize that usefulness as well. Secondly, regarding highlighting the core part in your opinion of the definition of retransmission which is made by any other entity than the original broadcasting organization, thank you for that clarification. It is very important in order to find some coherence among the definition of retransmission and the way we use the term retransmission along the document. That was highlighted by some other Delegates yesterday, not only in this room but in bilateral conversations we use retransmission in several parts and I think those Delegates gates that made those comments regarding the retransmission we’re doing, thank you for that. We have to be careful, but all of the uses here, they’re current and in that sense I appreciate very much your clarification. You were right saying that one use was in the right section but we have to be very careful in the way we use the term retransmission in the second section, the Object of Protection.
We can go back to that when we analyze Object of Protection. Thank you for highlighting that at this point. Regarding the third comment, I think we need more — probably more to give it more time to analyze. I think it is useful to consider the chain of retransmissions and probably we could see or analyze that. We see the second paragraph for this letter D. We will go back to that and we will ask you some comments. In the meanwhile, we continue to receive suggestions for the definition of retransmission and Colombia has the floor.
>> COLOMBIA: Colombia would like to request a proposal with regard to retransmission, we would like it to be broad enough as proposed. We also believe it would be correct to keep the words by any means. We would also like to mention that we’re in agreement with the need to include when we talk about the broadcasting organization that we talk about the original broadcasting organization.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate from Colombia for the broad definition and for indicating that the term by any means should be kept. With regard to the suggestion to add to the original broadcasting organization I don’t have the Spanish version of this document, but in the English version it does mention original broadcasting organization so that could be a way of addressing this concern.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we fully agree with the E.U., that the definition of retransmission is an important definition because it goes to the rights established you wanted this Treaty, certainly in the U.S. right to prevent the unauthorized retransmission of a broadcast signal over any medium it is critical to have this clarification. Retransmission goes to both authorized and unauthorized retransmissions so it play as double role. Obviously very important to have this definition. Our comments go to some of the technical aspects of retransmission. It is the understanding of this Delegation that retransmission traces back to its Rome convention roots in the definition of rebroadcasting so it is recast, but under Rome that definition is strictly limited to a simultaneous retransmission and I think nothing in the development of related rights Treaties after that has departed from that tradition. The phrase towards — at the end of the definition, whether simultaneous or delayed could cause some difficulties with respect to well-established understandings, in particular our sense is that a delayed retransmission would simply fall outside of the scope of a retransmission which brings us to the question also of not only of simultaneous retransmission but perhaps how close in time a near-simultaneous retransmission could be in order to still constitute a retransmission. I think we could have and will have continued discussion of a near-simultaneous retransmission. Putting this altogether, the U.S. does have some drafting suggestions that build on your definition. I’ll read them and also send them forward to the Secretariat so that you’ll have an accurate record of them. We would suggest the following revised definition, retransmission means the simultaneous and then you could put in brackets or near-simultaneous, but we still need to discuss that, transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a signal by any other person than the original broadcasting and perhaps you could then put in brackets or cablecasting, closed brackets, organization or somewhat authorized by it.
I’ll read it again and also pause to explain our understanding of one more phrase.So we would suggest retransmission meets the simultaneous, brackets, or near-simultaneous, closed brackets, transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a signal by any other person other than the original broadcasting bracket or cablecasting, closed brackets, organization or someone authorized by it. So we have also heard this morning some discussion of the phrase by any means. This Delegation ‘s understanding of the classic understanding of the phrase by any means is that it would refer to either a wire or wireless transmission. That’s our understanding based on the Rome WPT tradition.
