The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty (officially, the WIPO Treaty on the
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations) is a proposal within the World
Intellectual Property Organization to give broadcasters intellectual
property rights in their signals, in addition to the copyrights held by
the creators of the works.
Public Knowledge's Position
Public Knowledge opposes the treaty, as it
would create numerous conflicts with existing copyright law and policy
in the US, as well as creating an additional hurdle for any users of
broadcast content.
Not only does
the treaty grant a property right to broadcasters never before
recognized by US law, it also threatens the rights that both creators
and consumers have had in their uses of copyrighted works. The treaty
would give broadcasters the ability to prevent even copyright holders
from accessing and using broadcasts made of their own works.
Here are some of the major problems with the
rights-based treaty:
- No Demonstrated Need for the Treaty. Signal theft, the supposed reason for the treaty, can be
addressed by signing a treaty that simply prohibits intentional
misappropriation and theft of broadcasters' signals. Such a treaty would
be consistent with US law, unlike the treaty's current creation of a
property right never before recognized within domestic copyright law. Furthermore, the US broadcast industry is one
of the most robust in the world, belying the claim that broadcasters
need more exclusive rights.
- The Treaty is Inconsistent with US Law . The treaty
would upset the balance struck by existing US laws by imposing a property rights regime that was developed for a different
copyright system. If the
US delegation signs the broadcast treaty, they will have bound the US to
laws that elected lawmakers have rejected in the past.
- Rights of Copyright Owners will be Harmed. Broadcasters often do not own the content they distribute. The
television shows and movies that are broadcast are owned by those who
produce them - copyright owners. Today, in order to use a copyrighted
work, users only need permission from the copyright owner. Giving
broadcasters a 50-year exclusive right in the content they broadcast
would force users to acquire permission and/or licenses from
broadcasters in addition to copyright owners. This would seriously
diminish the rights of copyright owners.
- Consumers will Face New Liability for Legal Uses. While the treaty allows countries
to grant fair use rights to consumers, the default language of the
treaty would let broadcasters prohibit consumers from using broadcast
content, even if the uses were perfectly legal under copyright law.
Broadcasters could even claim a right in their broadcasts of works that
have already entered the public domain.
- Broadcasters Could Gain a Perpetual Right in Broadcasts. The treaty states that broadcasters would have a property right in a
broadcast for 50 years. However, the treaty does not specify whether
that 50-year term runs only from the first time a program is broadcast,
or any time the program is broadcast. This could
lead to the property right lasting indefinitely.
- Inclusion of Webcasting will Stifle the Flow of Information on the Internet. Under the proposed definition of webcasting, just about
anyone who streams video and audio over the Internet could be considered
a webcaster. Thus, this provision would be a recipe for litigation and
chaos, and would ultimately stifle the free flow of information on the
Internet.
- ISP Liability Will be Greatly Increased. The draft treaty provisions raise the possibility that intermediaries
such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engines will be
held liable for their customers' infringing acts.
- Mandatory Technological Protection Measures (TPM) Will Erode Consumer Rights. The draft treaty also contains a provision that requires governments
to protect technological protection measures (TPMs) incorporated into
broadcast signals. This will open the door to regulations like the
broadcast flag, in which government requires all consumer electronics
and computer devices to be compatible with the TPM.
What you can do to help
- Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
- Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
- Give policy makers a piece of your mind: act now .
For more information
stdClass Object
(
[nid] => 6129
[type] => issue
[language] =>
[uid] => 1
[status] => 1
[created] => 1318368340
[changed] => 1343145152
[comment] => 0
[promote] => 0
[moderate] => 0
[sticky] => 0
[tnid] => 0
[translate] => 0
[vid] => 6190
[revision_uid] => 3459
[title] => WIPO Broadcasting Treaty
[body] =>
The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty (officially, the WIPO Treaty on the
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations) is a proposal within the World
Intellectual Property Organization to give broadcasters intellectual
property rights in their signals, in addition to the copyrights held by
the creators of the works.
Public Knowledge's Position
Public Knowledge opposes the treaty, as it
would create numerous conflicts with existing copyright law and policy
in the US, as well as creating an additional hurdle for any users of
broadcast content.
Not only does
the treaty grant a property right to broadcasters never before
recognized by US law, it also threatens the rights that both creators
and consumers have had in their uses of copyrighted works. The treaty
would give broadcasters the ability to prevent even copyright holders
from accessing and using broadcasts made of their own works.
