Slashdot Mirror

in our society we consider that people can have intellectual, as well as physical property.

Please define "we". Just because an industry cartel with UN sanction has invented the legal fiction of "intellectual property" doesn't mean it is universally accepted as the right thing to do. A couple of centuries ago you could be hanged for grazing your cattle on the land of the king, and you were entitled to have slaves (although today they would probably be called "human property") attitudes change, and what is accepted as just one day isn't accepted a couple of years and a few martyrs later (think of universal suffrage for a more recent example)

investments are made based upon the notion that the investment, plus at least some small bit of profit, will be incurred at some point.

If music isn't profitable anymore, investors will invest in something else and society will not collapse. (See my comment about the slave trade above. The same arguments were made against abolition of slavery, giving up colonies etc,etc.)

and if sufficient music is stolen, then the parties involved could be put in a situation where creating and distributing music isn't worth it any more.

Copyright infringement isn't theft, but I'll let that slide for now. I don't really see a problem with the demise of the music industry. Music was made for at least 5000 years before the rise of the music industry, and there is no reason to assume that music won't be around 5000 years after it's demise.

Redefinitions of the word "pirate" and "thief" to describe copying intangibles was intentional on the **AA's part.

The more recent word, introduced this century, is "intellectual property" which tries to make a similar implication that copyright violation is theft. This was introduced by WIPO and friends.

That's a really classical demonstration of the slippery-slope fallacy.

Fast forward to today, when I get 200-300 spam a day, phishing is a multi-million dollar industry, and for many applications email is becoming useless.

I must have smarter ISPs or something. I've gotten fewer than 5 spams this year, and never more than 50/year across the past decade. That's not to say it isn't a problem- the public has lost an important ability to freely hang out your email address for unsolicited correspondence on topics of interest. But it's not apocalyptic.

stating the facts that our domestic software industry would indeed wither and die in that scenario

Statements like that aren't worth the time to refute.

Certainly it would be impossible to compete successfully with developers from any unencumbered country.

WHAT encumbered country? They're rare today, and another one dies every few years. It's called WIPO. Even though some Banana Republics will host regenade programmers, executing that code inside WTO nations will earn you a BSA audit, or worse.

So even the big firms will continue to get twisted.

They're not twisted today, and it's theoretically possible for a non-event to "continue". All that happens is they spend $300,000 on legal fees every couple years. No problem for a megacorp, especially in exchange for having destroyed all small/start-up software houses.

All that will happen is that, sooner or later, either the law will change, or we'll move further towards the regime's logical conclusion and software development will become something that's done overseas.

No. That's "Black & White" thinking in a Greyscale world. You point out two extremes, and then claim that one of them is inevitable (but you don't know which)

In reality, complex problems almost never go completely one way or another. Abusers of a priviledge are frequently smart enough not to go too far and rock the boat. Killing the USA programming industry would be rocking it.

Copyright provides architects, as authors of architectural works, protection for their designs, and grants to third parties the affirmative right to photograph publicly accessible buildings and to freely distribute and display those photographs. The free exchange of ideas, and the freedom to borrow and expand on those ideas, are integral to the design process; copyright protection tailored to the particular nature of architectural design benefits the public and advances cultural development.

In contrast, however, in trade mark law, architectural works are properly protected where the design is the "signature" style of the architect. Copyright law permits individuals to photograph architectural designs, but trade mark law preempts the right freely to use a trade marked architectural creation. Some buildings in the U.S.A. currently under trade mark include the Chrysler Building and Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Transamerica Pyramid in San Francisco, the Wrigley Building and Citicorp Center in Chicago, and The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Trade mark protection for buildings is limited, however, as it precludes another party from designing a building in the same shape.

So there are some IP protections available to real property developers. =)

Quotation from this Word file.

IIRC, the section of the Copyright Act that explicitly allows photography of publicly accessible buildings--120--was written in response to a lawsuit against a photographer by the Guggenheim in New York.

Perhaps there needs to be a cohesive international set of laws for such matters.

There is! Thats what these guys got us! (or rather got those who use intelectial property protection, which is among others, is us slashdot readers)

Just becouse big lobbying coorporations think "their" copyright laws are "broken in this post napster age", doesn`t mean copyright protection and other "intelectual property" laws are an unorganized/broken mess. If only human right laws where as well maintained and enforced internationally as "intelectual property" laws...

It would be interesting to watch two western cop`s, one going after a chines knockoff manufacturer and another after chinese refugee smuggeling organisation. I am not saying one will have succes and the other not. I am saying It will be intersting to watch by who either one is helped or obstructed.

IANAL, but as far as I know you would be fine if the company does not have a patent in your country, or does not have an application pending in your country which covers the same thing.

There currently aren't any laws which recognize patents from other countries as being valid in any other country (at least to my knowledge). However, there is such a thing as a world patent filing through WIPO that files patents under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The WIPO does not grant any rights to a filer of the patent other than the right to re-file the patent as a national stage application in each of the countries that are selected during the filing of the PCT application while retaining the original filing date of the PCT application as a priority date. Basically this just allows for an easier way to file a patent application in multiple countries at the same time.

UN WIPO experts said they do not know the solution to trademark conflicts with domain names.

These people lied - the answer was self-evident and has been ratified by honest lawyers.

