WIPO Draft Urges Opt-In Protection of Webcast Signals
Webcast signals could be protected on an opt-in basis under a draft treaty posted ahead of the May meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) standing committee on copyright & related rights (SCCR). The panel is trying to update a convention that protects broadcasters’ copyright in their transmission signals to account for new technologies such as cablecasting. U.S. webcasters -- with support from the EU and Japan -- want to include webcasting signals, which has sparked strong opposition from many other quarters. Publication of the draft text prompted one civil libertarian to ask how webcasting and other controversial provisions seem to have made the final cut, while more popular elements may have fallen by the wayside.
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!
SCCR delegates have been mulling 3 options for dealing with webcasting (CD Nov 25 p2). Under the first, the treaty would cover simulcasting and webcasting, but signatories wouldn’t be bound to apply those protections and could choose instead simply to protect simulcasting and traditional broadcasting signals. The 2nd option would let govts. exclude simulcasting and webcasting via a specific reservation to the treaty. Under the 3rd alternative, a protocol would be attached to the treaty subject to separate ratification.
As SCCR’s meeting ended last Nov., delegates asked the chairman to “clean up” the consolidated text for the May 1-5 pow wow. The chairman -- Jukka Liedes, dir.-culture & media div., Finland Ministry of Education & Culture -- produced 2 documents, a “draft basic proposal” and a “working paper.” The draft treaty has a non-mandatary appendix under which govts. would choose whether to extend broadcast protections to simulcasting and webcasting. The benefit of the appendix is “a high level of clarity,” Liedes wrote. Having separate provisions on webcasting protection “is a compromise, and an intermediate solution between the body of the treaty and a separate protocol,” Liedes said.
Among matters delegates asked Liedes to clarify is why webcasting needs protection. The draft preamble to the appendix: (1) Recognizes the principle of technological neutrality, and the need to give webcasting activities akin to broadcasting the same sort of protection. (2) Admits the “profound impact” information and communication technologies have had in increasing possibilities and opportunities for unauthorized use of webcasts within and beyond borders. (3) Distinguishes between protecting webcasts and protecting copyright owners’ rights in works transmitted via Internet.
Protection of webcasting under the treaty is subject to “an investment in the programming, namely assembling and scheduling, of the content,” Liedes said in his explanatory comments: “It becomes clear from these definitions how narrow and specific the area of protection is in respect of webcasting. Not [all transmissions] of content over the computer networks are protected. Only webcasting that in respect of all its qualities is comparable to traditional broadcasting.”
The treaty language still rankled one civil liberties group. “In a nutshell, the draft basic proposal can be understood as the repository of ‘winners’ proposals’ and the working paper can be understood as the graveyard of ‘alternative proposals’ to the draft,” Consumer Project on Technology Geneva Representative Thiru Balasubramaniam said on his blog. Webcasting, which has limited support, made it into an appendix to the treaty, while proposals with much greater backing landed in the “chaff” pile, he wrote. But he acknowledged Liedes’ statement that as yet there’s no accord on any element of the convention.
Balasubramaniam voiced concern about the process that distilled the consolidated treaty text into 2 documents. For instance, he asked why “'a new formula’ based on a proposal tabled by 3 WIPO member states was incorporated into ‘clean draft text’,” trumping a different proposal from more than 30 govts. He urged member countries and public interest nongovernmental bodies participating in the SCCR process to heed “the process of negotiations as well as the technical minutiae” to avoid a “disastrous treaty.”
The Digital Media Assn. wasn’t available for comment, and the SCCR didn’t return a request for comment.