However, we also note that it is a vague phrase and to others it might go beyond wire or wireless to include transmissions over computer networks, certainly that’s not the intention at this point in the discussions to include such. We’ll revert at a later stage for a possible definition of near-simultaneous retransmission. I’ll conclude at that point.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
> CHAIR: Thank you very much to the Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. for its detailed comment. I’m sure that it contains some opinions which will require comments from your part and you’re invited to make comments on it. Thank you for your proposal. You have several elements there. I would just like to highlight that — let me start with issue one. Issue one is to use the term signal instead of the broadcast. That takes us to the first definition we discussed. I pointed out that situation at the beginning of this meeting. Then you have another suggestion that’s related to adding a phrase or someone, authorized by them, that could be considered a way to tackle the chain of transmissions. The legal change of transmissions which is part of previous opinions that we should tackle that. Then you wanted to use the term persons instead of entity so those could be suggestions that probably may be useful in order to find ways to tackle some concerns having been expressed. Then you have the suggestion that probably requires more clarification and comments from your side. One is adding for reception by the public there which could be interesting to know your views on that extreme. The other point is to reduce — to narrow the definition, retransmission, to the simultaneous, near-imultaneous retransmission and to question the part that’s by any means.I will invite you to think about this because the intention of this broad definition of retransmission was to use it as I said in the right section to pro vent unauthorized acts. I want to share on a specific case that may happen with you. Imagine you have a Pirate, no, that’s receiving a simultaneous retransmission and it is taking that for illegal purposes so that could be in the right section tackled by this Distinguished Delegate by the U.S. What would happen if they take that signal when it is delayed for their purposes. Could we prevent it or not, if we say in the right section that that retransmission does not cover that part that situation is — will be unsolved by the discussion, by the scope of this Treaty. It is just a question I pose in order to receive your comments or ideas.
Regarding by any means, in the same line, the intention behind adding this phrase by any means in the definition of retransmission is to use it in the section of rights in order to to be the different activities made by pirates along the whole change of retransmission by any means. I know that the Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. recalled a classic understanding of by any means, wire, wireless, of course he referred to previous International Treaties. Many years ago –several years ago now we’re discussing if — if that’s enough or if we could at this stage tackle the new developments of piracy through this new definitions and that would — that would be very useful to hear your views regarding that. First, Chile has the floor, then E.U.
>> CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. Firstly, we would like to support what was said by the Delegation of Colombia. The Spanish text omits the word original so there is a need to correct the Spanish translation. With regard to the words by any means, we would also — with what the United States said, Chile believes the protection of retransmission by cable, as we said in previous sections, we’re not prepared to — to the protection of retransmission of broadcast via Internet.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: I thank the Distinguished Delegate of Chile and for her precise, clear opinion with regard to these two — the correction of the Spanish version. It is something which we have already requested the Secretariat.
With regard to the debate on the use of by any means, I believe that it’s very important to discuss it at this point. by any means, I think it is very important to discuss it at this point and to have the chance to define what we want to be covered by this Treaty. E.U. has the floor and then India.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to refer to the comments made by the Delegation of The United States especially.
We understand that taking the understanding of retransmission, looking at previous Treaties one could follow — one could follow this path but this should only refer to simultaneous retransmissions. Although we would like to point out that both in the Berne Convention and the Rome converges, the term being used is rebroadcasting and not the term retransmission. That’s why we think that we have a certain discretion here as to the definition of retransmission in which we can include what is defined by rebroadcasting so simultaneous, simultaneous transmissions, but also delayed or deferred transmissions. We think we have this possibility in the Treaty because the term retransmission is such as not being — is not being used in this Treaty. It is a term — it is the term rebroadcasting. At the same time, we of course — we’re open to have a separate definition for retransmission as being simultaneous — as being simultaneous transmission of a broadcast and have a separate term which is delayed — delayed or deferred transmission. What is important for us is that both are included when we talk about rights. So the broadcasting organizations have the rights to authorize — to authorize and prohibit the retransmission in the sense of simultaneous and also the deferred transmission. To the public, of course, of broadcasts. We would like to raise this point. we’re open about the transmission but this is important to us. It is important and we’ll come back to this when we discuss the Rights To Be Granted and it is also the Rights of making available that you think should be added to the third element to this combination. Where we get a little bit confused is with the remarks of the Distinguished Delegation of the United States have made by any means. We have always understood in the proposal made by the U.S. on therights, on the single-right proposal where the U.S. said — maybe I shouldn’t call it proposal, the — the text that was given for discussion at some point in our — in the sessions where we were talking about simultaneous or near-simultaneous transmission by any means as the single right. We understood that by any means means by any means, I.E. also by computer networks, whether this is a traditional retransmission by air or by cable or it is a digital retransmission. We got a bit confused now with this remark by the United States, the meaning of by any means, it is different unless this was meant for the Object of Protection and not for the rights. We would like to ask kindly for a clarification, if possible. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. While the Distinguished Delegate from U.S., they may answer that question, we’ll hear India.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Based on the discussions of the term by any means flagged by the Honorable Delegate of U.S. and the comments by the E.U. Delegate, we understand by any means as two notions, to prohibit unauthorized retransmission by any means will include computer networks other than what has been stated. There is a difference to tell — by authorize by any means, which means including computer networks, et cetera, it is not acceptable which we have stated many times. The word by any means, if you look at the right to prohibit it has a double connotation, if you look at the right to authorize it has a different connotation and it is a clear division about this among the Delegates. This particular word by any means, you know, we need to look at it as a correct means rather than any means. Thank you.
> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate from India. He has highlighted that there will be a connection on the rights section offending on the type of right.– depending on the type of right. It is very clear that India understands by any means, including by other computer networks when it is the chance to prevent such activities. .Probably the situation will change when we talk about the right to authorize such activities. It is important to know at this point that India’s position regarding retransmission by any means including, by of course over computer networks, it may be prevented very clearly by the broadcasters. That’s a very interesting starting point and of course he’s adding elements to the discussion.You see — well, we’re waiting for some other comments, that I would like to say that — there was a clear intention of this broader definition, using it for the right section in order to give what
India has stated very clear, the right to prevent any unauthorized use over any platform because you could not wait until the next type of use or other platform to be used in order to take this — to undertake the illegal activity. It is very useful to know to recognize the usefulness of having this broad definition of retransmission including by any means, but, of course, it is up to you to consider if that’s clear or not. We’re referring specifically to rights. Things could change when we refer to the section of Object of Protection and a way to understand that would be to be very careful if we use their term, the term retransmission as you have read, it is related to any other entity than the original broadcasting, no, which will be useful to recognize when we deal with the rights section, but in the Object of Protection we have to be very sure if we use the term retransmission or we use the term transmission when we want to cover activities made by the original broadcasting organization. We will get into that when we go into that section. At this point we’re discussing the definition of retransmission.Islamic Republic of Iran.
> IRAN: Thank you very much. We support the idea of including near-simultaneous rather than delayed. This wording seemed to be more compatible with section 2 regarding the Object of Protection number 3. Regarding to your question about the legal effect of delayed retransmission, I think it is outside the scope of this Treaty, it is to be actually a post-fixation right and this is a challenge that I think should be outside the scope of this Trea>> CHAIR: Thank you W Distinguished Delegate from Iran for giving us your opinion regarding the restriction to a simultaneous retransmission and the basis on the delayed retransmission. I would like to suggest that India has appointed out the different treatment when we’re talking about the possibility to prevent unauthorized acts over any platform not necessarily when giving new rights. For that, just to be a reminder of that situation.Yes, we have to define what do we do with this delayed transmissions at some point. Let’s go step by step in that direction and listen to your comments. I don’t know if U.S. who has been invited to make some clarifications is ready.
