Chair: Brazil, you still have the floor.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair.
Regarding a very quick follow-up to your question regarding — as I mentioned, the proposal was presented and supported in 201 and 204 of the draft report and we understand it should be also reflected. We understand that this could be also a bridge of positions getting comfort to many Delegations that have concerns on this matter. These are the details that you have requested. Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you for that.
In order to promote the understanding of what you have just said, I will ask the Secretariat to read paragraphs 201 and 204 of the document you mentioned and we’ll find it in there in a minute.

[…] Iran has the floor.
>> IRAN: (Speaker) thank you, Chairman. We appreciate you for the informative presentation of the important documents, in line with the statements that’s been delivered by the colleague of India on behalf of the Asia group and also in line with the comments that’s been made by the distinguished colleague from Brazil, I would like to also reiterate that this is confined to only broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense, therefore the traditional broadcasting will be limited to the traditional and should be protected and under the scope of the Treaty.
Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.
I’m sure your opinion will trigger some other comments.
Let me tell you, I have born in mind what I say when I limited the definition of the broadcasting organizations both in the definition itself of broadcasting organizations and secondly in the first paragraph of the Object of Protection when it is clarified that transmission is protected when it is made by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization. However, we can continue to listen to comments on that.
We’ll ask the Secretariat to read paragraphs 201 and 204.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually paragraph 201 refers to the statement of the United States. Is that what the Delegation of Brazil is referring to? The Delegation of The United States of America referred to the discussion on cablecasting organizations which had taken place over many SCCR sessions. The Chair had mentioned the concerns and a number of times they had heard of the different treatments in the regulatory environment, most recently from the Delegation of Brazil. The Delegation agreed with the statements of the Delegations of the European Union and Member States and Brazil in that the issue was tied up with defining broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations. Given the expression of concern and given the structuring of the consolidated text one idea that had occurred to the Delegation was to make the protection of cablecasting organizations under the Treaty optional and to leave it to Member States this question. If that idea was to gain traction, then they would need to consider how such a provision might be structured. Delegation suggested an optional provision that would contain its own tailored definition of cablecasting organizations. They would not have to arrive at that definition until they were discussing the Article that addressed that optional level of protection.
That concludes paragraph 201.
I will read paragraph 204.
The Delegation of Brazil referred to the proposal from the Delegation of The United States of America regarding the possibility of allowing Member States discretion on an optional level of protection and stated that it may be a good way forward to give comfort to the Delegation of Chile and Brazil as well as other Delegations that had concerns regarding the national legislation.
End of paragraph 204.

CHAIR: Thank you very much for that reading because it takes us to the situation posted by Brazil reminding us of the contribution at that time or the comment regarding other Delegations contributions. This is a good take to initiate the discussion on this specific issue, as I said, the collusion of cablecasting has been — inclusion of cable TSAGing has been included — cablecasting that be included, part of the suggestions made by different Delegations and the original proposals for this suggested Treaty and majority of opinions, some flexibility is stated regarding this. Some legitimate concerns have been expressed, one of those concerns were Constitution, of a Constitution source, the other concern was related to the regulatory — specific regulatory situation. Follow that explanation and recall, this suggestion was affectively expressed in previous sessions.
Why I did not include it, as I said, I didn’t understand it as a compilation of each and every different suggestion because that’s not a way to move forward. It doesn’t mean that I don’t respect that position that’s been expressed now and has been recalled some minutes ago. The way it was expressed, this situation in the document I submitted to you, it was to bracket the whole use of the term cablecasting as you saw through the document, cablecasting, it is — they’re bracketed, the use of the terms, everywhere, because it is not still a consensus of all these important things to be included.
However, since we get deeper in the discussion of — if we’re in conditions to discuss, if we will remove or not or under which conditions, these kinds of alternatives could become more interesting to deal with. And in doing so, I look forward to hear your views regarding this and let me tell you that after this discussion I will be ambitious to include what I see as the more — as the ways or suggestions that contains the majority of views in favor and taking into account, giving comfort to those with legitimate concerns.

Saying so, I open the floor for the discussion of these specific topic of cablecasting not repeating the previous statements but a way to sort out the concerns that have been expressed and alternatives that’s been expressed and alternatives that’s been mentioned.
U.S. has the floor.

