Not much surprise so far, support for a broadcasting treaty is clearly growing or rather the opposition is weakening. Iran is one of the few member states that still asks real questions and seems to understand our concerns.
Here are Croatia, Indonesia, Canada, EU, India, Iran, Japan, and Kenya on Agenda Item 6, issue of protection of broadcasting organizations.
The Document being discussed is SCCR/37/8 which is the Chair’s text and title Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Objective Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues.
This document which was introduced to the Committee last session reflects our consideration of the results of the discussions held in the last SCCR37.
There are also have a number of other proposals offered by various members states. More is available here:https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=50418
On this Agenda Item, I think the Director General has mentioned it is the longest item that’s outstanding on WIPO’s Agenda and I think we have seen some progress and some intense discussions in the last few sessions. One of the things that we should bear in mind as we work through the issues during the Agenda Item, it is that at the end of the SCCR there should be common understanding for uses to provide a recommendation to the General Assembly, if possible, to show our progress on the Agenda Item and to see how we continue to make progress, in particular, whether there is any way to move the issue forward to the conference.
CROATIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As mentioned earliyier in our opening statement, we consider this item as an essential element of the SCCR38. We note with at faction the discussions and progress made on this issue at the SCCR37 in November, last year.
We are fully aware of the latest technological developments as well as of the need to protect different types of transmissions from possible acts of piracy. This particularly refers to transmissions of traditional broadcasting organizations over computer networks such as simultaneous transmissions. Therefore, we find it extremely important to reach common understanding on the issues such as definitions, object of protection, rights to be granted and other issues as contained in the document SCCR/37/8. Only a broad consensus on what kind of protection would be granted to the broadcasting organizations can result in convening a Diplomatic Conference and having a meaningful International Treaty. CEBS remains fully committed to constructive dialogue.
CHAIR: Thank you. I give the floor now to Indonesia on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Group.
INDONESIA: Thank you, Chair.
Speaking for the Asia, Pacific Group as outlined in the general statement, how Intellectual Property should apply to the broadcasting is an issue that requires careful balancing. Most members of the group would like to see the finalization of a balanced treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations based on the Ma mandate of the 2007 he General Assembly to the proper protection on the signal-based approach for the broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense. However, some members of the group may have a different position based on the national policies. (Reading too quickly to correctly translate) We’re ready to discuss this item, we of take note of the discussion that we have had in November of last year and we’re ready to work on the basis of the revised consolidated text. We hope Tahoe agreements could be reached on the key aspects and protection of broadcasting organizations in particular on definitions, object of protection and rights to be granted.
We are committed to the positive progress on this issue.
CANADA: Thank you, Chairman. We, once again are pleased to take the floor on behalf of Group B.
Mr. Chairman, we would like to first reiterate the importance of updating the international legal frame Ohio revised code work for the if he can five protection of the broadcasting organizations with a view to better reflecting the current reality faced by those organizations.
We once again, stress the importance of reaching mutual agreements on the objective specific scope and object of protection of the treaty upon which the 2007 General Assembly’s mandate conditions the convening of a conference on the matter.
Mr. Chairman, Group B welcomes the discussions held in the SCCR’s Thirty-Seventh Session in November 2018 on the issues and we remain committed and indeed look forward to engaging and further discussions as to enhance and consolidate the mutual understanding of the various technical elements of the text under SCCR/37/8. Mr. Chairman, Group B stresses that mutual technical understanding of the reality faced by broadcasting organizations and the related issues is crucial for us to agree on how best to address the issues through a meaningful, relevant treaty text. In this regard, Group B looks forward to a discussion on the Chair’s text including submissions by Argentina and the United States. We remate committed to the technical discussions and toward a meaningful outcome that will reflect the interests of Member States and of their stakeholders.
EUROPEAN UNION: This remains a high priority for the European Union and Member States. We are strongly committed to advancing the work on this Agenda Item. We believe progress was made at S CCR37 allowing us to understand better the various positions of various Delegations which are reflected in SCCR/37/8. We sincerely hope that further progress will be made during this session enabling us to reach consensus on the main elements of a possible future treaty which could lead us to the convening of a Diplomatic Conference in the future.
