Day 1 of SCCR 30 Information Session
Find a few Juicy bits from the long “Information Session on Broadcasting” that started this morning and was continued way passed the planned time of 4pm. It was also the least balanced panel I have ever seen at a WIPO SCCR. A handful of broadcasters, one media analyst, one journalist at the BBC, the WIPO Secretariat represented by Ann Leer (who worked for Paramount, Oxford University Press, BBC, and Financial Times/Pearson and the BBC).
Basically there was no one remotely critical of the proposed treaty nor any public interest representative.
Here are the panelists’ names and affilitations:
George Twumasi Deputy Chairman and CEO ABN Holdings Limited (ABN)
The goal of ABN is to create a viable content monetisation platform straddling multiple distribution platforms. ABN’s plan comprises a commercially viable, turnkey digital content production and distribution ecosystem – Made for Africans by Africans.
Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising research (author of the WIPO report), a recognized expert on advertising industry trends and strategies, media consumption patterns and online privacy. At IHS, Daniel manages teams in London and Shanghai responsible for forecasting and analyzing global advertising markets and key companies across all media (e.g. TV, radio, print,out-of-home, online, mobile).
Shida Bolai, Chief Executive Officer, Caribbean Communications Network Limited
Anelise Rebello de Sá, Legal Manager, International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo
Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network
Tejveer Bhatia, Singh & Singh Advocates, New Delhi
Are India, Brazil and some of the countries of Africa under pressure?
QUOTES […]
Anelise Rebello de Sá’s (TV Globo) answer to the question on why they want post fixation rights on content already protected by copyrights and all other contents:
A news program, it is not just information, information is free, anyone can use it, when there is a script, when there is a in production, this is where a program and intellectual creation, this is where the protection enters.Regarding post-fixation rights, I think as my colleague said, it refers to another exploitation of the same content such as we were explaining any people want content at any time. It is not just a simulcast but information on demand, it should have the same protection.
[…]
And now some quotes from the “dialogue” (if one can call the casters’ show a dialogue?)
John Simpson (BBC News): George, you don’t come from a traditional background like me. You’re not a dinosaur. Are we all finished?George Twumasi Deputy Chairman and CEO ABN Holdings Limited (ABN):
I would say basically traditional broadcasting has a huge opportunity to reinvent itself into digital content publishers. In the U.K., a key characteristic of the transmission, the whole infrastructure, it is done for many broadcasters — there is a evolution. Specifically for the port aux basques BC. There is a seismic shift in the volatility and the proposition. I think the niche for traditional broadcasters will be to focus on content publishing, but the advantage is that the brands are already out there. ITV has “coronation street,” the BCC has their brands, those brands are established. There is a legacy value to it. So finish, no. Everybody was shocked when AOL — Time Warner was taken over by AOL. We’ll see a lot more of start-up companies having huge markets and taking over traditional broadcasting as we know it and turn it into digital content units, a lot of that will happen in the next 5 to 10 years.
…
Indian broadcaster:
…
What we believe, is that all of these new platforms are basically content-delivery platforms. We have innovated and created another content-delivery platform which is basically Internet-based delivery platform which is there.The issue in so far as the protection part is concerned, it is relevant ^. From two perspectives, one is the legal framework, Brazilian colleague, she is right when she says that it has to be an equal protection to both or equal treatment to both of the things, like suppose two bottle manufacturers are there, one should not be treated as a preferred one in respect to the other. Issue of non-discriminatory treatment is required in so far as the different platforms is concerned. That’s number one.
Second, the level playing field. The The third part is, that both should be subjected to the same laws. For example, let me be specific, if India, you’re a broadcaster, you’re obligated to follow a programming and advertisement code. There are certain codes, certain rules that you need to follow.
There is no such rule for the Internet.
Therefore, if you’re an ISP you need not follow that. You’re free to get whatever you want on the Internet, it may infringe written down sort of things that are not available for a normal satellite broadcaster which is there. So what is required is, as I told you, adoption, innovation and as Daniel mentioned, there has to be a consolidation in the future because of the revolutions that are there, the distribution revolutions, and there is a code that’s universally applied to everything, the survival of the fittest. You have to be fit in order to survive in the changed environment, that’s what it is. Those who adapt, those who innovate, and with the legal framework protection which is available through either the national level, municipal laws or through International Treaties, I think that’s the key to survive. This traditional broadcasting will survive.
Question from the Brazilian Delegation.
[…]We have some general questions that will perhaps be directed to Mr. Daniel Knapp. He presented a very interesting amount of data this morning regarding the media and broadcasting worldwide. We would like to have some more information regarding this study, specifically when we are discussing terms that are very important for the discussions we’re having regarding a possible treaty on broadcasting organizations. One element would be whether in the study, do broadcasting organizations and cablecasting have the same meaning in all countries? We have seen that there are many information regarding IPTV and other forms of transmission of signal. We would like to better understand whether in this study there was some discrepancy regarding these terms. If there is discrepancy, how he would invisage harmonisation harmonisation of the concepts.We would also like to request more information whether in many countries broadcasting in a traditional sense is considered a public concession with corresponding legal obligations defined even in very high legal level, for example, constitution, and whether this would be compatible with a changing pattern who were changing classification of broadcasting or cablecasting organizations.