>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the Distinguished Delegation of Brazil for drawing attention at this time to paragraph 201, which indeed is a U.S. intervention.
To recall the context of that intervention I think is really quite important. The intervention was intended to advance the discussion on a difficult issue for some Delegations and this was intended in that spirit, even parsing the words of the intervention you will see that we mentioned one idea and also we noted that if that idea were to gain traction so for further clarification of the U.S. position we have discussed this idea with U.S. stakeholders and other agencies in if the U.S. government. On the basis of those further subsequent consultations the U.S. position remains unchanged on this. That cablecasting organizations should be included within the scope of the Treaty. Thank you for listening carefully to the ideas and hopefully we’ll have other Delegations suggesting other ideas moving forward.
Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for clarifying this. However, as you explained, it is a position that triggers reaction and we’ll continue to hear views on how to tackle the situation of cablecasting. We keep on opening the floor. E.U. has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: This is to use the occasion of our American friends took giving their position on the cablecasting because we just would like to clarify that our position is exactly the same. It remains unchanged and we think that cablecasting organizations should be included in the Treaty and granted protection under the Treaty.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, E.U.
Any other view? We have received a request for the floor from — contributions to this specific topic and discussion, they’re welcome and since we don’t have more opinions, you are still thinking about your opinion on the important issue of inclusion of cablecasting it will be interesting to hear to other
interesting to hear to other contributions. KEI has the floor.

KEI (Speaker) thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that the suggestion by Brazil following up on what was arranged earlier by the United States is important. The — the characteristics of the cable organizations, they’re different in two different ways, one, unlike a lot of over the air broadcasts, there is an agreement reached with the buyer and these are pay services and there’s often different regulatory and legal regimes for preventing piracy that relate to the cable television that’s for over the air while the concept for piracy for free signal is different than it is for something like a cable service.
Secondly, the ownership of the broadcasting and the cable channel, the cablecasting beneficiaries, it is a package of channels as opposed to people running wires to the home, that means that there is more foreign ownership and in big multinational ownership of the channels as opposed for example for the stations which in a lot of countries have more local ownership. For those two reasons I think it makes it much more manageable to consider the challenge of the over the air broadcast if you just focus on that issue, if you include the cablecasting, I think you take the cablecasting organizations, it is good to make it narrower.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that explanation. It is helpful to have some reasons to think about — I think that that deserves an analysis and now it is time for a break for lunchtime and I invite you to enjoy your lunch and think about this issue of cablecasting and the options we face for a consensus.
Before that, we will hear some administrative announcements.


Latvia has the floor.

>> LATVIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I’m speaking on behalf of central Central European and Baltic States Group. We just would like to join those delegations that express the view that the cablecasting should be included in this treaty as well, and the protection should be granted. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for sharing that view. While
I wait for other member countries to express their view on this interesting and important issue, as I invited NGOs to participate when they have a specific contributions to the points that are being discussed, I have received a request from the floor from U.E.R., which is the European Broadcasting Union

EBU has the floor.

>> EBU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that it’s important to realize that the definitions or the alternative definition is not intended, I think, to separate two types of organisations. I think the intention is basically to say you have broadcasting organisations who deliver their programming via wireless network and you have broadcasting organisations who deliver their programming via a cable network.

So I think that’s important to realize that we are not actually talking about different organisations for the purposes of this treaty. For the E.U., for example, we would have to take account of the fact that our countries which have basically only a cable network where broadcasters are active, meaning that the traditional free to air broadcasting no longer takes place, but everything has been digital, so that the broadcasters would deliver their programming exclusively via a cable network or probably in addition via a similar kind of wired network.

So it would be important, of course, to include those entities as well. I think also that the concern raised by Distinguished Delegates from Brazil is, of course, important, but it may be an issue that can be solved by drafting and, of course, this is for the plenary to decide or to offer the opportunity, but we would feel confident and trust your leadership, Mr. Chairman, if the delegations would ask you for drafting on that particular purpose.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, for your comment. We have the request from Charisma Foundation.

>> CHARISMA FOUNDATION: Good afternoon, and thank you very much, sir. Yes, I wanted to refer to the rights that would be in this proposed treaty and I would like to give you an example of something that has recently happened in Colombia and how sometimes the retransition rights can be abused at the beginning of March this year, a group of football fans, Colombian football fans over several digital platforms, Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, were transmitting different information on clotheio football goals — Colombian football goals, penalties and videos taken from the stadium, from the benches.

Some of them had their accounts blocked at the request of Win Support and, for example, the RCN, the Colombian broadcast because these ran against the rights of the professional football clubs and the broadcasters. These fans were obviously infringing copyright because these organisations claim that those contents were their own, even those that were taken from the stands were claimed to be their own.

