WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
WIPO Treaty on the Protection of
Broadcasting Organizations
Margaret Mikyung Lee
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Summary
Because existing international agreements relevant to broadcasting protections do
not cover advancements in broadcasting technology that were not envisioned when they
were concluded, in 1998 the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
(SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) decided to negotiate
and draft a new treaty that would extend protection to new methods of broadcasting, but
has yet to achieve consensus on a text. In recent years, a growing signal piracy problem
has increased the urgency of concluding a new treaty, resulting in a decision to restrict
the focus to signal-based protections for traditional broadcasting organizations and
cablecasting. Consideration of controversial issues of webcasting (advocated by the
United States) and simulcasting protections are postponed. However, much work
remains to achieve a final proposed text as the basis for formal negotiations to conclude
a treaty. Despite a concerted effort to conclude a treaty in 2007, in June 2007 the SCCR
decided that more time and work were needed. A concluded treaty would not take effect
for the United States unless Congress enacts implementing legislation and the United
States ratifies the treaty with the advice and consent of the Senate. Noting that the
United States is not a party to the 1961 Rome Convention, various stakeholders have
argued that a new broadcasting treaty is not needed, that any new treaty should not
inhibit technological innovation or consumer use, and that Congress should exercise
greater oversight over U.S. participation in the negotiations.
As part of WIPO’s Digital Agenda, a WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting
Organizations is envisioned to adapt broadcasters’ rights to the digital era. Broadcasting
industry advocates of the need for this treaty observe that existing relevant international
agreements1 do not offer sufficient protection because advances in broadcasting
technology and the parallel evolution of the industry are not covered by the terms of
1 Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting
Organizations (Rome Convention), the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of
the World Trade Organization (WTO TRIPS) and the Brussels Convention Relating to the
Distribution of Program-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (Brussels Convention).
existing agreements. These proponents note that the primary agreement covering
broadcasting and cablecasting rights, the Rome Convention, was concluded in 1961 and
predates home audio and video recording, telecommunications satellite systems and
consumer satellite dishes, digital technology, wireless networks, and the ability of
consumers to receive broadcasts via computer or mobile telephone. Accordingly,
proponents assert the Convention does not adequately protect these new modes of
broadcasting.
The proposed new broadcasting treaty would grant broadcasting and cablecasting
organizations protection of their program transmissions for a fixed term of years, enabling
them to prohibit copying and redistribution of transmissions without authorization, which
could be enforced through technological means of preventing circumvention of encrypted
transmissions and the like. Such protections would be distinct from the copyright of the
creators of the content for program transmissions. However, opponents of the treaty
respond that it is not necessary, noting that the development of the broadcasting industry
in the United States has not been hurt by the fact that it is not even a party to the Rome
Convention.
From its first session in November 1998, the SCCR decided to pursue in earnest
discussions and submissions concerning the text of a new broadcasting treaty. Since
2004, the SCCR has been pushing for a diplomatic conference for final negotiations and
adoption of a treaty; however, after nine years and 15 sessions plus two special sessions
of preliminary negotiations, no consensus has been reached on a text adequate for a
diplomatic conference. At its May 2006 meeting, the SCCR decided to drop webcasting
(transmitting over the Internet) and simulcasting (transmitting simultaneously via
traditional broadcasting over the air and on the Internet) from the scope of the treaty,
placing them into a separate, parallel negotiating track. The United States was almost the
sole proponent of including webcasting in the treaty and had tried to bolster support for
it by linking it to simulcasting, which the European Union advocated. The SCCR hoped
to increase the likelihood of successfully concluding the treaty by dropping these highly
controversial issues.
At its fall 2006 meeting, the WIPO General Assembly tentatively agreed to convene
a diplomatic conference in November/December 2007 to conclude a treaty for the
protection of only traditional broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations,
contingent on the SCCR’s successfully tabling a consensus proposed text. To that end,
the SCCR held two special sessions, in January and June 2007, to “aim to agree and
finalize, on a signal-based approach, the objectives, specific scope and object of
protection.”2 The emphasis on a signal-based approach was an attempt to narrow the
focus of the treaty to signal theft and piracy in order to allay concerns that a new layer of
intellectual property rights in the content of broadcasts would, in effect, extend protection
beyond the expiration of copyrights for each broadcast transmission and keep or remove
content from the public domain. At the conclusion of the second special session, it
became apparent that the conclusion of a treaty by the end of 2007 would not be feasible,
given the significant differences that yet remained among the positions of various parties.
