E sccr/34/7 prov. Original: english date: august 4, 2017 Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights Thirty-Fourth Session Geneva, May to 5, 2017

AGENDA ITEM 9: OTHER MATTERS (Cont.)
Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment

6. 
   The Chair opened the session and apologized for the late start. He informed the Delegates that discussions had been underway between the regional coordinators regarding the outcomes of the meeting. He then began discussions on, the Proposal for Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment, which had been tabled by GRULAC. He invited group coordinators and delegations to make statements on that topic. He asked that statements be kept short in the interest of time, as the Secretariat and Professor Sirinelli were present and would be sharing their observations on the study.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Brazil stated that it hoped to continue the discussions regarding copyright in the digital environment, the subject of document SCCR/31/4, which had been tabled by GRULAC. Recent advances in technology had enabled the creation of business models based on the use of copyrighted works on digital platforms. These innovative business models generated opportunities and channels for all participants in the creative process. That had been the case since 2015, when digital market sales worldwide surpassed sales of physical formats and became the primary source of revenue for recorded music. That was also true for Brazil, where digital was the new reality in the music business. It was not just a matter of commercial success. It was a sea of change in the whole copyright landscape. However, legal reasoning and practices regarding copyright still reflected, to a large extent, analog realities. As a result, legitimate concerns were being raised at the national and international level regarding, among other issues, the remuneration of copyrighted works. Digital platforms affirmed that most of the revenues were being distributed as royalties, but authors and performers complained about a lack of remuneration. Likewise, producers and the cultural industry highlighted the “value gap” in the amount due for their rights. In its delegation’s view, the sustainable growth of the digital market required that the value of music be safeguarded and that creativity be adequately rewarded. The proposal tabled by GRULAC aimed to emphasize the importance of transparency in the remuneration of copyright and related rights in the digital environment. That would allow creators and artists to properly understand the payments and accounts they received, enhancing the management and exercise of their legitimate rights. The scoping study to be presented at the next session would be instrumental in having a more informed discussion in the following session of the committee. The Delegation expected that the study would include a coverage of the developments in the legal framework, as well as recent decisions in different countries around the world. The study should also address the important issue of the role of collective management organizations in the digital environment. Additionally, due to the cross-border nature of many digital transactions, the Delegation stated that the next steps should be considered within the SCCR among all Member States. The Delegation believed that Member States should be informed about the topics that would be addressed in the scoping study, to ensure that they remained in line with the concerns raised by GRULAC in their document. Finally, for all the reasons stated above, the Delegation requested that the Committee considered making copyright in the digital environment a permanent item on its agenda. The Delegation stressed that that topic addressed the present and not the future.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the European Union and its Member States stated that in line with what had been said during previous sessions, its Delegation was of the view that the issue of copyright in the digital environment merited attention and discussion, so that copyright could be more efficiently protected, and could play its role in the digital era. In that context, the Delegation took note of the update and report regarding the scoping study on the impact of digital developments on the evolution of national legal frameworks over the past ten years, which the Committee had supported at SCCR 33. That being said, it was important to note that those were potentially very wide topics, not necessarily clearly defined, and not only related to copyright. Therefore, before the Committee could address those topics, the Delegation was of the opinion that the concrete subject of the Committee’s conversation should be addressed first.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Georgia speaking on behalf of CEBS stated that CEBS believed that the topic was important, in terms of ensuring effective and adequate protection of copyright in the digital era. CEBS had also taken note of the scoping study on the impact of digital developments on the evolution of national legal frameworks. At the same time, CEBS was considering the wide nature of the topic, which went beyond the scope of copyright protection, and wished to emphasize that it preferred determining a concrete topic for discussion, which would provide for an efficient use of time.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia speaking on behalf of GRULAC thanked the previous speakers for their interventions, which recognized that the topic was of vital importance to the Member States. The Delegation repeated that for GRULAC, as had been stated in its general statement at the beginning of the session, the challenges for protected works in a digital environment were undeniable. GRULAC looked forward to discovering the kind of results the requests for the studies would provide. GRULAC reiterated the importance of having a study that reflected the progress that had been made in the past ten years, regarding international legislation on copyright related to the digital environment.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Senegal speaking on behalf of the African Group thanked GRULAC for its proposal. As previously indicated, the Delegation was looking forward to the results of the studies. Those studies would provide elements of a response. The African Group was committed to taking an active part in the discussions on that issue in a constructive spirit.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America stated that its delegation believed that the SCCR should be a forum to discuss timely, significant, substantive copyright issues without preparing for norm setting. The initial GRULAC proposal for SCCR work in the broad area of copyright in the digital age offered an opportunity to test the subjective practice. As the Delegation had said before, it would not be possible to discuss all the topics in the broad-ranging original GRULAC proposal, and some of the topics were more likely to result in productive exchanges of views than others. As a result, the Delegation welcomed the efforts of the informal group of copyright experts and the Secretariat to narrow the range of topics on which the SCCR would focus. There was a cautionary note as well. In the view of the United States of America, copyright policy issues, as opposed to marketplace issues, such as remuneration of artists and performers and questions of bargaining power, were more likely to result in productive exchanges in the forum.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the Russian Federation expressed its support for the issues that had been raised. It was very much interested in discussing the use of copyright and the Internet. At present, it was a very serious problem in society. It led to very heated discussions. There were very extreme views. On the one hand, everybody wanted to use the opportunities provided by the Internet to access copyright. On the other hand, there were very many problems arising with counterfeiting and the infringement of copyright, precisely through the Internet. The Delegation already had a great deal of experience in that area. A few years ago, the Russian Federation had adopted a special law on counterfeiting via the Internet. The Delegation was prepared to share its experience in future discussions. However, there was a concern that the topic was very broad, and the Delegation feared that the Committee would not be able to cover it completely if it were an agenda item. As a result, it preferred that the Committee completed the items it had already started to discuss. Referring to the position expressed by the United States of America, the Delegation stated that perhaps the problems that existed could be examined in an informal setting, with periodic updates. The Delegation’s position was that an informal approach should be adopted for that topic.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Chile stated that it supported the statements made by GRULAC, and the Delegation of Brazil. The Delegation was of the opinion that the Analysis of Copyright Related to the Digital Environment, specifically the treatment of rights of different business models, could be analyzed in the Committee. It would help in national policies, and national policymakers could adopt legislation to reflect new realities. That would facilitate the greater inclusion of artists in the new reality, which was not as new anymore. As the Director General had said in his presentation to the ambassadors a week ago, in the year 2015, for the first time the music industry had had positive numbers, and they welcomed that. The digital environment had had its changes. The Delegation supported the fact that that could be analyzed and discussed in the SCCR, and it looked forward to the Secretariat’s response regarding the study that they had requested as a group.
   

