This is from the statement India read today at SCCR 30, on the topic of the broadcast treaty.
India is flexible in supporting the issue of unauthorized live transmission of signal over computer networks provided the broadcasting organization has rights over the content broadcast by it. India alternative proposals submitted at 26th session of SCCR are in complete conformity with the mandate of the 2007 WIPO General Assembly.
India reiterates its position on not expanding the mandate for inclusion of any element of webcasting and simulcasting under the framework of the proposed Broadcasting Treaty. India also opposes any attempt to amend the above mandate of the General assembly to include ‘retransmission over computer networks’ or ‘retransmission over any other platforms’ because these activities are not broadcasting in traditional sense.
The provisions of this treaty needs to provide protection to the broadcasting organizations for their broadcasts on traditional broadcasting and cablecasting media to enable them to enjoy the rights to the extent owned or acquired by them from the owners of copyrights or related rights. Therefore, scope of this treaty should include protection against unauthorised ‘retransmission of live signal over computer networks’ or ‘retransmission over any other digital or online digital platforms’. In order to implement the above, the content should be owned by the broadcaster as a content creator or as an assignee (i.e. rights are transferred to broadcasters through contractual agreements).
However, no extra layer of rights should be awarded to broadcasters on the content which they have got licence to broadcast only. They should not be given rights in other platforms without a contract from the right owner. Any such step would be against the basic copyright of the author or right owner as per the provisions of the Berne Convention and the TRIPS.
In case of simultaneous broadcast of the content on other platforms the broadcaster should get cause of action to protect their rights if the owners grant the rights to them on these platforms. But, the broadcasters should not be given any blanket right for cause of action in case of unauthorised use of this content in these platforms when the licensee is different. In a situation where the broadcaster got only satellite rights i.e. transmission of signal in a traditional sense and no other player has been given the live online streaming rights the broadcaster can get a ‘right to prohibit’ the unauthorised retransmission of that content on any other digital or online digital platforms. This step is considered within the mandate of 2007 General Assembly. However, the broadcaster cannot be given a positive right such as ‘right to exclusively authorise’ as the broadcaster is not the owner of the content.
India is of the view that, no post-fixation rights should be allowed under this proposed treaty as the scope of protection covers only signal protection. However, fixation can be allowed only for rebroadcasting and time-shifting purposes.
This treaty should provide for exceptions to the protection in case of private use; use of short excerpts in connection with the reporting of current events; use solely for the purposes of education and scientific research; and) ephemeral fixation by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and for its own broadcasts.