Presentation of the Chart prepared by the secretariat.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed the chart which has been distributed deals with the — with other issues and there are five specific issues listed on this chart. The first one refers to the beneficiaries of protection, term of protection, limitations and exceptions, technical protection measures, and rights management information.
So with respect to the beneficiaries of protection, there are three options that have been provided which addresses the issue of the beneficiary of — beneficiaries of protection under the Treaty. Basically the three options that are being provided are the — are taken from the two alternatives that were provided in document SCCR/27/2. So the first one refers to the fact that national or contracting parties will be understood at broadcasting organizations that have headquarters in a contracting party or broadcasting signal is transmitted from any other contracting party. The second option provides for the possibility to make a reservation to the Secretariat of the headquarters of the broadcasting organization. And the third option provides a combination of headquarters in and also the place where the broadcast signal was transmitted in the contracting party. So it is the combination of the two criterias. With respect to the term of protection, there were also three options. First option is 20 or 50 years duration of protection. The second option makes it subject to domestic law and the third option is that there would be no provision on the issue of term of protection. Are reference to limitations and exceptions, it is similar to the ’96 provision. WCT and WPPT. You will find in the annex to this document the provisions of both Article 10 of the WCT on limitations and exceptions and Article 16 of the WPPT.
You want me to read this? No. Then the second option with regard to limitations and exceptions is Article 15 of the Rome Convention, the text of that provision is also — can also be found in the second page of the annex. And the third option is to provide provision which is similar as Article 15 of the Rome Convention and given the possibilitieses to contracting parties to provide additional exceptions.
Coming to technical protection measures, three options there, the first option similar to the provisions which can be found in the WCT and WPPT will find in the annex the text of Article 11 of WCT and the text of Article 18 of the WPPT. Second option on technical protection measures is to provide protection against unauthorized encryption of a protected broadcast. A specific kind of protection. And the third option is a no provision option.
Equally rights management information first option which mirrors what we can find in WCT and WPPT and you can find also there the text of the Article 12 of the WCT and of WPPT, the text of the WPPT. And then the second option referring to protection against removal of alteration of rights management information. And the third option which would not provide any provision with respect to rights management information.
So that briefly Mr. Chair describes the content of that chart.
>> CHAIR: Okay. Thank you very much. The intention of this chart as I recall was the time we use them for common understanding of the platforms to the use of the rights that were going to be part of the proposed Treaty and the concepts. They were helpful in order to try to understand the concepts and the definitions, the options of rights to be granted and the object of protection. And in this regard this chart does try to — tries to summarize the options that are at some points were either contained in written submissions or discussed in previous Committees where we had the opinions on general opinions on the whole proposed Treaty. And I think that now that the tool is there and explained and in printed version, I keep on thinking that I am aware that we couldn’t really get in to a discussion of topic by topic, beneficiaries term of protection since the — since we have a lack of clarity on the boundaries of the Treaty. However, I invite you to make some general comments on this and if you find it somehow useful to at least have clarity on our discussion on the — on the object of protection definitions and rights to be granted.
>> KEI: I wanted to mention in the earlier version of the broadcast Treaty the — which seemed to be ignored in this table perhaps because it was prepared for a different reason, but in the 27/2 rev version of the broadcast Treaty before there was an Article 2 on general principles which had to do with the importance of promoting access to knowledge and information for scientific and educational objectives and competitor practices other safeguards. In Article 3 on the protection and promotion of cultural diversity, in Article 4 on the defense of competition and in Article C proposed in Article 10 on exceptions which is a fairly extensive list of exceptions, which could be applied and I think it would be important for people to review the previous work in this because a lot of countries participated in the proposals for these exceptions. And to the extent that you are talking about the kind of rights that the European Union has proposed, each and every single one of these proposals in the 27-2 rev draft would be relevant to the new instrument if you proceed in the negotiations down that road.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to KEI for that contribution. Yes, absolutely right. Those elements that have been part of that document SCCR/27/2 review and we have taken note in order to make a mention in the chart to be consider
>> European Broadcasting Union: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to provide the technical example for the question of the beneficiaries. There are under No. 1 and No. 3 similar wording. The only difference is that in No. 1 it includes broadcasters whose headquarters are in or their broadcast signal is transmitted from another contracting party whereas in No. 3 it would be cumulative. Must both be headquarters and broadcast signal transmitted from the same contracting party.
We as broadcaster would prefer No. 1 for simple reason that sometimes the transmitter is located in a different country than the headquarters. To give you a very easy example, here in Geneva the Swiss broadcaster transmits its signal just across the border in France and there is a little mountain called Selif and the transmitter is put on the mountain to have a better reach in Switzerland. If that would fall under No. 3, then this signal would not be protected. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much to EBU for that clarification, useful with an example that help us understand why the there was different proposals in the previous submissions regarding beneficiaries and the impact on those proposals in reality.
More clarifications are welcome or questions regardMore clarifications are welcome or questions regarding this elements of the proposed Treaty. And regarding the requests made by the KEI regarding the set of exceptions and limitations that were part of previous submissions, that is contained in Article 10 in document SCCR/(no audio).
