[A2k] Statement of India on broadcasting (Day 4, Thursday afternoon)-from WIPO's close captioning

Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Thu Jun 23 07:31:28 PDT 2011



INDIA: Then Mr. Chairman, we have a little bit of discomfort over this work plan, especially the text which has been listed here, As already referred to earlier, the General Assembly mandate is about protection of rights of broadcasting organizations following signal based approach in the traditional sense. We also respect the spirit of this decision adopted by the august body, the General Assembly, the apex body of WIPO. So we should not digress from that mandate. The issue is about different documents listed in the work plan. Unfortunately, all these documents either directly or indirectly raise the issues relating to either Webcasting or signal casting or retransmission over competent networks.

These issues do not fall under the signal based approach in the traditional sense. The protection of broadcasting organizations through signal based approach in traditional sense is to prevent the unauthorized use of signals before and during broadcasting. However, any policy of content after broadcast of signal meant for reception by public in violation of right of content owner that is the right of content owner, rather than the broadcasting organization. What is it the scope of protection of broadcasting organizations to signal base approach in traditional sense? If you look at the traditional theory as accepted by everyone the nature of broadcasting under the communication theory in traditional sense includes a mission of program carrying signal and its communication process involving uploading of signal to satellite and downlinking to same to transmitter of the telestation of the broadcasting organization are hidden of the multisystem operator what we call shortly MCO or LCO. Finally crebroadcast the signal of the program to the public. 

Therefore unauthorized signal piracy includes rebroadcasting over cable networks without permission or license in aforementioned communication process. There are several ways of doing these kind of signal piracy which include use of counter decoders, whether TV tuner may be external or internal technology and even pirating of this broadcast. All kinds of these piracy done in the traditional sense. Webcasting or signal casting including retransmissing over computer networks cannot be included in the signal base approach even on the basis "technology
neutral approach" or convergence, et cetera. It was set a side long back in the 14th SCCR. India has been of the consistent view that the time is not arrived for discussing Webcasting and simulcasting issues. Considering this WIPO 

The Secretariat took a very good approach of conducting study, three studies of WIPO Secretariat of unauthorized signal has brought out the differences in the use of the broadcasting technology in the developed world and developing world. Even now the 80 percent of broadcasting in developing countries is done from the traditional platforms. Therefore the proposed treaty should focus on empowering broadcasting organizations only with the right to prohibit signal of content carrying signals in unauthorized manner. The words like any means technology neutral approach covers Webcasting and simulcasting which are open questions that need further exploration and study. Therefore any rights and obligations discussed here under the signal based approach in traditional sense rights of the broadcasting organizations therefore there should be a differentiation between the authorized rebroadcast by the cable casting organizations which are merely repackaging the original broadcast and putting them through their networks in the traditional sense and simulcasting or retransmission over computer networks which are obviously also the scope of the signal based protection. Broadcasting organizations cannot obtain exclusive right of content creator or owner to -- which can be done only through contract. The life program carrying signal is over once it reaches the TV set reception. The subsequent picture we see is content. Even though the signal is originated in the form of program carrying signal in the traditional platform that is sent by the broadcasting organization the same is provided through other platform of exploitation that may be a computer network, in an unauthorized manner, in the right of -- it is the right of the content owner who has to fight such violation. There should be a medium where there is right there is remedy. When broadcaster who does not have a right of sending that content on other platform it is the right of the content owner to contract these rights to different platforms. So how can a broadcaster take away of the exclusive right of authorizing this right to other platform owners. Since on the basis that signal is being taken on unauthorized computer network or some new platform exploitation and as regard the protection of investment made by the broadcasting organization we often talk about this the protection of the investment of broadcasting organizations to program carrying signal only. 