[no audio] US[…]
Would be a separate term for a delayed, deferred transmissions until that issue is resolved. The second pointed, the E.U. is absolutely right, the U.S. suggestion for a single right does use the phrase it’s the right to authorize transmission or retransmission of the prebroadcast signal over any medium. What we had in mind there was over any platform which would also be the right to prevent the unauthorized retransmission over the Internet. In my previous intervention I was simply flagging the classical understanding of by any means is that a more limited, more limited understanding — more limited scope of understanding and we may consider as we get to the rights — the rights discussion in adapting that in the U.S. version using the phrase over any medium. Since the topic of near-simultaneous retransmission has been raised we can — we can restate the U.S. understanding then of what would be a suggested understanding of drafting an idea for such a definition, happy to do so now or at a time that we get to it. I’m getting a signal from the Chair that it would be an opportunity to do it now. I will do it. The definition would be as follows: Near-simultaneous retransmission means a transmission that’s delayed only to the extent necessary to accommodate time differences or to facilitate the technical transmission of the broadcast or in brackets cablecast, depending on the ultimate scope of this convention. I’ll read it again. Near-simultaneous retransmission means a transmission that’s delayed only to the extent necessary to accommodate time differences or to facilitate the technical transmission of the broadcast, brackets or cablecast, closed brackets. This was an initial U.S. suggestion to have a closely cabined in definition of near-simultaneous retransmission, however we would be open to suggestions from other Delegations on how that — the concepts that we focused on might be further elaborated. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate from the U.S. You have different elements in the answer but I’ll take the last one. You read a definition of near-simultaneous retransmission and you recall that it was coming from a U.S. suggestion inI’m happy to tell you that all of the room was following the definition on the screen which corresponds exactly with what you were saying, we take that U.S. recommendation here as it is. It is important to know that, of course, since we’re discussing this chance to include such a definition, there’s an additional suggestion to include a definition for delayed, deferred transmission. That’s something that I have taken note and probably it will be helpful if someone could — if some Delegation could just recall one specific way to define it in order to take note of that or to refer to a previous submission of a definition for deferred or delayed retransmission.
Regarding the use of the term retransmission and to limit it to the — sorry, regarding the use — the term, the phrase by any means, you mentioned, you explained why you share with us the typical understanding of that, by you’ll recall that in your view that it does not mean the right to prevent could prevent acts which are with use in an Internet platform. You mentioned the U.S. legislation and the phrase you used was over any medium. Probably I don’t know if I understood well, but probably the suggestion that you might imply is that by any means could be understood in a narrow way, but if you use over any medium it could be useful in order to clarify such an interpretation. We take note of that. We would like all Delegations to comment on. Finally, let me make a comment on the term retransmission which is — which as I heard you, you you used the term when you explained to us, you used the term includes retransmission over Internet, at some point you explain ed to us using that phrase, includes retransmission over Internet. That’s why I take the term retransmission because in this broader way, even when you use that term, referring to Internet, you use the term retransmission, so that’s why I thought to use it in the definition part, broader term of retransmission, everybody uses, retransmission in a broader way, that’s useful, when we go to the right section, the scope of protection, we can limit it to what type of retransmission we can deal with. Just a comment for that. E.U. has an additional comment. Yes? We have coffee break now. We will finish — we will wait
[…]
E.U. has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. We wanted to comment before the break, it was that first of all, we maintain that it is possible and for us preferable to have a broad definition of transmission as proposed in your text. We think it is not inconsistent with the Treaties because in the Treaties the term rebroadcasting was used and therefore we can have a definition of retransmission along these lines here, but includes both simultaneous and delayed retransmission. If that was not to be achieved, I think what we said is — but it is very important to keep — to keep the delayed transmission, we don’t think necessarily it has to be defined as it is not defined in this definition, we can only refer to it when we talk about the rights. For clarity probably, and also for clarity of the Rights To Be Granted, for the clarity of the text, we would recommend that we have a definition of the transmission that’s inclusive and has an — includes the simultaneous and delayed transmission. Thank you.
>
> CHAIR: Thank you for that option you mention. In order to summarize the views I would be pleased to hear alternative ways to understand this definition or some suggestions that could be made at this point. I don’t see any requests from the floor from member countries. I open the floor for NGOs to provide some clues or likes that could be helpful regarding the definition of retransmission.
[…]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to note, it appears for the moment a definition of deferred or delayed will not be forthcoming. Along those lines just to capture this conversation we suggest that your definition might be elaborated a bit to include the ultimate phrase whether simultaneous, near-simultaneous or delayed. I think there’s agreement on simultaneous, I’m not sure about near-simultaneous. There does not seem to be agreement within this definition for delayed so we would respectfully submit that at least delayed should be in brackets. We would like to retain our drafting suggestion which focuses both on simultaneous and near-simultaneous. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[…]
>> INDIA: Thank you, Chair.
