[BOAI] WIPO SCCR notes from afternoon

[Carolina Rossini]

below, transcript of part of the afternoon discussions in Geneva on
exceptions and limitations for education.

OER and Open Access are mentioned.

you can follow the daily transcript at

http://www.streamtext.net/player?Event=WIPO
password "SCCR24"

best

Carol






some proposals from Equador that still requires explanation. I invite
Equador.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. Yes, Equador would like to reach agreement
on our original clusters as we did during the GRULAC meeting. Now, on two
specific points I would like to give the floor to my colleague to explain
this.
>> Thank you, Chairman. I shall refer to the clusters which are on page 6
which have not been included in the joint statement by GRULAC. The first of
them is cluster 6, which refers to making available on an interactive basis
a communication to the general public as referred to in the WCT and the
WPPT of WIPO. This we consider is a theme that deals, should be dealt with
separately because of its implications for the digital environment. The
other cluster which has not been included in the GRULAC consolidation is
cluster number 9 which is on page 7 of the document, which is distance
learning. That, too, we consider to be a form of use of works for
educational purposes which it may be considered has its own identity
because it's very easy to detect the transporter component there, which is
something which we might not find in other uses that have been included in
the joint GRULAC proposal.
Finally, this cluster number 10 on the same page, which refers to the
exceptions that are needed for special education for persons with
disabilities. So these are the clusters that -- that have not been included
in the GRULAC proposal. And we are in the hands of the meeting. If you have
any questions to ask or if you would like us to develop these in any more
detail. For reasons of time, I'll stop there and leave it up to you. Thank
you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Could you address cluster 1? Because I don't think
that has been captured. Cluster 1 under your proposal. I don't think it's
part of the GRULAC consolidation.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. Yes, this is the most important cluster,
cluster 1. That was one I didn't touch on. It relates to obligations of a
general nature because they refer to undertakings taken by members of this
Committee to update their laws from the point of view, from a systemic
point of view.
The other clusters may be considered ways in which states meet those
obligations because cluster number 1 does not refer to specific exceptions
or specific uses that should be exceptions. It merely refers to a situation
where states reach general agreement on exceptions and we could start
discussing this once we've explained proposal number 1 from the joint
Equador, Peru and Uruguayan proposal.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. India?
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr.Ment. Since I just joined the discussions right
now, I would like to congratulate you on your election as the president and
Chairman of the SCCR, Twenty-Fourth Session SCCR. Accept is very important.
The act also covered a few aspects of the education exceptions. I have just
gone through the clusters right now within 15 minutes of time. I would like
to make my initial comments. The Indian Delegation would like to support
the statement by the Distinguished Delegate from Equador. The cluster
should include make can available and communication public and also
transmission because these are very important, especially in the distant
learning, the educational content and material is transmitted and made
available in a secure network where the right owners' interests are pro
teblghted. If these aspects are not included we are not addressing the
future technological issues in imparting education. We should include the
terms just
like communication to the public, making available and transmission so that
it addresses the modern technological practices adopted in distant distance
learning education.
Second item, Mr. Chairman, is the topic of research. The member countries
have included very important aspects in cluster 3, use for pedagogical and
teaching purposes. But one cluster should exclusively cover the research
purposes. So research should be a separate cluster. It should be included
as a separate cluster. And I would like to take you back to a few important
definitions, Mr. Chairman, since I'm a late-comer. The definition database.
Database, Mr. Chairman, should be original database, not the non-original
database. So the term "original" should be exclusively mentioned because
there is some economic interest or investment based on the investment and
economic interest one cannot get copyright. Copyright is expression of
original ideas in a material form. So the database also gets copyright
protection if it is original. So the term" original" has to be expressly
mentioned there.
Number two, second important definition, Mr. Chairman, the term "work." it
says work means literally an artistic protected by copyright and includes
any literary and artistic work in which copyright -- has expired. It is a
very narrow definition, Mr. Chairman. Now, education has become interactive
education, eastbound in the institutions of higher learning and
universities. This will not address the freedom of creativity of teachers,
especially not only in the higher education institutions; even in the
primary schools. So the definition of the work has to be changed. It should
be any work or any copyrighted work. So it will include not only the
literary, artistic cinema graphic and sound recording and other multimedia
works. Both analog and digital works. It should be very exhaustive.
Otherwise in the technological era, the universities and teachers will be
dealing with only copyrighted content. These are my initial comments, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you. I'll
come back later.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Before I give the floor to Nigeria, I want to turn to
Brazil. There is one cluster that was not part of the consolidation that
you need to address. And this is cluster number 5. Because the consolidated
cluster has been dealt with by the GRULAC coordinator. But cluster 5 under
your proposal, if you could just address that and explain to the members.
Sorry, clusters 4 and 5 in your proposal.
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I have five minutes just before --
I just arrived from another meeting. I can organise my notes and come back
to the Plenary. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I will give the floor to Nigeria. The clusters
proposed by Nigeria are on page 7. Nigeria, you have the floor. Nigeria
speaker thank you, Mr. Chairman and since I'm also a recent addition to
this meeting, let me congratulate you on your election as the Chair. As
someone who has just joined the session, I have a general question and then
I will speak to the proposals from Nigeria. As I look through the document,
I am noting quite a bit of redundancy in some of these proposals. My
understanding of the word "cluster" is a grouping of items that are linked
together by some theme. I'm wondering if some of the things that we are
referring to as clusters are in fact not requests for specific provisions
identifying or dealing with that item.
So, Mr. Chair, I would like to probably as an organisational suggestion
hope that we can more coherently perhaps put some of these clusters
together and identify what I think are really just about four or five
different kinds of exceptions and limitations in this regard. One would be
a cluster along institutional lines who would be rightfully able to use the
limitations and exceptions. The second would be the kinds of uses that
would be allowed. The third would be distance education which would deal
with transmission, databases, DPMs, et cetera. And the fourth would be
research. It seems to me as I've looked through this document that
virtually all of the proposals for clusters fall under one or all of these
four general themes and it may be helpful in the process to try to
coordinate around real clusters rather than individual provisions.
Mr. Chairman, that's just a suggestion so that we can shorten the document
and be a bit more focused on the kinds of text that might be appropriate to
address the different concerns that have been raised by various countries.
I will proceed to talk about the proposal from Nigeria and in the interests
of time and efficiency I will consolidate these under two of the cluster
headings that I have indicated. Specific exceptions for science. This is a
proposal to have an out right exception for scientific research, for
scientists to be able to access databases for the results of scientific
research, whether publicly funded or in journal documents to be easily
available within the educational and research context. Related to that, of
course, is what is identified as cluster 7, which is personal use rights
for study and research. This would include personal use both for
researchers and teachers themselves, but also for students within
educational institutions.
In the process of the educating function, particularly in traditional
classrooms, the rights to facilitate teaching, scholarship, or research I
would, with your permission, simply state that that should not be in any
cluster per se. That is, in fact, the purpose of this exercise is to
identify a scope of rights to facilitate each of these activities. With
regard to cluster number 9, protection for incidental inclusion of a work
or a subject of related rights in educational materials, this really goes,
of course, to the capacity and ability of both teachers and students in the
process of either in class or distance learning preparations when
copyrighted works or works subject to related rights are captured,
particularly in digital form as part of a teaching research or study
exercise. We want to be ensure that those sorts of incidental inclusions
are not the subject of a violation. This is particularly important in the
context, of course, of countries that do not have the fair
use doctrine which would normally excuse such incidental inclusion in any
regard.
Finally, of course, the reproduction of works under cluster 11 there, the
reproduction of works including broadcasts. This is really to echo what my
colleague from India has mentioned. This is really about transmission and
the capacity to be able to transmit digital works and content for distance
education, but also for in-class use. I think that these are important
rights. Again, let me specify from the Delegation of Nigeria that these are
not clusters per se. They are aspects of one of the four or five clusters
that I've suggested, but they speak to particular rights that Nigeria would
like to see attended to during this discussion. I will limit my comments to
that for now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria, for those very useful suggestions on how to
re-organise these clusters. UI?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as this is the first time I
take the floor in this SCCR, let me start by congratulating you for your
election and wishing you all the best luck.
I will also like to thank the Delegation of Peru on behalf of GRULAC and
the Delegation of Equador and now the Delegation of Nigeria for their
useful explanations.
If I may start by saying that the the European and its Member States
willfully concur with the remarks by Nigeria that maybe there is a certain
degree of confusion because we are using the term clusters, which is
normally things that belong together and that you want to separate from
other things that belong together in a very loose manner. Sometimes we have
here clusters that overlap or talk about the same from different angles,
which is going to complicate somehow our discussions going forward. So in
that respect I think maybe a further effort to try to rationalize how to,
even if it is just starting to organise our discussion, it will be very,
very welcome. Otherwise you might be subject to us having to repeat the
same again and again, depending on how we are going to look into it.
But trying to get further clarity and within the first group that you have
identified which is the title specific education and research limitations
and exceptions and starting by the explanations by GRULAC, we understand, I
think, it's useful to try to regroup together some of the clusters as it
has been done, the use of works for pedestrian gunnel cal and teaching
purpose is a very large title in any event. But then the ones referring to
distribution of protected works or fragments of protected works in
classrooms, performance for educational purposes or reproduction for
educational purposes. They all seem to relate, the first one being a very
general basket. The others seem to relate to different rights that may be
affected by a limitation or exception for the benefit of teaching and maybe
research.