6. 
   The Chair thanked the Delegation of Chile for its intervention. He stated that the time had come to turn to the Secretariat, which had been requested to commission a scoping study on the impact of digital developments on national legal frameworks over the last decade.
   

6. 
   The Deputy Director General explained that the Secretariat has responded to the request that had been expressed during the previous SCCR, to initiate a scoping study on the impact of the digital environment on the evolution of legislative national frameworks over the past ten years. Dr. Guilda Rostama, who had been commissioned to conduct the study, was introduced. Dr. Rostama, who was of Iranian, Canadian and French origins would be expected to understand the several cultures and schools inherent in the exercise. Last February she had begun to work actively on the study and was now in a position to present a first-stage report. The study would be introduced in its entirety at the following SCCR. Operating in a rather innovative way,, academics and experts in copyright had met for two days, on April 6 and 7, 2017, at the request of the Secretariat. They had been asked three questions; First, to identify the various stream of changes in the copy right framework, which were occurring in the digital world. Second, whether legislative amendments in the Member States, introduced in the past ten years, responded effectively to the digital challenges. Third, how the new laws had adressed the continuous relevance of the principles and legal concepts of the treaties managed by WIPO, while taking into account the technological and societal evolutions linked to the digital world. For that rather difficult task 11 experts on copyright had been chosen. That list of 11 experts was not a closed list. As the work undertaken was to be continued, it was hoped that proposals would be received from other Member States. The list was also open to other volunteers. One of the experts who had taken part in those discussion, Professor Pierre Sirinelli, had been asked to present a summary of the work which had been undertaken during the two-day meeting. The Secretariat introduced Dr. Pierre Sirinelli, Professor of private law at Paris 1 University (Panthéon Sorbonne), founder and director of the Study Centre for Immaterial Rights and the president of the French group of International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI).
   