Regarding B1 and 2, it B1, retransmission is other than the original broadcaster, other entity other than original broadcasting. In 2, near simultaneous retransmission with the word used, are we talking about the original broadcaster or other entity? If I understand the proposal was for near-simultaneous transmission, it is a little bit delayed transmission by the original broadcaster. It seems to be retransmission is cast as something that’s other than the entity. But the near-simultaneous transmission in fact is looking at the original broadcaster as from the past discussions to manage the time differences and other issues. I don’t know that it is near-simultaneous transmission or if we use that term near-simultaneous transmission itself. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that very important suggestion to help us to clarify when we refer to retransmission it was highlighted that the core part of the definition, the retransmission is that it is made by any other entity than the original broadcaster. That’s very important to bear in mind. However — and that’s related to the right section probably, specifically where we’ll use that term in the right section but regarding the near-simultaneous, the second one we’re pointing on another important point that it is not limited to necessarily related to a third party
activity it may be an activity undertaken by the original broadcasting entity. If that is the case in order to avoid confusion we probably would clarify that by talking about near-simultaneous transmission. We take note of that specific suggestion because the near-simultaneous transmission will be a term that will be used in other parts of the document, specifically in the Object of Protection for sure. That’s a suggestion that I take note. Thank you for that. I don’t know if you have any comment regarding that last proposal by India that would help us in trying to differentiate the term retransmission related to other entities than the original broadcasting and other types othe original broadcasting and other types of transmission made by the original broadcaster that could be simultaneous or near -simultaneous. Thank you for that. We take note.
Any comments?
Thank you again. It seems to be coincidence with another view, a similar view that require us to refer in that second definition in D2, the near-simultaneous transmission not to limit it to activity made by any other entity than the original broadcaster. We take note of that. Then we have — if we don’t have more comments, we can see the definition in letter E, which is in pre-broadcast. As you see, it is in brackets because it will only be necessary if we include the
protection of pre-broadcast, but there is no agreement on that at this point. Since there are some suggestions to consider that possibility it is in brackets. We could make it an exercise to see if you have comments regarding the definition of pre-broadcast as it is. You see it. I open the floor for comments regarding that definition.
U.S. has the floor. >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a few general comments. Thank you for the definition.
A few general comments: Comment number one, we continue to believe it is kind of a theme that emphasis should be placed on the signal, protection of the signal, not the broadcast. We note that the pre-broadcast signal refers to the broadcast. We also note that as currently drafted the intention of the broadcasting organization is kind of a central concept here, I think it is used twice and it tends to include in its programme and it is not intended for direct reception by the public. I think intentions are notoriously difficult to pin down and perhaps might introduce some ambiguity into this definition. We do have an alternative drafting suggestion for your consideration, consideration of other Delegations so with your indulgence I’ll read it and we’ll see if it has — if it has merits for others.
Pre-broadcast signal means a signal transmitted to the broadcasting organization for the purpose of subsequent transmission to the public. Once again, pre-broadcast signal means a signal transmitted to the broadcasting organization for the purpose of subsequent transmission to the public so you can see that this is nicely matched with its twin, the broadcast signal itself which is for direct reception by the public so we’re getting to the same concept a bit differently but we submit this formulation for everyone’s consideration. Obviously, this will bear importantly when we get to the section where we will make some comments about adding back in some of the options for providing for pre-broadcast signal protection so our definition hopefully will align nicely with those options that we’ll discuss later on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that opinion and that offer. With those specific suggestions, I think that the explanation was very clear and the suggestion is to include the term signal which is related to the discussion on the first definition and avoid the intention in order to avoid the problems entered into such an intention and relating to the subsequent transmission to the public which takes us to the definition of the signal. I think — even if I have taken node of it, I think it will deserve comments from others and I will invite you to make some comments on this new suggestion which could be taken if there’s some — if it is welcome by other Delegations.