So this is what shows you the difficulty posed by copyright and it even possibly infringes the rights of citizens because they are no longer allowed freedom of expression. So this, which would be a treaty to protect the organisations, we believe that we should have as limited a definition as possible to avoid any abuse. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you Foundation Charisma. Thank you for sharing your concern. And, of course, we think that whenever a treaty which gives rights such as this one that we are discussing now, there would be a section where certain exceptions are allowed and that is what is usual and, of course, we could discuss this kind of issue at that point. Although, of course, there could be other means with which to eliminate problems with protection that would be granted.

Related to the s i t u a t i on of cablecasting. I see none, and probably I will take one of the suggestions made by one of the comments we have heard regarding this point, which is that probably we — it will be easier if we see some way, specific way to tackle those legitimate concern as the same time as trying to receive the claim of inclusion that some other delegations have requested.

And probably that is a task that could be received by me with your contributions and, of course, I’m open to receive your contributions on that matter, and I will take the task to do so if it’s helpful. We will do an effort to have a fast response to that request and to work it properly, either in the, in this framework, open framework, or in a more informal way.

So I offer that to you and I will consider previous contributions, and, of course, new contributions that might come up as a way to find out the way to give comfort to those who have expressed concern regarding the inclusion of cablecasting and at the same time the need expressed for some others related to its inclusion, meaning that we will not continue facing a dichotomy of having them or not having them because there is no option in that formal, in that situation to negotiate, but in a way, that could be propose and giving comfort to the concerns we have expressed. I am open to receive your contributions. Any specific contribution to that will be welcome, E.U. has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair. I think that we would still like to understand better the problem with including cablecasters in the scope of protection because we view it as basically a different technique of transmitting, of transmitting of transmitting programs. So broadcasting here under definition in alternative A relates to wireless means of transmission, and cablecasting relates to those by wire., but the activity is exactly the same trine. .

>> We have, in Europe, we have entities that broadcast in that withdraw. So we are trying to understand what is the concern behind including cablecasters as beneficiaries of this treaty. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you for your question. I will transmit the question, but I have to recall that it has been expressed in previous sessions those concerns as well, just it’s my mission to recall some of them. There has been mentioned some constitutional provisions that that differentiate treatment made to broadcasters and cablecasters. There are some regulatory obligations that are applicable in a different way, and some regulatory treatment that has been applied in a different way to those entities and considering so some delegations have expressed that in treating them in the same way as a result of this proposed treaty will have this policy implementation.

This is my general recall of what has been expressed before, but probably if it’s not enough, I’m probably that’s the case, I will open the floor for more explicit comments of the reasons and concerns that some Distinguished Delegates have expressed. And they are welcome. Brazil has the floor.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Very briefly, Chair, I understand that you have summarized the concerns that were presented. I just took the floor to support the suggestion of the European Broadcasting Union that requested that the Chair could try to find some language to address these legitimate concerns so we would second the proposal on this aspect of the broadcaster’s Union. Thank you Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, for that. I think that it is my, it’s an invitation I can take unless there is any delegation who opposes that as I announce. We are always ready to be useful to your goals. Chile has the floor. CHILE: Thank you, sir. As the European Union requested, that was the need to explain the concerns of would like a separate treatment in the definitions between additional broadcasting and the cablecasting. The problem that we get in Chile is that our telecommunications session defines what a broadcaster is, and it considers it a telecommunication of free, in other words, the public in general can receive this free of charge and, therefore, the cablecasters would not be included because they have permits for limited telecommunications services.

This is why this session and previous sessions we have expressed our concern at this. And this also is why we are interested in, great interest in knowing what the European Union broadcasting proposal would be.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, distinguished Delegation of Chile for clarifying the difference that there is in your country between the definitions of broadcasting organisations and the cablecasting organisations. The asking 9 Delegation of Chile to realize if that difference in the definition of both entities are included as well in other countries, member countries, and if that has an impact on the exercise of doing of bringing a framework of protection for the program carrying signals transmitted either by broadcasting or by cablecasting.

It will be helpful to share with the Distinguished Delegate from Chile for their analysis. If you see an impact on that relationship, I think that it will be helpful for consideration. And so I reiterate the invitation to making comments on these extremes. Germany has the floor.

>> GERMANY: Thank you, Chair. I was just wondering when the delegate from Chile mentioned her definition in her telecommunications law, that maybe for those delegations who have a problem with the special treatment of their cablecasting organisations at home, maybe in telecommunications law in media law, that we could make introduce in our treaty some kind of provision where we say, well, we define broadcasting organisation. We define cablecasting organisation, but this does not have any implications for national laws in other areas because we say here we are in copyright, we have copyright issues to tackle, we have something for broadcasting organisations. We want to rule something for cablecasting, but what each country is doing at home in other law areas is not connected to this.

