[A2k] Blog on Feb 19, 2007 EU Broadcasting Treaty consultation

Thu Mar 1 13:38:03 2007

My blog on the EU meeting
Michelle
http://www.cptech.org/blogs/wipocastingtreaty/2007/03/eu-commission-meeting=
-on-draft.html

EU Commission meeting on the draft Broadcasting Treaty
by Michelle Childs

European Commission consultation meeting on the proposed WIPO Broadcasting
Treaty =96 Brussels 19th February

I attended the above meeting which was the first time the Commission has
held a public meeting to discuss the Treaty. The focus of the meeting was
seeking to define what a signals based approach should mean and what
issues should be included /excluded. It was well attended with
representatives from the EBU, IFPI, MPA and ISPs. Civil society was
represented by BEUC, EFF and Cptech.

I took some quick notes at the meeting see here for further detail
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/mchilds_broadcast_treaty_eu.doc

The meeting was helpful as it gave all parties the opportunity to ask
questions and test arguments. It also gave an insight into the Commissions
thinking, though officials were keen to stress that their position was not
yet finalised and they were simply seeking to test =91working hypothesis=92=
.

Four key points emerged:

1) The Commission=92s =91working hypothesis=92 is that interception and
retransmission over the Internet is a key method of signal piracy. To
prevent such piracy post fixations rights seem to be necessary. The lack
of post fixation rights was seen as a weakness in the Consensus Coalition
approach (of which KEI/Cptech is a member.) The Commission officials did
acknowledged however, that broad post fixations rights raised issues about
TPMS and exception and limitations. The Commission is open to receipt of
further text from the Coalition on how this issue can be dealt with.

Link to copy of Consensus Coalition's statement at the meeting:
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/hart_intervention.doc

2) ISP liability. The Commission's position was that this is not an issue
as the protection granted is a limited communication right to the public.
Inclusions of reference to ISP liability in the draft Treaty is in any
event opposed by IFPI and MPA.

During debate on this issue, there was at times heated exchanges on what
the draft Treaty text meant when it referred to 'exclusive right to
authorise or prevent'. The Commission's interpretation was challenged on
the basis that the ordinary meaning of the wording appeared to give both
active ( right to authorise) and defensive ( right to prohibit) rights.
The Commission held to its view that the right was purely defensive in
nature with respect to the internet. They based this view on their
assertion that the wording in the Rome Convention ( on which the text was
based) covering rebroadcasting was entirely defensive, and that as a
consequence the provisions on retransmission protection for internet
retransmissions was also entirely defensive.

3) The Commission appeared to agree with the view that Broadcasters needed
their own 'right' irrespective of whether another remedy existed i.e the
copyright owner could sue. The basis for this was that some copyright
owners would not sue and the broadcasters needed to protect the
exclusivity they had paid for ( see my notes for more on this).

4) Broadcasters are still pushing for inclusion of protection for
simulcasting. Commission officials appeared persuaded that its an issue
that needs further consideration- broadcasters arguments make =91conceptual
sense ' ( see Tom Rivers presentation - link below)

Generally it was interesting to note during the discussions that the
Commission seemed to think that the main purpose of the Treaty was to
protect free to air public service broadcasters , despite the fact that
PayTVs and channel owners are covered in the terms of the draft Treaty.
When the issue of protection for channels was raised the Commission seemed
to be unaware that they too might be protected and did not appear that
keen on their inclusion. They said that they had never been approached
about this issue, and were uncertain that channels would be protected
under the laws of all EU Member States. It is an issue they will have to
review.

A further meeting prior to the June WIPO meeting was requested. Commission
officials appeared receptive but needed to check capacity.

Further reading:

The Commision provided a helpful powerpoint comparing the draft Treaty
text with the Community acquis. Only one right ( prebroadcast) is not
contained in some form in the acquis. EU
presentation>http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/broadcasting07.ppt

Statement by EFF:
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/EFF_EC_statement_021907.pdfhttp://www.cpte=
ch.org/ip/wipo/bt/EFF_position_jan07.pdf>

Presentation on behalf of Broadcasters by Tom Rivers.
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/rivers_commission_hearing.ppt>

> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/latest_docs.html
>
> February 19, 2007. European Commission consultation meeting on the
> proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty (Brussels).
>
> Please find:
>
> EU Commission presentation
> Michelle Childs (KEI) Notes
> Nick Ashton-Hart Statement
> EFF Statement
> EFF Position Paper
> Tom Rivers Presentation
>
> ************************************************************************
> ***
> Manon Anne Ress
> manon.ress@keionline.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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>

--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org

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

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