6. 
   Dr. Guilda Rostama presented the first steps which had been taken on the scoping study on the impact of the digital environment on copyright legislations since 2006. She informed the Delegates that she would first present the methodology of the study, focusing particularly on the method of identifying the relevant Member States' legislations, which would be included in the study. Four general themes had been identified with the help of the WIPO Secretariat. She would then present examples of the first general trends and highlights that had been identified at that stage of the study. And finally, she would look at the next steps of the scoping study. Regarding the methodology, she noted that phase one had been conducted between February 1, and March 31, 2017. That phase had consisted of the identification of the Member States that had adopted a law after the beginning of 2006 until present. She called the Member States’ attention to the fact that although the study sought to analyze digital developments over the past ten years, it had been difficult to determine whether the amendments that had been made to the copyright laws actually related to digital technology or not. As a result, it had been decided to include all the laws that had been either created or amended since 2006. However, on the account of relevance, some instruments that had been adopted before 2006 had been included in the scoping study. Those included the European Union Directive of May 22, 2001, on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, as well as the directive of April 29, 2004, on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Most of the laws had come from the WIPO Lex database. However, additional research had been conducted to identify more recent instruments that had not yet been included in the WIPO database tool. Where such instruments existed, they had opted for the most recent version, provided that that law had been published on the official website of the Member State and it had been drafted in English, French or Spanish. Finally, she called the Member States’ attention to the fact that only the provisions that explicitly referred to digital technology had been incorporated in the analysis. She explained, for example, if a Member State had provided an example for the right of exception for educational students, that exception had been included in the study only if it expressly referred to digital and electronic reproductions. She had prepared a map to demonstrate an example of the volume of Member States that had been included in the study, apart from the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and the European Union. There would be 120 laws from 105 Member States. From the Latin American and Caribbean region, there would be 14 Member States, 19 from the African region, and 23 from the Asia-Pacific region. The list of the identified Member States would be distributed to the Member States by the Secretariat. Dr. Rostama then addressed the four general themes that had been identified in the study. The first theme that had been identified related to the digital environment and the copyright value chain. That theme would tackle the reproduction right, the making available right, the communication to the public right, the right of distribution and rental, and the right to specific remuneration for digital exploitation of protected subject matter. The second theme related to limitations and exceptions. That theme focused on the right to make computer programs and backup copies on the reproduction of databases. It would also focus on user-generated content, digital limitations and exceptions applied to libraries, archives, and educational institutions. The third theme of the study focused specifically on the impact of digital technology on the scope and on the management of copyrights. Here, the study would take a look at the specific definitions adopted by Member States on the elements of the digital world. It would also look at computer programs, databases, and digital rights management. There was also a particular focus on interoperability, temporary reproductions and the storage of works in digital forms. Finally, the study would focus on new digital players and would bring special attention to Internet service providers' liability. The plan was to look at the definition that Member States had given to Internet service providers and how they had defined the scope of their liability. Dr. Rostama then presented a few examples of the identified highlights. She noted that while it was still a work in progress, she thought it would be interesting to show the patterns that had been identified thus far. Regarding the right of reproduction adapted to the digital environment, they had been able to identify two general trends. The first trend that Member States had adopted was to give a broad definition of the right of reproduction and then to include a technical component. So, Member States said that they had given a definition of the right of reproduction. They said that it included temporary or permanent archiving. In the second general trend, Member States chose to exclude certain digital reproductions from the general right of reproduction, and that was usually addressed in three steps. In the first step, Member States stated that users could make a provisional and/or a private copy. In the second step, they said that that exception did not apply to software or databases. And finally, they gave a specific definition of the right of reproduction for databases and/or computer programs. It was a special definition that was applicable to those items with their own limitations and exceptions. Another general trend regarded the right to make available to the public digital transmissions. The vast majority of Member States modeled their definition of the right of communication and the right to make available to the public on those of the WIPO administrated treaties. However, some Member States went a little further and provided more specific details on the digital environment. For example, they focused on the making available of copies to the public by means of an electronic retrieval system. Or they focused on the diffusion of signs through electronic devices. Or they even tackled the making available of copies of works through the Internet. Some others emphasized under the definitions of communication to the public, the interactive aspect of communication to the public and placed an emphasis on video on demand and music on demand. Regarding the question of the specific remuneration for right holders for the digital exploitation of their works, they had found that that right might be granted either to authors, performers, producer of phonograms or to all three. For example, there were Member States that granted a right to additional remuneration to producers and performers whose recording was communicated to the public by telecommunication. Some others guaranteed that the authors received fair and equitable remuneration for the marketing and the distribution of a book published in digital form. They had also looked at exceptions and limitations in the digital environment and particularly what concerned libraries and educational institutions. For instance, some Member States allowed the possibility for educational institutions to make, under certain conditions, multiple reproductions and communications of journal articles, copyrighted works and anthologies in electronic versions of the works. Some others, tackled the making available of works in computer networks, providing that the access to the works was only available to pupils or to students and their teachers. Regarding libraries and archives, some Member States allowed the possibility for libraries, archives, and museums to provide a digital copy to a person who requested one, but they needed to ensure that that person could not reproduce the material or communicate it to someone else. Finally, one last example of the identified highlights of the study related to the new digital players, and in particular Internet intermediaries. Member States had adopted different approaches for that which concerned Internet intermediaries. Some defined Internet intermediaries according to their activities, including transmissions, routing of copyrighted material, caching and storing of a copyright material on a system network. Then according to each activity, they defined different scopes of liability. But some others had a different pattern, choosing not to provide such a detailed definition of Internet intermediaries. They only focused on the reliability of Internet intermediaries and on notifications and counter-notifications of online infringing material. To conclude her presentation Dr. Rostama spoke about the next steps of the study. She stated that approximately 2/3 of the legislations were left to be analyzed. After the analysis had been completed the scoping study would be drafted in collaboration with the WIPO Secretariat. It would then be sent to the experts for their suggestions and recommendations and then an editing phase would take place. Finally, it would be presented to the Member States during the thirty-fifth session of the SCCR, which would take place in November 2017. Dr. Rostama then mentioned the brainstorming session that had taken place in April 2017 in Geneva and presented the experts that had participated in the meeting. They included: Professor Mihaly Ficsor, Professor Joseph Fometeu, Professor Jane Ginsburg, Professor Andres Guadamuz, Professor Justin Hughes, Professor Marisella Ouma, Professor Daniel Seng, Professor Tatshuiro Ueno, Professor Raquel Xalabarder, Professor Fernando Zapata, Professor Pierre Sirinelli.
   

