SCCR 31: Interesting exchanges (USA, Chile and Brazil) on paragraph 4

Regarding:

(4) The provisions of this Treaty shall apply mutatis mutandis to the protection of
cablecasting organizations in respect of their cablecasts.

>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As your recollection goes of the discussion of cablecasting organizations over any number of sessions, you have pointed out some items that we were very much aware of as well. You mentioned the constitutional concerns and we have heard a number of times the different treatment in the regulatory environment, just most recently from the distinguished delegation of Brazil. I guess we also agree with Nigeria and the EU and Brazil that this is very much tied up with the issue of defining with broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations. Perhaps as food for further thought, and it's probably not beyond that, given these periodic expressions of concern, and given the structuring of the text, one idea that has occurred to us is to perhaps make the protection of cablecasting organizations under this treaty optional, leave it to Member States, Contracting Parties' discretion.
It's much too soon to think about if that idea were to gain traction, how such a provision might be structured, but just on a very quick kind of thought, one could imagine an optional provision that would contain within it its own tailored definition of cablecasting organization.
So you wouldn't arrive to that definition until you were in the article that treated this optional level of protection. Anyway, it's an early thought. But since we are on the topic, I thought I would mention it as an idea for further reflection.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

>> CHILE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you for your comment regarding the possibility that we are discussing here, to be able to include all the differences that exist amongst each other.
But I'd like to come back to comment on what was already said about these definitions, and that is that our system has different ways of processing this legally for the operators, and for the traditional broadcasters as well. And besides this, we are living with a very different related in our country because we don't have cable operator entities which carry out the activities envisaged in the definition. And which you have put forward in the definitions of cablecasting organizations and broadcasters. This is not an industry which is interested in a treaty of this sort. This is why we believe that the possibility of maintaining the alternative or including or not the cable operator for the time being is necessary. Thank you, sir.
>> CHAIR: Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate from Chile. Brazil.

>> BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor once again, and I'm sorry for taking the floor. Just very quickly, the issue requested some additional language and actually we have heard a very interesting proposal from the United States. I would say that the proposal regarding the possibility of allowing Member States discretion on the optional, in an optional level of protection, might be a good way forward, to give a comfort to delegations like Chile and Brazil and other delegations that have concerns regarding their national legislation.

to get the live transcript:
http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO
code: sccr31
webcast: http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/includes/newplayer/Player_EXT_roomN.html