The U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Committee meets this week to discuss the latest redraft of the contentious new Broadcasting Treaty. The treaty would give broadcasters, cablecasters, and potentially webcasters, broad new 50 year rights to control transmissions over the Internet, irrespective of the copyright status of the transmitted material. It also requires countries to provide legal protection for broadcaster technological protection measures that will require Broadcast Flag-like technology mandates.

As we've noted elsewhere, EFF believes that these new rights will stifle innovation, create a new layer of liability for Internet intermediaries, impair consumers' existing rights, restrict the public's access to knowledge and culture, and change the nature of the Internet as a communication medium. Many of these concerns could be addressed by limiting the scope of the treaty to its intended purpose -- signal theft. Unfortunately the new draft doesn't remove any of our concerns, but only deepens them..

Webcasting is now back in the treaty, after spending last year in a separate "working paper" because the majority of countries opposed its inclusion in 2004. Despite many counties' opposition again in 2005, it's been included in the treaty as a non-mandatory Appendix. Countries that sign the treaty have the option - at any time -- to grant webcasters the same exclusive rights given to broadcasters and cablecasters by depositing a notice with WIPO.

At the same time, some of the key proposals to balance the impact of the new treaty have been removed from the new draft treaty text (the Draft Basic Proposal) and relegated to a new separate "Working Paper". For instance, the alternative that the treaty not include the contentious Technological Protection Measure obligations is not in the Draft Basic Proposal, but has been sidelined to the Draft Working Paper. Brazil and Chile's exceptions proposals (including exceptions for national competition regulation and temporary reproductions of broadcast works that are crucial for digital technology innovation) have also been cast off to the Draft Working Paper.

The WIPO Committee Chair's decision to create two separate documents, rather than a consolidated draft proposal including all views, has been highly controversial. As expected, many countries were not pleased with the implied sleight of hand involved in categorizing countries' proposals as "core" (in the Draft Basic Proposal) or "alternatives" (in the Draft Working Paper). It's particularly troubling that some items, such as webcasting, that have been consistently rejected by the majority of Member States, have made it into the Draft Basic Proposal -- so selection for the Draft Basic Proposal was clearly not based on majority support. Many Member States voiced concerns about transparency when they took the floor. India, South Africa, Brazil, Iran, and Uruguay stated that their views had not been taken into account in the draft treaty.

And there's also little consensus on substantive issues. Many Member States clearly disagree with including webcasting in the treaty. Several Member States, including Thailand (on behalf of the Asia Group), Argentina, Jamaica, Nigeria, Colombia and Peru, also expressed concern about the potential for broadcaster technological protection measures to impair exceptions and limitations and restrict access to public domain materials.

The draft treaty is now officially on the fast track. The draft that emerges from this meeting will form the basis for convening a 2007 intergovernmental Diplomatic Conference when the WIPO General Assembly votes in September. That means this week is the last chance for WIPO member countries to act to protect Internet innovation and the public's access to knowledge.

As usual, we'll be blogging developments from Geneva. The NGO Coalition's notes of Day 1 are after the jump.

WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 14th Session, May 1-5, 2006

DAY 1 - May 1, 2006

Notes taken by:

Gwen Hinze, gwen at eff dot org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [GH]

Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech dot org, Consumer Project on Technology [TB]

Teresa Hackett, teresa dot hackett at eifl dot net, Electronic Information for Libraries [TH]

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. It's our best effort at providing a faithful set of notes of the proceedings. Any errors and omissions are unintentional and regretted.]

-=-=-=-=-
Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)

Except where indicated in relation to specific text in the following material, the person or persons who have associated their work with this document
(the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright in the work of
authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain.

Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.

Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.
-=-=-=-=-

Brazil: Inquiry into the agenda. Clarification on the agenda item on presentations by academics.

Chair: SCCR/14/1/Revised

Item 5: Reference to introductory presentations (Lipszyc-Buenos Aires and Lucas-University of Nantes).

Chair: clarification latest version of Agenda includes presentations but technical error because old version being distributed.