Here are some of the major problems with the
rights-based treaty:
- No Demonstrated Need for the Treaty. Signal theft, the supposed reason for the treaty, can be
addressed by signing a treaty that simply prohibits intentional
misappropriation and theft of broadcasters' signals. Such a treaty would
be consistent with US law, unlike the treaty's current creation of a
property right never before recognized within domestic copyright law. Furthermore, the US broadcast industry is one
of the most robust in the world, belying the claim that broadcasters
need more exclusive rights.
- The Treaty is Inconsistent with US Law . The treaty
would upset the balance struck by existing US laws by imposing a property rights regime that was developed for a different
copyright system. If the
US delegation signs the broadcast treaty, they will have bound the US to
laws that elected lawmakers have rejected in the past.
- Rights of Copyright Owners will be Harmed. Broadcasters often do not own the content they distribute. The
television shows and movies that are broadcast are owned by those who
produce them - copyright owners. Today, in order to use a copyrighted
work, users only need permission from the copyright owner. Giving
broadcasters a 50-year exclusive right in the content they broadcast
would force users to acquire permission and/or licenses from
broadcasters in addition to copyright owners. This would seriously
diminish the rights of copyright owners.
- Consumers will Face New Liability for Legal Uses. While the treaty allows countries
to grant fair use rights to consumers, the default language of the
treaty would let broadcasters prohibit consumers from using broadcast
content, even if the uses were perfectly legal under copyright law.
Broadcasters could even claim a right in their broadcasts of works that
have already entered the public domain.
- Broadcasters Could Gain a Perpetual Right in Broadcasts. The treaty states that broadcasters would have a property right in a
broadcast for 50 years. However, the treaty does not specify whether
that 50-year term runs only from the first time a program is broadcast,
or any time the program is broadcast. This could
lead to the property right lasting indefinitely.
- Inclusion of Webcasting will Stifle the Flow of Information on the Internet. Under the proposed definition of webcasting, just about
anyone who streams video and audio over the Internet could be considered
a webcaster. Thus, this provision would be a recipe for litigation and
chaos, and would ultimately stifle the free flow of information on the
Internet.
- ISP Liability Will be Greatly Increased. The draft treaty provisions raise the possibility that intermediaries
such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engines will be
held liable for their customers' infringing acts.
- Mandatory Technological Protection Measures (TPM) Will Erode Consumer Rights. The draft treaty also contains a provision that requires governments
to protect technological protection measures (TPMs) incorporated into
broadcast signals. This will open the door to regulations like the
broadcast flag, in which government requires all consumer electronics
and computer devices to be compatible with the TPM.
What you can do to help
- Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
- Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
- Give policy makers a piece of your mind: act now .
For more information
[log] =>
[revision_timestamp] => 1343145152
[format] => 7
[name] => admin
[picture] => files/pictures/picture-1.jpg
[data] => a:7:{s:15:"googleanalytics";a:1:{s:6:"custom";i:0;}s:7:"contact";i:0;s:14:"picture_delete";i:0;s:14:"picture_upload";s:0:"";s:13:"form_build_id";s:37:"form-7305fc15609b6291d5b44eb2e6d9475a";s:9:"nodewords";a:9:{s:8:"abstract";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:9:"canonical";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:9:"copyright";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:11:"description";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:8:"keywords";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:13:"revisit-after";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:1:"1";}s:6:"robots";a:2:{s:5:"value";a:6:{s:9:"noarchive";i:0;s:8:"nofollow";i:0;s:7:"noindex";i:0;s:5:"noodp";i:0;s:9:"nosnippet";i:0;s:6:"noydir";i:0;}s:11:"use_default";i:0;}s:8:"dc.title";a:1:{s:5:"value";s:0:"";}s:8:"location";a:2:{s:8:"latitude";s:0:"";s:9:"longitude";s:0:"";}}s:14:"wysiwyg_status";a:1:{i:7;i:7;}}
[path] => issues/wipo-broadcasting-treaty
[print_display] => 1
[print_display_comment] => 0
[print_display_urllist] => 1
[print_mail_display] => 1
[print_mail_display_comment] => 0
[print_mail_display_urllist] => 1
[print_pdf_display] => 1
[print_pdf_display_comment] => 0
[print_pdf_display_urllist] => 1
[last_comment_timestamp] => 1318368340
[last_comment_name] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[taxonomy] => Array
(
)
[files] => Array
(
)
[iids] => Array
(
)
[page_title] =>
[nodewords] => Array
(
[abstract] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[canonical] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[copyright] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.contributor] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.creator] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[dc.date] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[month] => 10
[day] => 11
[year] => 2011
)
)
[dc.title] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[description] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[keywords] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[location] => Array
(
[latitude] =>
[longitude] =>
)
[pics-label] => Array
(
[value] =>
)
[revisit-after] => Array
(
[value] => 1
)
[robots] => Array
(
[value] => Array
(
[noarchive] => 0
[nofollow] => 0
[noindex] => 0
[noodp] => 0
[nosnippet] => 0
[noydir] => 0
)
[use_default] => 0
)
)
[printing] => 1
[build_mode] => 5
[readmore] => 1
[content] => Array
(
[#content_extra_fields] => Array
(
[title] => Array
(
[label] => Title
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => -5
)
[body_field] => Array
(
[label] => Body
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 0
[view] => body
)
[revision_information] => Array
(
[label] => Revision information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[author] => Array
(
[label] => Authoring information
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 20
)
[options] => Array
(
[label] => Publishing options
[description] => Node module form.
