tageous use of this technology for the benefit of all the peoples of the world.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXX, No. 1817, Apr. 22, 1974, pp. 445–450.

On October 15, 1974, Thomas H. Kuchel, U.S. Representative in the First Committee on the U.N. General Assembly, made a statement to the Committee on outer space matters. With respect to direct broadcasting by satellite, Mr. Kuchel said:

The United States has not, either in its own draft principles on direct broadcasting or, so far, in the debates in the Legal Sub-Committee, addressed what is probably the most controversial and vexatious issue involved, that of prior consent. There are two primary reasons for our position. First, it has become apparent from our discussions in the direct broadcasting Working Group that there is not anything close to agreement even on the definition of the issue itself. Second, we do not believe that the considerable differences separating the members of the Outer Space Committee can readily be overcome without a good deal more work.

One of several points that must be seriously considered in the context of a system of prior consent is that such a principle could rule out direct broadcasting for entire regions. Because a satellite beam would usually cover many states, one country's objection to international broadcasts could prohibit many others from receiving such broadcasts, even if they specifically desired to receive them. This is a point which we believe must be seriously considered, and a point the implications of which must be addressed by each state in light of its own regional context.

My government, for its part, does not believe that the international community's interests would be well served by establishing a right to prohibit an international direct television broadcast by withholding advance consent, through whatever means, to such broadcasting. Any such broadcasts would need to be conducted with sensitivity to the receiving audiences, but in our view this would be strongly in the interests of potential broadcasters as well as those of potential listeners, and an appropriate and effective way to ensure such sensitivity would be through voluntarily agreed performance standards among broadcasters.

We recognize that there are many legitimate concerns about the possible international impact of direct broadcasting technology, and we believe that these concerns must be addressed in a direct and open manner. However, our strongly held view is that the solution to those concerns lies in the future development and use of this technology in an effective and constructive way, rather than in the inhibition of what contains at least the potential for great contributions, for example in the educational and social communications

fields. We would all benefit. I believe, from increased and open exchanges of ideas, rather than from fewer such exchanges. In this world of rapidly increasing contacts and interaction among states we need to know and understand more about each other, rather than less; indeed, we can hardly afford not to take whatever steps are possible to clarify and understand our differences as well as our common areas of agreement.

That kind of understanding obviously must involve an exchange of ideas, not simply a one-way conveyance of them. Thus my government has proposed that there should be increased opportunity, as practical difficulties are overcome, for access to the use of this technology for sending as well as for receiving broadcasts. We must obviously be realistic about the practical limitations on initial participation, but at the same time we must keep in focus the necessity for increasing that participation as it becomes possible.

U.N. Doc. A/C.1/PV.1990, Oct. 15, 1974, pp. 7-10; Press Release USUN-134 (74), Oct. 15, 1974, pp. 4-5.

Program-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite

The Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite was adopted at Brussels on May 21, 1974, by an international conference convened jointly by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Convention was signed on May 21, 1974, by the United States and fourteen other countries: Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Spain, and Switzerland. The Convention remains open for signature until March 31, 1975, and is subject to ratification or acceptance by signatory states. It remains open indefinitely for accession.

The need for such a convention arose from the greatly increased size of the geographic areas in which television broadcasts can be received, making relays possible over territories with widely different copyright laws and practices. This geographic extension of television broadcasts has raised problems for broadcasters in their relationships with the owners of rights in the material transmitted.

The convention sets up an international system for the protection of program-carrying signals transmitted by satellite from unauthorized use, a practice called "poaching" or "pirating." It is aimed at protecting broadcasters against the unauthorized use of their television signals carrying copyrighted works, sports, news, and special events programs transmitted by communications satellite. The preamble makes clear that it is not intended to impair in any way inter

national agreements already in force, including the 1965 International Telecommunication Convention (TIAS 6267; 18 UST 575; entered into force May 29, 1967) and the Radio Regulations annexed to that Convention, and in particular is in no way to prejudice wider acceptance of the Rome Convention of October 26, 1961 (496 UNTS 43; entered into force May 18, 1964), which affords protection to performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations.

The essence of the Convention is that a contracting state agrees to undertake to prevent, by methods it deems satisfactory, any ground station on its territory from picking up and redistributing signals received from satellites without authority. This is set forth in the first sentence of Article 2, paragraph 1 which reads as follows:

Each contracting state undertakes to take adequate measures to prevent the distribution on or from its territory of any programcarrying signal by any distributor for whom the signal emitted to or passing through the territory is not intended.

If the domestic measures taken pursuant to that obligation are limited in time, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is to be notified in writing of this duration and of any subsequent change.

Under Article 3 the Convention does not apply where the signals emitted by or on behalf of the originating organization are intended for direct reception from the satellite by the general public. Article 4 exempts a state from applying the measures referred to in Article 2 in certain cases of short excerpts of current events or quotations, and, in developing countries, distributions of teaching or scientific research programs.

