[A2k] EFF Statement on proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty

[Gwen Hinze]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT WIPO BROADCASTING TREATY
SCCR FIRST SPECIAL SESSION, 17-19 January 2007

Mr. Chair, congratulations on your re-election and thank you for the
opportunity to speak.

I speak on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and its 13
000 members. EFF supports the joint statement of  41 civil society,
private sector and rightsholder representatives in support of an
alternative, signal protection-based instrument, which  is available
outside.  In light of the General Assembly's clear decision, EFF
remains concerned that both the current draft and the Chair's
non-papers are premised on creation of rights that apply after
fixation of signals, rather than the provision of measures against
signal theft. The inclusion of legally enforced technological
protection measures to enforce such broad rights raises fundamental
concerns for the public interest and innovation policy

In the current treaty draft, the combination of broadcaster and
cablecaster TPMs with the broad post-fixation and retransmission
rights would restrict the public's access to information in the
public domain, preclude uses of works permitted under national
copyright law's exceptions and limitations, impede freedom of speech
on the Internet and curtail consumers'  lawful use of programming
after reception in their home. It would also allow broadcasters and
cablecasters to control the market for transmission receving devices
such as digital video recorders and networked in-home entertainment
devices.

Unfortunately, the rephrased rights and protections and emphasis on
decryption  in the Chair's non-papers do not remove these significant
concerns, but only broadens them because paragraph (iii) on
Encryption is so broad that it may catch devices such as personal
computers. EFF continues to believe that the treaty should be focused
on signal theft - meaning intentional acts directed at unlawful
interception of broadcast and cablecast signals. Giving broadcasters
and cablecasters legal rights and protections and the right to use
technological measures of control  after a signal has been fixed and
stored on a consumer's device raises exactly the same concerns for
both consumers' ability to make legitimate uses of lawfully acquired
programming, and the future of technology innovation and competition
policy. Conferring such expansive technological rights has nothing to
do with signal theft properly understood, and would be a fundamental
shift in  current global technology regulation.

Such a far-reaching change to the current regulatory environment is
not required to address the issue of signal theft. These concerns,
and the protection of broadcasters' legitimate interests, could be
addressed by a treaty specifically focused on signal theft, rather
than creating broad retransmission and post-fixation rights under the
guise of protecting the very different concept of signal-based
"investment". For this reason, we respectfully recommend that Member
States carry out the General Assembly's mandate by continuing their
efforts to explore a signal theft-based approach during the two
Special Sessions of this Committee.

Thank you for your consideration.

Gwen Hinze
International Affairs Director
Email: gwen@eff.org


--
Gwen Hinze
International Affairs Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Email:gwen@eff.org
Tel.: + 1 415 436 9333 x110

Please support EFF - Working hard to protect your digital rights and
freedom of speech since 1990