In the new June 21 text of the non paper they have just handed out, the Chair has proposed a definition of a signal, finally. It is take from the Brussels Convention, and reads as follows:
( ) “signal” means an electronically-generated carrier capable of transmitting programs;
This is from Article 1 of the Brussels Convention, which reads:
(i) “signal” is an electronically–generated carrier capable of transmitting programmes;
However, the Brussels has more definitions of signals. The others are these:
(iv) “emitted signal” or “signal emitted” is any programme–carrying signal that goes to or passes through a satellite;
(v) “derived signal” is a signal obtained by modifying the technical characteristics of the emitted signal, whether or not there have been one or more intervening fixations;
In the Brussels Convention, the protection is for “adequate measures to prevent the distribution on or from its territory of any programme–carrying signal by any distributor for whom the signal emitted to or passing through the satellite is not intended.”
But the protection “shall not apply to the distribution of derived signals taken from signals which have already been distributed by a distributor for whom the emitted signals were intended.”
This is what is missing in the non-paper, a way to distinguish between the signals that are protected (in Brussels, the signals that supposed to be available to only an intended recipient), and the signals that are not protected (the signals that the legitimate recipients makes for us own legal uses).
The WIPO Broadcasting treaty could and should make such a distinction, if it was to be a truly “signal based” protection, rather than a “rights based” protection.