Maybe the delegations can think over this idea if it would be possible for them to have such a separation of issues. Thank you.

> CHAIR: Well, thank you to the Distinguished Delegate from Germany for that invitation to think. I recall the Paragraph for definitions usually we add a phrase for the purposes of this treaty stating that clarity and, but, of course, any additional clarification if it’s required can be evaluated. But thank you for that, because what we are trying to achieve is to give material for the delegations to analyze in a very respecting — respecting their autonomy to analyze if there are some clues on how to accommodate the differences in national regulatory environments to this multilateral intent to deal with, as it has been said, issue related to corporate and related rights.

Any other comment from the floor? Fair enough. We have received this invitation to prepare something for your consideration and we will work on that proposal, and I think that it will trigger discussion on the options we are facing regarding the important issue of cablecasting. Thanks for your explanations and for your opinions.

Well, until we get to that point distributing that suggestion or draft, we have other topics here in the proposal that we are analyzing and receiving comments. Regarding this, it would be interesting to see, since we are still in the section of definitions, if you have comment related to, especially to those definitions where we find alternatives.

We have seen the definition, the alternative A and alternative B of broadcasting and cablecasting in a separate way, and broadcasting as unique definition, but I think that since this is related to the topic of cablecasting, no further comments until it is solved, this previous issue is not the right moment to enter into such discussion.

However, in this section of definitions, we have another set of alternatives in the definition of retransmission. So it would be interesting to receive your comments regarding the alternative A and B that we have in

So it would be interesting to receive your comments regarding the alternative A and B that we have in the letter E regarding retransmission. And we open the floor for comments on which of those alternatives are from your preference. Is E1, alternative A or E1 alternative B as you are seeing on the screen.

EU has the floor.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: I’m sorry, Chair, we have comments on previous definitions because before we were discussing the cablecasting issue but we have technical comments on previous definitions if we could give them now?

>> CHAIR: Yes, for sure, you can go on.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you. So starting from the definition of program carrying signal, we think that the text which is bracketed at the moment which states as originally transmitted and in any subsequent technical format should be included in this definition, and we will come back to this when we discuss object of protection where we have a particular issue about retransmissions of the signal in different technical format.

On the other hand, we think that the second part that is in brackets currently for reception by the public is not needed in this definition because in both cases of the definition of broadcasting, both under alternative A and alternative B, there is a reference that it’s for reception by the public. Broadcasting is for reception by the public so we don’t need the duplication in the definition of program carrying signal. It’s purely technical, but just to, trying to clean the text as much as possible.

And then in the definition of program, the part that is not clear to us is the additional that is authorized by the right holder for transmission. We do not understand why this would be needed because it is really to describe what the program is, which is the material consisting of images, sounds, both, or representation there of, but we do not see the connection with authorization for transmission.

So in our view, this part should be deleted from the definition of program. On the definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting in alternative A, and also this, also refers to the definition of broadcasting in alternative B, one thing that is not very clear to us is we always understood that we have these definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting in order to define the beneficiaries of the treaty being the traditional broadcasting and cablecasting organisations.

Of course, with caveats. But we are discussing still the situation of cablecasters as discussed previously. But we always understood there would be a link made between the definition of broadcasting and cablecasting with the definition of broadcasting organisation and it is indeed being made in item D, however, it is not clear to us that the way broadcasting and cablecasting is currently defined is limited only to traditional means of broadcasting and cablecasting basically, because it is wireless and wire and we agree that in previous treaties in the past, that was sufficient to indicate traditionality means, but we are not convinced that it’s still the same, but it’s sufficient to indicate traditional means.

We would suggest that there is a clarification added here in alternative A for broadcasting, cablecasting, but also in alternative B for broadcastingna transmissions over computer networks should not constitute broadcasting, cablecasting 234 broadcasting just to clarify what the meaning of these terms is. and finally on the definition of broadcasting organisation, we think that it has all of the right elements though probably it could be redrafted in such a way to say that broadcasting organisation is legal entity that takes the initiative and has the editorial responsibility for broadcasting or cablecasting including taking initiative for assembling and scheduling the programs carried by the program carrying signal. So we think there is a technical redrafting that could help improving this text.