I think it would be interesting to see that the proposed Treaty has this section and that they are waiting for your consideration and exchange at some point. Will screen that in some seconds.
Now we will see the result of the Article 10, limitations and exceptions related to the protection of broadcasting organizations and I will request the Secretariat to go — to give us a description or alternatives that we had at that point. Please.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. So Article 10 on limitations and exceptions from document SCCR/27/2 rev, it actually contains three different alternatives which are based on the different submissions received from the various Delegations. Alternative A for Article 10, closely mirrored, I mean closely built on Article 15 of the Rome Convention. And provides that any contracting state may in domestic laws and regulations provide for protection to exceptions guaranteed by this Treaty as regards private use, use in reporting of kurPt events, used solely for the purpose of education and scientific research and femorale fixation by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and for its own broadcasts.
And there is a paragraph 2 which indicates that notwithstanding the contents of paragraph 1 of this Article any contracting state may in its domestic laws and regulations provide for the same or other limitations and exceptions or exceptions as are applied in connection with works protected by copyright to the extent such exceptions and limitations are confined to special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the broadcast signal and do not prejudice the limitation of organizations. B contains two paragraphs. Paragraph 1 provides that contracting parties may in the national legislation provide for the same kind of limitations and exceptions with regard to the protection of broadcasting organization as they provide in their national legislation in connection with the protection of copyright in literary and art tick works and in protection of related rights and paragraph 2 which relates to the three-step test and provides contracting parties shall confine any limitation or exceptions to rights provided for in this Treaty to certain special cases which not conflict with the normal exploitation of the broadcasts and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the broadcasting organization (alternative B (N. And then alternative C the paragraph 1 is identical to the one that you can find in alternative B, contracting parties may in the national legislation provide for the same kind of limitations and exceptions with regard to the protection of broadcasting organization as they provide for in the national legislation with connection with the protection of copyright in literary and artistic and the protection of related rights. A second paragraph which states contracting parties may in their domestic laws and regulations provide inter alia the exceptions listed below to the protection guaranteed by this Convention. It is presumed that these users constitute special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholders and then you have a lits of the exceptions that are provided under a this alternative. A private use and B use of E serments in connection of reporting of kunt events and C fee more rail fixation by broadcasting organization by means of all facilities and own broid casts and D used solely for the purposes of teaching or scientific research. E the use of works specific scli to promote access by persons with impaired site sight learning disabilities or other special needs. For the use by libraries archivists or educational institutions to make publicly accessible copies of work that are protected by any inclusive rights by the broadcasting organization for purposes of pe server vagus education, and/or research. J any use of any kind of in manner or form or any part of a broadcast whether programme or any part of it which is subject of the transmission is not proteked by copyright or any relate the right thereto.
And then a third paragraph which states that irrespective of paragraph 2 above contracting parties may provide additional exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by this Treaty provided that such exceptions do not conflict with the norm nal expectation of the broadcast and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightsholder taking in to account the legitimate interests of third parties.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that review which was very useful to see that from the very beginning some proponents started to think about the need of think this as a balanced system with a list of exceptions that were drafted in previous submissions made by some member countries.
KEI has the floor.>> KEI: I just wanted to mention that in addition to Article 10 there is Articles 2, 3 and 4 which are part — really part of the exceptions because they relate to safeguards and also how the exceptions are interpreted.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for your comment. I think that we take note of that. You mentioned it before and I’m sure that we — all of us we have the document there to be reviewed on that extreme. But your comment will help us in that understanding. And well, as you see we — it was said that probably knowing that what was missing and knowing that there are some elements to balance the protection will help us to understand the whole proposed Treaty. However I keep on thinking that there are still some basic points to be discussed. Not agreed at this point because the intention is to give the alternatives that we are dealing with in the basic points and I am interested in doing so before entering in to details of, for example, term of protection or TPNs which doesn’t make sense at this point. However we are aware of thanks to the chart and thanks to the screening and reading of these elements that we have to be reminded that they are part of the proposed instrument and that whatever connection you are ready to do among those elements you are free to do it. And hopefully this information tool will be helpful for that.
And now after reaching a point before proceeding in what I am going to suggest I give you again the floor if you have further comments. I also invite NGOs to give us some comments regarding the points that have been expressed. EU has the floor.
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Yes, thank you, Chair. So on the chart that you prepared we would have just general comments since this is what you mentioned there are some general comments made for the moment we wouldn’t like to go in to the specifity of each issue that is mentioned there but we would like to say that we think the WPPT model is one that could be followed. Because it is always — it is also one that is used in the recent Beijing Treaty. So there is already some recent application of similar issues in different Treaties and this could be a good way forward.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that comment. Useful to take note of it. Any other comment? NABA has the floor.
>> NABA: Re-enforce NABA’s long-standing position that we favor the WPPT model and we support the intervention of the EU. Thank you. Thanks for that comment. Any requests from any other NGO
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that comment. Useful to take note of it. Any other comment? NABA has the floor.
>> NABA: Re-enforce NABA’s long-standing position that we favor the WPPT model and we support the intervention of the EU. Thank you.