6. 
   Professor Pierre Sirinelli presented his report, summarizing the work that had taken place during the two-day meeting of the experts. The video of that presentation can be found at (Friday, May 5, 2017 Morning Session):
   

http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/?event=SCCR/34#demand

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia speaking on behalf of GRULAC expressed its appreciation of the presentation which had been made. GRULAC had taken note of the broad range of information contained in the preliminary report and looked forward to the final results at the November session of the SCCR. The Secretariat had referred to the process through which the study had been put under way. GRULAC had taken note that the Secretariat had stated that the expert meeting had been a brainstorming session. The Delegation thought it was very important that it had been described as “an open-ended process”, which the Secretariat hoped to complete with suggestions and inputs from Member States. That had been confirmed by the team working on the study. GRULAC wanted to make that point very clear. The Delegation wished to emphasize that it was very important that the process should be an open one.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia supported a number of the concerns that had been expressed by Professor Sirinelli. The Delegation agreed that caution should be taken when approaching some of the issues that had been identified, before making any decisions in the Committee. It valued the identification of a number of problems, including whether the existing international norms required reinterpretation, whether to examine the effects of their implementation, or whether to completely revise the 1996 WIPO administered treaties. There was also the author, who was at the center of the discussions but no longer seemed to be. They should be doing work to see whether authors could receive fair remuneration for their work. There was also the influence of other legal regimes, and it was important to examine that. Colombia’s copyright law did not have to do with competition law and so that too was something to be examined in light of how users made use of works and how they accessed them. The Delegation was thankful for the explanation of the methodology behind the study that had been presented. It was important to know how conclusions had been reached.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of El Salvador supported the statement that had been made by Colombia on behalf of GRULAC. As at previous sessions, the Delegation repeated that it was important for the Committee to address the topic of copyright in the digital environment. It was a cross-cutting problem, which had become extremely important in the Committee's discussions. The Delegation looked forward to the final results of the study. The conclusions had been truly interesting, but the Delegation had the impression that it had been a closed-door discussion that had been taking place in parallel. The issues should be discussed in the Committee, by Member States, based on the results of the study or studies. The Delegation could not assess the results of the expert meeting because it had not been present. It was not able to attend. The Delegation was of the opinion that the experts had reached their own personal conclusions. It requested that for any future exercises of that type, Member States should be able to participate in the process of the selection of the participants and their discussions.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Brazil pointed to the treatment of exceptions and limitations in a balanced environment and the importance of all participants in that process. It was of the opinion that the essential role of WIPO and that of the Committee regarded all the trans-border aspects, as well as the growing importance of international cooperation. That was becoming ever more important in the digital world of today.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the European Union and it Member States had taken note, and was very supportive of the fact that both the study and the discussions at the expert meeting had, among other topics, highlighted the importance of a fair sharing of value online across the whole value chain. They had also asked questions and looked at the role of intermediaries including the question of the fair remuneration for authors, and ways and means to get there. As had been stated earlier, the European Union had recently addressed that issue in the proposed directive on copyright in the digital signal market. The Delegation would be happy to provide explanations as well as insight into what had led to the adoption of that proposal. The proposal was currently being negotiated between the co-legislators. As a result, the outcome was still uncertain, but there had been vast preparatory work. It would come as no surprise that it could see great value in having such a discussion on those issues within the Committee. Therefore, the Delegation looked forward to the completion of the study to be presented at the following session of the SCCR. It would return with additional questions at that time. The Delegation was particularly interested in hearing more about the possibility of having a checklist for contracts between intermediaries, and the methodology for developing clauses in that regard. It was also curious to hear more about the possible global registry of works. Both ideas could be very interesting.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America thought that the presentation had been very useful and instructive. It had taken note, in particular, of the notes of prudence and caution, with which it fully agreed with. The Delegation had been struck by the practical nature of many of the suggestions, which it believed was an important way forward. It looked forward to reading the full study and continuing the conversation.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Algeria noted that its copyright office had had experience dealing with intermediary providers such as YouTube. As a result, it had an enormous amount of concern regarding what should be considered making available to the public or mechanical reproduction, because the payment was very, very small. That was the first problem. The second problem, regarded the registry which had been mentioned. It could be a very good solution for everything that was used, if a distinction could be made between intellectual works and any other short film put on that site. It was important to make that distinction because YouTube had communicated enormous lists identifying works with regards to remuneration. CIS Net, which identifies the works of more than 300 societies throughout the world belonging to CISAC, could not sufficiently process, identify, and pay the rights holders what was due to them.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Brazil shared its reflections regarding the accountability necessary for proper remuneration for authors, transparency of the values that were being remunerated and the use of fair contracts in the system. Cross-border aspects had also been mentioned especially in the digital environment. That led to questions about different regulations and how they would communicate with one another. It was another aspect that showed the important role of WIPO in that matter. Additionally, the Delegation underlined the need for dialogue between collective management entities and governments, a failure of which could risk the application of reciprocity agreements. There was also the important role of exceptions that had been mentioned by Professor Sirinelli. The proper use of exceptions and limitations brought balance to the copyright system and enabled it to be more effective. A final point related to the liability of Internet service providers. That topic was being discussed in other fora, including the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) discussions on e-commerce. It merited further reflection. Brazil had a law, which had been recently enacted on that matter, and it had taken special care to avoid encroaching upon the liberty of Internet users.
   

