Federal government may introduce legislation on Internet broadcasting

The federal government is circulating draft proposals for dealing with the contentious issue of re-transmitting local TV signals over the Internet, and if industry consensus can be reached, a bill to legitimize the practice may be introduced in Parliament this spring. The move by both Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada to get involved in this issue comes as JumpTV faces a new legal glitch in its attempt to launch a cable TV-like service over the Internet. JumpTV’s battle to secure an interim tariff for retransmissions, under Section 31 of the Copyright Act, hit another setback last Friday when rights groups notified the Copyright Board that they would waive the right to collect royalties from JumpTV. The board gave the collectives this out in a Dec. 21 letter, and by taking it, they have effectively stonewalled Jump’s application for an interim tariff. GOVERNMENT OPTIONS FOR DEALING INTERNET RETRANSMITTERS1. Amending the Copyright Act to specify that a retransmitter is a cable TV-like service, and not the Internet; 2. Repeal the definition of "retransmitter" and craft a new definition that specificallyexcludes Internet-based retransmitters; 3. Amending the law to allow Internet retransmissions, as long as their web signals aren’t available outside of Canada. or; 4. Have Internet retransmitters exempted under the Broadcasting Act by the CRTC, assuming they accept certain conditions (i.e. must-carry of local signals).As one industry source explained it, copyright holders are unlikely to propose a royalty fee for JumpTV when they insist that Internet retransmissions fall outside the protection of the Copyright Act. It also gives rightsholders ammunition for a lawsuit if JumpTV decides to launch before the tariff issue has been fully resolved. "The practical effect of that (decision by the collectives) is that if JumpTV starts up tomorrow, the collectives can’t sue them for the reason that they haven’t paid any royalties, but they can still sue them on the grounds that they’re not a retransmitter in the first place under the Copyright Act," explains an industry source close to the issue. "If JumpTV thinks it can survive a lawsuit, then nothing has changed for the company. They can still launch." How quickly any bill to amend the Copyright Act passes through the House will depend primarily on the political will of the various parties. As Heritage’s director of copyright policy Bruce Stockfish notes, such a bill would likely recommend a minor amendment to the Copyright Act, which could expedite its passage into law. "As long as it’s not contentious, and it has multi-party support, I expect it could be passed fairly quickly," possibly by the fall, he adds. The four proposals (see box) are currently being reviewed by various rights collectives, film/TV producers and distributors, as well as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Canadian Cable Television Association, Bell ExpressVu and JumpTV – a Montreal-based start-up trying to launch a web-TV service that carries over-the-air TV stations. If there is no consensus on any of four proposals, Stockfish, says the government may initiate a broader and more public review of how Internet retransmissions should be dealt with under copyright law. The Copyright Board is far from finished with this issue, even as Heritage and Industry Canada float their own proposals. The board is also expected to initiate its own broad review of Internet re-transmissions sometime this year. A pre-hearing discussion on the issues is expected to get underway March 12. The Copyright Collective of Canada, one of the rights groups involved in the JumpTV issue, doesn’t see a need to comment further on JumpTV’s application for an interim tariff, though it will take part in any broader hearing on the issue of Internet retransmission. "CCC will endeavour (in cooperation with the other collective societies) to agree with Dr. Handa on an agreed set of procedures and a timetable to deal with the substantive issue raised by the (Copyright Board’s) Letter and on the other matters raised in the Notice…which remain relevant," the CCA writes in its Jan. 19 letter to the board. "If this can be done in a manner acceptable to the Board, and the procedure and timetable are acceptable to the Board, it may make a pre-hearing conference unnecessary." JumpTV president Farrel Miller refused comment on the legal proceedings now before the board. In its own reply to the board’s Dec. 21 letter, he would only say that they are prepared to support a jointly-agreed-to timetable leading to a pre-hearing conference. Miller wouldn’t say whether he or his lawyers have established contact with the collectives, and Handa’s Jan. 17 letter asks that the collectives provide a single representative with which the company can deal. Whatever the Copyright Board decides, insiders close to the issue seem to agree that an appeal to the Federal Court is inevitable. Oh my please let this work.

Federal government may introduce legislation on Internet broadcasting

Broadcast | January 24, 2001

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