[A2k] Financial Times: Piracy collapses broadcasting treaty

[James Love]

The title of this story is misleading, and some of the text of the
story gives the reader the impression that the treaty opposition was
based upon provisions that dealt with theft of broadcasts.  There was
in fact broad support for measures that would have dealt with signal
piracy, even though there was no evidence that such problems cannot
be addressed under existing laws and treaties, including copyright
laws.  The fight was over the type of related rights that the EC and
Japan wanted in the treaty, and whether these related rights should
be extended to cable and satellite TV channels, or if they would
apply to broadcasts delivered over the Internet.    I was also
surprised to see the FT report that the US voice as absent, since my
own impression was that the US played an extremely important role in
the discussions, and rejected the overreaching proposals by the EC
and Japan on the issue of related rights, but also actively opposed
important proposals by developing countries on the limitations and
exceptions, cultural diversity and the defense of competition.

It would have been nice to see a story that said:  "Broadcasters take
hard line on treaty proposals, demand new IPR rights instead of
piracy only treaty.  US says treaty should not have  provisions on
access to knowledge, control of anticompetitive practices and
cultural diversity."

Jamie


On Jun 25, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Thiru Balasubramaniam wrote:

> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/71ed85da-225e-11dc-ac53-000b5df10621.html
>
> Piracy collapses broadcasting treaty
>
> By Frances Williams in Geneva
>
> Published: June 24 2007 17:21 | Last updated: June 24 2007 17:21
>
> A 10-year effort to negotiate an international treaty updating
> broadcasters=92 rights for the digital age has run aground, with little
> prospect of rescue in the foreseeable future.
>
> Member states of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, meeting
> in Geneva, decided at the end of last week not to set a date for
> concluding a pact after it became clear that governments were still
> hopelessly split on how much protection from piracy broadcasters
> should
> be given.
>
> =93There was no agreement on any of the fundamental issues of the
> treaty,=94 Paul Salmon, head of the US delegation, said.
>
> International rules to protect television broadcasts have not been
> updated since the 1961 Rome convention, drafted at a time when cable
> was in its infancy and the internet not even invented.
>
> Now that perfect digital copies of television programmes can be made
> and transmitted with a few mouse clicks, signal theft has become a big
> commercial headache for broadcasting organisations around the world.
>
> However, developing countries in Latin America and Asia, led by Brazil
> and India, have opposed the push by European and African governments
> for broad new rights that would protect television programmes from
> unauthorised retransmission for up to 50 years.
>
> Critics say the proposed new rights would overlay existing copyrights,
> restrict access to programme content that is now in the public domain,
> prevent legitimate private copying for personal use, and stifle
> technological innovation.
>
> The US voice, which could have proved influential, has been largely
> absent from the latest debate, as technology and communications
> companies such as Intel and Verizon have made clear their
> opposition to
> the stronger rights favoured by the majority of US broadcasters.
>
> European television companies, which already enjoy stronger protection
> at home than the Rome convention provides, say they may now give up on
> Wipo and see what they can get in bilateral and regional agreements.
>
> =93If Wipo is not the right forum for this issue to be addressed then
> broadcasters will need to raise [their] concerns at regional or
> bilateral level instead,=94 said Tom Rivers, external legal adviser to
> the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT).
>
> ---------------------------------
> Thiru Balasubramaniam
> Geneva Representative
> Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
> voice +41.22.791.6727
> fax +41.22.723.2988
> mobile +41 76 508 0997
> thiru@keionline.org
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>

----------------------------------------------
James Packard Love
Knowledge Ecology International
mailto:james.love@keionline.org
tel. +1.202.332.2670 / U.S. mobile+1.202.361.3040, Geneva mobile
+41.76.413.6584

"If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton"