New coalition calls for review of JumpTV’s bid to retransmit TV signals over the web

Canada’s broadcasters, producers and other copyright holders are asking for a preliminary inquiry into the operation of upstart JumpTV.com or the creation of a task force that would recommend changes to the Copyright Act. Media Content CoalitionCanadian Association of BroadcastersCanadian Film and Television Production AssociationCanadian Motion Picture Distributors AssociationCanadian Broadcasters Rights AgencyCopyright Collective of CanadaMontreal-based JumpTV has yet to beam a television signal through the Internet, but its application to the Copyright Board of Canada for an interim tariff to retransmit over-the-air television stations has rekindled controversy around copyright and retransmission issues. The newly formed Media Content Coalition wants the act changed so that it is clear that Internet retransmission falls squarely outside the Section 31 compulsory licensing regime – a section traditionally reserved for cable operators. Consisting of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Film and Television Production Association and other industry groups (see box), the new coalition argues the primary reason a Webcaster cannot be considered a retrans-mitter, like cable or DTH, under Section 31 is that it is unable to restrict its streaming to a limited geographic area. Uncontrolled Internet transmissions, argue the coalition, will devalue programming rights, which are sold on a territory-by-territory basis. It also points out that the Internet is not subject to such regulations as must-carry programming exclusivity and signal quota rules, and thus should fall under separate rules. In a Sept. 15 submission to Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada, the coalition calls on the government to establish a joint departmental task force to change the language of Section 31 so that Internet companies are definitely excluded. Like iCraveTV.com, which under pressure from U.S. and Canadian film studios and broadcasters ceased streaming TV signals through the Internet last year (CCR, Dec. 22/99), JumpTV states it qualifies under current legislation as a retransmitter. Interested parties had until Oct. 20 to submit to the Copyright Board their responses to JumpTV’s application for an interim tariff. Peter Grant, a lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault who represented broadcasters in the iCraveTV case, writes in a note to the Copyright Board that a lack of specifics on JumpTV’s business plan means a preliminary inquiry into the proposed operation is necessary. "Such an inquiry should explore exactly how the proposed retransmission would occur, what technology is involved, and the role of intermediaries and ‘subscribers’ in this regard, as well as the business aspects of the operation," Grant states in the letter. Jonathan Blakey, writing to the Copyright Board on behalf of Border Broadcasters Inc, states that "parties have been hampered in their ability to respond to the issues raised by JumpTV by virtue of a lack of information about the company and its planned operations." A similar complaint has been made by the Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency Inc. The CBRA’s chair, Grant Buchanan, says it’s been frustrating drafting a comprehensive response to JumpTV’s request because there is little information on what exactly it is that JumpTV is planning to deliver. "We don’t know exactly who they are or what they’re planning on doing until we actually see their signals or see what their proposal is," says Buchanan, adding, "You have to know an awful lot more before you can even consider accommodating the request."

New coalition calls for review of JumpTV’s bid to retransmit TV signals over the web

Broadcast | October 26, 2000

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us