6. 
   The Chair asked the Delegates if there were any reactions to the proposal, which had been made by the experts for a possible program on three areas. That point had not been specifically addressed but it would be useful for the experts to hear their reactions. If there were no immediate reactions, then that left some time for NGOs to speak.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of El Salvador observed that if a request was being made for reactions to the proposals made by the group of experts, its Delegation had already referred to not being able to assess the proposals because of the format of the deliberations. Much valuable information had been given to them by the professors. However, it should be presented in an open format to all Member States so that they could then incorporate them into the subject under discussion by the Committee.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Chile stated that in response to the Chair’s question and in reference to what had been said by the Delegation of El Salvador, taking a decision would require them to see all the proposals in a document. They had not received any written information before the meeting. It was difficult to make a decision. They needed to have something in writing in order to be able to make their decision, and to be clear about what was being discussed.
   

6. 
   The Secretariat stated that it had tried to react to what had been suggested and had provided new materials within the past six months for their reflection. Its intention had not been to rush the Member States into a process, which they did not want to be involved in. It had just tried to provide some detailed study of the issues. It had no mandate to submit a report to the Member States in the SCCR. However, in the interest of transparency, and to show that work was progressing, a kind of halfway report had been given. The Secretariat thanked the two speakers for having provided them with some preliminary food for thought. Ms. Rostama's study was still to be completed, and would be completed by the following session of the SCCR. With regards to the methodology they had selected, once Ms. Rostama had completed her study, she would submit it to the group of experts that had met on April 6 and 7, 2017. In the interest of openness and transparency, and to respond to the concerns expressed by El Salvador, the Secretariat proposed that experts who wished to be associated with that work and the study should approach them. They would find the ways and means to put them in touch with Ms. Rostama and the group of experts. In any case, the group of experts would be invited to make a number of comments on the study. That was a part of the study. It was a new kind of study that was being proposed; a collective study. The Secretariat would submit the work to the Member States at the following session of the SCCR. It would provide a written document on what had been described by Professor Sirinelli, together with the work of the 11 experts and a number of proposals. It would be possible for the Member States to work on a number of elements of those proposals during the following session of the SCCR.
   

6. 
   The Chair suggested that after the lunch break they begin with the Marrakesh presentation and then move quickly to the draft recommendations to the General Assembly, as well as the review of the Chair's summary.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of the United States of America thanked the other Delegations for having stated that a close look at the specifics, as opposed to the general descriptions, take place before following session of the SCCR. The Delegations could then come prepared to adequately respond to the specifics of the suggestions. The Delegation restated its general orientation in that area; substantive copyright policies in the area of the digital environment, as opposed to what they were calling marketplace issues, probably was the most productive way forward. It would look at the proposals through that lens, and it needed to do so in a timely way before the meeting.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of France referred to the proposal made by the Delegation Chile, which the Secretariat stated could be achieved for the following SCCR. In other words, the proposal to have a summary document that would contain the conclusions described by Professor Sirinelli, so as not to lose all the information that had been exchanged over the two days of the meeting. That would facilitate a more open discussion at the following session of the SCCR.
   

6. 
   The Representative of FIGA observed that there had been work taking place to facilitate the identification of authors, in a voluntary manner, at the copyright hub. The Representative looked forward to further contact and discussions with the Committee and the group of experts.
   

