The Return Of The Broadcast Treaty

from the zombie-that-never-dies dept

Thu, Jun 23rd 2011 10:08pm — Mike Masnick

Not this again. For the better part of a decade, broadcasters have made efforts to create a "broadcast treaty" which would grant broadcasters extra special rights above and beyond copyright. Under such a rule, a broadcaster who put on public domain material could then claim a "broadcast right" to the content and lock it up. It doesn't make any sense, and thankfully, every time it's been introduced it's ended up not getting approval. Honestly, I'd thought this was one issue that had finally died... but I should never underestimate those who seek greater intellectual property rights. Apparently, folks at WIPO are once again trying for a Broadcast Treaty. Thankfully, opposition is already organizing:

The advocates of a broadcasting treaty have not shown that there is an problem in the area of piracy that cannot be addressed by existing laws on copyright or theft of service. The treaty is in essence an attempt by corporate broadcasting entities to change outcomes of licensing negotiations, by giving the broadcasters a right that they would otherwise have to acquire by contract, in return for something they would give the copyright holders.

[....]

In its most aggressive formulations in terms of rights of casting entities, the treaty would provide up to 50 years or even perpetual exclusive rights in content for which the broadcaster did not create and does not own the copyright. This creates a thicket of permissions that makes it much more difficult to redistribute and reuse content.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadcast treaty, intellectual property, wipo

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

A Guy, 23 Jun 2011 @ 10:18pm

So, if I bought a license (i.e. mp3, cd, dvd) then streamed it, to myself perhaps, I could then claim ownership of that streamed content. With those ownership rights I could then authorize others to stream copies of said performance that I now own. I know a lot of file sharers that would jump on that deal in a second.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:00pm

It just illustrates the problem with the solutions, once again.

Every solution that the entertainment industry comes up with for the symptom that is "piracy" is more extreme laws and more extreme enforcement. These "solutions" will never eradicate "piracy" or make "pirates" want to pay money for over-priced digital commodities.

So-called "piracy" is the consumer and the Market telling the entertainment industry that their business models are not working. The fact that "piracy" thrives long after the death of Napster (and its zombie rebirth as an RIAA-sanctioned suck-fest of a "service") and multitudes of lawsuits against Catholic schoolgirls and dead people and threats of lost internet connections indicates that more and harsher laws and enforcement are not incentive enough to make Joe Twelve-Pack forgo his high fructose corn syrupy combo pack at McDonalds or his $5 Starbucks mocha frappucalories in order to spend too much on digital downloads that makes some music middleman and his lawyer happy in their pants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:00pm

Wow, that's one of the least intelligent things I've seen in a long time. And I watched The Darwin Awards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:26pm

Police State
Some segments of the copyright-using industries are never satisfied. They will not stop until they have imposed a police state on the rest of us, with the police state being directed for the benefit of copyright holders. We, the people, do not like living in a police state. There is altogether way too much police state already. Remember liberty? Remember the wars which have been fought to preserve liberty? Remember how it was the guys who wanted a police state who were the bad guys? That is why it says "Lest We Forget" on the memorials. Wander around and smell the history sometime.

In any case, government-granted monopoly privileges are a bad thing, regardless of the morality, from an economic viewpoint. It's the economy, stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 23 Jun 2011 @ 11:47pm

the more the people are pushed the more people push back. Have these idiots not realised they have now reached a point where they will be told to go away and multiply politely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 24 Jun 2011 @ 2:33am

That's what I fear from Google's book project:
'put on public domain material could then claim a "broadcast right" to the content and lock it up' -- Google is doing exactly that: re-publishing public domain books (and some /still/ in active copyright) material, which in future Google may claim to /own/, excused for now by making a big show of it being a public service. -- Catchphrase: Beware of geeks bearing gifts.

Never underestimate greed.
"...I should never underestimate those who seek greater intellectual property rights."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 24 Jun 2011 @ 5:07am

Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
"Google is doing exactly that: re-publishing public domain books (and some /still/ in active copyright) material, which in future Google may claim to /own/, excused for now by making a big show of it being a public service."

Google is doing what?

Are you saying that I can not freely use an item in the public domain simply because Google has scanned it?

Oh - I see, you mean after this stupid "treaty" is agreed to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 10:14am

Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
Google is doing exactly that: re-publishing public domain books (and some /still/ in active copyright) material, which in future Google may claim to /own/

Um. No. That's not what Google is doing. At all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 11:09am

i can solve "piracy"
all it would take is about 1200 lines of text in total somewhere around the size of a typical techdirt post.

The answer?

The president's book of nuclear codes..after all if every american city is a smoldering radioactive wasteland with bits and pieces of (law-abiding) citizens everywhere then no-one can pirate anything ever again!

