Digital Rights Network

Statement Concerning The WIPO Broadcast Treaty Provided By Certain Information Technology, Consumer Electronics And Telecommunications Industry Representatives, Public Interest Organizations, And Performers' Representatives

Released: 2006-09-05

The undersigned represent a broad and diverse group, united in a common belief that the WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations, as currently drafted, would harm important economic and public policy interests. This Statement offers comments on several key aspects of the treaty.

On the 5th of September the USPTO held a roundtable discussion on the Broadcast Treaty (list of participants below). Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge has posted a summary.

List of Participants

Ben Ivins, Senior Associate General Counsel, Legal & Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Broadcasters
Bradley Silver, Counsel, Intellectual Property, Time Warner, Inc.
Chris Boam, Director, International Public Policy & Regulatory Affairs, Verizon Communications, Inc
Christopher Veith, General Counsel Office, Broadcasting Board of Governors

Manon Ress writes to the a2k list: In their answer to TACD re broadcasting treaty, the EC explains that the proposed treaty cannot depart from a previous treaty (Rome). This despite the fact that the US and many other countries have never signed!. Protection can only go up. Exceptions can only be narrow and optional.

QUOTE:
To that extent, the EU cannot agree with the TACD demands since it would not reflect the current level of protection that is already accorded to broadcasters in the Community copyright acquis and would have the effect of diluting that protection. Nor would it be feasible within the context of international negotiations for a new treaty updating the rights of broadcasting organisations in the intellectual property context under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisations to depart from the substantive norms of previous treaties [i.e. protection cannot go down]. This is what the Brazilian and Argentinean proposals envisage, namely the provision of mandatory rights for users. This would be contrary to all previous relevant Treaties in this area. The traditional approach in this area and the one which reflects EU law as well is to introduce optional exceptions for certain users such as the disabled or for teaching and research purposes. [emphasis added]
END OF QUOTE

what: WIPO Seminar on Broadcasting Treaty (sponsored by Broadcasters)
url: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2006/wipo_ma_2006_23.html
registration: http://www. wipo.int/copyright
when: 2006-06-21 (21st June)
where: Barcelona

From http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2006/wipo_ma_2006_23.html

BARCELONA SEMINAR TO DISCUSS BROADCASTING ISSUES

International experts, business leaders, academics, government delegates and policy makers will come together on June 21, 2006, in Barcelona, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Catalan Broadcasting Council and the Barcelona Bar Association, to examine current technical, economic and legal realities in the field of broadcasting and identify areas for development.

Here we are in Day 5 of the 14th SCCR (Standing Committee on Copyright and Releated Rights) meeting at WIPO which is entirely dedicated to discussing the broadcast treaty (Jamie Love has recently posted an article at the huffington post which provides good simple summary of the situation written in his typical combative and engaging style).

At present it doesn't look like NGOs will get a chance to speak as further discussion of webcasting (in addition to that on wednesday) ended up taking up much of the morning. Last night the committee worked late (until 2230) in an attempt to get through the remaining issues related to the core treaty (definition of terms, rights provided, national treatment, limitations and exceptions and TPMs).

Intel have released a statement opposing the Broadcast treaty containing the following position (the statement is reproduced below in full below):

Intel opposes the WIPO Broadcast Treaty. Proponents have not demonstrated that the benefits of creating new exclusive rights outweigh the burdens that these new rights impose.

...

Intel believes that efforts to enact the WIPO Broadcast Treaty should be abandoned. Alternatively, and less optimally, Intel believes that the scope of the treaty should be dramatically narrowed, to focus specifically on signal theft.

---------

DISCUSSION DRAFT: APRIL 10, 2006

STATEMENT OF INTEL CORPORATION CONCERNING THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION'S PROPOSED TREATY ON THE PROTECTION OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS

CONTACT: Jeff Lawrence, Director, Digital Home and Content Policy . Brad Biddle, Senior Attorney, Systems Technology Lab

BACKGROUND. The World Intellectual Property Organization is drafting a proposed "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations." For many countries (including the United States) the treaty, if adopted, will create an entirely new type of intellectual property right. Under the treaty, broadcasting organizations obtain new legal rights to control uses of content that they broadcast-rights that are separate from and in addition to any existing copyright rights in the content. Adopting countries can choose to extend these new rights to "webcast" content in addition to traditional broadcast content.

INTEL'S POSITION. Intel opposes the WIPO Broadcast Treaty. Proponents have not demonstrated that the benefits of creating new exclusive rights outweigh the burdens that these new rights impose. These burdens include:

Intervention of the Open Knowledge Foundation
WIPO SCCR 2005-11-23

In the interests of brevity Mr Chairman we will limit our comments. The Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) is a non-profit organization based in the United Kingdom, which is dedicated to promoting access to knowledge as well as an open approach to knowledge production and reuse.

Brazil earlier today mentioned a 3-step test for the public interest. We would like to point out Mr Chairman that such a test has already been put forward in the form of the recently released Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property. This was produced, after extensive consultation, by a drafting committee consisting of distinguished academics, artists, and Noble Laureates under the auspices of the Royal Society of Arts. Principle nine of the charter states:

Just back from the WIPO SCCR (Standing Committe on Copyright and Related Rigths) meeting. Full transcript on EFF site.

Interesting first day on limitations and exceptions. Had good presentations from Teresa Hacket on Learning with Libraries and Copyright Issues and Professor Julien Hofman of Commonwealth on Learning on Education, Copyright and Development. They both emphasized problems, particularly for distance learning with the current system. It was also great to see Creative Commons on the podium for the first time with a presentation by Mia Garlick as well as an excellent presentation by Mr Velterop of Springer on Open Access (unsurprisingly there were apparently complaints about this -- just talking about alternative licensing systems is undermining the sacred status of traditional copyright!).

Dramatic events marked the close the 12th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. The meeting was part of a continuing series dedicated to a proposed Broadcast Treaty (summary and analysis of the treay).

Debate over adoption of the Chair's (Jukka Liedes of Finland) conclusions stalled over the particular question of whether to have regional or interssessional meetings. This point may seem trivial but was in fact of crucial importance. This was because it was widely believed that regional meetings were the idea of the secratariat and a method by which they could force rapid adoption of the treaty in toto by undermining the strong interregional alliance centred on Brazil, India and Egypt who have been objecting to certain extreme IP provisions such as the presence of TPMs (Technological Protection Measures).