No further steps have been taken to organize a diplomatic conference, although the treaty
remains on the agenda of the SCCR.
2 Report, WIPO Doc. WO/GA/33/10 (October 3, 2006).
The Revised Draft Basic Proposal (WIPO Doc. SCCR/15/2/Rev.) and a “non-paper”
prepared by the SCCR Chair in April 2007 provided the basis for negotiations at the
second special session, and apparently remain the current working text.3 The Revised
Draft Basic Proposal was considered inadequate to support a successful diplomatic
conference because it essentially incorporated every major alternative text for those
articles where major differences remain among the WIPO parties. For example, there are
two alternatives for Article 18, one providing that the term of protection shall be 50 years,
the other, that the term shall be 20 years. The protections available under the Rome
Convention have a term of 20 years and the longer 50-year term proposed for the new
treaty has been controversial. Furthermore, this text does not define a “signal,” although
the Chairman of the SCCR floated a proposed definition of “signal” in an informal “non-
paper” at the first special session in January 2007.4 Article 2 in the April 2007 non-paper
does not define “signal” but does define “broadcast” in terms of signals. There appears
to be uncertainty and disagreement among the negotiating parties as to precisely what a
“signal-based” approach means for the narrowed focus of a new treaty. Consequently,
some parties suggest that a “signal-based” approach, mandated by the WIPO General
Assembly, may still encompass certain elements of exclusive rights including the right
to prohibit certain uses of a broadcast, which remains a major point of contention. These
two examples are indicative of the lack of consensus affecting most of the provisions of
the Revised Draft Basic Proposal. Therefore, it may be useful to consider some of the
major points of contention for the treaty.
The principles expressed in various stakeholder statements are fairly representative
of common objections raised by treaty opponents and also of some of the concerns or
positions expressed by various WIPO country-parties during negotiations. A joint
statement distributed by 41 corporations, industry associations, and non-governmental
organizations at the first special session of the SCCR advocated several guidelines for a
treaty text, while not conceding their position that a treaty is not necessary at all. This
statement is similar to earlier statements issued by many of the same stakeholders at the
September 2006 meeting of the WIPO General Assembly and to positions expressed at
stakeholder roundtables held by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in
September 2006 and January 2007.5 The stakeholders issuing the statements comprise
a range of organizations representing Internet service providers, computer technology
companies, libraries and information professionals, content creators/owners, and
consumer groups.
First, the stakeholders assert there is no need for a treaty: “The United States has a
flourishing and well-capitalized broadcasting and cablecasting sector, notwithstanding its
3 Despite the reference to a further revision of WIPO Doc. SCCR/15/2 (July 31, 2006), available
at [http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_15/sccr_15_2.pdf] (last visited January 25,
2008), there does not appear to be a published text of this. The April 2007 non-paper is available
at [http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_s2/sccr_s2_paper1.pdf] (last visited January
4 Text reprinted at [http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=508&res=1024&print=0] (last
visited January 25, 2008). “Signal” would be defined as “an electronically-generated carrier
capable of transmitting programmes.”
5 Links to these statements are accessible via [http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/]
(last visited January 25, 2008).