And then coming to your question on retransmission and two alternatives, we would like to have as wide as possible definition of retransmission and, therefore, we favor alternative A in that regard, and, again, we have a question for both alternative A and alternative B which is the additional someone authorized by it. So it’s transmission by an entity other than the original broadcasting organisation or someone authorized by it.

It is not clear to us what it is supposed to mean. And whether this is supposed to refer to Paragraph one of object of protection where we say that protection extends to carrying signals transmitted by or on behalf of a broadcasting organisation. If this is supposed to be the same idea, then probably we should use the same terms to use on behalf of, I think, that these were the most important issues and definitions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much for those contributions. I see that some of them are not necessarily showing in one position. Divergent position are clarifications and I take note of those different suggestions. So let me try to, not to answer that because that’s not my role because we exchange views here, but at least to make some comments regarding the questions you have posted.

Regarding the suggestion related to the addition for reception by the public in the definition of program carrying signal at the very end, you are absolutely right, that in the definition of broadcasting, the and in the definition of cablecasting, there is mention that those activities are made for reception by the public. And if that is the case, adding that extreme which is still in brackets because there was a suggestion that came for its inclusion, could be probably considered if it’s still necessary to keep it or if we could proceed to delete it.

Any view regarding this is welcome. Regarding the second question related to the definition of program, there is a mention of a need for recorded material consisting of sounds and representation is that is authorized by the right holder for transmission. I want to recall there was some member state who stated distinguished delegate who stated the need to avoid the perception that we will protect illegal material.

We are, if we decide to proceed on this treaty, we are interested in, of course, protecting legal activities. It will be undeniable that the extension is not to extend protection to an entity which not complying with the copyright framework of protection transmits illegal material. And because there is a treaty protecting program carrying signals, it will receive protection regardless of the situation in which it’s transmitting illegal material.

And I think that all of us in this room, we share that view. At the same time, it was expressed a concern that we could not tackle that situation, but adding a condition and evidence-based burden to say that any action that is going to be taken has an additional burden of proof proving some contracts because that could, that could be considered as an obstacle in obtaining the benefits of protection intended in this proposed treaty.

So a way that I found interesting in order to consider this first legitimate concern which is that we are building a framework for legal broadcasters is that when we recognize that there is a program, it’s implicit that this program, of course, is legal.And this just a matter of definition is not a provision that is dealt with in other parts of the treaty.

It’s just stating that the program these recorded, images, representations of are authorized for respective right or corresponding right holder for its transmission in order to avoid, as I said, protecting illegal transmitters. That’s the intention of that extreme. That’s the way I tried to consider the concern expressed by the Distinguished Delegate from India, if I recall one of the delegations, not exactly in the way they suggested, so trying to poor some suggestions regarding the section of rights to be granted because in this that case, it appears this concern, it comes up that it might be an obstacle of the exercise of the treaty.

That is the intention, but, of course. It’s something to be tested and I’m in your hands. If it can be achieved through this addition, if it adds value or not. That’s the explanation for this second point. Regarding the definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting, the reason why we have two alternatives there is the concern that has been expressed that the so called traditional broadcasting activity mentioned in previous interest international agreement is similar to what you see here, mentioning wireless activity.

And the traditional way to refer to cable activity is by wire. And we have another alternative which is technologically neutral which says either by wireless means or any other means. Now, we hear that probably even the alternative A does not reflect the current situation of the traditional activities, but this is what we have received until this point, and I think that it will be the simple way to say that we have these two options.

Adding more intermediate options probably could give some obstacles and not trying to select one specific. Of course, if we specific one of those alternatives, then we can add small precisions to those alternatives in order to tackle some concerns, but that explanation why there is no, let’s say, intermediate mention of some other traditional ways of making the activity of broadcasting at this nowadays.

Regarding the suggestion related to the definition of a broadcasting organisation, it’s interesting because it refers that the entity which is with application is to broadcast or if we include cablecasters or cablecast, including these activities that we have highlighted, I really initially don’t see any problem on that position because it is not taking us to one distinguished position. It’s a very technical suggestion that could be considered for you positively unless you have another opinions.

And finally, regarding the definition of retransmission, it’s interesting that we should find a common way to refer to others, which is the idea of the use of term on behalf in the object of protection, and here we use the term, the phrase for someone authorized by it. My initial answer to this is the intention is the the same that the activity is made directly or on behalf of and the term that you prefer would be the one that we would use so we can take the suggestion to include a similar term for edge bough parts in order to gain consistency. I am in your hands regarding the one that you prefer.

