The Evolution of Broadcast Definition in Copyright Law

When you tune into a cricket match on your TV, stream a news channel on your phone, or catch a live concert via satellite, you are experiencing what copyright law calls a “broadcast.” But the legal definition of that word has not always been this expansive. It started as a narrow concept tied to early radio transmissions, and over decades it expanded – through international treaties, national legislation, and judicial decisions – to keep pace with technology. Understanding how the definition of “broadcast” evolved in copyright law tells us a great deal about how legal systems adapt to the world around them.

Where it all began: radio and the 1928 Berne revision 🔗

Broadcasting entered the international copyright scene as far back as 1928, when the Rome Revision of the Berne Convention introduced Article 11bis. This provision gave authors of literary and artistic works the exclusive right to authorize the communication of their works to the public by “radio-diffusion.” Notice the narrow scope – the concern at that point was radio, and only radio. Television had not yet gone mainstream, let alone cable networks or the internet.

Even at this early stage, the framers of the Convention were cautious. Delegates at the 1928 Rome conference acknowledged the difficulty of anticipating how broadcasting services would develop, and several delegations stressed the need to proceed carefully before making international commitments. That caution, in hindsight, was well-founded – no one in 1928 could foresee how dramatically the broadcast landscape would change within just a few decades.

The Rome Convention of 1961: the first real definition 🔗

The most significant early milestone for broadcast-specific rights was the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, signed in Rome on 26 October 1961. This treaty – jointly administered by WIPO, the ILO, and UNESCO – was the first to extend copyright-related (or “neighbouring”) rights protection to broadcasting organizations themselves, not just to authors whose works were being broadcast.

Under the Rome Convention, the definition of “broadcasting” was fairly direct: the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds, or of images and sounds. This covered radio and television broadcasts over the air. Broadcasting organizations were granted the exclusive right to authorize rebroadcasting, fixation (recording), reproduction, and communication of their broadcasts to the public, with a minimum protection period of 20 years.

The Rome Convention was landmark, but it was built around the technology of its time – drafted at a time when cable was in its infancy and the internet had not even been invented. Cable television and satellite were already emerging on the horizon, and the definition would soon need to evolve.

The Brussels Satellite Convention of 1974: plugging the satellite gap 🔗

As satellite technology became commercially viable in the 1970s, a new question arose: did signals transmitted via satellite fall within the Rome Convention’s definition of “wireless” broadcasting? There was significant ambiguity. To address this, the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite was adopted in 1974. Rather than amending the Rome definition, the Brussels Convention took a focused approach – it specifically targeted the interception and redistribution of satellite-carried signals, filling a gap that the 1961 framework had not anticipated.

This was an early signal (no pun intended) of a pattern that would repeat itself throughout the history of broadcast copyright: rather than constantly rewriting the core definition, lawmakers would layer new instruments on top of existing frameworks to cover newly emerged technologies.

How India defined “broadcast” in its own copyright law 🔗

India’s experience with the definition of broadcast tracks this international evolution quite closely. The original Copyright Act, 1957 did not even define “broadcast” – protection for broadcasting signals was not conceived at that stage. It was only with the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1983 that the definition of “broadcast” was inserted as Section 2(dd) of the Act.

As it currently stands, Section 2(dd) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines “broadcast” as communication to the public – (i) by any means of wireless diffusion, whether in any one or more of the forms of signs, sounds, or visual images; or (ii) by wire, and includes a re-broadcast. This is notably broader than the original Rome Convention definition because it explicitly includes wired transmission – covering cable TV alongside over-the-air broadcasts.

The inclusion of “by wire” was deliberate and significant. Cable television had become a major distribution medium by the 1980s, and restricting copyright protection only to wireless transmissions would have left cable operators entirely outside the protective framework. By recognizing both wireless and wired communication to the public, Indian law ensured that the definition did not become technologically obsolete overnight.

The 1994 amendment and broadcast reproduction rights 🔗

The more substantive overhaul came with the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994, which introduced the concept of “broadcast reproduction rights” under Section 37. This gave broadcasting organizations a special right – distinct from copyright – to control the reproduction, rebroadcast, public communication, and commercial rental of their broadcasts for a period of 25 years from the year of broadcast. The 1994 amendments were expressly designed to align Indian law with international standards under the Rome Convention, even though India is not formally a signatory to that treaty.

