[A2k] ars technica: Watching sausage get made: the WIPO broadcast treaty

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060913-7732.html


    *Watching sausage get made: the WIPO broadcast treaty*

9/13/2006 12:35:38 PM, by Nate Anderson <mailto:nate@arstechnica.com>

The controversial WIPO broadcast treaty
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060905-7667.html> continues to
move forward this week as delegates from around the world gather in
Geneva. Their goal is to whip the treaty into shape and convene a
Diplomatic Conference early next year at which the text can be ratified.
While it can be reassuring to see that ponderous international bodies
can in fact move quickly on important agreements, the current draft of
the treaty
<http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr15/sccr_15_2.pdf> (PDF)
still contains plenty of controversial material, and looks like it might
be presented to a Diplomatic Conference without the time needed to
consider a whole host of worldwide objections.

The treaty aims to harmonize the rights of broadcasters around the world
by protecting them from signal theft. Unfortunately, the treaty goes far
beyond this worthwhile goal and creates a new set of retransmission
rights, contains an optional (and especially controversial) appendix on
webcasting, and could be construed as preventing retransmission of
content over a home network. The current treaty also makes provision for
Technological Protection Measures, or DRM, which are unpopular with many.

Because the treaty will affect so many people, an astonishing array of
industry and advocacy groups
<http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/sccr_15/sccr_15_14.pdf> (PDF)
have weighed in with concerns and suggested changes. Expected groups
like the USTelecom [sic] Association are concerned about the scope of
the treaty, the liability that intermediary carriers (the telcos, for
instance) could face, and the webcasting provisions. But journalists are
concerned, too. The International Federation of Journalists believes
that "the scope of the future broadcasting Treaty should only extend to
the protection of the broadcasting signal," should not include
webcasters, and should not include TPM. While DRM can help protect
against piracy, it can "also conflict with exceptions for quotations and
reporting on current events."

The EFF sent an observer to the meeting, which ends today, and comments
from the first two days of activity
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004903.php> are not encouraging.
Despite the large disagreements but still remain, the chair=97a Finn named
Jukka Liedes=97has been pressing for a final set of recommendations. The
EFF observer comments, "In the Chair's mind though, it appears to be a
done deal. He finished by telling us all about the three week Diplomatic
Conferenc. It is a 'civil kind of battle of intellects'. 'Constructive
ambiguity' will be useful. 'The Diplomatic Conference engenders
friendship. Then many years later you see the people you have been
fighting with, and it is like meeting your family. You hug and kiss! In
the end there is a treaty adopted by consensus.'"

Well, maybe. On the other hand, if the people you have been fighting
with turn out to be responsible for crippling fair use rights and access
to public domain material, you'll probably feel like punching them in
the face, no matter how many years have gone by. Of course, this could
also describe many families, so perhaps Liedes is on to something.

The final text is slated to be hammered out at the next meeting in
November, after which it would be ready for ratification at the
Diplomatic Conference next year.