The U.S. Thursday floated an approach to...

on Copyright and Related Rights, as blogged by Knowledge Ecology International Geneva Representative Thiru Balasubramaniam (http://xrl.us/boun4u). Considering that the issue of protection for broadcasting organizations has been under discussion for nearly 20 years; and that many stakeholders are concerned about creating extra layers of safeguards requiring more clearance of rights; and that the WIPO General Assembly in 2007 called for a signal-based approach, “the only realistic way to achieve results without years of additional debate would be to find a compromise based on a core of common agreement,” the U.S. said. It should be possible to coalesce around a simpler, more targeted approach that addresses the core problems of broadcasters today, including true signal piracy that takes place during real-time, unauthorized transmission, it said. This would be technology-neutral in the sense that it wouldn’t matter what platform is used for the act of piracy, it said. The proposal has several advantages, it said. This is an area where WIPO members already have considerable consensus and can move quickly. It could avoid the concerns voiced about additional layers of protection for content, and remove the need to address “other contentious or difficult issues such as term of protection or exceptions,” it said. The U.S. statement brought a cheer from Thompson Coburn partner James Burger, who represents tech companies. It expressed “what I believe supports the traditional and effective U.S. system protecting broadcasters: forbidding signal theft by real-time over-the-air retransmission of broadcast,” he told us. The approach also supports innovation and the consumer electronics/technology industries by not overlaying yet another set of copyright-like rights, he said. Burger reiterated his view (CD April 11 p13) that “copyright makes no sense for broadcast transmission” because a transmission can’t be “fixed.” The view of the European Broadcasting Union and all other broadcasters is that online services, insofar as they're provided by broadcasters and related to their offline services, should be included, because those services already arrive via the remote control on a TV screen, EBU Head of Intellectual Property Heijo Ruijsenaars told us. In an interview posted on WIPO’s website (http://xrl.us/boun6f), EBU Director-General Ingrid Deltenre said those who oppose updating broadcasters’ rights “would not appear to grasp why broadcasters need protection in the first place nor the nature of the protection that currently exists.” To safeguard and build on their sizeable investment, broadcasters must have the proper means to authorize or prohibit use of signals in upstream and downstream markets, she said. The broadcast signal must be shielded from the moment it’s created as a pre-broadcast signal through to its primary use to broadcast or retransmit programming and against unlawful secondary exploitation, she said. She dismissed claims that giving broadcasters new rights would hamper freedom of expression and innovation in consumer devices, or spark problems for ISPs or Creative Commons licensees. The committee meeting ends Friday.