We are ready for in-department discussions on the text as consolidated by the Chair and for exploring possible ways forward on the basis of that.
As we have said on several occasions, we consider that the Committee’s work should result in a meaningful treaty that reflects the technological developments of the 2,121st Century, we believe the transmissions over computer networks such as simultaneous transmissions or catch up transmissions warrant international protections from acts of piracy. We also attach great importance to the adequate catalog of rights allowing us the necessary protection for broadcasting organizations against acts of piracy, whether they occur simultaneously with the protected transmissions or after the transmissions have taken place.
As regards the other issues, that are contained in the Chair’s text, we reiterate our strong conviction that the examples set by the recent treaties in the area such as for example the Beijing Treaty should serve as a template to guiding our work in this regard.
Lastly, we would recall that we believe that what is needed is a broad consensus as to the extent of the protection to be granted so that a future treaty can provide broadcasting organizations evolving in an increasingly complex technological world with adequate, effective protection. We hope that the considerable efforts that have have been made during previous sessions can culminate in finding a solution on the main elements of the treaty and bring us to a successful outcome.
India: The Government of India decided to adopt the following with respect to the scope of the broadcasting treaty, the definition of broadcasting should cover all types of broadcasts, irrespective of the platform or medium, including Internet.
Thus, protection available under the proposed treaty should be irrespective of the medium. The definition should also include rebroadcasting. Broadcasting should not remain limited to traditional broadcasters only but also include those over the Internet. India will continue to support the signal-based transmission approach, no work can be provided to the broadcaster. Mr. Chair, we support the early finalization of a balanced treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations. We believe that this Committee will work towards factoring in concerns and interests of all Member States on the fundamental issues to make the text more balanced and acceptable. We will continue to contribute constructively in the deliberationings of this Committee.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the outset, I would like to join the previous speaker in congratulating you a inthe Bureau for the deserving election while extending our facilitation to the Secretariat for the preparation of the meeting, we align ourselves with the statement delivered by Indonesia on behalf of the APG.
Mr. Chair, in a world in which problems are becoming increasingly global, international cooperation is a must. Not only through bilateral interactions but also in the framework of international organizations.
My Delegation attaches great importance to the work of the SCCR as the main global forum to address copyright related issues. The deliberations of the Member States in the Committee’s sessions, it has led to the important instrument which is contributing to the international IP system.This function and role of the Committee should be sustained in the future while ensuring the principles of inclusiveness and transparency.
It should have become all too obvious by now that a successful meeting and deliberations depends first and foremost on recognition of all the state’s priorities and also on the constructive, positive approach in the negotiations on the Chair’s text which exiles and includes all input and proposals from Member States. We hope that the Committee’s deliberation in the course of the week would facilitate fulfillment of the objective of the discussions based on the Committee’s mandate and reset the decision. Mr. Chair, creating a balanced system for the legitimate interests of all parties and stakeholders in society has always been a principle for IP system.
Much importance needs to be attached to the concern of some states on the potential additional cost for the public in access to broadcasted content in Developing Countries by drafting an unbalanced treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations.
The Committee needs to be caution not to create rights that would have unintended adverse affects and might be misused by some entities to restrict the right of the public to access information.
Mr. Chair, as it is well-known, the scope of the treaty should be confined to the protection of broadcasting organizations in to the traditional sense.
Meanwhile, and in spite of the fact that we’re approaching the finish line, we have yet to develop a common understanding of the concept of broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense.
We also maintain that definitions contained in the instrument should ensure legal certainty and draft it in a way under which different interpretations and diverse understanding be prevented in the future.
Mr. Chair, with regard to the Articles on means of implementation we are of the view that each state has the right to develop its appropriate legislation based on its needs, traditions, priorities and development requirements.
Domestic law should not violate the basic principle passer pals of the international IP framework and the obligations of the states, however, there is no single model for development of the domestic law in this regards.