Brazil: My delegation is of the view that presentations should not be included as a formal item of the agenda. They were not agreed to by Member States in advance. We have the example of the open forum on the SPLT (which was agreed to by Member States)

We cannot support the Agenda as it stands because we have not been consulted as to the idea of presentations or appropriatenss of geographical representatives chosen.

These presentations could be part of a "side event" of an informal agenda, but should not be part of the formal committee agenda.

Chair: Academics' flights booked and on way. Suggests break in formal committee meeting, to allow attendance of presentations tomorrow morning. Embroidery of agenda then necessary to indicate presentations not part of the formal committee agenda.

Now we shall discuss the report of the 13th session of the SCCR.

The draft report of that session was not available before the end of last meeting. Made available afterwards, and now need to seek formal adoption.

Iran: errors in various paragraphs. Will provide list to translators for correction.

Argentina: Paragraph 122-statement from Argentina-third sentence from the bottom does not reflect what we said. We would therefore like to have it deleted. There was no written text, it was an improvisation, but it does not reflect what we said.

Chair: could you provide a version of that paragraph to allow the correction to be made.

China: 30 years should be changed to 50 years.

Australia: Have already provided some changes to the Secretariat, but now mention it for the record.

Chair: Report will be adopted (pending corrections)

Item 5 (Protection of broadcasting organizations)

I will offer some first tentative thoughts on how the meeting could be organized. The whole work under item 5 could be divided in two main parts. The first would consist of presentation and discussion of proposals on the table. We have a set of new documents that were published in February [GH: Actually, they were posted on WIPO's website on 9 March onwards.]

There were proposals made at the last meeting and presented in short, but with little time for delegations to consider those proposals. We would like to give these proposals fuller consideration now.

In addition, a third proposal has been made by the delegation of Colombia.
We have also been informed that there is a fourth proposal from Peru, that will be available this week.

The necessary questions and discussions could be part of this first procedure. A small draft program in written form will be distributed including the presentations of the invited academics. This will not be part of the official work of the committee.

The second part of the work refers to the decision of the General Assembly in September 2005.

Last September, or early days of October, the GA decided that there would be two additional meetings of this standing committee to progress work on the previous consolidated text

First, to accelerate discussion on the consolidated text and working paper (previous documents on table in November). Second, to agree on recommendations to enable finalization of Draft Basic Proposal (ie treaty text) to form the basis of convening of diplomatic conference. So we can see there are two tasks.

The question is now how to agree and finalize the basic proposal. The decision implied that the basic proposal will be prepared after this meeting. That will be a working paper to be submitted to the diplomatic conference.

Should reserve time before then for study and undertake necessary consultations before diplomatic conference. We should have ambition to agree on the substantive proposals.

Suggest discussion of proposals should be done under basket of 8 items, as listed in Chair's Draft Work Programme.

1. Certain items of new proposals (presented last November):

- General principles [Brazil's public interest item]
- The protection and promotion of cultural diversity [with reference to the UNESCO treaty]
- Defense of competition

This covers the first part of the proposal by the delegation of Brazil and Chile.

2. Rights

Including those alternative clauses in the Working Paper, in items 5 -11.

3. Limitations and Exceptions with special reference to the treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations. There is an article on L&E and there are proposals in the working paper by Chile and Brazil on elaborated formulae. I understand that the Peru proposal contains also proposals on L&E.

4. Technological Measures and Rights Management Information

This is one of the main remaining open items, and in the article from Peru there is reference to the RMI article.

5. Term of Protection - one of open articles

6. Scope of application

7. Eligibility. There are two main philosophies on how to define the provisions on eligibility on how to become a party to the treaty refers to Art 22 in new Draft Basic Proposal - whether to have a conditional or more open proposal. Brazil's proposal includes a proposal for conditional eligibility.

8. Any other items

The ambition should be that when we come to the second part, that we should be able to establish understanding on what should be contained in the proposal. This should not exclude other proposals that may be made.

The first part should be a descriptive evaluation of the proposals tabled.