There is one, however, which originally is on the point number 12, cluster
7, which reads translations, transformations and adaptations. We welcome
further guidance from GRULAC. I understand it's Equador that originally
proposed it and it then has been incorporated in the GRULAC proposal. We
woe welcome to have further clarification as to what specifically it is
here referred to, in particular when one talks about transformations and
adaptations for the purposes of teaching or research.
And then on some other of the issues in the proposal by Equador which have
not been incorporated in the GRULAC proposal, we would also welcome further
clarification from Equador, in particular as regards to cluster 6 under now
point 11 that refers to availability on an interactive basis and
communication to the general public for education purposes. Normally when
we are talking about limitations to rights for the purposes of teaching or
education, one normally tends to try to identify the institution or the
particular use of the particular user or beneficiary. This seems to be very
large when referring to the general public. Therefore, we will as well
welcome some further clarification as regards that point.
And again on the theme of trying to have a third, and not to mix what might
be areas of this discussion with what might be general wishes, it is for us
not very clear the purpose of cluster one under the proposal from Equador
and point 9 that refers to proposals to update -- of a general nature. This
will warrant further clarification, maybe rather than an objective and not
a cluster of discussion. Again on this point and before we get into the
discussion of the substance which we are ready to do, it will be useful to
get further clarification.
Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, EU. India?
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to add one more item to
the cluster 7, the earlier cluster that is part of the quotations. It
should be quotations and citations. It should cover the citations also
apart from the quotations.
The Indian Delegation would like to appreciate the important issue focused
by the distinguished Nigerian Delegation, especially on 18, that is cluster
7. That is the personal use rights for study. The private and personal use
and private study, the individuals is very important because once we are
covering the exceptions for the teaching purposes and pedagogical purposes,
the one student goes back from the classroom, he will concentrate on
studies. So whatever copyrighted material he is using and Delegation for
focusing on these aspects. One more thing, covering the issues which
already the Nigerian Delegate has focused, the publicly funded material
through open access or open educational resources. These are the issues to
be covered under the separate cluster, including scholarly and academic
publishing materials. This is very, very important, Mr. President, in this
situation because a lot of informational material, course material is
prepared by most of the universities and including the schools not only in
the developing countries, but including the developing countries. This is
also the Commonwealth is also discussing issues like open access issues and
the scholarly publication, academic publication issues hag to be covered in
a separate cluster. And one thing I would like to take back you to the
definition again, Mr. President, the last issue I forgot to cover in my
earlier remarks. That is pertaining to the beneficiaries.
In the second paragraph, -- in the first paragraph itself where education
and research institutions are covered, here it should be not only the
public, the government, educational institutions like universities, even
the private universities and research institutions being run for
noncommercial purposes. That should be corrected and, so push and private
institution. Nonprofit organises and institutions should be covered there.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Nigeria?
Nigeria: Mr. Chair, with your indulgence I want to clarify the Nigerian
proposal is an enhancement of the African Group proposal. With appreciation
to my colleague from India, there will be an updated and perhaps more
useful section on definitions available from the African Group. Thank you,
sir.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Equador and then Brazil.
>> ECUADOR: Thank you, Chairman. On behalf of the Delegation, we would like
to thank questions and comments formulated as to our proposal about
clusters, particularly the European Union. I would like to refer to an
explanation which will provide a reply to that Distinguished Delegation. At
the outset we would like to express that as far as our Delegation is
concerned, the concept of clusters and the cluster heading is that it's
just a heading with respect to, as we understand, will add specific text of
proposals. In other words, when we propose a specific title or heading for
a cluster we are not saying this is the exception, but rather we are saying
this is the heading under which we are going to include exceptions which
are specific within this particular heading which we've called would be
thing or another. So that's the first consideration. Then, now, as to
cluster 7, translations, transformations and adaptations, we understand
that this will be following the
analogy of a heading, a rubric where we are going to include specific
proposals of exceptions for educational purposes that have to do with a
work is being in one language, will be translated into another language in
order to facilitate the educational process. The most obvious would be, for
example, a work in English which will be translated into Spanish. Now,
under certain conditions which will be clarified by the proposal, by the
country which wants to include it in a listing for complete discussion. So
this will be a case which we hope will be covered by cluster 7.
Now, transformations. This would be a situation in which the work, a change
will be made to the work in order to make it more understandable or apt for
educational purposes. An extensive work, for example, which will be
summarized so that it can be used for education for children in basic
education. There's a transformation there with certain conditions which we
proposed for this specific exception being proposed. Then adaptation, very
simply we are thinking about situations, for example, a poem in which the
professor in class proposes a small representation of the poem and it
changes from a literary genre which work which will be used in the
classroom. So this is, these are exceptions which we could include under
this cluster that is translations, transformations and adaptations.
Then as to cluster 6, which is availability on an interactive basis and
communication to the general public for educational purposes, we realize
that there is an ambiguity which is generated by translation because in
fact what we proposed in Spanish was more referring -- this is in Spanish,
to availability on an interactive basis and communication to the public. In
other words, this is where we will find exceptions. Communication to the
public and availability for an interactive basis. Basically it refers to
for educational purposes. It's not to the general public.
Public communication in general -- once again, we assume that these are not
exceptions. These are the subheadings which are going to include the
exceptions and which are going to have their own conditions, obviously each
time specified.
And then as to one that is obligations, this is a subheading which was done
partly, obligations and proposals to update exceptions of a general nature
to the Peru, Uruguay and Equador, in which we are establishing and
obligation which is of a general nature, a program or policy objective by
which countries assume, take on the obligations to update their exceptions.
I don't want to refer to this in more detail because this cluster 1, the
Delegation of Peru, the Distinguished Delegation is going to explain
cluster 1 in more detail and what we are hoping to achieve with this. Thank
you very much, Mr. Are Chairman. I hope we have been able to clarify the
questions which were asked of us. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Equador. Brazil?
>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the clusters that were
proposed by Brazil, cluster 3, 4, and 5, werk confirm that cluster 3, this
was merged with other clusters proposed by GRULAC members and the text that
was read by our GRULAC coordinator.
Regarding cluster 4, reproductions of class -- and cluster 5, quotations,
we consider these are two important issues that should be addressed by this
new instrument. We have coordinated accordingly some new language regarding
these clusters. We think under these circumstances, conference in
quotations should not institute a violation of copyright. On reproduction
of lack in conference, just a brief explanation of what we intend with it.
We think this cluster is in benefit of students. They should be allowed to
take notes of classes, lectures in conference. So this gives legal
certainty for them to perform this note-taking. And we have provided
language for this issue accordingly.
On the cluster number 5 on quotations, it is worth mentioning that there is
already a provision in this same spirit in the Bern Convention but we think
it needs to be addressed in this new instrument as well especially in view
of the new digital environment. So nowadays we forgot to the digital world
to quote also means to reproduce con tint tent which may sometimes be
protected under technological protection measures. So the idea is that the
student or the researcher or the teacher able to make quotations from these
works without infringesment, without this being seen as infringement or
violation of copyright for the purpose of stewed di, criticism or debate. I
thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Brazil. I gift to the U.S. to be followed by Nigeria.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the United States, it has
been very helpful to listen to the discussion. We appreciate the
distinguished, the compensates from our distinguished comments of Equador,
Brazil, Brazil, the European Union and others. We concur with the sentiment
in the room that the word "clusters" has perhaps led us astray in some of
our thinking. Perhaps what we really intended was topics. And because we
recognized that some topics may be in groups, somehow the word clusters
came upon us. But we think we can definitely find an appropriate concept to
use for what we are really trying to capture here. That is the topics or
families of p topic that we believe should be addressed in the legal
framework on which we are working.
The United States would like to address a couple questions based on the
comments we have heard from our colleagues. One is to follow up on the
European Union's exchange with Equador concerning topic number 11, which is
cluster 6, the availability on an interactive basis and communication to
the general public for education purposes. And we certainly accept the
explanation of the Distinguished Delegate of Equador that that was perhaps
an imprecise translation from the Spanish.
As we listened to the explanation, we would appreciate a clarification on
what the difference is between the Equadorian cluster 6 and the concept of
distance learning which is cluster 9. We would like to understand the
specific difference that they understand to be what would fall under
cluster 6 and cluster 9 because the explanation we heard made it sound very
similar to the con set of distance learning as the United States would
understand it.
As to the remarks of the Distinguished Delegate and our good friend from
India, we do have a question for India in the suggestion of the addition of
citations to the Brazilian topic, cluster number 5. That is, we are not
sure what the problem is in copyright about citations. Under American
copyright law and most of the domestic copyright laws with which we are
familiar, there would be no protection of citations from which you would
need an exception. So we would appreciate a clarification from the
Distinguished Delegate from India. We certain he has something in mind, but
we didn't understand exactly what it would be.
In addition we would like to ask the Distinguished Delegate of Pakistan, as
we were taking notes we understood that one of the proposals they had
mentioned was access to publicly funded scientific research, which is also
a topic that occurs as number 38 on page 16 from Nigeria previously. And we
would appreciate an explanation if Pakistan and Nigeria have a meeting of
minds that that is the same thing. Our impression is just from the title of
the topic or cluster that that is not exactly a copyright exception or
limitation. The United States has a robust practice of seeking the public
dissemination of publicly funded research and is perhaps the world's
largest funder of scientific research. We wouldn't normally conceive of
that as a copyright exception or limitation but as a government policy
regarding funding of scientific research. So we would appreciate some
clarification on that.