A third question: Whether we could have the differentiation or allow for some kind of differentiation that would bear in mind that some of the broadcasting organizations may be the free public service, often with corresponding of national capability and others that are paid for ^ subscription based services, operating through encrypted signals without the obligations. We have seen the presentations of the documents, the separation between paid TV and I believe it is free TV. Beyond that clarification which is clearly technical, there is some very different classifications that are made by national laws and I would like to better understand how this was taking into account in the study.
Answers from the author of the study, Daniel Knapp:
[…]As we’re moving into this complex digital world, definitions are key. ^ in the traditional broadcasting world we can say yes in all countries, our definitions of what a broadcaster is, what a cable company is, are the same. When it comes to local regional transmission standards, the implementation of the digital terrestrial signal, so forth, the local standards apply. Yet, what actually constitutes a broadcaster, what constitutes a cable company? This is something despite the different standards, that’s something that’s universal across countries and we in our databases from which data from the report was lifted have harmonized definitions of actually what a company is. Yet, you’re absolutely right, moving in the digital world, we’re entering murky waters where different broadcasters have different, what you call, diversifications strategies, so how they reach their audiences on other devices with other modes of distribution. Not everybody uses the same, it some country IPTV is in the foreground, in Europe, France, other countries, it is an open Internet over the top transmission, so for the. While this varies, again, we have universal definitions of what over the top delivery means and what the business models attached to that are, so forth. We can ensure that there is a comparability between the countries.You’re right though when this comes to the local importance of some of those standards, that differs. While one needs and as we have determined here an international framework, there are local specifics which need to be taken into account.
The traditional broadcasting is the main distribution, the other forms, they’re still an sill area, they’re growing in relevance but ultimately this is changing the definition of what a broadcaster is, what broadcasting means. We’re moving and these are questions to bear in mind and the regulators have to look 10, 15 years ahead and imagine what an industry looks then and we only see in a very fibbal contours emerging right now of how that could be.
[…]
BRAZIL: Thank you, Chair. For giving me the floor. Thank you, Daniel, for all of the efforts and all of the work on the production of data regarding the presentation for the technical concepts that are involved. I actually — the answers were quite precise, even to the question marks that we still have in the discussion that all Delegates here are posing in the discussions.One point I would like just to stress and perhaps to seek further information is whether, for example, these requirements that he mentioned, the national requirements in local — national requirements, whether this has bearing, these concepts that he was explaining. Since the regulatory agency, they already have this very different set of responsibilities that are directed — that are directed to some sort of companies or some sort of broadcasting or differentiating between the broadcasting and cablecasting organizations. To sum up, whether he can describe — although he sees in the technical level convergence in the terms, for example, on free air transmission, other terms, whether he could say that under this more legal terms broadcast, broadcasting organizations,cablecasting, he would be able to invisage a convergence in not only about the definition, but also about obligations in every country that are prescribed by the regulatory authorities.
“What do we need to protect and protect against what?” asked the European Union:
[…] I have some precise questions in comparison to the discussion. There is certain topics we have discussed here for a long time. One of the discussions that we’re having here ^ it is what do we need to protect. And the second, the discussion that we’re having, it is what do we have to protect against. Maybe the panelists and Mr. Knapp could help us and could share some thoughts on this. I think I have two questions really: One, you have been describing how a broadcasting is being done in your countries, your regions, that was very interesting.We understand that there are various techniques, various technologies being used. For example, it is — we understand it is possible that there is a signal that’s submitted for terrestrial means and then the same programming is being shown online or by means of IPTV, by satellite, and also for example there is TV catch up on demand accessible, the same program. The question is, where does the piracy really occur? Is there some wave that the signal is being intercept? Can you tell where it occurs? Can you tell if for example the same programming is being shown in the three different ways? Let’s say by the terrestrial means through casting, through the TV catch up, can you tell if — if somebody has access, a third party has legal access to the programming, the signal, can you tell where it was really intercepted? Was it intercepted through terrestrial means, intercepted shown online, somewhere else? That would be the first question. The second question may be mostly for Mr. Knapp relating also to the very interesting study that we’re grateful for, it is if you could maybe elaborate a little bit, maybe you didn’t have enough time in your presentation, about different types of piracy. It is mentioned in the study, the piracy occurs simultaneously, is this the prevailing kind of piracy where there is simultaneous retransmission of the signal of the broadcasting organization or is there also — I would — that’s what I understand from the study, but for example the linking websites, there is also another side of piracy, piracy that’s not necessarily simultaneously retransmitting the signal but which allows the access to programming that was intercepted from broadcasting transmissions for these files and for links. I think this is something that we have been discussing here for a very long time.
We’re just — to give you a bit of background, we’re trying to understand what really needs to be protected and also what do we have to protect against in terms of acts of piracy? What kinds of piracy, simultaneous, non-simultaneous for transmission. If you could share your thoughts on this, we would be very grateful.