We might soon start with the presentations of the texts and if there are concerns about how the second part should be formulated, then perhaps we could have that discussion after we have the first general round of presentation of proposals.

I would offer the necessary additional introductory notes for the working documents that were published 8 February 2006.

The Draft Basic Proposal (DBP) is the presenting in a clean form i.e. no alternatives, no square brackets.

The history of the DBP can be traced if you compare it with the 2nd revised consolidated text.

Includes all materials in the about 15 proposals from 1998 onwards, from Swiss proposal to Singapore proposal - all alternative proposals incorporated in 2nd consolidated text. It included at least 20 alternative proposals. Nothing has disappeared. All proposals including Brazil and Chile's now included in draft Working Paper. One of main questions is in which areas should something in DBP be put into DWP and vice versa. As we are trying to make progress,
Only in those areas with *very* important other proposals should these be presented in the main document??

I would like to draw your attention to some legal, technical issues.

Art 2 - replaced with Rome language - "public reception" should be replaced with reception by the public'.

Art 5 - on national treatment, language of Art 5(1) now covers also the right to prohibit in its new form (where the right to prohibit is the legal effect) as that is presented as an alternative right to prohibit formulation in relation to Articles 8, 9, 10.

The article on communication (Article 7) has been deleted and is now part of the separate working paper as it was in the original version (which is in fact public performance). Old Article 10 - right of distribution - has now been moved to DWP. So no right of reproduction of fixed broadcasts.

Old Article 11, now Article 9: language of paragraph 1 has been complemented by addition of words "by any means" and "to the public." Done to offer a broader right of retransmission to avoid unintended loopholes in the protection.

[GH: i.e. Now right of transmission of fixed broadcasts includes transmission over computer networks]

As an Appendix included in the DBP there is a new presentation the whole area of webcasting and simulcasting which was previously a separate document. In the previous Working Paper there were three proposals. Now after analysis and discussion in November meeting, the proposals have been merged, and is now presented as an optional appendix.

Now we have an Appendix that is non-mandatory, optional. Adherence to Appendix would be subject to separate state act in relation to notification to WIPO, whether done at time of adhering to rest of treaty or later time.

The Appendix includes a newly designed preamble tailored for the purpose of the Appendix. Article 1 explains the nature of the Appendix, it is a non-mandatory integral part and only those who have expressed their wish to be bound by this Appendix would be bound by it.

There has been a small further clarification made to definition of "webcasting." New elements "by means of programme-carrying signal", "make available to the public."

As with all three previous models of webcasting, Article 3 would extend the application of the treaty to webcasting or simulcasting organizations.

Covers those organizations engaged in simultaneous broadcasting or cablecasting over Internet.

Article 4 provides for reciprocal treatment in relation to webcasting and simulcasting rights that can be extended via Appendix.

I repeat that both documents [draft basic proposal and working paper] should be on the table. They have the same footing.

There is no agreement on anything and there are several areas where important differences prevail. That is to be respected.

Thailand: Can we offer general statements at this stage?

Chair: Can we have delegations with new proposals to present first?

Floor will be given to all who want to make general statements, but advisable to invite presentations of those working diligently to present new proposals. Call on Brazil, Chile, Colombia.

Brazil: We would like to make a general statement as well.

Chair: All delegations can make general statements after the presentation of proposals.

Brazil: I am ready to make a general statement.

Chair: Call Chile.
Chile: [Not in the room] Call on Colombia.

Colombia: Colombia has in recent days made a proposal in relation to what was previously Article 16 concerning Technological Protection Measures (TPMs). [GH: Now in Article 14].

As a result of the regional consultation in July 2005, one of the things discussed was possibility of establishing criteria for establishing limitations to protection for technological protection measures. Colombia raised the issue, has obtained the agreement of others, and presented this proposal.

While the language in this article uses same language as WPPT, we must understand that this Article creates a mandate obligation for countries.

It has created a fear amongst users [of copyright materials].

In other words, someone who has a copyright can, on basis of TPMs, deny users of copyrighted works the ability to exercise exceptions because of robustness of TPM protection.