6. 
   The Representative of CISAC thanked the Secretariat for the initiative, which could contribute to a constructive discussion in the Committee on a number of issues raised in the document proposed by GRULAC. CISAC thanked the two professors for their presentations on the work done in April, and looked forward with great interest to the presentation of the conclusions at the following meeting of SCCR in November. Referring to the need for the transfer of values, the Representative asserted that it was the greatest challenge facing creators. Then there was the changing role of Internet service providers, as very often the authors were marginalized by the digital economy and the value chain. Finally, there had been comments about the need to interpret WIPO treaties in the most faithful way possible, and also comments about prudence in implementing exceptions and limitations using other alternatives where possible, such as licenses.
   

6. 
   The Representative of FILAIE associated himself with the statements made by the United States of America and the European Union. The Representative congratulated GRULAC on the proposal and reminded the Committee that in the face of all the studies, which were very interesting, performers believed that there were priorities. They included the very low or zero remuneration being paid to authors for their works and performances on Internet in the digital environment. Consequently, he recommended that the study focus on that issue and that the GRULAC proposal should be a permanent item on the agenda. With regards to the discussion on the legal systems used, that should also be included on the agenda of the Committee as well as the three conclusions reached by the Professor. In all that, the market was developing rapidly, so the norms should be invented as quickly as possible so that they could compete on an equal footing in the market.
   

6. 
   The Representative of KEI wished to take a closer look at the study. The Representative observed that in the original GRULAC proposal, looming large were issues about economics, the concentration of ownership in the area of distributing works, as well as questions about the fairness of the distribution of revenues between creative people and distributors of works. In some ways that had been described in the study. Although it looked like there was a very competent cast of characters in terms of the researchers, it might be useful to examine whether there were economists who could be brought in, to shed more light on the issues raised in the initial paper. Finally, the Representative had spoken to some Delegates about the issue of metadata, as it related to digital works. It was a really new topic that had come about because of the digitalization of works and the development of the Internet. They often thought that metadata was managed on behalf of right owners but not necessarily on behalf of creative individuals, audiences, readers or listeners. Consequently, the Representative believed that it was related to the GRULAC proposal. It might be a subset, but it was also a topic that they would like to see explored more.
   

6. 
   The Representative of PAAIG stated that the role of limitations and exceptions in the digital environment should be a priority for the Committee at that time. There were things called “non-expressive uses” that were necessary for technological processes, but did not compete with the copyright owner. They were necessary to offer services over the Internet. PAAIG had been doing research in that area. It had also been conducting studies, which suggested that the presence of those exceptions was related to investment in the growth of local digital technologies. Streaming could not exist without buffering. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, text and data mining, Internet-based translation services, could not exist without the right to use whole works for purposes that did compete with the original. However only a small number of countries around the world provided those clear limitations and exceptions. The lack of those limitations and exceptions had been reducing local investment and innovation in that area. As the experts had noted, the European Union had taken a step in the right direction in that regard, creating a mandatory exception for certain technological processes in their directive. That model was not perfect. Many of those digital innovations actually required permanent copies. Nonetheless, the concept that a mandatory exception was needed in that regard, to facilitate cross-border digital trade, local production and innovation, should guide the Committee.
   

6. 
   The Representative of Innovarte believed that the issue of guaranteeing fair remuneration for creators was extremely important. That item should be considered as a standing item on the Committee's agenda. However, in reference to the statement by the Delegation of El Salvador, the Representative agreed that there should be more participation and transparency in the work being done in the group of experts. That would guarantee that all of the concerns and issues were covered in relation to the work. Finally, the checklists on contracts should not only include intermediary platforms such as YouTube, but also contracts between authors and producers or collective entities. That should be a subject of interest for the Committee.
   

6. 
   The Representative of Latin Artists stated that its organization represented associations of actors and other performers in the audiovisual field. It was grateful for the examination of the precarious situation of artists and other creators in connection with the use of their performances in the digital era. That had been described effectively by GRULAC in its proposal. It affected not only musical work, but also audiovisual works, as had been clarified by the Delegation of Brazil during the previous session of the Committee. Despite the fact that the same Delegation had referred exclusively to music in the current session. The solution was not just exploratory studies. It was also necessary to bear in mind that the scope of the study exceeded the specific problems indicated in the GRULAC proposal. Particularly in the need to find appropriate formulas to guarantee that artists and other creators could benefit from the economic content of their performances in the digital era. In other words, formulas that guaranteed that artists and authors could have fair remuneration in the online use of their performances and works. From that viewpoint, the framework of the study should not just look at computers or databases. That could simply distract them from the questions they had before them, which seemed to be of concern to certain Delegations. Ultimately, if the debate that had taken place at the previous session of the Committee focused on the GRULAC proposal, the study should focus exclusively on the problems identified in that proposal. The Representative was attentive to the conclusions, which he hoped would be reached and presented at the following session of the Committee. He hoped that they would foster a debate that could no longer be delayed. Artists and authors needed solutions. They could not allow time wasting to take place. They needed equitable sharing of the economic benefits derived from the digital use of their interpretations and works. Lastly, Latin Artists was of the opinion that that question should be a standing independent item on the agenda of the Committee.
   

