Why Public Scrutiny of the Proposed Broadcaster Treaty is Needed

If Congress were to hold public hearings, or if the US delegation to WIPO were to publish the current proposal for public review and comment, myriad voices from various segments of society could come forward to show that the proposed Broadcaster's Treaty:

• Is written to look like existing copyright treaties, but it is not based on the constitutional requirements for copyright protection, such as originality, and in fact is antagonistic to copyrights
• Is promoted as a way of standardizing existing signal protection, but in fact extends well beyond signal protection by giving broadcasters and webcasters a monopoly, for 50 years, over the content created by others the moment it is broadcast or transmitted over the Internet
• Gives broadcasters greater rights than producers of original works
• Accords exclusive rights to non-authors in direct violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
• Attacks the principle of network neutrality which serves as the basis by which the Internet has fostered a profound expansion in human capacities and innovation
• Grants privileges that extend beyond broadcast signals to actually give broadcasters control over works conveyed within a broadcast -- including copyrighted and public domain works
• Blocks fair use and other copyright provisions that enable the public to make use of and benefit from published information
• Chills freedom of expression by extending unwarranted controls over broadcast publication
• Benefits broadcasters at the expense of the web, the public and future innovation
• Creates a de facto tax on copyrights, freedom of speech, communications and technological progress, all for the benefit of broadcasters and webcasters who have added nothing to deserve such a windfall.