Finally, we understood completely what the Brazilian Delegate meant,
reproduction of lectures and conferences. On a personal note I appreciate
that he would prohibit the publication of my professorial notes, notes from
my professorial lectures even if the students had the right to take the
notes. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, USS I give the floor to Nigeria to be followed by
Senegal.
Nigeria speaker thank you, Mr. Chair. Like my distinguished colleague from
the U.S., I share the sentiment that my students should certainly not have
the freedom to disseminate notes from class, especially because I'm not
often confident that the notes are accurate.
(Some laughter.)
Nigeria speaker let me speak, Mr. Chair torks a few comments that our
distinguished colleague from Equador made. I want to hear some
clarification both, I believe, on behalf of the African Group around
certainly the Delegation from Nigeria. With regard to the explanation to
item 12 on page 6, which is listed as cluster 7, translations,
transformations and adaptations. I thought I heard from my distinguished
colleague two distinct arguments about this. The first, that there might be
a need to translator to make copyrighted content usable in the classroom by
a teacher or a student, perhaps in an abbreviated format for educational
purposes. But I wondered if this might perhaps be a little bit different
from the notion of a teacher or professor or lecturer taking a work and
distributing it in the classroom, perhaps just in an excepted form. The way
I understood the comment from our Distinguished Delegate, these
transformations and adaptations appear to be something done on a wide
scale, perhaps encroaching on what is a well-established secondary market
for what we would refer to as derivative works. So I'm trying to get some
clarification about the distenge between translations, transformations and
adaptations for purposes of teaching versus the creation of a wholesale
derivative work which is perhaps outside of the context of the teaching
environment.
The second point goes, of course, to my distinguished colleague from the
U.S., professor Hughes, on the proposal to enhance the African Group
proposal on access to publicly funded research. We have not had any
discussions with our colleagues from Pakistan, so I am unable to determine
if they mean the same thing as we do. But as professor Hughes notes, the
U.S. is in fact the largest funder of research and certainly scientific
research and access to these works or to the results of these research
outputs are often mandated by the granting agency. And that would include
the NIH, for example, or other government funders.
However, as we are now fully aware, there has been a new requirement by
government agencies in the U.S. that the results of government-funded
research by the NIH ought to be available, certainly in preprinted final
publication form. What the African Group proposal and this enhancement from
Nigeria seeks to do is ensure that as a minimum standard of international
copyright that access to such research is made available because certainly
the traditional justifications for the copyright system do not apply when
the incentive to create and to publish and write from the results of this
research have been funded by the government, not by private investment. And
that is in essence what the Nigeria's enhancement to the African Group
proposal seeks to underscore as an important part of facilitating access to
copyrighted content.
Now, I think it would be certainly fine to simply have a government use
exception in this legal framework rather than access to publicly funded
research. Government use would be much wider in my view, and I think having
a simple provision for publicly funded research would effectively balance
the interests of the professional societies who publish scientific works
and the interests much research scientists who want to access those works
when they have been funded by the government. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Senegal, to be followed by Finland.
Senegal speaker thank you, Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity,
as I was saying, to congratulate you because it is the first time that I
have taken the floor. So I wanted to come back to the notion of cluster
headings. I think the proposal from Nigeria is very relevant. There is
certainly a problem of functionality because in fact the heading doesn't
always reflect the reality of the content. So I think if a heading brings
together a group of themes, we could group them together according to their
points in common. Certain special exceptions and one category. We would
have five or six categories which would enable us to go a bit faster in the
context of this reflection process. Also to associate ourselves with
India's proposal on research, to have a special cluster on research because
we know as far as higher education is concerned that for some time we talk
about instead of talking about faculties, we talk about information for
research. Particularly in
developing countries this is a challenge which has to be looked at. Now,
this is the major challenge of our time is research. It would be a good
idea, I think, to particularly concentrate on that area because
structurally and economically speaking governments, particularly African
governments, tend to look at research in terms of essential research,
especially with all the consequences that it will have on the digital
sphere. With concentration. Knowledge it will mean real transcription of
one language to another. Usually, particularly for us, the French-speaking
countries, research work are usually in English. So the adaptation from one
language to another, all of this has to be the subject of several
exceptions which would be in the research cluster. So Senegal, finally,
still agrees with India on the need to protect content of all the works
which are particularly related in all ways to copyright. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. When I opened the meeting, I suggested to the
agreement of the Committee that we try to go cluster by cluster. So-called
clusters. And I had ended on page 7 where Nigeria gave explanation to the
proposal. Now I think that we have gone ahead and started talking about
research, which is far ahead are in terms of sequence. I would want to come
back since there have been questions raised in respect to proposal from
Equador, Equador can give that explanation.
But we need to go back and the next set of clusters will be on page 8. So
that we follow that sequence. So I will give the floor to Finland to be
followed by Equador. Finland speaker thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finland would
like to congratulate you for's your election as Chair of this Committee. We
would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present the
implementation of the information colt directive of the European Union in
Finland as regards educational activities. This information could be useful
to note under several clusters presented today, but specifically under the
one proposed, for example, by Brazil. That is clusters 3, use for
pedagogical and teaching purposes. Our copyright act which dates back to
1961 has since its beginning reflected the needs of education at activities
as well as libraries and archives needs as well as others. In fact, the
exclusive rights given to authors must be according to Finnish law be read
with the
various limitations and exceptions made to them. The exceptions are limited
to nonprofit context.
As regards education, our provisions build on limiting the public
performance right on of the authors on one side and the reproduction right
on the other. According to Finnish law, a published work may be publicly
form performed in connection with education. This provision does not
concern the dramatic or cinema graphic works except for purposes of
research and higher education on cinematography. As regards the
reproduction rights, when a work has been made public and performed by a
teacher or a student in a classroom, the work may be recorded for temporary
use in the classroom. This is also possible, it is also possible to take
parts of a literary work or when the work is not extensive the whole work,
to be incorporated into a test instituting a part of the Ma trick lags
examination or a corresponding test. The exception to the reproduction
right here gives the possibility of discretion as regards the content of an
exam.
Furthermore, it is possible to make an anthology of literary or artistic
works in a compilation of works, consisting of the works of several
authors. The use is restricted to late rather or musical works after five
years have passed from the year of publication. The exception allows for
printed anthologies only. It is especially indicated that works made for
education are not covered by the exception. The authors have the right to
re-miewn wraition for this type of use. In addition to limitations in the
law Finland has also from the beginning of the 1960s developed a specific
mechanism called the stentive collective licensing system. Based on this
system it is possible to negotiate about the use of works for educational
activities or for scientific research between the users and the
rightholders in a flexible manner. Such uses include uses in the digital
context as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Equador, to be followed by India.
>> ECUADOR: First of all, I would like to share on a personal note that
these two questions posted by the Distinguished Delegation from Nigeria and
U.S. because of the nature of the representatives who are very
distinguished academics, it reminds me being back in law school having to
respond to hard questions on the specific questions of copyright. So I
thank them for taking me back in time.
So here I go on the first question. I have been asked by the Distinguished
Delegate from Nigeria with regard to whether cluster 7 refers or not to
secondary market. I will go to the core part of the question. If you can
have the issue of translation, transformation, adaptation make case-by-case
by a teacher only for that particular class. If one teacher in one day of
the school decides to make a poem, to make it an art work, just to express
something, that would be a case-by-case. Of course you may have a case
where the publisher decides to provide material to be distributed making
adaptation of longer work with some special elements that have changed to
make it more accessible for young children. Yes, we would have there a
different kind of transformation or adaptation because it will be referred,
creating a secondary market of books. So the answer is, cluster 7 is
neutral. It is saying translation, transformation, adaptation because it is
the use of the books. We
may include here the specific situation for a particular classes or
situation where it might be a secondary market. That would be a matter of
the specific proposal made by the country on this topic. That will be my
answer to cluster 7.
And to the second question put forward by the Distinguished Delegate from
the United States is if the same cluster 6, or with distance learning
because it seems to be that distance learning applies now for those
significances expressed in cluster 6. Well, the answer is you might have a
specific making available for a class that is not sought for distance
location. We have a regular class in law school in San tee ago owe or Quito
where the professor will have somebody provide the class access to some
specific content for that class. But the class that is present. But the
work somehow is transtransmitted from a different place. That will not
follow within the concept of distance learning. Distance learning will be a
situation where all the time the student will be in a different place than
the institutional, will be people spread around a big area. So distance
learning addresses a specific type of education and that in some cases uses
interactive basis and
communication, but also there are situations where you have making
available a communication that is not in the context of distance learning.
That is my answer. I hope that makes sense. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Equador. India, you have the floor, to be followed by
the EU.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. President. You have rightly pointed out that we
are not following the planned method of discussing the clusters, you said.
But we have to digress from that planned method because there are some
questions and we need to answer. And then we want to clear our doubts.
I would like to reply to the question put to us by the Distinguished
Delegate from the U.S. For including citation along with quotations.