Those are my initial comments on this, but, of course, this is not an answer or a final answer that comes to me. These are thoughts to be shared with you and to obtain your vision on how to improve this document. So in the same manner we have received the task to include such improvements regarding the issue of cablecasting, we take note of these suggestions, but any differing view will be welcome and this is the right time to express it. So we open the floor for comments on

So we open the floor for comments on these matters.

Okay. Then we will go to other section, if you allow me unless any delegation wants to — oh, we have some requests for the floor. U.S. has the floor.

>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to weigh in on a couple of the definitions that have been under discussion to date, so with respect to program carrying signal on the bracketed, the first bracketed language as originally transmitted and in any subsequent technical format, we agree with the E.U. that that is probably an important phrase to retain in as much as it makes clear that subsequent technical modifications of the signal will not result in the loss of protection of the originally transmitted signal.

And I think that’s consistent with thinking that informed the delegates to the Brussels Convention. With respect to the second phrase, the second bracketed phrase for reception by the public, there is an argument that it underscores the narrow scope of signals that are protected under this treaty, but we did listen to the point made by the E.U. that it arguably superfluous and, therefore, we could go along with the idea that that be deleted.

\With respect to the definition of program, and that phrase that is authorized for transmission by the right holder, we have heard, I think, in the last session that it raised difficult concerns with respect to public domain materials, and we think the notion that only lawful materials ought to be the lawfully transmitted materials, transmitted by a broadcast signal shall be the subject of this treaty, so we would like to see that lawful transmissions, that concept retained somewhere in the text.

But we certainly understand the difficulties with this particular phrase and would go along with, with the thinking along those lines of the problem problem that is suggested. With respect to alternatives A and B under the definition of broadcasting, this delegation does have a preference for alternative A. Alternative B as you pointed out earlier is much more wide open containing the phrase or any other means for reception.

And in our view, it’s not consistent with the emerging consensus, if not adopted consensus that this treaty ought to be narrowly focused. With respect to the alternatives for the definition of retransmission, this delegation has a preference for the more narrowly focused alternative, alternative B.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that very clear comment. Some of them are related to preferences, and some of them are technical contributions or explanations of the impact of having those specific phrases and the need to keep them or to look for alternatives to tackle the problems they were supposed to tackle.

So thanks for that. We take note and we, of course, we listen other views related to the same problems. EU has the floor and then Argentina. We start with EU.

>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor again. Just for clarity on our position, I think that on the definition of program, we would count ourselves as one in this delegation that see such addition as an obstacle to exercising rights under this treaty and that’s why we maintain after your clarifications also that we would prefer to see it deleted from the definition of program the phrase that is authorized by the right holder for transmission.

Coming back to definitions of broadcasting and cablecasting, I just wanted to clarify that we are not looking for adding some intermediate definition. We have a preference for alternative A as also mentioned by the Delegation of United States, but that is the one that in our view represents better the emerging consensus here. We just wanted to be clear that it is to denote traditional means of broadcasting and cablecasting.

And we think that without a clarification as to this not covering transmissions of a computer networks, this is not clear. Because if you had wireless wire together it can mean everything. It can mean by any means basically, and that’s why we think that clarification here is required as to transmissions over computer networks, but this is our preferred, preferred alternative.

Just to add on the remaining definitions, we were wondering whether possibly since we have a definition here of near simultaneous transmission, whether we should not have a definition of deferred transmission because it is being used throughout the document. It’s quite an important term also for the object of protection and for the definition of rights. So possibly this would have to be defined, would have to be defined as well.

And finally, we were wondering whether in the definition of pre broadcast signal which now says it’s for the purpose of subsequent transmission to public, whether we should not clarify even further that this signal when transmitted is not intended for direct reception by the public so when it is transmitted it is not for reception by the public but it is for the purpose of subsequent transmission for the public, so it is the same logic but just a little more clarification on that. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that specific comment. Thank you for the clarification of your comment regarding the definition of broadcasting, specifically on the suggestion of to clarify that transmissions over computer networks are not part of the activity and probably we would see exactly where you suggest to place such clarification
Well, you have experienced your views regarding the authorization for transmission, but we have heard an alternative posted by the Distinguished Delegate from U.S. using the term lawfully and since we have the Distinguished Delegate from India who expressed a concern, probably we can find alternatives to try to find a solution on this specific issue.

Regarding the need of a definition of deferred transmission even if bracketed because as we know, we are not still, there is now consensus on reaching that activity as part of this treaty, but you are right, that is mentioned at least in brackets, so the suggestion to include such a definition in back eliminates is something that I take note unless there is a different view on that. And regarding the last specific proposal that clarifies that instead of mentioning the purpose, mentioned intention, well, I will listen carefully to your views.

