우리나라 지상파방송 재송신을 둘러싼 법적 쟁점과 해법 모색

Abstract

이 글은 방송산업의 최대 현안으로 자리매김한 지상파방송의 재송신문제를 소재로 삼았다. 지상파방송의 재송신은 지상파방송에 대안적인 새로운 전송수단을 통한 방송매체가 출현하면서 등장하게 된 지상파방송에 대한 접근(access) 방식으로 방송법상의 방송운영방식 중 하나이다. 지상파재송신을 둘러싼 이해관계자들의 갈등은 2002년 위성방송이 도입될 당시 최초로 표출되었는데, 2008년 IPTV 도입 시에도 지상파채널에 대한 접근을 둘러싼 갈등이 빚어지더니, 종국에는 종합유선방송사업자에게까지 번지게 되었다. 이미 널리 알려진 바와 같이 2008년 지상파방송사업자의 디지털방송에 대한 전송대가 요구로 시작된 지상파방송3사와 SO들 간의 지상파재송신 분쟁은 작년과 올해 지상파방송 콘텐츠에 대한 저작권 및 지상파방송사업자의 저작인접권을 인정해준 법원의 판결로 지상파방송프로그램과 지상파방송사업자의 저작권법상의 지위 및 지상파방송사업자와 SO의 법률관계가 확정되며 일단락되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 지상파재송신을 둘러싼 갈등은 SO의 방송 전면중단이라는 극단적인 대응방식으로 이어져 시청자 권익에 직접적인 침해를 가하며 심화되었다. 지상파방송의 이용 조건, 소위 재전송 대가 산정방식을 어떻게 정할 것인가라는 가장 핵심적인 문제가 표류하고 있기 때문이다. 이 글에서는 여전히 논란이 되고 있는 지상파재송신을 둘러싼 법적 쟁점을 고찰하고 그 대안을 제시하고자 한다. 먼저 재송신제도의 의의를 개설하고, 지상파재송신과 관련된 갈등 사례와 그 원인 및 그동안 이 문제를 해결하기 위하여 논의·제안되었던 방안들을 소개한 다음, 그 내용을 토대로 지상파방송 재송신을 둘러싼 본질적인 법적 쟁점들을 재검토하여 다소 거칠게나마 대안을 제시하고자 한다.This paper talks about the conflict in retransmission of the terrestrial broadcasts (hereinafter 'TB') - KBS 2TV, MBC and SBS -, the hottest issue in the broadcasting industry in Korea. The retransmission of terrestrial broadcasts is a method to access terrestrial broadcasting programs that has emerged as new media platforms alternative to those free over-the-air broadcasts entered into the market. It is a legal method provided for in Article 78 of the Broadcasting Act. The conflict in the retransmission first appeared in 2002 when a satellite broadcasting system started its broadcasting across the country. It again appeared in 2008 when IPTV operators launched its business. Finally, but not lastly, the escalating conflict expanded to cable TVs (also known as system operator, SO, thereinafter 'SO'). Under the current retransmission regime, SOs are subject to a legal obligation to simultaneously retransmit KBS TV1 (Korean Broadcasting System TV1) and EBS (Education Broadcasting System) channels to give viewers in Korea access to various public programs. This does not involve any fees or charges and the Broadcasting Act excludes the applicability of the Copyright Act in this case. There are other three major TB channels, namely KBS 2TV, MBC and SBS, and their programs are so-called the killer contents. Obviously, they are not subject to the obligatory retransmission regime. Any newly entered platform operators must secure the access to the killer-contents in order to survive in the tough broadcasting market over which these three TBs have quite significant market power. As early as 1960’s, the TBs and SOs have maintained a peaceful relationship, as their interests were met; TBs have the de jure and de faco obligations, respectively, to improve the quality and systems of receiving broadcasting signals all over the country, and desires to distribute their contents as many viewers as possible in order to gain profits from advertizing business, while SOs have the lined networks across the country and needed contents to entice subscribers. TBs acquiesced SOs’s retransmission of their channels without their permission and payment. However, the situations now have changed due to digitalization of broadcasting environment and emergence of new media platforms. As of 2007, TBs started to ask retransmission fee from SOs. SOs, of course, did not respond to this sudden request. TBs lodged a lawsuit for copyright infringement and applied for several interlocutory motions against 5 major SOs established in Seoul. Courts all found that TBs have and enjoy copyrights on their programs and their right, namely the right to simultaneously relay-broadcast had been in fact infringed by the SOs unlawful retransmission, and ordered them to stop retransmitting TBs’ digital programs to new subscribers. Now they are under negotiating the retransmission fees but the way to reach an agreement seems too far. Because of this hardened relationship between TBs and SOs, the viewers right to access TBs programs, which are perceived as a universal service, has been jeopardized and is under a threat as SOs have not seldomly stopped retransmitting TBs channels (6 times between 2011-2012). The regulator is not effective in resolving this issue. In the meantime, the National Assembly and regulators tried to improve the situation by, among others, (i) expanding the scope of the current regime by subjecting the KBS 2TV and MBC to the Article 78 obligatory retransmission regime, (ii) establishing principles and rules to compute retransmission fees, and lastly, not to least (iii) to establish a special dispute resolution system for this specific regime. In this paper the author first explains the retransmission regime under the Broadcasting Act, and next re-examines the legal issues surrounding the TB retransmission system and analyzes the legislature and regulator’s responsive amendments to the Act, and lastly proposes new ideas to improve or change major shortcomings of the current system.