Actually, we are discussing here several clusters. We would liketor cover
all the topics, possibly covering and coming under the umbrella of
educational exceptions. Quotations are already covered in many national
laws including the conventions like Bern Convention. We need to put all the
items under one umbrella of exceptions and limits of educational
institutions. We are covering all the possible things which can be covered
here.
Number two, Mr. President, the distinguished Delegate of Finland rightly
mentioned the importance of performance. If we look at the definition of
performer, as per Indian law, a person delivering a lecture is also a
performer. He actually is performing in the classroom. So the performance
is also important. That is already covered under the cluster 5.
And then coming to the cluster 6, cluster 13 and 21, they are all covering
reproduction. So this can be brought under one group as a re-instruction
translation and adaptation, whatever title. We can discuss it further later.
I would like to refer to one other important point raised by the
Distinguished Delegation from Finland, the idea of anthologies, preparation
of anthologies and publication by schools and institutions. Mr. Daniel
Singh has covered this on his study of exceptions on behalf of WIPO. That
he covers especially while giving the explanation on Indian limitation
exceptions for educational snugs, that is cluster -- anthologies. Taking
the few collected works of authors, anthologies and all this. This is very,
very important issue. The cinematics and anthologies should be covered
under a separate cluster. Coming to importance of the licensing, Mr.
President, there are several internationally famous academicians here. They
have well analyzed the Bern Convention and especially the exceptions.
Compensated and uncompensated exceptions. So this treaty should focus on
uncompensated exceptions.
We should not change these exceptions and limitations with the licenses and
compensations and the very purpose of giving support to the growing
knowledge society will get defeated and the creativity of the performer,
the great performer in the world, that is the teacher will be defeated if
we chain these with the license. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: EU?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, Mr. President. And within the different
elements that we have been discussing and the clusters and sub clusters and
groups that we have been trying to put together, the EU and its Member
States wanted just to make a general reference to the main issues. It is
not the only issue we are discussing at this moment, but the main issue
that we are discussing for the moment, which is the possibility of
limitations and exceptions for teaching purposes. And many of the clusters,
one way or another, go back to this one, although we fully acknowledge that
there is discussion to be had as regards limitations and exceptions for
scientific research. But staying on this particular one, I believe you have
already been explained this on more than one occasion. You know that there
is already a general framework that has been established at EU level and
that is followed by the 27 Member States of the European Union for
limitations and exceptions and
it is a framework that is probably quite interesting to keep in mind when
we are discussing as well at this fora. Why? Because in a smaller and
probably a more Ma jorn yous manner we are a group of very different
countries with very different traditions and ways to approach copyright
protection including having within the same group countries with such a
different approach and Dr -- and the classical copyright approach. Why am I
saying this? Because this informs the fact that the framework we have, it
is in the same manner as Bern Convention, a framework that allows for a
catalog of limitations and exceptions to be voluntarily adopted by the
Member States of the European Union in its largest majority. It is a
framework that provides for a degree of flexibility which is very important
if one wants effectively for those limitations and exceptions to be
implemented and that flexibility relates to matters such as the possibility
or not to provide for fair compensation,
which is a possibility in most cases. There are some cases in which it is
compulsory, but it is also flexibility as regards this scope of these
exceptions. It is very often the case and the representative from Finland
did refer to this, that exceptions and limitations are supplemented or
facilitated or enhanced by systems of licensing such as standard collective
licensing that plays an important role in a number of our Member States.
Obviously we do also have that framework of limitations and exceptions
within the application as required not only by Bern but by WCT, WPPT, the
Beijing treaty and the three-step test. It is not a surprise that we are
going back and forth as regards different limit limitations and exceptions
that we have in mind and that sometimes they are specific to teaching and
sometimes they may be important or incidental to teaching.
If I look at the catalog of limitations and exceptions that it is available
at EU level and there has been adapted to different degrees by our Member
States, we do have a general exception for teaching. It is an exception for
teaching that is referred to normally as for the sole purpose of
illustration for teaching. It also applies for scientific research. But of
course we have the possibility as well for the purposes of quotation which
is relevant in this context; for the purposes of private copy can and
reproductgraphy which is relevant in this context and specific, very
specific limitations and exceptions for instance as regards limitations to
the reproduction right for educational establishment. It is often used in
libraries and educational establishments for purposes such as preservation.
We also have exceptions to the reproduction right and making the right and
the communication to the public right for research for private study, in
terminals, on the premises of
educational establishments. We have the same policy objective on the basis
of a number of existing exceptions in our key. As I say it is often
completed by the possibility, the facilitation of licenses. If I stay for
an minute on what I have referred to as our main or the more general
teaching exception, basically what this exception does is to cover the use
of works or other subject matters, for instance phone owe grams or
broadcasts, for the sole purpose of teaching. There is a clarification in
our legal system and as it has been there implemented by Member States that
such use can be done on condition that it is for noncommercial purposes. We
also require that when Member States provide for a teaching exception to
indicate the source and name of the author of the work unless this happens
not to be possible for practical reasons or otherwise. The rights that can
be affected by such limitation or exception as implemented by Member States
are very variedment we are talking
about different rights that have been referred to in different instances
here. We are talking about the reproduction right. We are talking about
general communication to the public right, but also covering making the
available right. We are talking about the distribution right. They can be
used when properly implemented and I remind you within the framework of the
three-step test. They can be used as regards face-to-face teaching but also
distance learning which is a concern that we have heard during the
discussions this afternoon. For instance, you could cover within the
specific conditions that we have such as uploading, online transmissions
and downloads of our work or other subject matter. And it could also be the
case that permanent downloads are further covered by the private copying
exception.
As regards not the rights but now the works and subject matter that can be
covered or affected by these limit-r limitations and exceptions, again our
key provides for great flexibility. It is an open-ended exception in the
sense that it does not I will post any specific limitations as to the
nature of the work or other subject matter that can be subject to the
limitation or exception. It is for Member States to implement it again
taking into account the application of the three-step test. And the same
approach applies to the type of beneficiaries. I have mentioned at the
start that the use has to be for noncommercial purposes, but beyond that
the exceptions and limitations and the framework that is established at the
EU level does not limit the category of snugs that can benefit, school or
university, the nature of such institutions. It can be a public or private
institution. So in that respect our main point much reference is the
noncommercial purpose to be achieved, not
the nature of the institution as such.
That gives you largely the framework which in the view of this Delegation
is important to keep in mind. That type of flexibility we have had to give
in order to have an effective system of limitations and exceptions for the
purposes of teaching and research, that adapt equally well to the
conditions in Finland as it may be conditions in Portugal, Spain, or
Romania.
That degree of flexibility and proportionality we have to keep in mind when
proceeding with our work. Thanks.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. I give the floor to Peru to be followed by Burke fast.
>> PERU: Thank you, Chairman.
(But kin notice fast owe) Peru: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to use
this opportunity to point out that I've listened very carefully to the
interesting comments by the Distinguished Representative of the European
Union. Both in that latest statement and in the previous one. Where they
asked for clarifications regarding the proposals on the table. So taking as
my starting point these interesting statements, I would like to make two
points. First of all to remind you that cluster number 7 which originally
corresponded to an Equador Indian proposal on which clarifications have
been asked was merged into the GRULAC proposal. And has been covered by a
general term which is for uses for teaching or educational purposes.
So this is one of the specific uses that is mentioned. And this is
important because in the original proposal there was not this special
relationship with the purposes of teaching or education and now that it has
been merged into the GRULAC proposal it was the intention to make it
clearer by doing this. And referring to the interesting segment by the EU
Delegate and by the emphasis, and to the emphasis put on the word
"flexibility" which we the Equadorian Delegation consider very important. I
can use that as a bridge towards mentioning and briefly explaining the
joint proposal on page 7 from Equador, Peru and Uruguay. Paragraph 16.
Which is clearly connected with cluster number 1 on page 6. This, Chairman,
is aimed at providing this flexibility and it is based on a commitment by
the parties to establish either through updating or through extension
including in the digital environment or by means of creating new exceptions
and limitations that will cover the teaching and research
area.
This chapter could be a first introduction that is very importanted and
could be supplemented by specific mentions that have been agreed on by
consensus or that could be incorporated subsequently by way of example.
And which could be an opened or a closed list.
So the purpose of this try par tight proposal from Equador, Peru and
Uruguay was to make clear that there is a commitment by the parties, there
is an obligation to update and expand exceptions, in particular for
educational purposes. Therefore, we believe it is offering and invitation
to carry out this work but incorporates sufficient flexibility to include
specific mentions of specific exceptions that have been proposed as
clusters at this session and that could be used as an introduction for
starting from this initial proposal, which we repeat is flexible. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Burkino Faso to be followed by Argentina.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gimp this is the first time my Delegation is
taking the floor please allow me to congratulate you on your election and
for your excellent management of our work.
I would like to state that our comment is under cluster 7 having to do with
translations, transformations and adaptations. In fact, we are taking up
this question referring to limitations and exceptions. We had considered
that it was necessary perhaps to have a bit more clarification on the
aspects which I just underlined because in most national legislations
limitations and exceptions have to do with methods of use and
differentiated uses. So in this present case perhaps it might be a good
idea for us to know what the real dimension is of these subheading, in
other words, translations, transformations and adaptations. Perhaps this
will lead to the creation of derivative works and derivative works would
mean in fact an authorization not by the author who created the derivative
work but rather some kind of legal authorization which isn't really,
doesn't really come under the definition of derivative works. Now, again,
on this cluster 7 we might -- the transformation of the work
might have to do with the moral right of the awe who are author, the
initial author who created the work. Perhaps we should know in the context
of the creation of this derivative work what would be the view of the work
or the author, since this might be used in another context in another kind
of use which doesn't constitute an exception. In other words, when it
wouldn't be used for teaching purposes but rather for sort of archiving. So
it does lead to possible problems and perhaps if we could be given further
explanations as to the possible consequences of these uses under cluster 7,
then we could come back to it later.

