The IFJ, represented by Mike Holderness expressed some concerns regarding the new layer of rights for broadcasters and cablecasters:
> International federation of journalists: Thank you. Since this is the first time I have spoken, congratulations to the chair and the Secretariat for the excellent running of this event.The international federation of journalists has refrained until now for commenting on the Broadcasting Treaty. In principle if they need a neighboring right to signal piracy, why shouldn’t they have the same kind of right as record producers? Now we are looking at the detail and the detail of what — of the extent of the right and we have to look for the unintended consequences. Can we avoid a flood of cases in the courts which will be ruinously expensive for authored and performers. We agree that it’s essential as any new neighboring right not affect the right of authors and performers, but stating that this is the case on the face of a treaty does not guarantee that there will not be practical effects.
The IFJ is concerned about the practical effect of adding a new layer of rights, one that like the record producers right may serve as a gateway through which those who would license the use of an underlying work must pass.
What is the effect a broadcaster in California having ail right that sits on top of the rights of an author in Peru and a performer in Senegal? Is there, in fact, a drift in contracts implied by this? Is this a further invitation to forum shopping? Existing law has led one major broadcaster to base itself in the UK for the purposes of evading authors right and in the Duchy of Luxembourg of entirely legally avoiding tax.In particular, would broadcasters be encouraged to locate operations in territories where it is easier for them to impose on fair contracts on authors and performers IFJ associated itself with the comments on the international musicians on this matter.
Talking of new layers being added to the copyright system, in general terms, authors and performers now share an interest with broadcasters and with producers and publishers in getting a fair share of the income, this is collected by a new layer of intermediaries, the Internet service providers. We do share the concerns of KEI that has broadcasting moves online and as the treaty is drafted or amended to deal with this. Online services such as YouTube and its successors may gain the kind of Gateway right that we have described. Perhaps by demanding one from the Californian courts which may be — rather than through legislation. What affect will have this on the artists in German and Senegal,.
The issue of fair contracts for authors and performers is contention and it’s disputed whether or not it is the proper — in the purview of this conference. But there is some evidence that the legitimacy of authors rights, the legitimacy of everything in the eyes of public, rests on the author’s that the authors and performers are receiving a fair share of whatever they may to whoever. I thank you for your consideration.
to get the live transcript:
http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO
code: sccr31
webcast: http://www.wipo.int/webcasting/en/includes/newplayer/Player_EXT_roomN.html