[A2k] SCCR/2 library statement

[Teresa Hackett (eIFL)]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am speaking on behalf of Electronic
Information for Libraries (eIFL) and the International Federation of
Library Associations (IFLA), representing libraries worldwide. As this
is the first time we take the floor, I would like to congratulate you
on your election as Vice-Chairperson of this Committee.

We support the General Comment of the distinguished delegation of
Canada, in their written submission, that it is debatable whether the
Treaty would in no instance affect public interest, access to
information and consumer interests. We believe that any new instrument
that affects access to content, de facto affects access to knowledge,
both copyright and public domain material. We think that it is helpful
at the outset to recognise this, so that appropriate safeguards may be
put in place to protect the public interest.

The Non-paper provides two possible mechanisms: public interest
clauses and limitations and exceptions.

Firstly, the Preamble contains references to General Principles,
cultural diversity and defence of competition. Because of the
importance of such public interest clauses to libraries, we support
Brazil?s call for their inclusion as operative articles in line with
the Revised Draft Basic Proposal (document SCCR/15/2).

Secondly, we recognise that the number of rights has been reduced. As
the Non-paper is nevertheless based on an exclusive rights model, we
believe that there is a need for an enumerated list of exceptions and
limitations for public interest purposes, including inter alia for
news reporting, people with disabilities, education and research,
libraries and archives.

Yesterday, the Chairman provided an example of a ?transmission to the
public? as the making available of content in a library, where the
content is stored on the library?s own server and where the terminals
in the library are accessible to the public. We understand this to
mean that TV or radio programmes could not be used on-site by patrons
in a library without a licence. Licensing is not a viable option
because of the large number of rights owners and corresponding rights
to clear in any single production e.g. authors, actors, producers and
so on. Without a specific exception, libraries would be placed in an
extremely difficult position. If the content were no longer
commercially available, as is commonly the case, researchers and
others would be deprived of valuable research material.

The provisions in Article 9 (Protection of Encryption and Rights
Management Information) give rise to a further fundamental and very
practical question. How can beneficiaries avail of exceptions when the
content is subject to a Technological Protection Measure and when the
TPM has legal protection? Libraries have already experienced how TPMs
in electronic books, databases and multimedia products, have curtailed
users? rights to avail themselves of statutory exceptions and
limitations. Computer specialists who are responsible for long-term
digital preservation in libraries, have expressed concern that even if
libraries get permission to circumvent TPMs, the fast development of
encryption technologies might soon make this impossible in practice.
We therefore support calls to delete Article 9.

We respectfully ask that Member States consider our suggestions, so
that libraries can continue to fulfil their role to collect, organise,
preserve and make available our cultural and scientific heritage in
order to facilitate creativity, education and economic growth. Thank
you for your attention.