Responses to the Draft Treaty for protection of Broadcast Organisations

Risk to public domain material, to fair use and of further control through TPMS are raised in this collated document containing the responses by international and not for profit groups to the Draft Broadcast Treaty. Two excerpts included here much more material available at:

STATEMENTS FROM INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

UNESCO: Impact on broadcasted public domain material:

"If this approach is followed, future States parties to the treaty will be under no obligation to grant legal anti-circumvention protection against acts of circumvention that a user undertakes with regard to public domain material, or to make use of imitations and exceptions with regard to a work that has been broadcast.

From the point of view of freedom of expression and access to information, the legal anti-circumvention protection for broadcasts should be synchronized with and to copyright policy regarding the contents broadcast, similarly to the case of exceptions and limitations (see p.3 above). In this regard, it must be made sure that the legal anti-circumvention protection for the broadcast as such can not be used in order to block access to, and use of, material included in the broadcast, in cases where the use of this material is not subject to the broadcasters’ authorization."

Joint statement from NGO's including EFF and CPTECH:

Assuming that signal theft is a pressing concern, the manner in which the Committee remedies that issue is equally important. One option is to prohibit intentional theft or misappropriation of original signals. Another option is to create a broad, 50-year long, sui generis intellectual property right in signals. This second option poses substantial risks, and should not be implemented without further study. New rights confer benefits, but they also impose costs on third parties. An empirical analysis of the net economic effect of such rights would broaden the debate of this distinguished committee on these subjects.

CCIA is willing to assist the Committee’s efforts. Absent empirical studies, however, the scope of signal theft and the costs of proposed solutions will remain unquantified. The scarcity of empirical data undermines efforts to enlist the broad range of stakeholders needed to successfully implement this treaty. Specifically, we recommend that the Committee analyze these questions:

(1) whether creating new intellectual property rights would inadvertently impose liability for infringing the right on innocent third parties such as Internet service providers and intermediaries, device manufacturers, and software developers;

(2) whether creating new intellectual property rights would inadvertently empower broadcasters to control and restrict the private use of signals within the digital home;

(3) whether protection for technological measures as proposed in Article 14 would inadvertently lead to government mandated technology or anticompetitive behavior.

To the extent it proves necessary, the treaty should not manufacture new rights, but instead:

(1) be limited to intentional theft or misappropriation of original signals;

(2) provide explicit limitations and exceptions to protect intermediaries and manufacturers;

(3) exclude mere retransmission within the home; and

(4) exclude any reference to technological protection measures.

Technological protection measures have created security risks, restrict lawful uses, and lend themselves to anti-competitive abuse. Having learned these lessons, CCIA considers it inadvisable to import or export statutory protection for technological measures in any international legal instrument without further study of the effect of such measures.

To proceed without resolving the concerns noted above could inadvertently burden innovation and communications. We remain at the disposal of the Committee in its continuing efforts.”


Same story from CNet http://news.com.com/Copyright+treaty+draws+tech+industry+criticism/2100-1028_3-6112532.html?tag=sas.email