[A2k] Drew Clark on Casting treaty

[Manon Ress]

New column fron Drew Clark
http://www.drewclark.com/

http://www.wiredinwashington.com/20060918.htm

Wired in Washington=99
Up In The Air

By Drew Clark
September 18, 2006

Broadcasters have never lacked for political clout. Whether in the
United Sates or overseas, the companies that control the airwaves
generally seem to get their way with governments. The broadcasting
barons are on their way to another victory. Last week in Geneva, a
treaty that would grant new legal rights to U.S. broadcasters cleared
a major hurdle. Its next test is a plenary meeting of the World
Intellectual Property Organization beginning September 25. If all
goes as broadcasters expect, formal treaty negotiations will begin in
July.

WIPO has been working on this broadcaster protection treaty since
1998, and broadcasters all over the world say action is long overdue.
National Association of Broadcasters CEO David Rehr says he wants to
be able to stop Caribbean cable systems from taking the signals of
Florida broadcasters and retransmitting them on their networks. A new
international treaty is necessary, he says.

Whether dealing with medical drugs or digital downloads, WIPO has a
well-deserved reputation of pushing the interests of intellectual
property holders. So it is no surprise that a network of global non-
profits is outraged over another attempted expansion of intellectual
property rights.

What=92s different about broadcaster protection is that competing
players =96 telecommunications carriers, technology companies,
musicians, to name a few =96 don=92t want to protect broadcasters.
They=92ve made a belated push to derail the treaty. And that may have
tipped the scales of the U.S. government against it.

Each of these potential rivals is pushing its own mish-mash agenda.
That=92s why predicting a final outcome may be impossible. But it=92s
clear that this isn=92t your typical battle between big corporations
and public interest groups.

Take phone companies AT&T and Verizon Communications, for example. In
Washington, they are making a high-profile pitch for legislation that
would expedite their entry into the video business. They=92ve tried to
curry favor with broadcasters in an alliance against cable operators.

The telecom giants are also dead-set against =93Net neutrality,=94 or
rules that would bar discrimination between Internet content sites
like Google or Yahoo. The Bells resist being forced to act like the
common carriers that they used to be.

But in Geneva, telephone lobbyists from U.S. Telecom and wireless
association CTIA have rediscovered the joy of common carriage:
exemption from lawsuits when their Internet customers redistribute
copyrighted or broadcast content.

=93If you are AT&T, Verizon or a small rural telco out in the midwest,
you are going to be exposed to liability for a =91signal=92 that may or
may not have transited your network,=94 said a telecommunications
industry source, discussing the phone industry=92s opposition to the
treaty.

=93We are technically covered by the rights [created under the treaty],
but we oppose it,=94 said Verizon Associate General Counsel Sarah
Deutsch. =93It is an attempt by a flailing broadcast industry to
extract payment from the new people providing new services that our
customers expect and deserve.=94 Verizon may be fighting Google in
Washington, but it=92s perfectly happy to take its side in Geneva!

Alternatively, look at the recording industry, which has its own
dysfunctional relationship with U.S. radio broadcasters. Unlike movie
and television production houses, the NAB and the Recording Industry
Association of America have long been adversaries.

And it=92s simple to understand why. Radio broadcasters take recorded
music, play it on the air, but don=92t pay a penny to the record
labels. (They do pay royalties to songwriters through American
Society of Composers, Artists and Performers and other agencies.)

=93We are generally supportive of a treaty moving forward that would
allow the broadcasters to prevent the misappropriation of their
signals,=94 said Neil Turkewitz, RIAA=92s executive vice president for
international. =93But we have identified the irony of the broadcaster
seeking protection of the signal that they haven=92t even paid for.=94

The RIAA game plan is simple: if signed, the broadcaster protection
treaty would come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate. That=92s when
they=92ll push to change U.S. copyright law governing musical
performances.

And then there are webcasters, companies like Yahoo that stream
digital music over the Internet. They=92ve long argued against
liability for copyright infringement by third parties. But with a
broadcaster protection treaty is on the table, they want to be
included, too.

=93It is na=EFve for an international body to be spending years and years
talking about broadcasting, when broadcasting is yesterday=92s news,=94
says Jonathan Potter, executive director of the webcasters=92 Digital
Media Association. =93[WIPO] arguably is about protecting the future.=94

That=92s what the U.S. government believed, too. The U.S. delegation
was the strongest proponent of ensuring parity between broadcasters
and for webcasters. Almost no one else agreed: not other governments,
not public interest groups, and not the NAB. Last week=92s meeting at
WIPO stripped webcasting out of the treaty.

=93The U.S. does not believe that [the current treaty] provides a
proper basis for going to a diplomatic conference, and intervened to
say as much,=94 PTO spokeswoman Brigid Quinn said September 15. =93The
U.S. has always envisioned this treaty as one to provide the
necessary protections for broadcast signals in the digital age.=94 As a
result, she said, =93there is no consensus and alternatives on at least
half of the issues.=94


This column appeared on WiredinWashington.com on September 18, 2006.
"Wired in Washington"=99  is a column exploring the digital convergence
of broadcasting, satellite, cable, wireless, telecommunications and
technology. Author Drew Clark is a veteran technology and
communications journalist. He heads the Center for Public Integrity's
telecommunications and media project, "Well Connected."

************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607