The proposal by Colombia has the advantage of avoiding those circumstances that practice has shown us can occur in access to education, information and culture.

A reference to these matters could assist countries where increasingly heated debates are taking place.

An excess of regulation can cause problems for users of copyrighted works. I will read our proposal:

ARTICLE 16

"3. Contracting Parties may provide that the circumvention of an imposed effective technological measure, used by a broadcasting organization, to obtain access to a broadcast for the purpose of non-infringing use of that broadcast shall not constitute an infringement of the measures implemented by virtue of this article."

This proposal responds to one of matters discussed at Cartegena meeting in July, that a broadcaster wanting to transmit last-minute late-breaking news, may not be able to do so.

This proposal does not eliminate the concerns that will persist in many sectors, Mr Chairman, I am sure that you have far more data available to you now. In 1996, when the Internet treaties were prepared, this concern was raised at the time. We were very enthusiastic that the Internet and benefits of e-commerce would prevail. A treaty drafted at that time does not contain those concerns that we have to include in a treaty that we are drafting today, where we have to regulate the consequences of technological protection measures.

Colombia would be pleased to provide any further information that would be of assistance.

Chair: Is Peru able to present on substance of its proposal?

Peru: Apologies for delay in presenting our proposal. We have been trying to undertake a broadscale consultation with various affected communities in Peru and it's taken some time.

I'll make a very general statement on our proposal.

A Treaty will have to balance rights. Treaty should not limit access to information, or delay technological innovation, nor harm private sector, nor promotion of cultural diversity.

Supports Brazil's proposal of cultural diversity. In our country, where rights have been granted, can lead to need to regulate competition.

We also support the Chile proposal that we consider adequate protection of rights which may be stipulated in the defense of competition.

In our own country there is a direct link between these things. Our national office - INDECOPI - combines both the agencies for protection of IP and for regulation of competition.

We would like to reiterate the proposal that we made with Chile at the regional consultations on the protection of broadcasting organizations in 2005. We should not be too hasty about organizing a diplomatic conference until such time that we have undertaken studies on the effects of a broadcasting treaty.

We should work in partnership within our region and be granted as much importance especially in Traditional Knowledge and folklore and bearing in mind the agenda for the development of the organization [GH- literal translation - WIPO Development Agenda?].

As for specific proposals that our delegation would like to make, there are four:

1) Limitations and exceptions (L & Es) Article 12 in Draft Basic Proposal (DBP): In our view it is critical to redraft Article 12 to maintain balance between casters, performers, authors and general public-right to access and right to culture.

We have an express concern about items in the Public Domain that are merely transmitted.

We favor minimum standards on L&E along the lines of proposals of Chile and Peru. I won't go into all details but want to mention: private use, fixing for in- house use, use by libraries, databanks, academic institutions

2) Obligations in relation to Technological Protection Measures (Art 14 of DBP). These obligations should be considered in the light of [impact on ] L&E. We believe should also consider to what degree TPMs effective to protect rights of performers. Do not support current wording because believe exception and limitations are threatened by TPM regulations. This creates an imbalance in favor of commercial interests, particularly in developing countries. This is particularly true in developing countries. TPMs should not be used to generate rights that did not exist previously.
We have to bear in mind the real risks of TPMs in their effect on implementation of exceptions and limitations.

[The interpreter apologizes. He is reading a document we don't have terribly fast].

3) Article 15 - Rights Management Information - important to express concerns, that a broadcast is considered creative and receives protection on that basis only. We need more in depth study and analysis on this issue before we can come to an agreement under discussion in Peru.

4) Webcasting is increasingly important and will have economic effects.
Efforts will be required to effectively implement to enforce rules on copyright and related rights. We think that webcasting should be linked to the treaty, but it should be dealt with separately, as has been done here.

Thailand (on behalf of the Asian Group):

We recognize there is no agreement on the treaty. The Asian group would like to see progress on the broadcast treaty focusing on signal piracy.

There is scope for amending the draft text to facilitate access to knowledge.

