Open letter on WIPO Webcasting Treaty
One of the next big things being mulled at WIPO is a “Webcasting Treaty”. It took me a while to understand what this is, as it is not intuitive: The legal situation of webcasting seemed rather clear to me. The works being broadcasted via the web are protected by copyright, just like any other work. So why another treaty? Surely, noone in his or her right mind would think of giving copyright to someone for simply broadcasting a work?
As an open letter to the US Copyright Office by CP Tech explains, it turns out that this is precisely what is behind the proposed treaty. Yahoo! and similar companies want it, because it would give them a source of income without having to create anything. Simply for setting up e.g. a stream, they would get 50 years of copyright in what they broadcast:
“The treaty language proposed for a “webcasting”right would create a new layer of property rights, lasting at least 50 years, for materials that are transmitted by web servers over the Internet and other networks. Unlike copyright, the new webcaster right is not based upon a creative contribution. Any material, including material in the public domain, or licensed for public dissemination under a creative commons type license, would be burdened with this new layer of rights, which accompany any “public transmission” of any combination or representations of sounds and or images.”
Besides those who would benefit financially, noone wants such a treaty. It would create another layer of copyright that would further restrict Access to Knowledge and make everyone’s life harder. It would make broadcasting more expensive, as collection societies would ask for their share of the earnings.
Cui bono? In the short run, some broadcasters. Until they discover that they are caught up in a thicket of rights that’s near impossible to untangle. This is where the second, and permanent, beneficiaries come in: Copyright lawyers, who will grow fat from looking for paths through the mess the broadcasters have made for everyone.
All other groups will only suffer from such a treaty. It is useless, and should best put to rest among humanities’ other bad ideas.