ICC's high handedness Vindicates Convergence Act



The ICC Champions Trophy going on in Sri Lanka has opened yet another controversy regarding Intellectual Property rights which has relevance to the observers of the Communication Convergence legislation in India. ICC has approached a court in Sri Lanka against the Sri Lankan public radio broadcasting company stating that they do not have rights to broadcast "Cricket Commentary" without buying the said rights from ICC. It has already claimed a damage to the extent of US $ 70,000 for the violation thus far and rejected an offer of 10 % sharing of revenue arising out of the broadcast offered by the Sri Lankan Broadcasting company. (Read the full report here).

In the light of this controversy, one of the provisions in the  draft Communication Convergence Bill which is pending for passage in the Indian Parliament becomes relevant. Chapter IX  (Section 31) of the proposed Act states as follows.

Provision for live broadcasting of certain events.

31 (1) For the purpose of ensuring the widest availability of viewing in India of a national or international event of general public interest to be held in India, the Central Government shall notify the same well in advance.

(2)The National or International event of general public interest notified under sub-serction(1) shall have to be carried on the network of a public service broadcaster as well .

(3) In order to strive towards providing a level playing field for bidders for broadcasting rights, or persons interested in receiving broadcasting right for events, notified under sub-section (1), the Commission shall determine, well in advance of such event , the principles and terms for the access to the network of the public service broadcaster.

It is clear that this clause would prevent a similar situation happening in India and we must give due credit to those who thought of including the clause in the legislation. Whether this was justified or not when the legislation was drafted, the high handed nature of ICC does vindicate the need for such a clause.

Is it Curtailment of Freedom of Speech?

It is unfortunate that ICC is trying to curtail the spread of information on a match to the remotest corners of a country and to the poorer sections of the society which the target audience of the Sri Lankan Radio Broadcast represents.

This is not only unethical but also does not make commercial sense. If  ICC thinks that it loses revenue because of such broadcast, they must be kidding themselves. The consumers of radio broadcast are not likely to either come down to watch the match in the stadium nor have the  financial muscle to get  TV sets to watch the match.

More over watching a cricket match over TV affects productivity on the field while listening to the cricket commentary may not. Hence it is better for the community to substitute TV watching interest with Radio Commentary listening .

The radio commentator is actually an observer of a game and is passing on his comments on the happennings. Except his own interpretation of the events, he does not carry any property of the tournament organizers. In trying to prevent the broadcast of the commentary, ICC is therefore trying to  ly curtail the rights of "Speech" of an observer of a game.

I would go to the extent of saying that even the restrictions on Internet reporting from the stadia that is prevalent is also not legal and is a curtailment of the freedom of speech. Same argument also applies to the TV broadcasting except that a TV broadcaster is much more dependent on the organizer of the tournament for the facilities required to broadcast and hence may go for a trade off of his rights. He may also be capturing the events on a technology device and showing it as it is to the outside world. It is therefore slightly different from Radio Commentary.

On the other hand, an Internet commentator  may be operating just from his  laptop connected to a mobile phone, and the radio commentator may be operating from a head phone set connected to a broadcast antenna.  They do not capture any image from the proceedings nor use resources of the stadium authorities beyond the contours of their body. They are both speaking their mind to a device which transports the audio or the text to other people elsewhere. 

Restricting Radio and Internet Commentary is therefore not justified.

What Should Sri Lanka Do?

I feel that the ICC claim on an arbitrary fees to be paid to them by the Sri Lankan Broadcasting Corporation should be refused in the interest of the right of the Sri Lankan citizen to information on the matches. It is also a social obligation for the broadcasting firm which does run with public money in some form.

ICC must be reminded that it has no right to interfere in the activities of the Broadcasting firm through its contractual  agreement with the BCCSL. At best it can persuade the stadium authorities under the control of BCCSL to deny facilities to the commentators. But if the commentators sit with the public and shout their commentary into a mobile phone, ICC cannot interfere with this right of speech.

Further BCCSL is also dependent on public money and hence it cannot ignore the public interest for the sake of enabling ICC make unreadonable gains.

More over, the tournament cannot be run without the support facilities provided by the Government all of which are not compensated financially by ICC. Sri Lankan Government should therefore withdraw such facilities ..Say security for the players).

In the process if the tournament has to be aborted, so be it. If ICC wants to run the tournament, they have to trade off the rights of broadcast with the Sri Lankan Broadcasting firm with the Government's support by way of infrastructure, security etc.

For ICC which has a strange sense of Intellectual Property Rights, denying the Commentary rights of a Government agency of the host Country and Logo selection rights of Sahara India the Indian team sponsor as also forcing the Indian players to illegally violate their own personal contracts with various sponsors, it is time to learn that there is a limit to public tolerance of its idiosyncrasies.

Is it surprising that the interpretation of Intellectual property rights  appear to be strange while Mr Malcom Speed,  the head of ICC is reported to be a lawyer?


September 20, 2002

Related Article in SIFY.Com

P.S: Issue Settled Out of Court:..Crickinfo.com


Your Views can be sent here

For Structured Online Courses in Cyber laws, Visit Cyber Law College.com


Back To Naavi.org