>> CHAIR: Nigeria, to be followed by Germany.
Nigeria speaker thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make a general
comment about the international copyright system and where I think in our
view both the Delegation of Nigeria but also, I believe, in its support of
the African Group proposal. In response to some of the comments by the
European Union, I think that we are at a stage where the technology and the
social and human development interests of all countries, not just developed
and developing countries but all countries are moving the system towards
one of greater openness. That the capacity to ensure that future
generations are adequately educated, that the most impoverished nations of
the world have an equal access to learn, and to be fully engaged as
citizens in a global economy, are no longer debatable. To the extent the
copyright plays a fundamental role in both the creation and the
dissemination of knowledge, and of scientific progress, this particular
discussion today is vitally important because, as we
now know, knowledge no longer has boundaries. The copyright system in our
view, Mr. Chair, can no longer simply be reactive. It can no longer simply
be a system that protects rights without a purpose. Copyright in and of
itself exists to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Accordingly, I think it's illustrative that in the EU where there is a
laundry list of limitations and exceptions that cover in fact all of the
things that we are discussing today there has been disparate adoption of
these limitations and exceptions by Member States. So the results that we
have is a patch work system in which some Member States have certain
limitations and exceptions and others do not. We see this situation in the
EU being mirrored across the world.
What that means is that for purposes of education and research, those of us
who are teachers like myself are never quite sure what we can access, what
we cannot access. We have to identify where the source is. We've got to
figure out what rights attach; what rights don't attach. These become
barriers to knowledge. They become barriers to learning. They become
barriers to teaching and barriers to progress. If the system is going to
function effectively for the economy, this proposed instrument is designed
to establish the or of a sustainable knowledge economy in which the
creation and access to knowledge is effectively available for all nations.
Not just some over others. There's a reason that some countries have been
unable to utilize these limitations and exceptions that exist in the EU.
Now, there is, of course, two strong traditions represented in this room
with regard to limitations and exceptions. We have the Continental or
European tradition that lists very explicitly
what uses are permitted and lists very specifically whether those uses are
compensated or uncompensated.
Then there is, of course, the most common law or Angelo American tradition
which combines very short lists with a huge flexible instrument called the
fair use doctrine in which particular uses are evaluated against the public
or social purpose and the amount and content that are used.
This proposed framework that we are discussing today hopefully will find a
bridge between these two systems, neither of which are ideal but both of
which are functioning for some but not all Member States that are
represented here today. So for example, as the European Union Delegate
mentioned, the right of making available which is recognized under the
would I copyright treaty has been repeatedly declared to not be a part of
U.S. copyright law. We have limitations and exception that is are
recognized not normally in the text of the law but sometimes by judicial
opinions. It is important to have a harmonized minimum mandatory approach
not just because particular sectors need it, but because the entire economy
requires some flexibility in order to advance the progress of science and
the useful arts as I've mentioned before. What the enhanced proposal by the
African Group has suggested is modification slightly of the EU list of
exceptions and limitations combined with a
provision that I believe may address our Distinguished Delegate from
Equador who in one of their clusters looked at the possibility of a
provision that facilitates an updating of limitations and exceptions for
education. This text in essence allows countries to enact new limitations
and exceptions consistent with the Bern Convention and established state
practice because, as we know from recent decisions from the European court
of justice, from the U.K. weds who just newnessed mandatory access to
U.K.-funded research frrks the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court
yesterday which liberally interpreted fair dealing in Canada for
educational purposes, this is where most OECD countries are moving. It is
posertant that members of the African Group, members of GRULAC, the rest of
the global south and, as I said before, the developed countries all come to
the table to facilitate what is in fact the social goals and ultimate
purchases of the international copyright system.
The enhanced proposal of the praik group also includes the possibility
African Group includes the fair use doctrine in addition to fair
limitations and exceptions to preserve the difference that the
Distinguished Delegate from GRULAC mentioned as well as the European Union.
WIPO does not have specific limitations and exceptions that address
education, science, libraries, archives, and those needs of persons with
disabilities, but rather to say that the time has come for harmonized
approach which is the very foundation of WIPO emission and, of course, the
very foundation of the copyright steel itself. It is not simply an end in
and of it sell, but it is a means to be an end. It is here in place,
dynamic and hopefully with a possibility of for the first time adopting a
system that gives life to the Bern appendix which exists as a legal
instrument, but also takes advantage of the recent developments in the EU,
Canada, and the United States.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Nigeria. I give the floor to Germany to be followed by
the U.S.
>> GERMANY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My congratulations on your election,
too, for the first time I take the floor.
Germany, being a member of the European Union, the German copyright law is
based on the directive on the harmonizization of certain as spects of
copyright and related rights in society. My colleague from the European
commission has mentioned before.
Our limitations we have is all subject to the three-step test of the Bern
Convention, even if it is not mentioned in detail. So I will take the
opportunity and tell you the general guidelines, how the engineer man law
uses the possibilities of the framework of the European directive is
providing in accordance with the Bern Convention. If you compare the law of
Finland that my Finnish colleague told before, you can see the flexibility
that not only the general European law but the Bern Convention already do
provide. The German law has no special limitation or exceptions for the
purpose of education or research. Instead the engineer man copyright law
makes a difference between the different possibilities how one can use the
copyrighted work. For the purpose of education and research, one may use
the following limitations on copying. First, every student at school or at
university has the permission to make copies of a work for the purpose of
education. The student can do it by
himself. It is also permitted that a third person makes the copies on
behalf of the student. For example, a library, copy shop or another student.
Second, any teacher or professor is permitted to make copies for every
pupil or student in his class, but only for part of the work or of a short
work. If a longer work is concerned, the permission is for ten to 15
percent of the work. If it is a shorter work, maybe a poem or a picture,
the whole book can be copied. As an exception to this limitation it is not
permitted to copy books with a special school books. In both cases as well
as copies made by the student or copies made by the teacher, the
rightholder gets remuneration. Everyone who sells a copying machine or
something like this has to pay a certain at to the rightholders collecting
society. So society will distribut its revenues to its members. It is
further permitted to make a work available to the public for the purpose of
education or research. For example, by putting it into the Internet of the
school, university or research organisation. But university, school or
research organisations
have to take care that the work can be used only by students or by its
members, not by the general public. One is not permitted to use the whole
work there, but only a part of the work, about ten to be 15 percent of the
work.
The owner of the copyright gets remuneration for this kind of use. For this
are purpose, there is a contract between the representatives of the school,
university, and research organisations and the rightholders collecting
societies that guarantees the rightholder remuneration. At the moment those
limitations will exist until the end of this year, but we are working with
the elongation of the limitation.
About performance. The expression performance can hold very different
meanings. So I give you some small examples that may hold the information
which is needed. It is permitted to recite a play or a poem in class when
there is no auditorium. It is permitted to show a video or a broadcast in
class if it is a private video or broadcast brought by the teacher. It is
further permitted to communicate or perform a work for school events, for
example a school theater and school orchestra. If the auditorium does not
pay a entry fee or similar fee, the performance is without responsibility
to pay remuneration to the rightholder.
The German copyright law gives permission to make quotations. The main part
of the permission is the purpose of the quotation. It is not permitted to
copy a part of a copyrighted work. Quotations mean a -- need a purpose.
That means you need to show the artistic approach or quotation of the
copyright work. Quotation means use of the small part of the work but in
certain rare cases it also can mean the whole work.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, Germany. I give the floor to the U.S. to be followed
by France.
>> UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like the EU we would like to
emphasize that our educational system in the United States is supported by
a vibrant commercial market for education and research materials as well as
a set of exceptions and limitations in our copyright law including the
doctrine of fair use and specific provisions for teachers and students.
Together the commercial market through licensing and voluntary agreements
and the exception limitations and exceptions in our copyright law provide
the critical access to information, research, and creative expression
needed to enable full participation in our information society.
The commercial marketplace in the United States includes both major
publishers and nonprofit presses. It serves any number of educational
institutions and audience, public and private, from K through 12 to college
courses to initiatives for the adult learner. In short, educational success
in the United States has in significant part been the result of a sustained
educational marketplace. At the same time there is no question that
exceptions and limitations are an important part of the copyright balance
worldwide and at the national level. The distinguished Delegate of South
Africa discussed importance -- and Nigeria alluded to the specific aspects
of our law. We would like to briefly discuss ours and how it influences our
views of how to work at the international level. In our experience
appropriate and balanced exceptions that satisfy the three step test
require careful study and consideration of all circumstances, but we must
recognize that such
circumstances may differ from country to country. In the United States, we
do have a set of targeted exceptions for education codified in section 110
of the U.S. copyright act. But it is very hard to map these exceptions on
to the specific clusters that we have discussed today. At best, they
reflect a few of the cluster proposals set fort in the draft compilation
document. For example, with respect to cluster number 5, performance for
educational purposes. Section 110 allows instructors or students to display
or perform copyrighted works provided they do so as part of classroom
activities in a nonprofit educational institution and provided that the
work is a lawfully made copy.
