[A2k] IP Justice Intervention Statement - Broadcast Treaty - SCCR Special 2

[Petra Buhr]

Dear all,

this morning in Geneva at WIPO starts with the NGOs - so here is our
statement.

All best,
Petra

    *IP Justice *


    *Intervention Statement:*

*Draft Proposal for a Broadcasting Treaty*

18 -22 June 2007 ~ WIPO SCCR 2^nd Special Session ~ Geneva


Thank you, Mrs. President and congratulations to your election. I speak
on behalf of IP Justice, an international civil liberties organization
that promotes balanced intellectual property law. Based in San
Francisco, IP Justice also maintains representatives in Switzerland, and
Italy.


After ten years of discussion even the very basic question of what the
purpose of such a treaty should be still seems to be unclear. Some
believe that an Update of broadcasters rights is needed. The question I
would like to elaborate in the next minutes is: Why?

One answer could be that broadcasting organizations are in need of an
Update because their signals are pirated (today especially by using
deferred transmissions over the Internet). The most used example for
this are sports broadcasts. But yesterday even the Chair clearly stated
that one hardly can find any sports broadcast that is not in some way
copyrighted. So broadcasters in this case already have all the means
against piracy which national and international copyright is providing
-- even against deferred transmission over the Internet. The same is
true in all cases where broadcasters are the producers of the content
they are broadcasting and in all other cases where someone else has the
copyright in the content.

 From this perspective it seems that to solve the problem of piracy *no
Update *but the *Enforcement *of rights is needed -- which by no means
can be solved by a new treaty. Being this so piracy can't be the answer
why we need such a new treaty.

The explanatory comment on the new non-paper seems to give another
answer by stressing the need of new rights for broadcasters. There it
can be read that representatives of broadcasting organizations have
stated that "if the Treaty is not based on some elementary and
absolutely necessary rights, the process should be abandoned."

What are these elementary and absolutely necessary rights? In the
explanatory comment this clearly means a minimum of intellectual
property like rights. But this necessity seems to be recognized only in
one half of the member states -- namely those who have signed the Rome
Convention. In all other countries -- and it's not one or two countries
but nearly half of the countries of the world -- broadcast industries
are prospering and expanding without these "elementary" and "absolutely
necessary" rights. And they sometimes are even more successful than in
those parts of the world where copyright-like rights are granted to them.

So it seems no direct need for such rights is given which leaves to all
of us the question if we *want *to give broadcasters new rights. Looking
at a prospering industry on the one hand and the negative effects many
proposals of the draft non-papers and proposals will have on societies
as IP Justice and many others have elaborated over the last years our
answer is a clear "no".

In our view the only way to solve the anticipated problems and to
complain with the General Assemblies mandate is a draft-treaty which is
narrowed down to a real signal-theft approach meaning that no exclusive
rights are granted therein. Reading on the other hand that broadcasters
do not want an instrument without exclusive rights and seeing on the
other hand no need for such rights I have one last question to you:

Wouldn't it perhaps be better to have no treaty at all?

IP Justice welcomes the opportunity to further discuss these questions
and views as well as those of Member States at any time.

Thank you, Mrs. Chairman.

--
Petra Buhr
Global Policy Fellow
IP Justice

www.ipjustice.org
petra@ipjustice.org
Tel: + 49 (0)177 876 0 765