Under Article 5 the Convention is nonretroactive, and under Article 6 it is not to be interpreted to limit or prejudice the protection secured to authors, performers, producers of phonograms, or broadcasting organizations under any domestic law or international agreement. Article 7 provides that nothing in the Convention is to be interpreted as a limitation on the application of domestic law to prevent abuses of monopoly. Under Article 8 no reservation to the Convention may be made.

The 1965 International Telecommunication Convention is to be replaced by the International Telecommunication Convention of Oct. 25, 1973, as between parties to the later Convention (Senate Exec. J, 93d Cong., 2d Sess.).

A Report on the International Conference of States on the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite submitted to the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the U.S. House of Representatives, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., appears in Committee Print, Serial U, July 1974. It contains, inter alia, the text of the Convention, the Final Act of the Conference, and the draft report of the General Rapporteur. The text of the Convention in English, French, Spanish, and Russian appears in a joint UNESCO-WIPO unnumbered document.

569-769-75- -28

Availability of Data

Remote Sensing

Leonard Jaffe, United States Representative to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, made a statement on February 25, 1974, to the combined session of the Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellites and the Task Force of the Working Group, with respect to the availability of data derived from satellite remote sensing systems.

Mr. Jaffe said that in the view of the United States, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (TIAS 6347; 18 UST 2410; entered into force for the United States October 10, 1967) "clearly applies to activities such as those we and others have undertaken in the remote sensing area." The following are further excerpts from Mr. Jaffe's statement:

The contrary suggestion has been heard that remote sensing of the Earth's environment and natural resources constitutes a space activity fundamentally different from any of those envisaged by the Outer Space Treaty because it is characterized as "Earth-looking" rather than "outward-looking." We find no basis for such a distinction in the negotiating history of that Treaty, and insofar as there is any evidence of the drafters' intentions, it leans quite in the other direction.

Years before the negotiation of the Outer Space Treaty the United States was engaged in well publicized studies of the Earth's weather from space using a variety of meteorological satellites, which by definition were oriented toward the Earth. In addition, numerous photographs of the Earth and its resources were taken by the early U.S. manned space flights in the Mercury and Gemini programs, and planning for continuation of those activities in the Apollo program was well known at the time the Treaty was agreed. Despite the self-evident Earth-oriented aspects of these and our Earth applications satellite programs, no effort was made in the United Nations, and we find nothing in the Treaty, to distinguish this kind of space activity from any other. Indeed, Article I provides that outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all states without discrimination of any kind, and urges that states facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such activities.

The open data distribution policy followed by the United States, which even during our experimental programs would appear to have brought tangible benefits to people in many parts of the world, has recently been challenged by some states for a variety of reasons. We recognize and appreciate that among those reasons is a concern relating to preserving the rights of states to maintain control over the development and use of resources within their respective territories. We acknowledge such rights. We assert them ourselves over natural resources found within the United States, and we respect such assertions by other nations.

However, we see no justification for the newly suggested theory that a state's permanent sovereignty over natural resources includes control over all information about those resources. The expansion of

the world's knowledge about itself, knowledge about the physical and environmental relationships within and across national borders, cannot be equated with any reduction in the right or ability of any state to control the actual exploration, extraction, or development of natural resources found within its boundaries. Knowledge about a resource, regardless how reliable, cannot itself give access to that resource; consent of the relevant sovereign is essential for that.

On the other hand, it should be understood that no vital interest of the United States itself is at stake in the open distribution to other countries of imagery collected by our Earth resources satellites. If the international community in general should oppose these open dissemination practices we would of course not wish to impose our data on other states. We would, however, deeply regret any setback to the principle of open and unimpeded exchange of information on an international basis.

It also should be noted that under our domestic law the United States Government would have no basis on which to deny remote sensing data to U.S. citizens. As a practical matter, this almost certainly would mean that under any arrangement regarding international data dissemination, some data released to our own citizens would find its way abroad in an irregular and uncontrollable manner. The inevitable result would be that such data would become available to different countries on an unequal basis with some finding means of obtaining more than others; in all likelihood some would obtain none at all. We believe it would be more equitable and beneficial to all users to continue providing equal opportunity for access to data to the entire international community.

At this time it is the intention of the United States Government to continue to make the data it acquires fully available. As I have said, we believe this is consistent with the Outer Space Treaty. Further, it seems clear that a great many states are increasingly interested in using these data. Today some 40 countries and international organizations are participating directly in our programs, and many more indirectly, through independent purchase of data for their own satellite earth resources survey programs. This has been accomplished on the basis of an open data policy. The question should be raised whether this degree of international participation, which may be without precedent in an advanced research program, would have been possible if a restrictive data policy had been followed.

Mr. Jaffe then reviewed several technical factors that tended to render undesirable a restrictive policy on cooperation. He noted that satellite sensors are not capable of distinguishing national boundaries, nor was it known how to disentangle images taken by a remote sensing satellite on the basis of political boundaries. Further, limiting the data availability to conform to national boundaries would destroy many of the most useful functions of a satellite remote sensing system "inasmuch as ecological systems, pollution, river valleys, soil moisture conditions, rift systems, vegetation and soil patterns and most other