It’s a matter of how to, how to be objective in this qualification. Probably it’s a matter of language, but not intended since an alternative and I will listen to your views if the purpose is better or not. I will be open to receive this very detailed suggestion to have your further consideration. But I take note as well.

Well, now it’s time to listen to Argentina. Argentina

ARGENTINA: Thank you, sir. Since this is the first time that my delegation has taken the floor, we would like to say how happy we are to see you Chairing our meeting. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of the documents for this meeting. With regard to section 1 definitions under C broadcasting, we would prefer alternative A. With regard to D, which defines the broadcasting organisation, we believe we should remove the square brackets so that broadcasting organisation and cablecasting organisation be included in the treaty.

Now, we do think that we need to clarify that the broadcasting organisation is the person legally authorized that carries out the activities that are mentioned. The inclusion of legally authorized, we think that this would avoid giving protection to illegal transmissions. Now, with regard to E, retransmission, Argentina would prefer alternative A and finally, with regard to G, we would think it would be acceptable here to accept this and remove the square brackets. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. I thank the distinguished Delegation of Argentina. And we have with us the new Director of copyright for Argentina, Dr. Gustav Shots, so we would like to welcome him. We have heard Argentina’s preferences on some of these points as well as some suggestions. I have taken due note of them and we will need to test them and hear comments.

The suggestion to include a mention of legally authorized person in order to avoid informals or other entities which conduct elicit activities in the definition of broadcasting organisation and so we take note of that, and, of course, we test, we open the floor for comments on those suggestions. Any other requests from the floor? Nigeria has the floor.

NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaking in my national capacity, I would like to share Nigeria’s preferences for the options that are available for the definitions A, program carrying signal for Nigeria, our understanding we can support the Chair’s new proposal. Our understanding is that the second bracket as originally transmitted and in any subsequent technical format could mean whether encrypted for not could cover for concerns of whether encrypted or not. And in that regard, we could be flexible on this except if the Chair has a different explanation to that.

We will support a deletion for the last bracket which is for reception by the public. Nigeria will come back on B on program, the definition for program. For broadcasting, Nigeria supports as well as the Africa Group had state in the past, alternative B for broadcasting. We believe this is a technologically neutral and broad enough definition of broadcasting that could allow the policy space that is by many delegations including some of the concerns that we believe had been raised by put E.U. For broadcasting, for D, broadcasting organisation, and cablecasting organisation, Nigeria would still, it’s open to keep discussing this, but we believe that in the first definition the wide definition of C, broadcasting in C could address the concerns of cablecasting organisations and since we are having that discussion, we wondered to what extent it could help to advance discussions if the broad definition contained in C is not acceptable if we are providing narrower definition of cablecasting organisations and seep what the member states’ reaction to that is.

For retransmission, Nigeria supports alternative B. Thank you, Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that clear statement regarding not only the preferences, but as well the comments related to the options we are taking in the discussion here. Us industry that has the floor.

>> AUSTRIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Taking the floor for the first time, I would like to express my gratitude for your leading us so ablely to this new session of SCCR and also to the Secretariat for its preparatory work. I take the floor to support the intervention of the European Union with regard to the criteria that is authorized by the rights holder for transmission in the definition of program.

In my view, this criterion is not in line with the general principle in the area of copyright and related rights. That means if there are several layers of rights in a certain activity, the protection of each of these layers is independent from one another. So, if, for example, translates work of literature without per 34EUGS of author, the transmission is protected nevertheless. When a performing artist performs the work of music without permission of performances, protected nevertheless, and if what is most relevant with regard to broadcasting organisations, if phone no gram producer produces phone nogram without the necessary authorization of the work of the rights holder and the works of copyright and performances related, the phone nogram is protected nevertheless.

Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for your point of view which we have heard and probably will trigger some comments and which could be the intention on designing the content of this proposed treaty. South Africa has the floor.

>> SOUTH AFRICA: Thank you, Chair. South Africa would like to state that we support Nigeria’s position and the African Group position in terms of program carrying signal, it is our view that the last bracket should be deleted because it doesn’t add much, it doesn’t add much to the intended definition which should be kept very clean and very simple for the purposes of this treaty.