Therefore, concerning this Article, it should be impractical to draw up a list of all of the forms that domestic law may take. The language of this Article needs to be redrafted in a way to respect different legal systems and to provide flexibility on means of implementation in national level.
While noting the fact that still there are some issues which deserve and requires more discussions among Member States, we look forward to advancing the right towards developing an adequate and effective legal instrument ton on signal-based approach.
To conclude, Mr. Chair, let me assure you that my Delegation has always been and will remain — will always remain at the forefront of the consultation to make sure the discussion of the Committee is a success.
CANADA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On behalf of our Delegation we would like to thank you for your leadership and container late you on your reelection and we wish to thank the Vice-Chairs, and congratulate them on their election and reelection and again thank the Secretariat for their on going support.
Mr. Chair, on the matter of the Committee’s work on the protection of broadcasting organizations, we would like to echo Group B, we attach great importance to this issue and understand the need to find practical and meaningful solutions while at the same time remaining faithful to the mandate from the 2007 General Assembly. As stated by our Delegation at SCCR37 we welcome the proposals of the United States of America and Argentina, acknowledging their efforts tore build a shared understanding of a complex technical issue and seek common ground in these discussions.
In our view, for a treaty to find common ground, Member States should be afforded some flexibility to choose the appropriate domestic policy measures by which to implement the decided upon protections.
While we acknowledge that there are still fundamental differences in approaches reflected in the current draft text as well as substantive technical questions that require further clarification we do recognize that for consensus to emerge on this matter continued engagement of all parties is important.
JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is our first time to take the floor. First of all,ish this Delegation would like to sincerely congratulate you and the Vice-Chairs on your election for this important Committee and express our appreciation for your hard work toward the successful decision.
We would also like to comment on the Secretariat for the preparation of the Committee.
Regarding the distribution works, the means for distributing has been a diverse part of network technology. Especially with the services conducted by not only broadcasting organizations, but also webcasters and these services are becoming popular worldwide. However, we believe that the broadcast conducted by the traditional broadcasting organizations has and will continue to have an important role for the dissemination of works. In addition, broadcaster, it is several ways because of the public aspects, therefore, we think that broadcasting organizations have work, very important public roles. In the important roles of broadcast, we strongly believe that the international protection of broadcasts should be achieved immediately. This Delegation hopes that the discussion should be for the protection of broadcasts conducted by the traditional broadcasting organization based on the mandate for the purpose of the reduction of the treaty.
Currently, the scope of protection and the right to be granted are under the discussion. As for the scope of protection, there are some cases in which traditional broadcasting organizations and the webcasters, they deliver the same programme by the Internet on demand services.
Since both on demand services, the reasonable broadcasting organizations and by webcasters, they’re almost the same in these cases, we should take note of the rational behind the differentiation of them and this new treaty.
Looking at the difference of the system, the difference of the copyright system and the difference of the current service among members, this Delegation believes that providing flexible approach for the protection of Internet transmission is.
KENYA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, forgiving my Delegation the opportunity to make its intervention on the Rights of broadcasting organization.
First of all, my Delegation wishes to congratulate you and your two Vice-Chairs on the deserved election. My Delegation also wishes to thank the Secretariat for the excellent preparation of this SCCR session.
As is custom, my Delegation is aligning with the opening statement made by the Distinguished Delegation of AOU gay da on behalf of the African Group vis-a-vis broadcasting organizations. We place great importance on broadcasting as a tool of culture of social and economic development. Therefore, we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the text which generally reveals the options available on the protection generally and the object of protection, the definitions and the scope of protection for the draft treaty.
Kenya believes that your text forms a compromised document as a basis for making progression towards the adoption of a new treaty.
Kenya further believes that it is important to update the Rights of broadcasting organizations which are the only remaining Category of the 1961 Rome Convention.
The proposals by Argentina and the U.S.A. and the Chairman’s text are all a good basis. My Delegation, however, advocates for a broader right of a retransmission which addresses signal piracy on all platforms. It would be logical to deal with piracy on some platforms and leave it, it will thrive on other platforms. According to the screen digest, research of 2010, it was discovered that signal piracy on the African continent is one of the greatest menaces which should be addressed.