Rupert's Rights

Beyond the realm of software, companies involved in information and communications technologies have been pushing for the introduction of new property rights. One example is 'The Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations,' being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The proposed treaty aims to extend new rights to broadcasting organisations. This is not a category of society widely considered to be threatened by rights violations: in 2004 Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation had amassed total assets of approximately US$53 billion. The treaty would give such broadcasters, cablecasters, and, under the U.S. proposal, webcasters a range of new rights, and substantially expand both the scope and duration of currently recognised rights for broadcasting organisations.

The U.S. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association for Commercial Television (ACT) in Europe, argue that new rights are a necessary measure to defend against 'signal theft', whereby a broadcast of a public event, for example, is picked up by a third party who re-broadcasts it. Lawyers for the Digital Media Association (DIMA) (whose members include AOL, FullAudio, RealNetworks and Yahoo) are arguing for the new protections to also include web casters.

The extent of the rebroadcast problem is debatable, however. In addition, the draft treaty goes much further than signal protection, covering what happens when a signal has been received and stored. Such proposals could enable treaty broadcasters to restrict the distribution of material that is not copyrightable, is in the public domain or is made freely availably by its creator. David Tannenbaum of the Union for the Public Domain argues that while "broadcasters have convincingly argued that the passage of this treaty will boost their profits," they have yet to show why the effort to create entirely new rights to the broadcasting stream is either economically necessary or desirable, particularly when balanced against its costs to society at large—such as restrictions on access to knowledge and encroachment on the public's rights to fair use. 32  It seems the broadcasters want a mechanism to give them a slice of the digital property pie.

The draft treaty itself provides no justification for its existence in terms of the public interest. Thiru Balasubramaniam of the Consumer Project on Technology told the JCC that social and development goals do not readily occur to most participants in the WIPO committee that is drafting the treaty. That such issues are not a concern, let alone the top priority for WIPO, is highly problematic. As a UN agency, WIPO's work should be in support of the UN Charter, to advance peace and social progress. However, WIPO has struggled to understand its work in that context, and a coalition of 14 developing countries have called for the development dimension to be incorporated into the core of WIPO's mandate. 33 Others have questioned the impartiality of its secretariat, pointing to evidence they have been pressurising governments to back the new treaty. "It appears that the tail is wagging the dog" said Robin Gross of IP Justice. The institutional interests of WIPO and its closeness to industry may be key factors, which raises questions about appropriate corporate influence over intergovernmental institutions. 34

As mentioned earlier, the nature of property rights, their potential extension, the social obligations of bearers of property rights, as well as the responsibilities of those who infringe such rights, should all be central to debates about corporate-society relations. Thus the role of corporations in influencing the definition and regulation of private property should be a key focus for those concerned with corporations using their power more responsibly, for public as well as private benefit. However, a review of various online corporate social responsibility newsletters and magazines in the past months indicates that this has yet to emerge. Nevertheless, it is only a matter of time before companies like News Corporation, Microsoft, and Yahoo will need to consider more closely how the worldwide extension and consolidation of their property rights will impact on society, become more transparent about their political activities, and engage with their critics.

contents © Greenleaf Publishing, apart from the Introduction © jem bendell, 2006. site by waywardmedia.com