It cannot be extended to the content because, for example, it is a content owner also investing and creating of content and producing the content. I give you the example of cinematography. Film producer has given the right and before and during the broadcast of such a film be broadcasting organization's right of that signal to be protected. But not the once the broadcast is over and no rights exist because the related right is limited to particular broadcast only. Subsequent broadcasts, let us say rebroadcast over computer networks pose fixation rights or exploitation in some other platform does not erase because the original right belongs to the content owner but not the broadcasting organization. If the broadcasting organization is an Intellectual Property right in its own right then it would exercise those rights as a content owner but not other broadcasting organization when the content is shown unauthorizedly taking the signal in the new platform of exploitation. These exclusive rights of the content owners cannot be transferred to the broadcasting organization by way of, you know, treaty or which we these proposals are talking about. And then coming to the technicalities of retransmission of the signal in the computer network there is a lot of difference between broadcasting signal based approach in traditional sense and then the signal broadcasted unauthorizedly by a pirate in the computer networks. I beg your pardon that I am taking a little time. The argument in favor of retransmission over computer networks, discussed a lot on this issue. The most of the papers listed in the work plan they all talk about this. In the traditional sense, when a signal generated and emitted from the traditional platform of origin and it is used in an authorized manner in other platform of exploitation which is technological different it is untenable to support that it is broadcasting because technically retransmission over computer network is not broadcasting at all. Internet including IPTV, Internet protocol television, whether it is authorized or unauthorized life streaming video on demand services or delivering using the architecture and networking methods of Internet protocol suit, which is commonly referred to as TPC/IP over a pocket switch network infrastructure. Instead of being delivered through traditional radio broadcast satellite signal, radiofrequency broadcast does not pause when the signal is passed through computer network

Mr. Chairman. Even though the signal is taken by pirate in an unauthorized manner for livestreaming when it pass through the computer network the signal gets broken in to chunks and encapsulated to either UDP, UDP here means user data program. Or TPC which is then encapsulated in to Internet protocol packets for transporting in to Internet system. Sorry I am going to to detail in this because I would like to make my point here. Finally computer communication links that do not support packets such as traditional point to point telecommunication links simply transmit this data as series of bits. Ultimately the encoded stream reaches in the packets in to the frame buffer of the display and the end user species.

Either it can be called multi casting when the livestreaming you see sometimes as post broadcaster signal is shown on the TV. As a layman we think that is a the broadcasting signal but what is happening is the livestreaming. If that is recorded you are accessing that is the video. Then that is livestreaming happening multiple computers we call this multi casting of individual wants to see the recorded program there it is called the unicasting. So in case of -- so whereas the TV tuner is use. So here the pocket technology does not work and obviously signal is shown. Coming back to the exclusive rights Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply explain the consent of exclusive right raised in some of these proposal listed in the work plan. Whose exclusive right is on this the content? The focus should be on providing broadcasting organizations with the signals to prevent or prohibit piracy of content carrying signals and any announcement of rights beyond prevention of signal piracy would be contrary to the purpose of this treaty and the -- and I don't think it is acceptable. No exclusive rights of broadcasters should overlay the rights of content providers Mr. Chairman. The protection should be accorded to signal prior to and during the transmission. Signal protection rather than rights has broadcasting organizations need protection from the unauthorized use of signals rather than exclusive rights. The issue is as to whether the signal based approach could include fixation post fixation rights and the right of retransmissions. All these rights belong to the Copyright owners and not the broadcasting organizations. If you look at the clause 1 of article -- the para -- 1 of the Berne Convention that provides the rights of broadcasting which was inserted in the 1928 Rome conference that authors of literary and works shall enjoy exclusive rights of public by broadcasting and therefore broadcasting organization cannot get exclusive right Mr. Chairman. If you look the WCT articles, WPPT articles, and the articles we are discussing to give a treaty to of audiovisual performances we all discussing about the exclusive rights to authors, all the holders and audiovisual performance or audio performances and these exclusive rights cannot be transferred to broadcasters because it is shown on computer networks or other platforms of exploitation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


----------------------------------------


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru at keionline.org



Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997






----------------------------------------


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)

thiru at keionline.org



Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997









More information about the A2k mailing list