Being steeped in WIPO stuff for the moment (I think there's IP on my
shirt), it happened that the topic of the prospective Broadcasting
Treaty came up in a number of conversations.
Coincidentally (I swear), BoingBoing has an interview with a
US Copyright official. Until now, the US have generally shown themselves
strongly in favour of the Broadcasting Treaty, which would add another
layer of copyright-like rights for the act of broadcasting a work. This
would instantly send podcasting and a lot of other "web 2.0" type down
the tubes. The US were claiming that the creation of such rights was
universally popular.
Now, BoingBoing.net quotes the official as saying:
...I think the most controversial piece is the scope of the right that's
being created. The position that the US took is well, if you're going to
give that type of a right to a broadcaster -- theft of a signal -- then
you should look at all people who are similarily situated, including
webcasters. Now, that has been totally rejected by the rest of the
world."
Coincidentally, I was chatting with a senior WIPO figure today.
Apparently, there is very little actual support for such a treaty. That
person was at a loss to say which countries were pushing for it.
Supposedly, parts of the broadcasting industry are in favour - but then
there are substantial parts of that industry which reject such a treaty.
They have probably realised that any revenue from such a new right would
end up with their legal department anyway, as broadcasting anything
would become horrifyingly complicated.