Daniel Knapp:
[…]In the presentation I briefly highlighted different types of piracy and tried to look at a holistic looking at the piracy from a traditional broadcasting environment, smart cast, from means of a signal interception to the digital sphere. What we’re seeing with the actual act of piracy, it is depending on the type of content. For instance, when it comes to the streaming of the Internet, broadcast live, this is related to sports events where we see when we look at different sites for instance, it is very much skewed towards popular global TV shows where you don’t see a long tail of content, TV shows that are more niche, that are more — that are not international, not control hits — global hits, there is a different availability of content on the networks and it is very much geared towards the moment. When I look at the different means of piracy platforms, one has to take into account the type of content as well. I think all the different platforms that we outlined in the study, in the presentation, they do apply. There are variations nationally and in terms of content. Yet, one thing is very important, we mention that had in the study as well, that now everybody — not everybody can be a broadcaster. I mentioned previously in the presentation that there are now 2 billion smart phones available, we see apps like peri scope, others that try to Twitter allowing everybody to use a phone to live broadcast content on the Internet. ^ this shows the nature of the digital sphere and the nature of piracy, that always new technologies are emerging through which — well, acts of piracy, you can call them creative acts are being committed. It is very, very difficult for regulators to chase it, it is a game of whack a mole. You can’t really think ahead in that respect, nothing entirely curtailing with the current digital technology, it is really not possible
[…]
Avindra Mohan who is always very specific in his demands:
What is required to be protected is the life signal. If the live signal is put on any platform for that matter it should be protected. That’s number one.Second, cablecasting has to be protected. That’s two. That’s number 2. To be specific, in terms of piracy, the broadcasting organization should have the right to prohibit unauthorized transmission of their life signal, I’m emphasizing the life signal, no matter what it is, if the signal is live, hacked by a Pirate, it has not yet been fixed, it has not yet come to an end, it has not yet expired, it is still live, if we just put on a website then there has to be a right with the broadcasting organization to prohibit that unauthorized transmission.
Regarding the third part, only on content that needs to be deliberated, if a prediction is accorded to an on-demand content or for that matter, a content which could be assessed at the convenience of a consumer, then basicallies is a post-fixation signal which we’re talking about to protect. That needs to be deliberated, of course, as a broadcaster, we would like that to be protected. The issue is that needs to be deliberated, discussed as to whether that will fall under the scope of the broadcasting which has been discussed at the moment in terms of the mandate which the Standing Committee has from the regional assembly and then, of course, the consensus, it is yes, it has to be, then accordingly the forward movement can be there. In so far as the broadcasting and cablecasting party is concerned and inputting the live signal, live transmitted signal on various platforms is concerned, yes, it needs to be protected.
[…]
More on post fixation right (which is really what this is all about?)
Chair: Thank you very much. That’s why we’re here trying to build a consensus after a common understanding of the topics. We welcome very much your comments regarding this. Can we hear some comments regarding the distribution of fixation, copies of broadcasts as a business model, Mrs. Bolai has the floor.>> SHIDA BOLAI: Well, at the moment I think that requires some post-fixation, it requires some further discussion. I think once you own — once up own the content I do subscribe to the view that the ownership of that content would allow you — should allow you to distribute it on all relevant platforms. In fact, you should own all the rights in terms of catch up rights where it is post-fixation rights, all of that. I do subscribe to the view that those rights have to be protected by the broadcast for the broadcasters once they’re owned by them.
>> GEORGE TWUMASI: From a commercial point of view, post-fixation, it is a very gray area. It is a difficult one. Depends on who the broadcaster is, depends on who — if it is a — it is not about definitions. The larger content for consideration would be the reality of digital convergence in which tell cos are platforms deliveries, that’s the — in the Latin America place, the tell cos are buying the broadcaster, acquiring those areas. That’s a huge legal living area. From a pure commercial point of view, it is about redefining who the broadcaster is and the terms of engagement in terms of contracts, who the rights owner is. ^
Final thoughts from Avnindra Mohan:
Well since the question is specifically to strategy, let me be very specific:Number one, live signals need to be protected. So long as the signal is live, if it is put on inauthorizedly on any platform, commuter networks, let me be very specific, web also, if the live signal originating from the broadcast organization, it is unauthorized intercepted, hacked, put on the web. It needs to be protected. Cablecasting needs to be protected. Again, very specific, cablecasting that I’m talking about, it is different from webcasting, meaning that webcasting is when the content itself whether it is web generated or web generated transmission or making available, so to say so, the cablecasting in the traditional sense needs to be protected, and then as I already put there has to be a right of prohibition which would be available to the broadcasting organization in unauthorized transmission of their content on any platform for that matter and if the rights from the content owners are available, there is no reason why this protection should not be granted by this treaty. This treaty should specifically provide for that and of course the business models, if you’re talking about, the different models that are there in different countries with different broadcasting organizations, the fundamental issue is that if the content owners have given the rights protection should be available, there should be no problem in that, and last issue I had already mentioned in respect to the post-fixation rights, in terms of the regional assembly perturbing to the signal-based transmissions, since the perturbing to the signal-based transmissions, since the fixation comes, the signals, the life signal comes to an end, that needs to be further deliberated and then a consensus needs to be formed.
That is what it is.