With respect to cluster number 9, distance learning, also one of the
proposals, in the late 1990s, the United States engaged in an extensive
process to promote the development and growth of distance education and to
help ensure that our copyright law exceptions for education reflected the
realities of the digital age. This review involved public debate and
discussion which culminated in a formal study issued by the United States
copyright office on copyright and digital distance education with
recommendations to Congress on legislative changes that might be needed in
our law.
As a result in 2002, the United States enacted the technology education and
copyright harmonization act also known as the teach act which amended our
section 110 to allow for the inclusion of performances and displays of
copyrighted works in digital distance education under appropriate
circumstances and subject to certain limitations. Specifically, the teach
act expanded the categories of works that were covered by section 110 of
the copyright act and removed the concept of the physical classroom as a
requirement to qualify under that provision in favor of the concept of
mediated instructional activities under the supervision of an instructor.
At the same time the teach act acknowledged the risk inherent for copyright
owners in the digital environment by incorporating a number of safeguards
to protect against the unauthorized distribution and reproduction of
copyrighted works. Under the teach act, only accredited educational
institutions or government bodies may avail themselves of this exception
and only students officially enrolled in the course are authorized to
receive transmissions of copyrighted works.
In addition, educational snugs must apply technological measures that
reasonably prevent recipients from retaining the works beyond the class
session and from re-stribting them. Under our law educational institutions
are generally prohibited from interfering with technological measures taken
by copyright owner to pre-prevent retention and distribution of the acts
used.
Under the teach act to provide the markets to create distance learning
materials, the exception provided under the law does not extend to use of
company righted works developed specifically for online educational uses,
textbook materials, or other materials typically acquired by students for
their interest use. In the same spirit we believe that as we discuss
copyright exceptions and limitations at the international level we must
work together to ensure that the needs of educational institutions are
balanced by appropriate responsibilities on the part of educational
institutions. As Winston Tapp of the library association said yesterday it
is important that limitations and exceptions provide a secure environment
for the use of copyrighted works.
With respect to clusters 27 and 28 which I think now have been combined,
technological measures, our law also provides certain flexibilities for
education with respect to those measures. Under section 1201 of the U.S.
copyright act, nonprofit educational institutions as well as libraries and
archives are permitted to circumvent access control measures solely in
order to make a good faith determination whether to acquire and authorized
copy of a work. Also under section 1201 of our law the U.S. copyright
office conducts an administrative proceeding every three years and in
consultation with the Department of Commerce develops exemptions to the
laws, prohibition on circumvention of technological measures to control
access of works for certain types of works. Through this process, the
United States has permitted the circumvention of technological measures in
order to permit the incorporation of portions of films into new works for
the purposes of criticism
and comment by college and university professors engaging in educational
uses.
Finally under U.S. law, the doctrine of fair use may in specific
circumstances allow third-parties to make limited use of copyrighted works,
including for purposes of teaching, scholarship or research. This doctrine
is codified in our section 107 of the U.S. copyright act and sets fort four
nonexclusive factors that courts must determine when determining whether a
particular use will be fair under our law. Under this doctrine as applied
by our courts socially beneficial uses including educational uses are more
likely to be considered fair in circumstances such as where no more of a
work is taken than is necessary to achieve the educational or research
purpose and where the use does not cause harm to the rights holder. Uses
that add something new with a further purpose or different character are
also important in the court's analysis of the purpose and character of the
use applying the four factors under our fair use provisions. The
considerations of these factors, however,
often requires a complex analysis of the facts and circumstances of each
individual case and does not necessarily provide broad guidelines that can
be routinely applied to as cruet board to multiple uses.
It should be clear from this brief discussion that the U.S. has experience
in limitations and exceptions that fall under some of the cluster headings
proposed by our Distinguished Delegates from Brazil, Peru, Equador, Nigeria
yesterday. We have clear and detailed experience in cluster p topics like
distance learn can and limited reproduction for classroom use. On the other
hand, we have little or nor national experience in some of the topics
proposed or how they might relate to specifically education such as some of
the cluster topics such as public health or security, ISP lability
liability, orphan works or computer programs.
Without prejudicing our further comments on cluster topics we hope to hear
more explanation of how those topics might fit within the rubric of the
discussion we are having today, and we may have further comments on the
cluster p topics and how the examples might fit within the proposals that
we have heard from some of the Delegations. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, U.S. I give the floor to France to be followed by
Chile.
>> FRANCE: Thank you, Chairman. Since this is the first time I'm taking the
floor I would like at the outset to congratulate you on your election and
associate myself with the wishes of success expressed by Delegations who
took the floor before me.
The French Delegation is taking the floor now to indicate how France has
set up, that is in the context of the Bern Convention as recalled by
Germany but also in the context of the 2009 directive which was explained
and presented by the representative the European Union to indicate how this
framework enables us to respect French legal tradition which in fact has
set up a teaching exception. This pedagogical exception which is L1025 (e)
of French Intellectual Property rights. It lists all the exceptions and
very specifically it is e which aims at the pedagogical exception.
Under this Article it is permitted, I'm going to read out this Article.
Don't worry, it's not very long the luckily we do have a very short and
concise provision, one which is very explicit.
Acts authorized are representation. Reproduction of extracts of works with
the reservation of works conceived for teaching purposes. Musical
partitions and digital, written works aimed for illustration purposes in
the context of teaching and research purposes, and excluding all
recreational activities as long as the public to which this representation
or reproduction is aimed is composed mainly of students, classroom students
or teachers or researchers directly are concerned and the use of this
representation and this reproduction gives no rise to commercial use and
compensated by remuneration negotiated on a lump sum basis. So that's the
provision.
Now I would like to comment to explain the essential principles and the
pillars that condition the French legislative framework on this. Five
principles basically. The first is that the exesion does not ale at all
materials. In France this cannot aim at books used for teaching nor musical
partitions nor digital works. When we talk about that we are talking about
school books as well as university textbooks which also constitute an
exception in many foreign legislative frameworks as you as mentioned by the
U.S. Delegate in the presentation which just preceded mine.
The exception for digital editions and musical partitions are explained by
the fragility of the sector, particularly concerning musical publications.
This sector already suffered all kinds of reproduction and we couldn't
possibly aim at it in this exception. Now, there was a protocol agreement
negotiated in France with the rights holders for the use of these books and
printed music, as well as periodic publications just for teaching purposes.
Therefore, license is used p parallel to the use. This for those not
covered by this particular exception of the so it's important to recognize
the model of the license and to look how it can be combined with the
exception, the second pillar or second general principle underlying the
French exception. This has to do with the aim of the exception.
Representation or reproduction of the protected work can only be used to
illustrate the course, the teaching course or the work of the researcher.
This teaching aim includes all primary schools, all the waytor university
education, public or private, distance learning included. There is no
distinction made in France between regular teeing and distance learning.
As far as research, this includes all research in public institutions. The
criteria of the absence of commercial use excludes research carried out in
private companies.
Third principle. This is a very special targeted public under this
exception. The French pedagogical exception means the use of a particular
public, general public. This is the general public to which has to be made
up of students and researchers directly concerned. We had the primary
condition as to the persons concerned and a second concerning the existence
of a link between the persons and the subject being dealt with in the
teaching framework.
Fourth element. The absence of commercial purpose. This came out of the
noncommercial purpose which is included in the community directive 22 May
2001. 2001, 29. This is essentially justified by the objective of the
exception which is essentially to meet general cultural interest. And the
last pillar which is also very important which is also important in
Germany, which is remuneration. The exception in France can only be used as
a counterpart to remuneration negotiated on a lump sum basis. On this
particular point I am not going to enter into detail but obviously I will
entirely ready to answer any questions by any Delegations who want to know
more about the technical and financial details of this remuneration for
this exception. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you, France. Chile, to be followed by India.

>> CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. I think we are having a very interesting
discussion. As somebody mentioned a little while ago, I think it's like
being in a university hall in Santiago studying the various Intellectual
Property legislations of different countries. Without prejudice to this
interesting discussion, Chairman, the fact is that we are rather confused.
We are rather perplexed about the procedure we are following this
afternoon. Our understanding of what you said we were going to do this
afternoon is that we were going to present or introduce the various
clusters or topics, as somebody called them, that are being proposed. Our
understanding of the exercise we are engaged in is precisely that. We are
identifying the topics that we are subsequently going to discuss in a way
similar to that we did at the previous session in respect of exceptions and
limitations for libraries and archives. Our understanding that the
discussion of each of these clusters and p
topics is not going to be exhausted now. They are simply going to be
introduced. In this context, we were expecting or we were hoping for an
opportunity to introduce our proposal on reverse engineering. I don't know
whether this is the right point to do this, Chairman, or whether we ought
to wait for other Delegations to present their national legislations. We
would like to have some clarification as to the procedure and the way that
we are proceeding this afternoon.
I also would like to remind you that in the work plan before the Committee
which was agreed on by all Delegations during this session, we have to make
a recommendation to the General Assembly on these issues. So we are rather
worried that within our limited time we will be able to reach those
agreements. So I would like a clarification on that. And if it's
appropriate I could also introduce our topic on reverse engineering.
