Civil liberties, consumer and library groups renewed their opposi...

on Copyright and Related Rights to cover only signal theft, but it continues to draw criticism from many sides. In draft conclusions circulated midday Thursday, committee Chairman Jukka Liedes acknowledged receipt of the first part of a report commissioned at the panel’s last meeting on the socioeconomic dimensions of the unauthorized use of signals. The committee “reaffirmed its willingness to continue its work on the protection of broadcasting organizations,” Liedes said. The panel directed WIPO’s secretariat to set up regional consultations on the goal, specific scope and object of protection of a draft treaty using a signal-based approach. But several groups said the effort is a waste of time. Agreement on the consultation subjects “has eluded this committee despite 10 years of negotiations,” Public Knowledge said. If the committee pursues the matter, it should ensure that the treaty doesn’t give broadcasters exclusive rights to the content of broadcasts, the group said. There’s no compelling reason for the treaty, said the International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries and the Library Copyright Alliance. Any new layer of rights affecting content worries librarians because it imposes another barrier to access to knowledge, they said. The current draft treaty isn’t limited to signal protection, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said. It gives broadcasters and cablecasters intellectual-property rights over the use of transmissions after fixation of signals, rather than providing measures against intentional theft of the signals, EFF said. And granting incumbent broadcasters and cablecasters rights over Internet retransmission is likely to make copyright clearance more complex and harm new forms of citizen broadcasting such as podcasting, at a time when the future of broadcasting is unclear, it said. Broadcasters have enough treaty protection, the Center for Internet and Society said. At any rate, it said, webcasting and netcasting should be kept out of the treaty -- even if the agreement remains restricted to “retransmission” of broadcasts -- because webcasting differs greatly from broadcasting, CIS said. With studies showing that about 10 percent of Web traffic is video-streaming, making webcasting the fastest growing online application, “a strong case has to be made to show that an international treaty is required to protect and promote webcasting, which has not been done.” Another agenda item is a proposal for a treaty to protect audiovisual performances. Liedes’ draft conclusions reaffirm the committee’s commitment to an agreement like this. They lay out a work plan that includes consultations early next year on remaining issues and consideration of a future diplomatic conference. The WIPO Public Performance Treaty gives audio performers a right to payment when their recordings are broadcast or played in public, but the right wasn’t extended to audiovisual performers, Knowledge Ecology International said. It urged the committee to correct the correct the disparity. The committee meeting ends Friday.