A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panel Thurs. un...

well as alternatives offered by various delegations. It expressly excludes protections for webcasting, but leaves open expansion later to cover simulcasts by broadcasters of their own programming, and webcasts. The draft defines broadcasting as “the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmissions by satellite is also ‘broadcasting.’ Wireless transmission of encrypted signals is ‘broadcasting’ where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. Broadcasting shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks.” The SCCR said, “a great majority of Delegations in the debates in the Standing Committee opposed the extension of the protection to webcasts” and suggested the issue be left for the future. The draft requires signatories to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies for circumvention of technological measures protecting broadcasts. Some digital rights advocates have feared the draft might contain broadcast flag language similar to that under consideration in the U.S., though a WIPO official said in Feb. that measure wasn’t likely to be included (WID Feb 5 p3). The SCCR is slated to consider the consolidated text at its June 7-9 session, and to decide whether to recommend that the WIPO General Assembly convene a diplomatic conference. While it’s true the draft doesn’t require signatories to adopt a particular broadcast flag proposal, it does mandate that countries provide adequate anticircumvention legal protection and remedies, said Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Gwen Hinze. Its language mirrors one article of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, which was used to justify enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA], she said. The real question, Hinze said, is how signatory countries carry out that provision in national law and what technological protection measures broadcasters then choose. “Before we rush headlong into adopting yet another layer of legal protection to technological measures for broadcasters, we should look closely at the costs and benefits of doing so,” Hinze told us. After 5 years’ experience with the DMCA, she said, “it’s clear that legal protection for technological measures on copyrighted works has not been successful in stopping digital copyright infringement or the distribution of circumvention tools, but has instead caused considerable collateral damage to important public policies.”