The alternative of course (that hollywood has already begun to test out) is to make content of such appallingly low quality that no-one wants to "pirate" it even if you threw a box and label printer at them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 24 Jun 2011 @ 11:11am

which leads me to
The new law that urgently needs to be passed:

the "wasting your bandwidth" law...wherein anyone downloading anything thats basically a rehash of something released last year (or a gritty reboot) gets 15years hard labor cleaning out the cage they keep Glenn Beck inbetween shows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Benn, 25 Jun 2011 @ 6:06am

Content Rip off.
This sounds like a move that Vito Corleone (sp?) would pull. Who ARE these people, anyway? This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. They will not be happy until every time any song, cover art, snippet of a song, a fragment of the sheet music, a WORD of phrase from a lyric, poem, book, or short story is "made available" anywhere, at any time, for any duration, they get the amount of money THEY think is sufficient. Without regard to the CREATOR of the "art", or anything else but their "bottom line". I'm surprised they haven't submitted a patent for lungs, or the act of breathing. They need to be stopped, permanently. LEGALLY.

Thanks,
JB
==
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rhhardin, 25 Jun 2011 @ 6:59am

Everything you learned about intellectual property is wrong
Intellectual property (copyright, patent) are all corporate rent-seeking schemes, that is, using government power to wring more out of the market than you could get otherwise.

But also, interestingly, it does not increase creativity. Mostly it moves creativity into defending and obtaining patents and copyrights and away from pleasing the consumer.

See Michele Boldrin at econtalk.org on the topic
link.

Think about defeating intellectual property in general rather than this or that bad idea stemming from it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corky Boyd, 25 Jun 2011 @ 7:38am

What about Beethoven?
Does this mean CBS can obtain exclusive broadcast rights for Beethoven's 5th Symphony? If I buy a broadcast license for a low wattage inner city FM station I can lock in all of Bach's works?

Wow, what license to steal!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another guy, 25 Jun 2011 @ 8:04am

Re:
No you won't. It is about stuff that is not licensed. Like Public Domain.
Something where you would otherwise in no way be able to claim copyrights.
Not stuff that already is under a license
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 25 Jun 2011 @ 8:05am

Re:
This is just too "good" to not be abused!
If this goes through, I'd love to see a bunch of independent broadcasters, etc, start broadcasting EVERYTHING they can find (why not old shows by THE OTHER broadcasting companies?) and then license it freely to the entire world! :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 25 Jun 2011 @ 8:07am

Re: Re:
Hey, don't screw up our jokes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. W. Stravros, 25 Jun 2011 @ 11:48am

Copyright laws need major revamp
Here's how I see it. A broadcaster should have the right to a copyright on the material they broadcast, BUT if I capture the content from my living room, that is a completely intellectual property than theirs. Only I was able to create the experience that I saw. Yes, I probably own the original creator of the content some money, but not the broadcaster. I feel the same way about sports. Networks broadcast a game from their "sky box" and on field cameras. That's one experience. I have a different experience sitting in my seat at the even ... so I have a different "angle" and perspectve than they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vintage Lydia, 26 Jun 2011 @ 12:08am

Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
No, that's exactly what they're trying to do: claim exclusive rights to "orphan" works, aka, works who's copyright holders cannot bs found (it are indeed copyrighted) only because they scanned the work (without permission!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 26 Jun 2011 @ 12:46am

Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
That's not at all what the critique in here is about, and if that were an issue they wouldn't have missed it:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 26 Jun 2011 @ 12:46am

Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
That's not at all what the critique in here is about, and if that were an issue they wouldn't have missed it:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 26 Jun 2011 @ 12:47am

Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
That's not at all what the critique in here is about, and if that were an issue they wouldn't have missed it:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 26 Jun 2011 @ 12:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
Crap. Accidentally double posted. :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 26 Jun 2011 @ 12:53am

Re: Copyright laws need major revamp
This is how I see it: broadcasting something should give you NO new additional rights automatically out of the blue. Whatever you broadcast, they rights you get is the rights you are given by the copyright holder. If there are no copyright holder (public domain works), you can not get any exclusive rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Smith, 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:35am

This happened to a guy who shot the public released work that Anonymous used to make its Message To Scientology. Remember the cloud footage they put the computer voice over?

Well a Viacom owned station broadcasted a journalistic story about the Anonymous vs. Scientology fight. Then sent out DMCA Takedown Notices & Copyright Infringement Complaints to anyone who posted the video on their Youtube Accounts. They bitched about anyone who posted the video the time lapse video & the Anonymous Version. Since the broadcasted the video during a News story, they fought for their own imposed rights to any version of the video.

Their claim to copyright affected a few people, including the guy who originally shot, edited & uploaded the original time lapse cloud video. He had to fight with Youtube & Viacom over his rights to his own original work, which he published with a Creative Commons Copyright.

It finally got sorted out, but even without it being legal, they still fought for their imposed rights to the original work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Natanael L (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 12:57pm

Re:
That is so horribly that they should get banned from doing ANY business at all for at least a whole year to show them that they aren't allowed to act like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]