Indian courts have also played a role in shaping the scope of this definition. In Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. Telelink (AIR 1989 Bom 331), the Bombay High Court held that broadcasting a video film over cable TV for a fee, without authorization, amounted to infringement under Section 37 – confirming that cable transmissions were firmly within the broadcast definition. More recently, the Delhi High Court in ESPN Star Sports v. Global Broadcast News Ltd. recognized broadcast reproduction rights as distinct and separate from copyright, clarifying the unique legal character of these rights.

The digital challenge: when the definition had to stretch further 🔗

If the 1983 and 1994 amendments brought Indian and international law up to speed with cable and satellite, the internet posed an entirely new set of questions. In the digital environment, where wired and wireless technologies converge, broadcasting has become a very fluid notion. Streaming services, internet protocol television (IPTV), and live webcasting all involve transmitting audio-visual content to audiences – but they may not fit neatly within a definition built around electromagnetic signal transmission.

At the international level, this challenge drove years of negotiations at WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which has been working since 1998 on a new Broadcasting Treaty to replace the outdated Rome Convention framework. The core dispute in those negotiations has been whether “broadcast” should be defined in a technology-neutral manner – covering webcasting, simulcasting (streaming the same content online as is being broadcast on air), and IPTV – or whether it should remain anchored to traditional, signal-based transmission.

The 2006 WIPO discussions settled, at least temporarily, on confining the treaty to “traditional” radio and television broadcasting along with cable and satellite – deliberately setting aside webcasting. Yet subsequent draft texts have increasingly blurred this line. As analysis of more recent WIPO draft texts has shown, the present draft Broadcasting Treaty effectively reaches internet-based content, despite the original intention to keep it limited to traditional broadcast signals. The debate continues to this day, with the latest Chair’s draft text circulated at SCCR/45 in February 2024 still reflecting unresolved differences among member states on the scope of the definition.

India’s response to digital broadcasting 🔗

Within India, Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides a statutory licensing mechanism that allows any broadcasting organization to communicate a published literary or musical work and its sound recording to the public by way of broadcast. However, as the question of whether online streaming platforms qualify as “broadcasting organizations” under this provision has remained contested, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) proposed draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules in 2019 to clarify how internet streaming services fit into the existing broadcasting framework. These proposed rules signal the continuing effort to stretch definitions without completely rewriting the foundational statute.

The 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act also expanded the scope by strengthening technological protection measures and rights management information provisions – acknowledging that the enforcement of broadcast rights in a digital environment requires more than just a definition; it requires practical tools to prevent circumvention of digital protections.

Why the evolution of this definition matters 🔗

The history of the broadcast definition in copyright law is essentially a story of legal adaptability. Each time a new technology – radio, television, cable, satellite, the internet – changed the way content reached the public, the legal definition of “broadcast” had to either expand or be supplemented. The consistent thread across all these shifts is the underlying purpose: ensuring that entities who invest in assembling, transmitting, and delivering content to the public are protected against unauthorized exploitation of their signals.

For students and practitioners of intellectual property law, this evolution also illustrates a key principle: definitions in copyright statutes are not static. They are shaped by technology, by international negotiations, and by judicial interpretation. The Indian definition under Section 2(dd) – covering both wireless and wired communication – reflects a deliberate choice to remain inclusive rather than narrowly prescriptive. As OTT platforms, AI-generated content delivery, and peer-to-peer transmission continue to blur existing categories, the definition of broadcast will almost certainly face its next significant test.

What do you think? As streaming platforms like Netflix, Hotstar, and YouTube increasingly replace traditional broadcasters in India, should the Copyright Act’s definition of “broadcast” be formally amended to include internet-based transmissions – or is the current framework broad enough to accommodate them through interpretation? And if webcasting is eventually brought under the same legal umbrella as traditional broadcasting, what new challenges might that create for content creators and consumers?

References

1. https://infojustice.org/archives/46093
2. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/289757
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Performers,_Producers_of_Phonograms_and_Broadcasting_Organisations
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/797096/
5. https://www.quickcompany.in/articles/rights-of-broadcasting-organization-under-the-copyright-act-1957
6. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=research
7. https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/broadcasting.html
8. https://infojustice.org/archives/45699
9. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_45/sccr_45_3.pdf
10. https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4851-internet-broadcasting-under-the-copyright-act-1957.html