| The
technology companies have signed a protest document against the treaty. The firms
say that they remain unconvinced that a treaty is necessary at all. "We note
with concern that treaty proponents have not clearly identified the particular
problems that the treaty would ostensibly solve, and we question whether there
are in fact significant problems that are not addressed adequately under existing
law. Further, we are concerned that the current treaty approach differs radically
from US legal traditions, and, if implemented, would require substantial and unnecessary
changes to current US law."
The parties say that if the treaty moves
forward in any form then the current rights-based approach of the treaty must
be abandoned. They argue that creating broad new intellectual property rights
in order to protect broadcast signals is misguided and unnecessary, and risks
serious unintended negative consequences. They recommend instead a signal protection-oriented
approach, ideally focussing narrowly and specifically on protecting signals from
intentional misappropriation or theft. The
protest is being co-ordinated by digital rights activist group the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF). Podcasters
and internet broadcasters claim that the treaty may give broadcasters a lot of
rights over internet content. The
new rights that the treaty seeks to give channels include an exclusive right of
retransmission for over-the-air television signals (retransmission involves capturing
a broadcast signal and rebroadcasting it without permission of the copyright holder
or the original broadcaster) and more than doubling the term of protection for
broadcasts to 50 years from the current 20-year term. EFF
has expressed concern that the proposed treaty will endanger consumers existing
rights, restrict the publics access to knowledge, stifle technological innovation,
preclude free and open source software, and limit competition in the next generation
of broadcast and Internet technologies. It believes that Congressional hearings
should be held in the US to address concerns. EFF
argues that before creating a brand new set of exclusive rights for broadcasters,
cablecasters, and netcasters, there should be a demonstrated need for such rights,
and a clear understanding of how they will impact the public, educators, existing
copyright holders, online communications, and new Internet technologies. Also
it says that Treaty proponents have not provided a clear statement of the particular
problem that justify the need for the new treaty, and why they are not able to
be addressed adequately under current treaties and law. EFF notes that while Treatys
ostensible goal is protection against broadcast signal theft, the treaty goes
far beyond that by creating broad new intellectual property rights over the recording
or fixation, and subsequent uses of, recorded programming content. Creating
a new layer of rights that apply on top of, and in addition to, copyright law,
would allow broadcasters to restrict access to public domain works and use of
information that would be lawful under copyright law. This will directly impact
all entities that rely on the balanced set of exceptions and limitations in national
copyright. A
Wipo statement regarding the treaty said: "Updating the IP rights of broadcasters
currently provided by the 1961 Rome Convention began at WIPO in 1997. A growing
signal piracy problem in many parts of the world, including piracy of digitised
pre-broadcast signals, has made this need more acute." |