Syria has the floor. Syria (Speaker) thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to go back to the definition pre-broadcast, if I may. I believe there is a kind of discrepancy between the term and the definition itself if I may say so. Because pre-broadcast signifies full coverage of something which is going to be transmitted later on and I would go along with the suggestion proposed by the distinguished representative of South Africa with regard to let’s say suggesting the term highlights instead of pre-broadcast because there’s — when you make highlights — an organizational, an entity of broadcast, it is going to broadcast something later on it highlights this programme whereas pre-broadcast something full, full coverage. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for giving us your thoughts regarding this new term highlights that’s been mentioned by the Distinguished Delegate of South Africa.
We have received some comments regarding that from other Delegates and
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. We were thinking about the wording proposed by the Delegation of The United States. Especially this element that the traps mission — the signal has to be transmitted to the broadcasting organization, and on the whole we understand the idea to somehow narrow down what kind of signal it is but it is addressed to the broadcasting organization which was not present in the previous wording. The only doubt we have, but this is more of a technical issue, we can somehow resolve either in this definition relating to the Object of Protection is that in paragraph 1 of Object of Protection when we say that protection granted under the Treaty extends to broadcast transmitted by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization we think we should have a similar protection for pre-broadcast signals because this could be pre-broadcast signals that are transmitted to the broadcasting organization or to an entity that’s acting on behalf of broadcasting organization. This should be clarified either in the definition of a pre-broadcast signal or later when we move to the Object of Protection. Thank you.
> INDIA: Thank you, Chair. In line of the discussion, it is correct to put the word pre-broadcast signal rather than the word pre-broadcast. We’re really talking about a technical transmission between broadcasters from certain places to other places or affiliates. . Pre-broadcast should be designed as pre-broadcast signal, it means a transmission going out to a broadcast, I think that that should solve the problem of the contribution of the word broadcast.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. We take note of that suggestion. South Africa has the floor.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: I wanted to see if maybe our understanding is the same before we go to the definition taking into consideration what our colleague from Colombia and the E.U. had said. I wanted clarity to see if it is correct to say in this regard it is when a broadcasting organization, Chair, will send its programme signal to the signal distributor and the signal distributor is the one that will take it to the public, specifically those that will subscribe if it is a subscription channel to that service. If it is like that, I think what the colleague from Colombia was saying is correct. In terms of programme, you usually say in its programme carry signal, signals. We would support that in terms of that one.
Pre-broadcast signal, yes, what they usually take to the signal distributor, is that the programme that the signal distributor will take to the public. I’m relating to other definitions that bed at the top of the signal, the signal distributor which is very, very important.
We would suggest that we support the inclusion of programme-carried signals rather than — the other one, it is correct. The person that will take it to the public, it is the signal distributor. The broadcasting organization will take it to the signal distribution organization that will distribute the signal. I think this is based on the understanding that the ownership of signal distribution is not the same everywhere. In other countries, the signal distributors owned by the broadcaster and in hour countries it is a public entity or a private entity and in other instances it is part of the — it is a private company. I think that’s — that should also be taken into consideration.
> CHAIR: Thank you for your views.
I think regarding your comment on carrying programme signal, if I heard a Distinguished Delegate from Colombia as well, if we decide to include such a clarification in the definition of signal that would be enough because when we refer to signal we’ll go to the recognition of signal and if we understand it, there is a current programme signal, that will be enough. Regarding the different modalities that you have mentioned in order to finally make possible that at the end turn into a signal that could be transmitted to the public I think we have both, what is there and the alternative represented by the U.S. Delegation, that says that for the purpose of subsequent retransmission to the public which could cover that situation that you’re covering as well and it was suggested an amendment suggested by the Distinguished Delegate of the U.S. U.S., they have the floor, then Colombia, India and then Italy. U.S.
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to thank the Distinguished Delegate from the E.U. for its suggestion to broaden the phrase to the broadcasting organizations to also include organizations acting on behalf of a broadcasting organization. If this issue as the E.U. mentioned is not resolved otherwise, we would take this as a friendly amendment and see value in it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.