Secondly, with regard to broadcasting, we are still of the view that for the pirps of this treaty, we should adopt a technical definition for broadcasting. In this regard, we go for alternative B. However, taking into consideration that there are member states that have issues with cablecasting, South Africa would like to put on the floor the possibility of catering for this consent if possible in the preamble. If it could state that each member state is what is included in broadcasting in their particular country.

If this is acceptable to member states, we could consider having this note in the preamble allowing member states to determine what they define as broadcasting for them when they do their national, national policies. With regards to retransmission, Chair, South Africa goes with alternative B. The issue that we have with alternative A is the fact that the fed has included in alternative A is not, it’s a perpetual term that is not limited to any, to any time frame. So it is not well defined for us to accept it at this particular stage unless if there is within a treaty, a point where this term is limited and allows for member states to limit. But as it stands now, I would like to go with alternative B without that term deferred. Thank you, Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Any contribution related to the way we tackle the cablecasting issue is welcome. And for explaining the reasons of your preferences. Latvia has the floor.

>> LATVIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just would like to make a few comments on behalf of the CEBS group. For the deaf nation of program, we are, which is authorized by the right holder for transmission should be deleted, and as for the definition of broadcasting, we are in favor of the alternative A. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much for that brief intervention. Of course, we are listening several times that there is still a concern for the addition of this phrase that is authorized by the rights holder for transmission. So I would like to test the suggestion that came from the floor this afternoon regarding the use of the term lawful at some point. Please bear in mind that alternative suggestions in order to tackle what was expressed as a concern, however, we have listened carefully to the Distinguished Delegate from Austria has reminded us and that would be part of the analysis as well in this room.

Crik has requested the floor but I document see it in the system so I would ask iscreek requesting the floor. Kric has the floor.

CRIC: Thank you, Chairman. First of all, I appreciate the effort of the Chair and International Bureau to make a unby assed text. I would like to make some comment concerning broadcasting, so on. One is is a quote that is authorized by the rights holder for transmission in the definition of program.

Now, we have discussed that by my understanding, our consensus is that protection of broadcast treaty is limited to signals not extended to content transmitted by broadcasting organisations in traditional sense. Fundamentally, neighbors rights never interfere with copyrights and other rights. Broadcaster’s rights, other enabling light protects all signals by broadcast irrelevant to contents. Accordingly, it is natural that similar which transmits a public domain movie should be protected. In Convention of the WPPT one performer sings an sold song. Performance itself is protected even if that song is in the public domain.

If broadcasting a public domain movie would not be protected by broadcasters neighboring rights, the movie would not lend it to broadcast or and audience would end up not being able to see the movie through TV. That would be bad — for broad ors but also for audience at large. And I think, of course, that is authorized by the right holder for transmission of the program should be deleted.

And one more, in the definition of broadcasting related to the definition of broadcasting. The definition of broadcasting organisation takes the sentence, quote, it is understood that for the purpose of this treaty, entities which deliver the program output exclusively by means of computer network do not fall under the definition of a broadcasting organisation, unquote. Which was in the first Paragraph.

Accordingly in the case of broadcasting, in alternative B, we can lead broadcasting organisation includes the entity which transmitted program carrying signal only by Internet. This would be out of 2006 and 2007 General Assembly mandate, quote, the scope of the treaty will be confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organisations in the traditional sense, unquote, which is our consensus even now by my understanding.

Moreover, even broadcasting in alternative A does not make it clear the scope of beneficiaries because now many people use Internet by wireless means such as Wi-Fi or mobile phone, so on. In the end of 2015 more than 3 billion people in the world enjoy the Internet and most of them enjoy the Internet by mobile and wireless means. I think beneficiaries have to be limited to broadcasting and cablecasting organisations in traditional sense in accordance with General Assembly mandate and our consensus so far.

Therefore, the quote broadcasting shall not be understood as including transmission over computer networks, unquote. Should be added. That would be a simple and clear way to define broadcasters, broadcasting organisations and broadcasting, I think. Because as I stated before, we defined, we make a definition of broadcasting in the traditional sense of the very limited one, but we could make more wider protection in the area of object of protection. Thank you

>> CHAIR: Well, thank you very much to CRIC. I would like to recall that the contribution by profess Wahara has been welcome during this process of deliberation with some contributions that have been used even in the preparation of charts some several sessions ago and it’s keeping contributing giving some light to the discussion.
And, well, now we have a another set of reasons to analyze when we decide
if we add or remove some of the elements that are contained in this document. Thank you very much for that. Well, I think that after this rich exchange of views regarding this first section of the document, we deserve a coffee. We break for some minutes and come back for some good discussion. We break for for some minutes.