지상파재송신 관련 법적 쟁점과 분석

The copyright conflicts between terrestrial broadcasters and cable system operators took a new turn when a Seoul court decided to no longer permit cable companies from retransmitting terrestrial signals without consent. In giving its verdict on the case of KBS, MBC and SBS accusing the five major cable system operators ― CJ Hello Vision, CNM, HCN, T-Broad and CMB ― for copyright violations, the court stated that cable system operators were infringing on copyrights related to live broadcasting. In explanation, the court concluded that It would be hard to see the retransmission of terrestrial broadcast signal on cable channels as merely as supportive measures in allowing the reception of digital terrestrial broadcasts. However, cable system operators called the court ruling “regrettable” and filed an appeal. They assert that terrestrial broadcast retransmission should be focused on the aspect of the public interest and policy judgment-call. Also, The KCC(Korea Communication Commission) introduced a plan to change the retransmission policy which ensure the public interest. The plan, however, make me have a critical mind because the plan is based on “public interest” grounds or “universal service” grounds, not constitutional grounds. But the legislative effort for defining the retransmission policy should be directed toward an analysis of constitutional Perspective. Because the legislative effort should be within the limit of constitutional value order. With the point in mind, I try to suppose constitutional meaning about freedom of information as the constitutional grounds of the retransmission policy and also try to provide alternative plans to solve the problem of copyright conflicts between terrestrial broadcasters and cable system operators with this theoretical base.