>> CHAIR: The points that you have made are very valid, of course. And they
go to what I had said earlier that the idea this afternoon was to allow the
proponents of the various so-called clusters to present them and explain
what they mean by those proposals.
So of course, in the interest of getting clarifications we have received
presentations of national legislation. But I think that we can make a step
forward. You still have the floor, Chile. You can proceed and make your
presentation on reverse engineering. Go ahead.
>> CHILE: Thank you, Chairman. As I was saying, I would like to introduce
briefly this topic. First of all, I would like to say that our idea in
proposing this theme was that today we are discussing or talking about
exceptions and limitations for education and also research. Therefore,
without prejudice to the fact that in this document we are looking at today
our proposal is under 23. It comes under the heading of software and
databases. For us as we see it, reverse engineering is directly connected
with research. In this field what we are seeking for, of course, is a
discussion of the various opinions that Delegations may have on this. We
believe that reverse engineering, since it is an activity that makes it
possible to improve the working of computer programs, is in this case
directly connected with research. Just by way of an example and very
briefly, in Chile we have legislation on exceptions on this which enable
reverse engineering to be carried
out on computer programs in as much as the computer program has been
obtained legally in a legitimate way and this reverse engineering process
has to be carried out for the purposes of research or development. In
addition, the information obtained during the process of reverse
engineering of a computer program cannot, of course, be used to produce or
commercialize a computer program that is similar or that infringes rights,
Intellectual Property rights that are protected by law. So as I say, I
think this is a very important issue for the purposes of research. This is
why we wanted to propose it as one of the topics for discussion in the
context of this meeting. Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, Chile. India, to be followed by the U.K.
>> INDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished Delegate from Chile raised
a very important topic, reverse engineering. It is important to research.
India recognizes this important aspect as one of the exceptions provided
under the Indian copyright act. It explains the doing of any act necessary
to obtain information essential for operation and functioning of the
computer program. So reverse engineering is one of the important aspects.
You rightly pointed out under the discussion of the clusters, we got
distracted explaining our national laws. The WIPO Secretariat has done a
great work in sponsoring five important studies of the different agents of
the country. The selected top international copyright experts which covered
157 national laws and again to facilitate the ready hand material, again
the Secretariat has come out with the analytical document which has pointed
out several clusters. For example, number 1, specific exceptions directly
related to teaching and instructional purposes. This is the many countries
use not only for the teaching but also for the instructional purposes. The
reason why the word "instruction" is important, it may not be normal
teaching method, but instruction is important for the people especially the
skill development. And the government of India is focusing for the past few
years on skill development. The prime minister's main froit is skill
development
and the higher Education Department and also secondary education
development focused on skill development.
So skill development is meant for even the slightly educated people. They
may not be literate but they want to improve their skills. Here instruction
is more important than teaching. So the instruction should also be included
in the cluster.
Next comes the cluster included in the document is exceptions for -- has
been included. Third cluster, exception for fair use and fair dealing. This
we already covered and the Secretariat analytical document again discusses
the scope of educational exceptions very well. It covers reproduction.
Performance, communication to public, making available and translations.
These are the important clusters it covers.
Then works. What kind of works? It covers that many countries are covered
any work, all kind of works. So it should be the important focus we should
discuss. Finally in the clusters, elements to be included in the clusters.
And then what kind of rights are covered for educational exceptions? The
analytical document we studied in the five studies says all educational
exceptions are given to all exclusive rights. What kind of purpose the
exception should, educational exception should cover. It talks about the
teaching instructions, examinations also. This study or any other
conditions, several other conditions as covered under the different
national laws. These are the areas we need to focus and move forward. We
are already know that these five studies have brought all the different and
various kinds of exceptions forward by different, 157 domestic laws. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry, one important issue, Mr. Chairman, which the Distinguished
Delegation of Nigeria covered. We are fortunate to have important copyright
gurus from us. One is from Nigeria and one from the United States. Two
professors who always guide us in the right direction.
Here while finalizing the exceptions while making the clusters, whatever
exceptions we are allowing for the use of educational content, it should
help to create the ways of teaching in the university schools and other
educational institutions. So this is very, very important and we have to
move forward leaving the conservative practices in implementing exceptions
as explained by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria. I give you would be
example recently from my friend, Distinguished Delegate looking at me. It
is of the har Grious review. They have moved forward in looking at
exceptions in education. It is eye opening. When I read it, I loved it. The
Price Waterhouse ciewper has done a very good study engaged by the
copyright clearing agency. The studies are available in the public domain.
How the U.K. study has been suggested important things. It is relevant for
not only the developed countries but also for the developing countries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, India. I give the floor to the U.K. to be followed by
Egypt.
U.K. weds speaker thank you, Chair for letting me take the floor. Let me
join others in congratulating you as your election as Chair of the SCCR. We
look forward to working with you on all the issues currently before this
Committee. I would like to thank my distinguished Egyptian colleague for
asking before lunch for the U.K. to update the group on its policy on
access to research. Mention of this has been made by the distinguished
Delegate of Nigeria. Yesterday the U.K. newnessed a new policy to open up
access to publicly funded research. The U.K. government believes making it
possibletor access publicly funded research will have real economic and
social benefits. This announcement is the product of the work between
publishers and research organisations. It recognizes that opening access
has broad benefits, but also that good quality publishing also brings
benefits and has costs for publishers. It puts forward new approaches on
how those costs will be met. It is important
to note that this announcement does not involve any change to the U.K.
copyright framework. If Delegates want other information, you can find that
information on the U.K. Department of base and skills and research opening
up research to.
Turning to the topics under the clusters and headings and given the
intervention by the Distinguished Delegation of Chile and the guidance from
the Chair the U.K. would like to make furnish fer comments at the
appropriate time in the proceedings in relation to the clusters and
headings the Committee will discuss and in response to the comments of the
Indian Delegation we will include some recent developments which are taking
place in the U.K. copyright law. Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. Egypt?
>> EGYPT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The frairk group is pleased to see this
high level engagement on this important subject matter. Mr. Chairman, we
would have needed more than three days for education after all.
The group supports the Chair's statement to follow a focused process and
sequence of discussions to be advance the text based work on limitations
and exceptions for education, research, institutions and people with
disabilities. Accordingly, the group would like to request the Secretariat
to update the working document and other textual proposals submitted by
Member States today. Then submit a revised document to be once again
reviewed in the Plenary session tomorrow morning. The group also is working
on some textual proposal and may be submitting them to tomorrow morning.
Thank you.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. I am looking at the time and I don't see any -- okay,
Iran?
>> ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My Delegation would
like to support the suggestion put forward by ourEgyptian colleague. I
think it would be important to have a revised document tomorrow morning.
Thank you.

>> CHAIR: Colleagues, as stated by Egypt, the Secretariat is going to
update this document, taking into account the textual proposals that have
been made and also the consolidation that has been done by GRULAC.
But we have some ten minutes and I thought that having had no further
requests for the floor from Member States I would allow some NGOs that are
working specifically on this subject matter to make their statements very
briefly. So the floor is open to NGOs.
Sorrys South Africas asking for the floor.
>> SOUTH AFRICA: To get clarity on one thing, will we also say we are
restructuring the document, I heard from the Delegation of Nigeria earlier
on they proposal four things. Is that taken into account when we revise the
document?
>> CHAIR: I took note of that suggestion, but I think that what we are
using as cluster is not what was really meant. I think what we are talking
about are topics. So we will proceed on the basis that we are dealing with
topics. And continue it with this format because if we say clusters in the
strict sense, then most of this work will have to be readjusted into the
four or five or so-called clusters. So I think we will proceed on this
basis with the understanding that we are dealing with topics and not
clusters in the strict sense.
I hope that is clear.
NGOs? IPA?
IPA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It has been a fascinating exercise listening to
the many Delegations discuss various aspects related to copyright and
education this afternoon. Just really three comments. The first one is I
would like to echo what the Delegation, a member of a Delegation earlier
said. The topic we were here to discuss for three days was educational
exceptions for, for educational institutions and research institutions.
That already is a gigantic topic, even if we do not include all other
copyright and related issues that have been touched upon in the document in
front of us.
Secondly, I thit it is important to remind ourselves of the consensus and
the international and copyright consensus that has only recently been
reconfirmed in the Beijing treaty. I'm sure the Member States will make a
wise decision on whether it is a good idea under the heading of copyright
and education to revisit all the issues that have been just confirmed three
weeks ago as international consensus.
Finally I would like to remind the Member States of an important principle
that has been introduced only recently. That is that this work here should
be evidence-based. It is very important for all of us, and in particular
for educational and publishers to understand where there are specific
problems with access to educational content or to content in general. It is
also important to understand and to share experience on where copyright
exceptions have been introduced to overcome this lack of access and what
effect these copyright exceptions have had. Whether they have in fact
resolved the issue or whether they have not been able to do so.
So I hope that we will hear more and share more about the reality of
education and access to educational content. IPA would love to contribute
to that and explain to all a little bit more about the reality, in
particular in primary and secondary education where the access is all about
local content and local languages and relevant material that is best
supplied by local publishers. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you. I have STM, KEI, API and AFROE. We have five minutes
remaining. Please be brief. SDM.