decision not to accede to the [Rome Convention]. We see no necessity for the creation
of new rights to stimulate economic activity in this area. [Longstanding negotiations do
not] justify the creation of rights that would be exceedingly novel in U.S. law and that are
likely to harm consumers’ existing rights, and stifle technology innovation.”6 Before the
creation of such rights, the stakeholders maintain that “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.”7
Second, according to the stakeholders, the treaty should not be “rights-based,” that
is, grant exclusive rights in broadcasts similar to copyright. Rather, it should be, in their
view, “signal-based,” meaning that the prevention of theft or piracy of pre-broadcast
signals should be the focus of the treaty. Third, stakeholders assert that the treaty should
not be negotiated with reference to whether it detracts or departs from the Rome
Convention, although the signers of the statement believe that strong signal protections
are consistent with the Rome Convention. The European Union in particular has
advocated that a new treaty should comply with the Rome Convention. However, some
stakeholders observed8 that the narrowed treaty focus on a signal-based approach is more
akin to the Brussels Convention.9 Fourth, to the extent the treaty permits rights beyond
protection against signal theft/piracy, the stakeholders claim that mandatory limitations
and exceptions similar to those under copyright laws should be included in the treaty to
ensure that the treaty does not prohibit uses of broadcast content that are lawful under
copyright law. The treaty should also, in their view, permit additional limitations and
exceptions appropriate in a digital network environment.
Fifth, the stakeholders contend that the treaty should exclude coverage of fixations,
transmissions or retransmissions over a home network or personal network. Concerns
have been raised that because the Revised Draft Basic Proposal envisions protections for
technological protections measures (TPM) and digital rights management schemes
(DRM), the beneficiary broadcasting organizations would have the ability to control
signals in a home or personal network environment. Stakeholders allege that this would
inhibit such networking services and related technology innovations. Sixth, despite the
removal of webcasting and simulcasting from the scope of the treaty, the phrase “by any
means” in various articles of the Revised Draft Basic Proposal would, in the stakeholders’
6 Statement of Electronic Frontier Foundation to USPTO Roundtable on Proposed WIPO
Broadcasting Treaty, September 5, 2006, [http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/EFF_
uspto_090506.pdf] (last visited January 25, 2008).
7 Id.
8 William New, WIPO Negotiators Try to Bear Down on Broadcasting Treaty, Intellectual
Property Watch (January 18, 2007), available at [http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=
9 The Convention provides for the obligation of each contracting State to take adequate measures
to prevent the unauthorized distribution on or from its territory of any program-carrying signal
transmitted by satellite. The distribution is unauthorized if it has not been authorized by the
organization — typically a broadcasting organization — that has decided what the program
consists of. The obligation applies to organizations that are nationals of a Convention party.
However, the Convention provisions are not applicable where the distribution of signals is made
from a direct broadcasting satellite.
view, include control over Internet retransmissions of broadcasts and cablecasts. Finally,
to the extent that Internet transmissions may be included in the scope of the treaty,
stakeholders advocate that it should ensure that intermediate network service providers
are not subject to liability for alleged infringement of rights or violations of prohibitions
due to actions in the normal course of business or actions of customers.
The South Centre, an intergovernmental organization of developing countries, issued
a research paper on the broadcast treaty in January 2007, which expressed some of the
same concerns with regard to the benefits that the treaty would have for developing
countries, as well as additional concerns.10 Recommendations similar to those discussed
above include that the negotiators: (1) consider maintaining that the rationale and scope
of application of the new instrument be limited to signal protection; (2) do not accept the
inclusion of any exclusive rights, or at the least, that such rights do not extend beyond
those incorporated in the Rome Convention, unless clear evidence is found for the need
to grant such rights and mechanisms to address the potential harms they may cause are
developed; and (3) ensure that appropriate safeguards to pursue public policy objectives
and limitations and exceptions are included in the text. Additionally, the South Centre
recommends that the negotiators: (1) refrain from expanding protection to include
delivery via computer networks as well as any reference to webcasting (which is at odds
with the position of the United States and webcasting advocates); (2) provide for special
treatment to public service broadcasting and/or discrimination between commercial and
non-commercial broadcasting; (3) limit the maximum term of protection to 20 years, if
exclusive rights are required for signal protection, rather than the 50 years in the Revised
Draft Basic Proposal; and (4) do not include obligations concerning the protection of
TPMs and DRM schemes, or at least consider including limitations and exceptions as
minimum standards to these obligations to ensure they do not impede access to content.
