ACCEPTANCE OF BROADCAST, WEBCAST RIGHTS MAY BE GAINING GROUND
Although Webcasters are likely to be left out of an expected World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty extending copyright protection to broadcast electronic signals carrying radio and TV programs, support may be growing for their inclusion in some later protocol, we're told. As delegates to WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright & Related Rights (SCCR) prepare to meet Nov. 3-5 in Geneva, the issue of protecting Webcaster broadcast rights remains “so divisive” it could get in the way of a broadcast treaty, said Michael McEwen, secy. gen. of the North American Bcstrs. Assn. (NABA), which takes part in SCCR meetings as an observer. Some say that, despite the fact that the U.S. delegation is the only one openly calling for inclusion of Webcasters, there’s some indication others may be quietly moving in that direction.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Traditional broadcasters, who aren’t covered by WIPO’s recent copyright treaties, are desperate to protect their electronic signals from the kind of piracy that occurred when Canadian companies iCraveTV and JumpTV started taking signals from U.S. and Canadian stations and streaming them online (CD April 29/02 p2).
The need for such protection isn’t at issue. In its report following its June 23-27 meeting, SCCR said the “vast majority of delegations had taken the position that traditional broadcasting should be the core and substance of the protection in the new instrument.” Many also agreed that cable-originated (program-carrying) signals also should be within the treaty’s purview, the SCCR said. Delegates in June left open the question whether simultaneous streaming of signals and Internet-originated signal streaming should be included. The European Community proposed, and some delegations expressed interest in, including simultaneous streaming of broadcasts or cable transmissions in unchanged form, the SCCR said.
The U.S. proposal to include Webcasters in the treaty has been controversial. The committee report said “many delegations and nongovernmental organizations” opposed the idea, although some “took the opposite view.” There was consensus, the SCCR said, that Webcasting had become important economically and in other ways. However, it said, “The vast majority of delegations agreed that the issue of protection of Webcasting was important and deserved further examination, but felt that it should be dealt with separately from protection of traditional broadcasting.”
Despite the committee’s findings, some delegations may be willing to cover Webcasters via an addendum to the treaty, McEwen said. The treaty probably won’t be about Webcasters this time around, he said, but Webcaster protection could show up in a protocol WIPO member states could adopt or not as they saw fit. Broadcasters want the treaty, McEwen said. While NABA thinks Webcaster protection is an issue deserving of debate, it doesn’t want to see treaty negotiations stalled over it, he said.
The issue will continue to be controversial, RIAA Exec. Vp-International Neil Turkowitz said. However, he said, the more-complicated question goes to how protection of broadcast signals relates to the creators of the content being broadcast. In the U.S., performers don’t receive royalties for performances of sound recordings, Turkowitz said. Broadcasters want a treaty to ensure no one steals their signals while at the same time denying the right of performers to be paid for content of those signals, he said.
Other issues remain unresolved. The committee agreed in June to deal with the issue of database protection at its next meeting after Nov. However, Turkowitz said, there hadn’t been “any real engagement” on the issue yet. McEwen said NABA had raised a broadcast flag issue. Although it’s a technology issue, he said, its concept is rooted in signal ownership. It’s not part of anyone’s treaty proposal, he said, but NABA hopes that when the broadcast flag is subject to rulemaking by the FCC it will become part of the U.S. and Canadian treaty submissions. In its June report, the SCCR said the broadcast flag issue had been raised in a single reference by one delegation and that, “while no forecast could be made, it was an important and evolving issue and the committee would follow future developments.”
The committee hopes to complete discussion on a basic treaty proposal in Nov., and there’s talk of a diplomatic conference in 2005, several sources said.