The Asian Group calls for transparency in the work of this committee. Treaty should take into account the technological nature of the digital environment especially the effect of TPMs on access to knowledge and content in the public domain.

Evolving nature of Internet technologies. We oppose the link to or inclusion of webcasting or simulcasting.

We support 20 year term.

The technical nature of documents demand a comprehensive analysis and deliberation.

Brazil: The DBP is not acceptable as a basis for negotiations. Proposals such as webcasting were included in the main text while others were left out. The document underwent considerable redrafting, which has not been adequately discussed. All proposals should be treated on an equal footing. A series of new concerns and technical issues have been raised requiring careful study on their impact.

Negotiations should proceed on the basis of one document, which includes proposals of all Member States.

My delegation did not offer to present our proposals as we have already presented our proposal in the last session, as clearly reflected in the minutes of the meeting. We also expressed our understanding that our proposal was to be included in the main document. So we cannot proceed on the basic of the DB that does not include proposals made by all Member States.

Bangladesh: Fully ascribe to Asian Group statement. TPM Article as it stands in DBP does not address our concerns.

TPM should not deny access to material in the Public Domain. For instance, maybe we could not have access to scientific journals under TPM. This can create monopolistic and oligopolistic consequences.

Looking at General Assembly decision, was intention that there would be one text, but now we see two documents - one a "clean text" and second, a working paper. Seeking clarification from Chair as to what is meant by "clean text".

Austria (obo European Community and its 25 Member States):
In your capacity as Chair in international fora you have shown ability to [something about wise guidance]

European Commission will take the floor on all technical questions.

Ghana: Even though my country has passed a copyright act, I want to seek a clarification. A group of African countries met in Nairobi last year to consider your proposed text. We were both there. The meeting could not be taken as meeting of entire Africa Group because North African countries had a separate meeting.

We had assumed that our proposals from that Nairobi meeting are in the public domain, because we were assisted in that meeting by the WIPO Secretariat. Seeking clarification if those proposals are in the public domain. What is the outcome of those proposals?

Senegal: Grateful for WIPO Secretariat's work in organizing regional consultation on treaty.

As the third beneficiary of the Rome Convention, we understand the important qualities of the major users of IP rights. Don't forget that broadcasting organizations transmit content which is protected under copyright and related rights. Welcome the patience of the Secretariat that has prepared documents that allow us to see that process is nearing completion and the convening of a diplomatic conference is becoming increasingly probable.

As you know, globalization has turned the world into a global village. Obstacles to broadcasting have been disappearing.

Those who benefit from IP rights have been suffering because increasingly there is greater piracy of signals, which is why greater protection mechanisms are necessary today.

I think harmonization of these measures of protection would help braodcasting organizations in protection of their rights. I've seen in draft treaty that proposals for protection go beyond these very basic needs.

My delegation supports the negotiations but we have concerns about the appendix on webcasting.

You've said that unless clear statement in accession instrument that acceding to webcasting, won't be taken to have acceded.

I'm a bit sad when I think about performers in the AV field and I hope that we will be able to resume those discussions can finally come to a safe haven. We most stridently and resolutely to hold a Diplomatic Conference on broadcasting. We remain committed to the spirit of 1996 after the WPPT.

Japan: At the beginning of this five day meeting, I'd like to agree on aim of meeting. I think aim is to come up with proposal to have text for Dip Con early this year.

The DBP which will be concluded at the end of this meeting will be of course a draft version.

Article 2 (DBP): We would like clarification of the phrase "of transmissions over computer network" is unclear. Therefore we need clarification of this phrase.

Republic of Korea: We would like to remind Member States of the cooperative spirit of 13th SCCR.

The majority of delegations agreed it prudent to update rights of broadcasters under Rome Convention. The new DBP offers solid ground for a speedy convening of a diplomatic conference. We hope to reach agreement at this meeting so that we can offer proper protection to broadcasters.

Mexico: Mexico hopes that continue to work in a constructive manner in order to achieve agreement on this treaty.