6. 
   The Representative of LCA echoed the statements made by the Delegations of El Salvador and the United States of America, that it would be very helpful to have the written conclusions of the experts in advance, so that they could react to them intelligently. He also agreed with the Delegation of the United States of America that the Committee should focus on copyright issues and not abstract market issues. If they started focusing on issues like the value gap, they also needed to consider the value of the free global distribution provided by Internet platforms to authors.
   

6. 
   The Representative of AADI noted that its organization had welcomed the discussion, since the first time GRULAC had brought its document forward. It was an informed document made available in December 2015 by the Delegation of Brazil. At that time and today, apart from a legal solution for each country, the document SCCR 31/4, had played a major role in placing the issue of performers' rights in a digital era on the agenda, and had made it possible to see the damage suffered by performers and artists. It had also made obvious who had caused that damage: major musical production companies. AADI had made that public and had fought for obligatory reflective remuneration for artists and performers. Presently, it was not the only one to have that stance. There was FILAIE, a Latin American company of artists and performers, which had stated at its annual meeting in October 2016, the importance of document SCCR/31/4, which proposed an analysis of copyright in the digital age. The document would make visible the various difficulties artists encountered and would also enable them to consolidate their work. On a daily basis, they could see how major corporations made huge profits at the expense of performers. Action was needed to prevent that and promote the position of performers in the digital era.
   

6. 
   The Representative of CIS stated that the study could initially focus on all the key actors along the value chain involved in content dissemination in the digital environment. Complementing the study of the legal environments, that would shed light on the national legal frameworks and provide evidence of transparency, or the lack thereof in the businesses involved. It would also demonstrate the extent of the low proportion of copyright payments to creators and their unfair treatment.
   

6. 
   The Representative of Elfidonnet stated that there had been very many proposals in the interest of libraries regarding, the management of copyright limitations and exceptions in the digital environment, digital exhaustion, licenses, territoriality, and the interpretation of the three-step test. He was very interested in the findings on the review of copyright laws for digital uses, which had been addressed at the start of the presentation. When data from the Crews study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives had been examined, it had been found that digital copying, even for reasons of preservation, had been expressly barred in over a third of the countries that had amended their copyright laws in the last five years. The Representative asked if the study would also consider examples of the problems experienced by the beneficiaries of certain exceptions, such as the library and archive community, when working in the digital environment, as had been presented to the Committee over the last number of years? That would help to further inform the discussion and the possible conclusions.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Chile clarified its last intervention, which had been cited by another Delegation. The Delegation stated that it was not necessarily proposing the creation of a new document of what had been presented. Its statement had been in response to the question regarding whether the delegations agreed to the work program or the three elements that had been presented to them. It was in line with what the Delegations of El Salvador and the United States of America had expressed in that regard. The Delegation would like to see that in written form before the question was passed to them.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Colombia informed the chair that the Delegation of Chile’s statement had been a request from GRULAC. GRULAC would like to receive in writing the report that had made during the session. It agreed that it was not possible to respond to the proposals and ideas shared because it was in a stage of reflection.
   

6. 
   The Chair reminded the Delegates that they had spent the morning session discussing Agenda Item 9, and the views on the GRULAC proposal on copyright issues relating to the digital environment. Responding to the suggestion, which had been made by GRULAC on the first day of current session, they would proceed with a quick update on the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, which would be presented by the Secretariat.
   

6. 
   The Secretariat stated that in terms of progress towards the Marrakesh Treaty implementation, first, it had looked at how many Member States had ratified the Treaty. Due to the crossborder transfer provisions, it was quite relevant with regards to implementation, that the parties trying to carry out the crossborder implementation had ratified or acceded to the Treaty. Presently there had been 27 ratifications and accessions to the Marrakesh Treaty, 13 of which had come from the GRULAC region. That region was in the lead in terms of helping to get the Treaty across the finish line and in to force. While the GRULAC region continued to be very active in supporting the Treaty, there was a good variety of geographic regions that had joined the Treaty as well. It had been good to see that there were more countries in Africa and Asia that were joining the Treaty. There were also instances where a legal step had been taken in a country towards ratification, for example, an approval by a Parliament, but the Secretariat had not yet received the instrument of ratification or accession. They were aware that a lot of countries had been working towards that. Regarding the work of the Secretariat, excluding the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC), which would be discussed by the Representative of the ABC, there were a variety of ways in which it had been assisting Member States who wanted to join the Treaty. First, they had carried out a series of promotional activities about the Treaty in each region. The only region remaining was the CACEEC region. It was hoped that promotional activities there would be carried out by the end of that year. The activities had been programs to train government officials involved in the ratification and accession process of the Treaty. In addition, there were a number of programs working with countries, in terms of joining all WIPO Treaties, and that included the Marrakesh Treaty. There had also been requests going beyond the Treaty implementation, to join the Treaty and figure out how to make it work. For example, how to make authorized entities work with each other across borders. There had been a successful program in ULAC, in the Latin American region, as well as a successful program in Capo Verde. The Secretariat anticipated doing more of that kind of programming in the future. That involved both the Copyright Law Division and the ABC project. It had also been tasked in the Treaty to establish an information access point. The Secretariat would send out a questionnaire to Member States quite soon, requesting information about the authorized entities and the contact points in the Member States. The questionnaire would be sent to countries that had already joined the Marrakesh Treaty. That was an ongoing project of updating that information. The project was being led by Paolo Lanteri in the Secretariat. It was expected that that site would be up and operational before the following meeting of the Marrakesh Assembly.
   