[weight] => 25
)
[comment_settings] => Array
(
[label] => Comment settings
[description] => Comment module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[menu] => Array
(
[label] => Menu settings
[description] => Menu module form.
[weight] => -2
)
[taxonomy] => Array
(
[label] => Taxonomy
[description] => Taxonomy module form.
[weight] => -3
)
[path] => Array
(
[label] => Path settings
[description] => Path module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[attachments] => Array
(
[label] => File attachments
[description] => Upload module form.
[weight] => 30
[view] => files
)
[image_attach] => Array
(
[label] => Attached images
[description] => Image Attach module form.
[weight] => 0
)
[itunes] => Array
(
[label] => iTunes feed information
[description] => iTunes specific information.
[weight] => 0
)
[page_title] => Array
(
[label] => Page Title
[description] => Page Title form.
[weight] => -4
)
[path_redirect] => Array
(
[label] => URL redirects
[description] => Path redirect module listing
[weight] => 30
)
[print] => Array
(
[label] => Printer, e-mail and PDF versions
[description] => Print module form.
[weight] => 30
)
[xmlsitemap] => Array
(
[label] => XML sitemap
[description] => XML sitemap module form
[weight] => 30
)
[nodewords] => Array
(
[label] => Meta tags
[description] => Meta tags fieldset.
[weight] => 10
)
)
[#pre_render] => Array
(
[0] => content_alter_extra_weights
)
[body] => Array
(
[#weight] => 0
[#value] =>
The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty (officially, the WIPO Treaty on the
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations) is a proposal within the World
Intellectual Property Organization to give broadcasters intellectual
property rights in their signals, in addition to the copyrights held by
the creators of the works.
Public Knowledge's Position
Public Knowledge opposes the treaty, as it
would create numerous conflicts with existing copyright law and policy
in the US, as well as creating an additional hurdle for any users of
broadcast content.
Not only does
the treaty grant a property right to broadcasters never before
recognized by US law, it also threatens the rights that both creators
and consumers have had in their uses of copyrighted works. The treaty
would give broadcasters the ability to prevent even copyright holders
from accessing and using broadcasts made of their own works.
Here are some of the major problems with the
rights-based treaty:
- No Demonstrated Need for the Treaty. Signal theft, the supposed reason for the treaty, can be
addressed by signing a treaty that simply prohibits intentional
misappropriation and theft of broadcasters' signals. Such a treaty would
be consistent with US law, unlike the treaty's current creation of a
property right never before recognized within domestic copyright law. Furthermore, the US broadcast industry is one
of the most robust in the world, belying the claim that broadcasters
need more exclusive rights.
- The Treaty is Inconsistent with US Law . The treaty
would upset the balance struck by existing US laws by imposing a property rights regime that was developed for a different
copyright system. If the
US delegation signs the broadcast treaty, they will have bound the US to
laws that elected lawmakers have rejected in the past.
- Rights of Copyright Owners will be Harmed. Broadcasters often do not own the content they distribute. The
television shows and movies that are broadcast are owned by those who
produce them - copyright owners. Today, in order to use a copyrighted
work, users only need permission from the copyright owner. Giving
broadcasters a 50-year exclusive right in the content they broadcast
would force users to acquire permission and/or licenses from
broadcasters in addition to copyright owners. This would seriously
diminish the rights of copyright owners.
- Consumers will Face New Liability for Legal Uses. While the treaty allows countries
to grant fair use rights to consumers, the default language of the
treaty would let broadcasters prohibit consumers from using broadcast
content, even if the uses were perfectly legal under copyright law.
Broadcasters could even claim a right in their broadcasts of works that
have already entered the public domain.