As noted above, the United States has been the primary advocate for extending
protections to webcasting, whether in a new broadcasting treaty or in a separate agreement
or protocol. In a statement submitted to the SCCR, the United States clarified that it
“never intended that protection be afforded to the ordinary use of the Internet or World
Wide Web, such as through e-mail, blogs, websites and the like. We intended only to
cover programming and signals which are like traditional broadcasting and cablecasting,
i.e. simultaneous transmission of scheduled programming for reception by the public.”11
In the statement, the United States sought to replace the term “webcasting” with
“netcasting” and clarified that “netcasting” was limited to transmissions over computer
networks carrying programs consisting of audio, visual or audio-visual content or
representations thereof which are of the type that can be, but are not necessarily, carried
by the program carrying signal of a broadcast or cablecast, and which are delivered to the
public in a format similar to broadcasting or cablecasting. It decided that “webcasting”
“unnecessarily implied that ordinary activity on the World Wide Web would be covered
10 Viviana Munoz Tellez and Andrew Chege Waitara, South Centre Research Paper 9, The
Proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations: Are New Rights
Warranted and Will Developing Countries Benefit? (January 2007), available at
[http://www.southcentre.org/publications/researchpapers/ResearchPapers9.pdf] (last visited
January 25, 2008).
11 Submission of the United States of America to the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and
Related Rights, WIPO Doc. SCCR/15/INF/2 (August 22, 2006).
by the definition.” The United States affirmed its advocacy of extending the same
protections to “netcasting” as were and would be extended to traditional broadcasting and
cablecasting, but asserted that such protections would only be whatever was necessary to
prevent signal theft/piracy.
Assuming that the treaty is eventually successfully concluded and that the United
States is a signatory, any such treaty would not take effect for the United States unless and
until the treaty was ratified by the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate,
and Congress enacted implementing legislation. Furthermore, if the final text of the treaty
adopted by WIPO includes Alternative AAA to Article 27 of the Revised Draft Basic
Proposal, a party to the new broadcast treaty would be required to become a party to the
Rome Convention first, which would mean that the United States would also have to
consider ratification of that Convention, to which it is not currently a party.12
Implementing legislation would likely be necessary to establish new protections or amend
existing ones in broadcasting laws and perhaps copyright laws. Currently, 47 USC §§ 325
and 605 and 18 USC §§ 2510-2512 provide for broadcasting protections and title 17 of
the U.S. Code contains the copyright laws. Additionally, webcasting/netcasting and
simulcasting may be included in a separate agreement or as a protocol to a new
broadcasting treaty, unless they are reconsidered for inclusion in the new broadcast treaty
itself.
Certain stakeholders, either opposed to the treaty or concerned about the inclusion
of certain protections, have called on Congress to hold hearings on the treaty to determine
whether a new treaty is necessary or at least to exercise greater oversight over the U.S.
delegation’s positions on the treaty.13 They had also urged that the U.S. Copyright Office
and the USPTO solicit public commentary, which those agencies did through the
aforementioned roundtables. These stakeholders are concerned that without public input,
major changes in U.S. telecommunications and copyright laws will be effected via
implementation of a new broadcast treaty without a full opportunity for domestic debate.14
Partly in response to the objections raised by stakeholders in the information and
communications technology industries, the United States reportedly sought to ensure that
a diplomatic conference would not proceed if special sessions failed to resolve the major
disagreements.15 Furthermore, the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed concerns about
the Treaty to the Copyright Office and USPTO, urging advocacy of a narrow, signal-theft
based approach, and opposing a new layer of exclusive rights.16
12 It was also not a signatory when the Convention was concluded, so it would appear that
Congress has never previously considered the Convention.
13 Examples of such letters are available via [http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/]
(last visited January 25, 2008).
14 IT, Consumer Groups Question Need for New Broadcasters’ Treaty, 20 World Intellectual
Property Report (BNA, October 2006).
15 William New, Agreement Reached on WIPO Development Agenda, Patents; No Broadcasting
Yet, Intellectual Property Watch (September 30, 2006), available at [http://www.ip-
watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=410&res=1024&print=0] (last visited January 25, 2008).
16 Letter dated March 1, 2007, available at [http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/broadcasting_treaty
/letter_leahy_specter_pto.pdf] (last visited January 25, 2008).