This statement was delivered by the United States of America to the plenary of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on Tuesday, 19 June 2007.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. The United States would like to congratulate you and your Vice-Chairs on your re-election.
We are in important phase of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in this Special Session and your leadership and diplomatic skills will be pivotal to advancing our discussions on a possible new treaty on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations.
Mr. Chairman, the United States appreciates your efforts in drafting non-papers in order to help us implement the decision of the General Assemblies and focus on a signal-based approach to this treaty. While your most recent non-paper is a good basis for our discussions, there is much work to be done if we are all to reach agreement on a revised basic proposal for a Diplomatic Conference.
As you well know, the current draft basic proposal, document 15/2, must be substantially narrowed to meet the criteria set forth in the decision of the General Assemblies. The United States has stated in the past our position that we do not support moving forward to a Diplomatic Conference with such an unstable document. At a minimum, we believe a draft basic proposal must include consensus on key provisions that provide broadcasters with what they need to protect against signal piracy, while not undermining the rights of the underlying content holders or the public interest. As the General Assembly directed, we must agree on the objectives, specific scope and object of protection at this meeting if we are to proceed to a Diplomatic Conference.
As we have also noted before, the U.S. has concerns about certain provisions relating to competition, cultural diversity and public interest currently found in document 15/2 that we believe would undermine any protection provided under the treaty. The United States believes that resolution of those issues is integral to resolving the objectives, specific scope and object of protection central to the decision of the General Assembly. While your non-paper’s approach to the competition, cultural diversity and public interest issues would be acceptable, any reversion to language on these issues similar to the language that appears in document 15/2 would be unacceptable to the Unites States. Unless we can reach agreement on these issues, we will not satisfy the General Assembly mandate and will be unable to proceed to a Diplomatic Conference.
Throughout this process, the United States Government has sought to achieve a treaty that is reasonably up-to-date given the state of technology. Fundamental to this objective is a treaty that includes protection for broadcasters against the unauthorized simultaneous retransmission of their signals over the Internet. A major threat to broadcasters arises when someone places their signal on the Internet without permission. We see no point in concluding a treaty that does not address this treat.
We would also like to reiterate our concern about any Technological Protection Measure language that varies from the language used in the WIPO “Internet Treaties, i.e., the WCT and WPPT. If there is a provision concerning technological protection measures in this treaty, we believe it should mimic the TPM provisions in the WCT and WPPT.
The United States is also concerned that the rights granted to broadcasters under this Treaty should in no way interfere with or negate contracts that they have entered into with the content owner or program producer.
Since the beginning of our discussions at WIPO on this issue of protection for broadcasters, the United States has scaled back its ambition for the treaty as reflected by the withdrawal of its own proposal which proposed, on a technologically neutral basis, protection for netcasting organizations. The United States believes that flexibility in this process is required of all member states in order to achieve an agreement that will enjoy consensus. We hope al member states will demonstrate the necessary flexibility so that we can achieve a positive outcome. At the same time, we must caution that a treaty that grants rights to broadcasters that interfere with the rights of the creators of the programs that are transmitted by the broadcasters. or that grants broadcasters rights that are greater in scope than the rights of the owners of the copyrights in the programs that the broadcasters transmit, would be unacceptable. We remain committed to trying to agree and finalize, on a signal-based approach, a revised basic proposal so that we can proceed to a Diplomatic Conference, but nobody should underestimate the difficulty of achieving the necessary consensus. We are confident that you will ably guide our discussions going forward and we stand ready to assist you.