- Broadcasters Could Gain a Perpetual Right in Broadcasts. The treaty states that broadcasters would have a property right in a
broadcast for 50 years. However, the treaty does not specify whether
that 50-year term runs only from the first time a program is broadcast,
or any time the program is broadcast. This could
lead to the property right lasting indefinitely.
- Inclusion of Webcasting will Stifle the Flow of Information on the Internet. Under the proposed definition of webcasting, just about
anyone who streams video and audio over the Internet could be considered
a webcaster. Thus, this provision would be a recipe for litigation and
chaos, and would ultimately stifle the free flow of information on the
Internet.
- ISP Liability Will be Greatly Increased. The draft treaty provisions raise the possibility that intermediaries
such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engines will be
held liable for their customers' infringing acts.
- Mandatory Technological Protection Measures (TPM) Will Erode Consumer Rights. The draft treaty also contains a provision that requires governments
to protect technological protection measures (TPMs) incorporated into
broadcast signals. This will open the door to regulations like the
broadcast flag, in which government requires all consumer electronics
and computer devices to be compatible with the TPM.
What you can do to help
- Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
- Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
- Give policy makers a piece of your mind: act now .
For more information
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#printed] => 1
)
[#title] =>
[#description] =>
[#children] =>
The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty (officially, the WIPO Treaty on the
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations) is a proposal within the World
Intellectual Property Organization to give broadcasters intellectual
property rights in their signals, in addition to the copyrights held by
the creators of the works.
Public Knowledge's Position
Public Knowledge opposes the treaty, as it
would create numerous conflicts with existing copyright law and policy
in the US, as well as creating an additional hurdle for any users of
broadcast content.
Not only does
the treaty grant a property right to broadcasters never before
recognized by US law, it also threatens the rights that both creators
and consumers have had in their uses of copyrighted works. The treaty
would give broadcasters the ability to prevent even copyright holders
from accessing and using broadcasts made of their own works.
Here are some of the major problems with the
rights-based treaty:
- No Demonstrated Need for the Treaty. Signal theft, the supposed reason for the treaty, can be
addressed by signing a treaty that simply prohibits intentional
misappropriation and theft of broadcasters' signals. Such a treaty would
be consistent with US law, unlike the treaty's current creation of a
property right never before recognized within domestic copyright law. Furthermore, the US broadcast industry is one
of the most robust in the world, belying the claim that broadcasters
need more exclusive rights.
- The Treaty is Inconsistent with US Law . The treaty
would upset the balance struck by existing US laws by imposing a property rights regime that was developed for a different
copyright system. If the
US delegation signs the broadcast treaty, they will have bound the US to
laws that elected lawmakers have rejected in the past.
- Rights of Copyright Owners will be Harmed. Broadcasters often do not own the content they distribute. The
television shows and movies that are broadcast are owned by those who
produce them - copyright owners. Today, in order to use a copyrighted
work, users only need permission from the copyright owner. Giving
broadcasters a 50-year exclusive right in the content they broadcast
would force users to acquire permission and/or licenses from
broadcasters in addition to copyright owners. This would seriously
diminish the rights of copyright owners.
- Consumers will Face New Liability for Legal Uses. While the treaty allows countries
to grant fair use rights to consumers, the default language of the
treaty would let broadcasters prohibit consumers from using broadcast
content, even if the uses were perfectly legal under copyright law.
Broadcasters could even claim a right in their broadcasts of works that
have already entered the public domain.
- Broadcasters Could Gain a Perpetual Right in Broadcasts. The treaty states that broadcasters would have a property right in a
broadcast for 50 years. However, the treaty does not specify whether
that 50-year term runs only from the first time a program is broadcast,
or any time the program is broadcast. This could
lead to the property right lasting indefinitely.
- Inclusion of Webcasting will Stifle the Flow of Information on the Internet. Under the proposed definition of webcasting, just about
anyone who streams video and audio over the Internet could be considered
a webcaster. Thus, this provision would be a recipe for litigation and
chaos, and would ultimately stifle the free flow of information on the
Internet.
- ISP Liability Will be Greatly Increased. The draft treaty provisions raise the possibility that intermediaries
such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engines will be
held liable for their customers' infringing acts.
- Mandatory Technological Protection Measures (TPM) Will Erode Consumer Rights. The draft treaty also contains a provision that requires governments
to protect technological protection measures (TPMs) incorporated into
broadcast signals. This will open the door to regulations like the
broadcast flag, in which government requires all consumer electronics
and computer devices to be compatible with the TPM.
What you can do to help
- Subscribe to our email list for updates on hot issues and events.
- Donate to Public Knowledge to help us keep our doors open.
- Give policy makers a piece of your mind: act now .
For more information
[#printed] => 1
)
)