Jamaica: our delegation would support one consolidated text, to reflect all views from across the floor. Just to reflect [support for] statement of GRULAC on impact of TPMs. It is important that equity is preserved at all levels [spoke about supporting proposals on L&E].

There should be no prerequisite to become a party to this treaty.

India: In line with the view of my other delegations expressed in SCCR/13, that the focus should be empowering broadcast organizations to prevent piracy of signals. It stands to reason that any enhancement of the rights of b/o is repugnant to this treaty. There cannot be any rights overlaying the rights of the content owners. India opposes the inclusion of webcasting in any fashion and there is no reason to go beyond Art 14 of TRIPS on the rights of b/o.

We believe that better progress would then follow.

Croatia (on behalf of CEE and Baltic States):

It was noted in regional consultations held in 2005 in Bucharest that discussion has been going on for a long time, but issues still remain outstanding. We are eager to cope with these remaining issues and we approach the debate in a constructive manner.

We are aware of the existence of horizontal issues. We are prepared to engage in side discussions, including night sessions.

Argentina: I want to speak first to the Draft Working Plan you first proposed. We feel that item 3 should not appear. Support statement of Brazil. Don't think these presentations should be part of our meeting.

In our last meeting, we also note that we proposed that all proposals made by all members should be put on an equal footing.

Find it hard to understand what criteria used for preparation of draft text. Like India, note that issues included on which there was no agreement - for instance webcasting in Annex.

The GA asked us to agree on language, but if there is no agreement on language, we will NOT be able to call a diplomatic conference. It's premature to consider calling a diplomatic conference.

We reiterate as in the past, that what we need to do is achieve agreement. Where all proposals considered on equal footing. Only then that will be able to come up with agreement.

Kenya: We note that this has been the subject of debate since 1997 and it is time to come to a conclusion. We believe that proposed treaty should balance interests of all in treaty - including consumers and broadcasters.

South Africa: We would like to underscore the mandate of the GA and believe any successful DC is underpinned by its preparation.

This includes operationalization of principle of fairness and transparency.
Narrow interests of r/h should not override the public interest. Support should be given to balancing rights of r/h and the public interest.

Access to knowledge should not be endangered.

Term of protection for 20 years is more than sufficient to recover costs of investments and do not support longer term of 50 years.

We have serious concerns about certain things being included in the DBP when there was no agreement. This raises serious issues of transparency for my delegation. We would like to reiterate that a preparatory process that balances needs of all parties is necessary for successful process.

Iran: Importance of embodying exceptions and limitations in treaty without [formalities]

The protection of the signal, not the content, should be at the core of the negotiation. Should be recognized that interests of protection of related rights not same across all objects of protection.

We support the duration of 20 years and MS should be able to extend the duration in their national law.

We have comments about the procedures of this committee. We have previously asked for transparency in process of preparing this treaty. In a package, makes sense. Inclusiveness and transparency important.

The views of MS should be reflected in one document. References to different documents (e.g. 12/2 etc.) is confusing.

Seems that MS should focus efforts on SCCR/14/3 but if that's the case, this does not put our work on an equal footing e.g. webcasting was not supported by most countries and the proposal made by Chile was supported by all developing countries, but now shown up as an alternative.

We think the views of all member states should be incorporated into one document.

Egypt: Would like to set out Egypt's preliminary opinion.

We made several comments in the regional meetings, which fall within the scope of Egypt's support for this treaty in line with Egypt's support for copyright in general. However this does not impede us from making comments.
At earlier meetings we made several written submissions.

Regarding invitation to convene a Dip Con, and desire to speed up approval of draft treaty for DC,

We do not oppose the idea of a DC in principle but before proceeding to do so, we must have a draft document with sufficient consensus so that DC won't be a forum for disagreement for issues that could have been resolved in this committee.

I think you will agree with us that there is no consensus between most delegations regarding the question of webcasting. A large number representing powerful opinion that protection of broadcasting organziation must not at this juncture include protection of webcasting organizations. Webcasting from conceptual point of view not mature enough to enjoy separate instrument of protection.

