Nations differ on global treaty to uphold broadcasters' rights

Efforts to arrive at a new global treaty for the protection of broadcasters’ rights at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) have suffered a major setback due to unbridgeable differences among key players such as the US, the EU, Japan, India, and several developing countries.

The treaty is meant to protect the broadcasters’ signals from unauthorised use. The programme content is already accorded IP protections.

Broadcasters have repeatedly argued that the huge investments they ploughed in setting up broadcasting stations are being undermined by piracy and the theft of signals.

Some developing countries are opposing saying there is no need to provide enhanced intellectual property protection to signal as it does not embody creativity or innovation.

Since a convention already exists on the protection of broadcasters signals — the 1961 Rome Convention — there is opposition to a new treaty to further strengthen the broadcasters right in the public interest.

A meeting of the WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) last week failed to agree how to advance the talks despite options proposed by chairman Jukka Liedes of Finland to move forward.

Talks on the ‘WIPO Treaty on Protection of Broadcasting Organisations’ began in 1998 to achieve “the objective to establish an international system of protection of broadcasting organisations without the rights of holders of copyright and related rights in works and other protected subject matter contained in broadcasts”.

Sharp differences over issues such as IP protection for webcasters as demanded by the US and simultaneous broadcasts (simulcasts) on the Internet by traditional broadcasters as pressed by the EU have delayed the talks with developing countries led by India expressing their opposition to both these areas.

Last year, the US chose to set aside its demand for protection of webcasters while the EU did the same with simulcasts on the Internet by traditional broadcasters. Members are also split on the question of limitations and exceptions as many developing countries feel that since monopoly privileges are accorded to broadcasters on a mandatory basis, there should be balancing limitations and exceptions on the same framework.

India and other developing countries have raised concern about technical protection measures that could conflict with the development aspects of broadcasts, by allowing distant rights holders to override national exceptions and limitations that reflect their respective national development policies.