>> SDM: Thank you, Chair, as it is the first time I'm taking the floor, let
me congratulate you on being the Chair of the SCCR. The STM association has
120 members worldwide and they publish scientific technical and medical
research in Articles, in writing, in print, in electronic format and
obviously takes a great interest in these discussions. Today the topic has
been education and research, but the Aleutian has been made to the much
wider issue of public access. Sometimes in here also referred to open
access, although these are separate measures, separate issues. Open access
really is a new way of publishing. I'm glad to say that many of the STM
members in fact experiment with this or already have a viable and
sustainable business model associated with this form of publication.
The issue of public access need not necessarily be addressed through
exceptions or through the business model of open access. STM is very
closely associated with a program called research for life which has been
presented to the SCCR on several occasions and, for instance, in over 100
countries more than 9,000 resources are free to the user, free to the
researcher available in a vast majority of countries that would be
considered leafs developed at absolutely no cost.
The government-funded research policies that also have been referred to
today and also the recent decision of the United Kingdom government that
was publicized on Monday do not really implicate exceptions at all, the
subject of the discussion for SCCR today. In fact, they are an illustration
of rights holder consent and licensing, working to the benefit of enhancing
public access. None of these policies question the need to seek consent
from the author or the rights holder to make these works available in
preprint format, post publication format or at any later stage in the
dissell nation process. Copyright is an incentive for the creation and for
the dissell nation of knowledge and it is important to keep this in mind as
it seems sometimes that copyright is mischaracterized as an obstacle of
these goals that we all share.
Thank you, Chair.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. KEI.
>> KEI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I just would say it's been
impressive, first two days of the negotiations and the level of discussion
has been impressive and sometimes inspiring. So I am pleased to be here.
It seems to us that yesterday some Delegations may have exaggerated the
extent that the three-step test currently is relevant to exceptions. We
think it is an important test for some exceptions and we think it is not
relevant to other exceptions that have a different standard that is used to
evaluate how appropriate or what you can do with them.
To the extent that this meeting proceeds we look forward to more clearing
up some of the confusion over how the three-step test applies particularly
in some of the Bern exceptions like Bern 2BES, parts of 11, other parts of
the Bern exception as well as other things outside of the Bern exception
that are important in exceptions such as remedies, limits on the remedies
or the first L doctrine or control of competitive practices, things like
that.
Nigeria in its presentation said that the goal should be, at least my take
away was access to knowledge for all and take people need to recognize
there's this global transfer of openness and inclusiveness and I think from
our point of view those are completely right. That this discussion should
have the same objective as the World Health Organization has about access
to medicine, which is access to knowledge to all should be in everyone's
mind as something you want to achieve and that it is important to be more
inclusive as to how that plays out in developing countries or for poor
people in general.
India talked about how it is important to think of remunerative and
non-remunerative exceptions separately and different ways that appropriate
perhaps -- I don't want to put words in their mouth, but certainly they are
both different and play different roles and some of the European Delegates
plus put emphasis on remunerative exceptions for what is useful for people.
It was attempted and failed in the Bern appendix, apparently, but it has
been successful in Finland in some areas.
Certainly a lot to be also explored there, I think. One thing I disagreed
with that, and maybe I got it wrong from what Nigeria said. There's no
reason to think that the important work that is being done on education or
others, libraries, archives, later on it might be some project like
Internet services or something like that, that none of the projects should
themselves be delayed until work is done in all projects because there's so
many different areas that can be done in the area of copyright. Nothing
would ever get done if everything had to be done because we haven't in a
way even scratched areas like documentary film makers. There's a million
things we haven't begun to take up. It will never be inclusive.
What is important is to get the right balance between addressing the large
issue about access to education materials, access to knowledge and the
development concerns of developed countries on one hand and maybe a
narrower con Kern, could be fronted by the problem of people who are blind.
If we have an opportunity this week to move forward the treaty for the
blind because it has been around for decades, actually, the discussion
about that topic. Four years in this Committee recently. That would be a
great achievement and a confidence-building thing if there's an acceptable
text. We haven't seen any of the texts people have been talking about which
we would love to see, by the way.
At the same time having a political commitment to advance what I think is
on the minds of most developing countries which is how to protect and
advance access to knowledge in the area of education and development. We
look forward to the rest of the meeting and thank you for the opportunity
to make this intervention.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. MPA to be followed by EFRAM.
>> EPA: thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to share a few
comments on this draft which I fear in my many respects would disincentive
ice the distribution and creation of copyright works through multitudes of
limitations and exceptions for education and research institutions and well
beyond. We do need to recall the purpose of company right, incentiveizing
the creation and distribution of new works to the benefit of all
stakeholders all around the world, copyright owners, users, research
institutions, et cetera. Film makers in Nigeria, film makers in Hollywood,
film makers in India and everywhere, not to mention just a few categories.While
we believe as I mentioned yesterday that we must continually consider the
balance inherent in copyright between the rights of authors and other
rights holders on one hand and the interests of beneficiaries of
exceptions, we do have some serious concerns about many of the issues
raised in this document. We support balanced exepgs. They are vital to the
system, but we have many questions about the proposed definitions. We query
the broad scope of beneficiaries. We wonder about the formulation,
authorized actions. We recall that exceptions as well as the fair use
doctrine are defenses, not rights. We note regarding terek logical measures
that solutions already have been found in WIPO. We believe that certain
issues need separate discussion or are not appropriate. Orphans,
exhaustion, contracts, out of commerce works, other disabilities,
interpretation of the three-step test, a vital, vital component of the
international framework. ISP liability.
 The current international framework has established a system that provides
considerable flexibility for Member States to implement balanced
exceptions. Of course, in order for exceptions to exist there must be first
rights. We see concerns raised in respect to digital distribution of
content. There need to be corresponding rights. In order to demonstrate
flexibility inherent in the system it is vital that Member States have the
opportunity to discuss national solutions. We welcome the fact that some
have done so. We also note these recent decisions in the United States,
Canada, and Europe. In our view they have demonstrated the flexibility that
I've mentioned. We would question any proposals that would limit that
flexibility. Many of these issues and indeed pressing problems around the
world which we freely acknowledge and that Member States seek to address in
this document are not going to be solved via copyright exceptions.
Copyright exceptions are not a panacea.
Exciting development and growth of digital technology and networks that we
are seeing now clearly have challenged the copyright system. They have
clearly also demonstrated the important role that content plays. We need to
continue to take steps to incentivize the creation and distribution of new
works to feed that digital environment. Peace, love, and copyright
(Laughter.)
>> CHAIR: The last speaker is from EFRO.
>> EFRO: Thank you very much, Chairman, for giving us the possibility to be
once again comment on this subject. I would like to compensate on behalf of
EFRO the importance of access to cultural content has for the educational
sphere, research and libraries. Specifically, authors, publishers and
clearing centers work in order to further this possibility. Authors create
the best possible works for training in schools, research, and also for
recreational purposes of citizens. They need support and creative
flexibility that can only be done through the proper compensation for their
work. Publishers make the necessary investment and technical, whether to
distribute works, whether in paper or digitally. They also facilitate all
the use of collectives to use fragments of works in the innovative way that
new forms of technology allow. But if this value chain is broken and they
pretend that there is non-remunerative exceptions, publishers won't be able
to work the way they have been
doing recently. This will mean a tremendous step backwards in terms of the
stability that they reached thanks to the protection of copyright and
Intellectual Property rights has given them to date. Obviously publishers
will not be able to continue to invest in the medium and long material. We
don't know who benefits from them, but it's certainly clear it won't be the
citizens.
For this reason we propose to maintain the necessary balance between
copyright of authors and other rightholders and the requirements of users
which have appropriate forms to have access to content including digital
content. As we have been able to hear from many representatives such as the
European Union the United States and others. Specifically in order to be
able to contribute to the dissell nation of these forms of access in a
practical way. Also, that members of governments can be aware of what can
be offered, perhaps next Thursday we are going to offer a presentation in
Room B and all of you will be invited to our presentation and observe forms
of access which are being used throughout the world. Thank you very much.

>> CHAIR: Thank you very much. I note that there are still requests for the
floor from LCA. I will give you an opportunity in the course of tomorrow to
make your intervention because we have to wind up.
Colleagues, as stated earlier, the Secretariat will work on updating the
document as stated. And then we will continue on this process of textual
proposals.
Now, the headings and topics that have been proposed, the idea is that we
should have textual proposals under those headings. We should continue to
develop this document. I will now turn to the Secretariat to make
announcements.
>> SECRETARIAT: Thank you. We would just ask please that those who have
made textual proposals, that they would like to see reflected in the
document by tomorrow morning, please send them to us by e-mail as soon as
possible and that is copyright.mail at WIPO.int or you can e-mail them to our
individual e-mail addresses. Thank you very much.
>> CHAIR: Thank you, colleagues and thank you, interpreters for giving us
the opportunity to go to this time.
Announcements from coordinators. EU?
>> EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you, I wanted to recall that the EU and Member
States will meet immediately after this meeting in room uke ten hag enon
the first floor.
>> CHAIR: Italy?
>> ITALY: Tomorrow there will be a Group B meeting in Room B at 9:30.
>> CHAIR:
>> African grume will meet tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. in the Bilger room.
>> CHAIR: Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.
(The meeting adjourned at 181
S.
(Thank you, the captioner signed off.)



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
Support OER in Brazil!
www.rea.net.br
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
(for www.eff.org related matters, pls contact me at carolina at eff.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20120717/227120f8/attachment-0001.html