We do not sympathize with the idea of appending a separate document to the treaty. We agree that webcasting up to now has not reached a point of consensus on those matters regarding protection.
Allow me to flag my country's views on the treaty. We support it but must include some fine balances. My colleagues have pointed out need for fine balance, investment rights of broadcasting organization and social rights of public to knowledge and information.

Highlighted by UNESCO Convention approved several weeks ago. Must establish a balance b/w rights of copyright owners and right to access information.

Cannot be done in succinct phrase of Article 12 [GH: the Rome formulation for creation of mirror exceptions to national CR law and Three Step Test]

These are related rights. Different to rights in issue here. Need to be studied by group of experts, in order to achieve balance.

Russian Federation: The DBP is sufficiently flexible to resolve the problems that exist to date. It takes into account the different positions of delegations made clear at previous sessions of this committee. We hope that this session will accelerate the main aim which is to have a treaty on b/o so awaited by broadcast organizations.

United States: [Jule Sigall]
Appreciate that new draft text includes elements of US proposal.
The objective of DBP was to indicate where there were areas of substantive convergence.

We look forward to discussing the text this week and look forward to taking part in substantive discussions during the second part of the work program.

Benin:
We would like to remind you of results of regional consultations held in Kenya. organized by WIPO Secretariat.

We reserve the right to take the floor again. As of now, we would like to say that results of regional consultation in Nairobi constituted a basis for our work, which one might even all the Africa Group.

The position of my country remains constant as regards our support which are discussing today. We support the balance of rights, which can't go beyond rights in 1996 Internet treaties.

Broadcasting is important for transmission of knowledge and education to the most vulnerable sectors of our population.

Third point: control and restriction of protection measures. Clarification of exceptions and limitations.

The inclusion of webcasting should be of concern for us all because it could be a subject of future discussions between us.

My delegation remains committed to objectives set for this SCCR and hope that we will achieve our goals.

Colombia: We are happy to see a paragraph on L&E prepared by Mr Liegan (sic). We have to ask various delegations to lend a favorable ear to the proposal of Colombia.

Colombia cannot make a specific contribution on webcasting. Our country not prepared to support a proposal to this end. Would be happy if BP put forward by Chair could delete all references to webcasting.

Uruguay: I would like to thank Colombia and Peru for proposals which are being carefully considered by my delegation. Uruguay associates itself with delegations that have expressed their concern because we don't have a new consolidated text. Proposals on webcasting have raised serious concerns with our and other delegations (for instance, India) but are still within the treaty. Therefore we propose going through treaty article by article, preferable to do that rather than discussion via baskets of topics.

We think it is premature to convene a diplomatic conference until we have finalised and agreed on a text.

Reiterate proposal [following regional consultation in Colombia in July 2005] that impact studies must be carried out to assess the impact on users and owners of copyright.

Algeria:
Highly commends progress we've made in discussions, particularly in earlier session which proves that we are well on the path to convening a DC

However, we agree with those delegations that have said that we need to adopt L & E to allow DCs to have access to knowledge and literary works.

We must extend the scope of Article 12 so that developing countries can enjoy rights to translate works amongst other areas.

As regards webcasting, it is too early to consider this, particularly as it involves new tools.

Nigeria: We support in principle the position taken at the Nairobi meeting, made by a number of countries.

We want to express concern that any elevation of rights should always be weighed against costs for others.

The rights of the larger sector of society must not be overriden
This is why we have not been able to accept the inclusion of webcasting up until now.

However, in spirit of consensus building, willing to consider other proposals on this.

Our concern for TPMS, Rights Management info and scope of protection against available L&E are still there, and hope to make futher comments when discuss those substantive issues

Chairman: The floor remains open for delegations tomorrow.

There were kind words and criticisms in interventions, I will be responsive to these tomorrow and we will hopefully make progress.

Austria announcement: EC will meet 14.00 for a coordination meeting in Room B.
Meeting adjourned tomorrow morning to allow for presentations of academics. Committee meeting will resume after that tomorrow.

Meeting ended 18.15