— 17 — does not need to be made available through the physical transfer of a storage device incorporating the copy. The fact that it is conceded (correctly) that the appellant is civilly liable under section 26 necessarily undermines the argument that “copies” in section 118(1)(f) require physical delivery. E.4 47. International instruments and textbook views Mr Pun also seeks support for his argument from the treatment given to the circulation of copies in certain international treaties. The contracting parties to the WIPO Copyright Treaty11 agreed that the scope of the exclusive distribution right which they were prepared to recognize in favour of authors of copyright works should be limited to rights in relation to “fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects”.12 Hong Kong is not a party to the Treaty. But in any event, as Article 10(1) indicates, the Treaty represents an agreement as to minimum levels of copyright protection to be implemented.13 It does not by any means follow that the scope of the section 118(1)(f) offence should be similarly confined, if, as a matter of its proper construction, it provides more extensive protection. This is especially so where, as in the present case, the Court is not concerned with ascertaining the scope of a rightholder’s distribution right nor with conduct permissible after exhaustion of that right – which was the relevant focus of the Treaty – but with the unlicensed dissemination of multiple infringing copies via the internet. 11 World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, Geneva, 20 December, 1996. 12 WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996, Art 6, footnote 5: “Agreed statement concerning Articles 6 and 7: As used in these Articles, the expressions ‘copies’ and ‘original and copies,’ being subject to the right of distribution and the right of rental under the said Articles, refer exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects.” 13 Article 10(1): “Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.”