Scary Broacasting Treaty: short oral statement at WIPO


Thank you very much.The TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue is concerned about the discussion on this treaty. Whereas in the past, due to the lack of definitions, we called it an unidentified flying object, now, as the definitions get a bit clearer, we feel it’s becoming a more identified flying object in the air as a transmission and, precisely because it’s becoming identified, some of these definitions we consider are very concerning for us and we are worried about these definitions because we think these definitions and these protections of rights could mean a threat to access to culture, a threat even to freedom of speech, and a threat to the public domain. Let´s remember that we are talking about a public domain, about public broadcasting signals.
We think these threats are coming from a scope that is much broader than is recommendable. It is a scope that could contradict a lot of the digital rights that millions of young people around the world are fighting for and defending. And I think this sensitivity of digital rights of mixing, of the type of things that go on every day millions of times on the Internet should not be threatened by this treaty. So how can we avoid that? We could avoid that by avoiding any post fixation rights.
We could also avoid it by a very narrow definition of simultaneous or near simultaneous traditional broadcasting signals to the public in the air. Broadcasting should mean, similar to the Rome Convention, the transmission by wireless over the air by means for public reception of sounds, of images and of words.
As well, what is a signal? What is a signal? A signal obviously could not just mean everything. A signal means an electronically generated traditional carrier over the air with sounds and images. What we really need is to narrow down the scope to a point where we don’t see this as something that can be a threat to the creativity, innovation, new business models at a time when we know that the business models need that flexibility, what we don’t need is yet another layer of bureaucratic costly rights that would be burdensome for the future of the Internet.
For these reason, for consumers, for Internet users, for culture, for new innovation, we would like to call for this very narrow definition of the scope. Thank you very much.