SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE WIPO BROADCAST TREATY PROVIDED BYCERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, PUBLIC INTERESTORGANIZATIONS, AND PERFORMERS’ REPRESENTATIVESThe undersigned represent a broad and diverse group, united in a common belief that the WIPOTreaty on the Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations, as currently drafted,
would harm important economic and public policy interests. This Statement offers comments onseveral key aspects of the treaty.
No justification for treaty. We remain unconvinced that a treaty is necessary at all. We notewith concern that treaty proponents have not clearly identified the particular problems that thetreaty would ostensibly solve, and we question whether there are in fact significant problems thatare not addressed adequately under existing law. Further, we are concerned that the current
treaty approach differs radically from U.S. legal traditions, and, if implemented, would require
substantial and unnecessary changes to current U.S. law.
Scope. If the treaty moves forward in any form, we believe that the current rights-based
approach of the treaty must be abandoned. Creating broad new intellectual property rights inorder to protect broadcast signals is misguided and unnecessary, and risks serious unintended
negative consequences. We recommend instead a signal protection-oriented approach, ideallyfocusing narrowly and specifically on protecting signals from intentional misappropriation ortheft. We note that most of the concerns expressed in this Statement would be rendered moot bya treaty and associated implementing legislation that narrowly addressed signal theft.
Limitations and exceptions. To the degree that the treaty leaves room for implementing statesto create broader rights or protections beyond protection against intentional signal theft, then we
believe that a mandatory set of limitations and exceptions must be included in the treaty in orderto ensure that uses of broadcast content that are lawful under copyright law are not inhibited by
the treaty. At a minimum, limitations and exceptions under the treaty should be equivalent tothose that an implementing state provides under its copyright laws, and should provide flexibility
for additional limitations and exceptions that are appropriate in a digital network environment.
Home and personal networking. Under the current draft of the treaty, the broad scope of the
proposed rights, combined with proposed additional rights regarding technological protection
measures (TPMs) in connection with these rights, raises questions about whether “casters” would
gain the ability to control signals in the home or personal network environment. Such control is
without precedent and would interfere with the rollout of broadband and home and personal
networking services and limit the development of innovative devices that provide home andpersonal networking functionality. Accordingly, the treaty should include a provision excluding
coverage of fixations, transmissions or retransmissions across a home or personal network.
Further, we should note that many of our group believe that TPM provisions are inappropriate inconnection with this treaty and should be excluded from the treaty entirely.
Intermediary liability. We have serious concerns that network intermediaries would face thethreat of direct or secondary liability for infringement of the broad rights granted under thecurrent treaty draft. The exceptions from liability afforded under the current text of the treaty
only apply to broadcasters, not to intermediaries. Further, the limitations of liability afforded tointermediaries today under existing national laws would only protect against copyright
infringement, not against a violation of these broad new rights. We believe that the treaty should
ensure that network intermediaries do not face liability for alleged infringement of rights orviolations of prohibitions by virtue of actions they take in their normal course of business or byactions of their customers.
Computer networks. The current treaty draft includes protection for Internet simulcasts madeby traditional broadcasters and cablecasters, but otherwise excludes computer networks from its
scope. While members of our group do not share a common view about the best approach toaddressing Internet-related issues, we are united in our belief that the current approach isunacceptable. Further, to the extent that the treaty continues to take a rights-based approachrather than a signal-theft-based approach, we oppose the treaty’s application to the Internet.
Please note that issues identified in this Statement do not represent a comprehensive list of theconcerns of all members of our group. Individual group members intend to independently raiseother issues of serious concern, and to further discuss the issues identified here.
SIGNED:
American Association of Law Libraries
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
AT&T
Broadband Service Providers Association
Center for Democracy & Technology
Cingular WirelessComputer and Communications Industry
Association
Consumer Electronics Association
Consumer Project on Technology
Creative Commons
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Dell Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
FreePress
Hewlett Packard Company
Home Recording Rights Coalition
Intel Corporation
International Music Managers ForumInternet Society
IP JusticeMedia Access Project
Medical Library Association
National Association of State PIRGs
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Public Knowledge
RadioShack Corporation

Special Libraries Association
Sony Electronics Incorporated
TiVo Inc.
Union for the Public Domain
U.S. Internet Industry Association
U.S. Music Managers Forum
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
USTelecom
Verizon Communications Inc.
Verizon WirelessYale Information Society Project