[A2k] Public Knowledge statement on broadcast treaty

[Rashmi Rangnath]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Here is Public Knowledge's statement on the broadcast treaty;

Thank you Mr. Chairman,

Public Knowledge urges this Committee not to expend further time and
resources on the proposed Broadcast Treaty. A consensus on the objective,
specific scope and object of protection has eluded this committee despite 1=
0
years of negotiations. If the Committee decides to pursue a treaty, we urge
member states to pursue a signal based approach understood as an approach
that does not grant exclusive rights to broadcasters in the content of the
broadcast.



A treaty based on granting IP- style exclusive rights to broadcasters poses
several concerns for copyright owners, consumers, educational institutions,
follow-on creators, Internet Service Providers and device makers. Here are
just a few instances such harm. Broadcasters=92 exclusive rights in content
would conflict with copyright owners=92 exclusive right in content. The
exclusive right of reproduction would harm the home recording rights or the
right to make private copies that many national copyright laws grant to
their citizens. The right to authorize retransmission or deferred
retransmission would adversely affect the activities of libraries and
distance education. Granting broadcasters a new set of exclusive rights in
content would require follow-on creators, such as documentary film-makers,
to seek licenses from two sets of rights owners =96 the copyright owner and
the broadcaster - further complicating an already complex licensing
environment. If retransmission over the Internet were to be part of a
treaty, internet service providers could be held liable for their customers=
=92
infringement.



If, in addition to granting exclusive rights, the treaty were to require
member states to prevent circumvention of technological protection measures
and prohibit the marketing of devices that permit circumvention, any
limitations and exceptions that a possible treaty may craft would be
rendered useless. All of these provisions have been part of previous drafts
of the treaty and we urge member states not to pursue a treaty with similar
provisions.

Not only does an exclusive rights based treaty threaten severe harms, it
does not address the harm that the treaty is supposed to address =96 signal
theft. A signal based approach could focus on prevention of intentional
misappropriation and theft of signals.

Thank you Mr. Chairman

Rashmi Rangnath
Please note our new address

Public Knowledge
1818 N Street NW
Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20036
202 861 0020
rrangnath@publicknowledge.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~