6. 
   The Representative of the ABC, Monica Halil, stated that the ABC had been launched during a session of the SCCR in June 2014. It was the successor to the previously named stakeholders’ platform. They were now approaching the ABC’s third anniversary. She provided a summary of its key achievements since 2014. The ABC acted as a complement to the Marrakesh Treaty, to implement the objectives of the Treaty at a practical level. Its aim was to increase and distribute the number of accessible format works, be it Braille, audio or large print, to persons who were print disabled around the world. It was one possible initiative amongst many about how the Marrakesh Treaty might be made operational. ABC was a public/private leadership led by WIPO. It was comprised of the following umbrella organizations; the World Blind Union, International Council of Education for People with Visual Impairment, The DAISY Consortium, International Association of Library Associations, Sightsavers, Perkin's School for the Blind, the International Publishers Association, the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organization and the International Author's Forum. One of the ABC’s key activities was capacity building, whereby training and technical assistance was provided to NGOs, commercial publishers and the ministries of education in developing countries. It provided funding once training and technical assistance in accessible book production had been provided. It also provided funding to produce educational materials in national languages in accessible forms in those countries. In 2014, it had not started any capacity building projects. Currently there were projects in Argentina, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. It was hoping to sign agreements for projects that month in Botswana, Uruguay and Vietnam. The projects in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Botswana were funded by the Government of Australia and hopefully the Government of Vietnam. One project was funded by the United Nations Foundation. The model being used in capacity building actives was to try to find a local champion in the country who then acted to promote accessibility within the country. In that manner, they had managed to produce, or will have produced 3600 accessible educational books in national languages by December 2017. All of the projects that were currently underway were run by a project manager who was blind. They also provided multistakeholder workshops, whereby training was provided not only to the local NGOs, but also to commercial publishers and the Ministry of Education. Another principal activity of ABC was to promote and implement the ABC Global Book Service, or what was previously called “the Tiger service”. The service was a free global online catalog of accessible books that had been contributed by libraries for the blind. That catalog was held at WIPO on its servers. The ABC Global Book Service provided an automated, readymade technical platform that was secure and had a wide selection of accessible books in various languages. It was a business to business platform that allowed participating libraries to supplement their collections of accessible books for free. But it was not a service that was provided directly to the visually impaired end user. When the ABC started in 2014 there had been 11 libraries for the blind. Currently there were 25 libraries that had joined the ABC global book service. Through the service the libraries had downloaded 7500 digital files in accessible forms. In 2014, 200 files had been downloaded. The increase in the number of works that had been downloaded was evident. If one estimated that accessible formatted works that were humanly narrated costed USD $2,000 to produce, it represented savings of USD $15 million. The libraries had reported that they had made loans of the books to 128,000 end users who were visually impaired. In summary, since the Member States had adopted the Marrakesh Treaty in June 2013 and ABC was launched, it was estimated that the ABC would have delivered benefits to approximately a quarter of a million people.
   

6. 
   The Chair closed Item 9 of the Agenda and moved on to the agenda item on the discussion of recommendations to the General Assembly. He noted that they were all aware that extensive discussions had been underway with regional coordinators on the outcome and shape of the recommendations. They were also aware of the discussions that had happened in that Forum. Time would have to be set aside for consultations within the respective groups. He inquired if there were Member States who wished to add or supplement what had already been said in the discussions with regional coordinators, regarding what the recommendations should be like. During the discussions, they had been trying very hard to see if the recommendations could go beyond a very simple recommendation to the General Assembly that, “the Committee should continue its work.” They had been discussing various elements of that.
   

6. 
   The Delegation of Turkey inquired if they would receive any text. It wished to receive the text as early as possible, so that it could base its discussion on that.
   

6. 
   The Chair noted that the text would be emailed to all regional coordinators.
   

6.