Virtually every word is (or can be) registered as a trademark many times over by different type of business in same or different country e.g. the word 'apple' is registered by tobacco and computer companies in the US.

The only way to avoid confusion with ordinary domain names is to have some sort of identifier to identify them - to replace registered trademark symbol (R) - like a protected .reg TLD.

Just like only US government departments can get .gov domain - only registered trademarks can get a .reg domain.

All registered trademark words can be uniquely identified by name.classification.country.reg - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg

Apple Computers can still use apple.com - just directed to apple.computer.us.reg as certificate of authentication and use as directory.

Please visit my site - Not associated with UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).

Cutting and pasting:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.

With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 23 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection.

According to the FAQ:

[...]signs which may be registered as a trade mark include the following:

• word marks including letters, numbers or combination of letters, numbers and words;
• figurative marks, whether or not including words;
• figurative marks in colour;
• colours or combinations of colours;
• three-dimensional marks;
• sound marks;

So you can register a logo using a specific typeface as a figurative mark. Of course, if you register a word mark instead, you get the rights to all graphical representations of the word(s).

Where does the line get drawn between physical property and intellectual property, and what rights do you have if you HAD purchased it, but it's gone now?

Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.

3. The 21st century will be that of the knowledge-based economies, in which intellectual property will be the main driving force. WIPO should be able to provide strong leadership in developing the intellectual property system with a view to underpin the global conditions where creative potential can be released and channeled into tangible, sustainable development.

When you file under the PCT, you don't get a patent in every country, you merely reserve a date and allow the patent to be brought into various other countries. Here is a PCT FAQ from a Canadian law firm. Here is another FAQ. And here is the WIPO FAQ about PCT.

But how are they going to stop international users?

This "problem" has already been solved. The whole point of the DMCA was to bring US copyright stands up to par with WIPO standards. After the DMCA the US was able to sign on with WIPO and work with it to enforce international IP law with all the member nations. This allows companies/government to persue users in other countries. The RIAA has also done this recently as well. If I remember correctly they helped bring down a CD-R piracy group outside of the US (I think it was either Mexico or Russia, but am not sure).

First, we have to agree that governments, no matter what, are populated with people. Agreed? Agreed. Second, we have to agree that those people have definite directions they would like the government to go in. Agreed? Agreed. (These are, after all, common sense things.)

Capitalism, as defined by Webster's on-line dictionary is said to be ": an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." So first notice that there is nothing said about people. Capitalism talks instead about companies and corporations.

Democracy, as defined by Webster's on-line dictionary is "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Notice that a Democracy is of, by, and for the people and has nothing to do with companies or corporations. Or in other words - what I said in the first paragraph.

They are NOT mutually exclusive in that people have to run both of them. But they ARE mutually exclusive in their orientation towards their goals. In Capitalism it is the companies who rule and the people are the slaves. In a Democracy the people rule and the companies are the slaves. The distinction is in who rules and who doesn't. Not in the fact that both of them have people in them.

And while we are on the subject - FEUDALISM is closer to Capitalism than Democracy. As defined you-know-where, feudalism is "1 : the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture." In Capitalism you give your loyalty and support to a company, in feudalism you give it to a king. But you are still a vassal no matter what in either system! There can be only one king and there can be only on president or CEO of a company. Same thing - just different titles.

IRAQ: All I can say is "Show me the weapons!" You can't! They didn't have any! They were in compliance! Watch CNN, read stories from OUTSIDE OF THE US! Get other people's input before you say they did anything wrong. The only thing is - the US is the big bully on the block and we didn't like what Iraq was doing. So we went over there and killed people, invaded a country, created another Afghanistan! Wow! Wasn't that wonderful? This huge superpower went over and wiped out a government in another country which wasn't even as big as our largest state, had no weapons of mass destruction that we can find(!), and wiped out their economy. Wow! I'm impressed! Not.

And I realize you have your way of looking at it and I have mine. So I tell you what I'll do. I'll look at the dead bodies and weep. You can look at the elected officals and cheer.

One World: WIPO is the organization which has helped to push copyrights so they will last for 175 years. WIPO isn't made up of politicans. It is made up of corporate CEOs and other higher management personnel. They are the ones who got the US (and now other countries) to extend copyrights which were originally set to be 14 years with a single extension of 14 years to last over 100 years past the death of the copyright holder. Why? It can't be because the copyright owner needs the money. So come on - let's hear it - it benefits the corporations and companies of the world. Ah - there we go - taking the "We the people" out of things again. You can look around for others

There is a Swiss based organisation called World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) with 179 member states promoting worldwide patents.

From the Website:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to helping to ensure that the rights of creators and owners of intellectual property are protected worldwide and that inventors and authors are, thus, recognized and rewarded for their ingenuity.

All hope abandon, as far as Europe is concerned...

...or could these developments still be stopped before setting a bad precedent for further countries such as the UK, which will probably not be spared from similar legislation for much longer either?

While this article assumes that Wednesday's approval by the Committee on Legal Affairs makes adoption of Germany's "DMCA" bill in plenary session on Friday "a mere formality" (as even the opposition's sole regret seems to be that fair use rights should have been curtailed even further), many of you sure wish to recount some experiences of the Chilling Effects from Four Years under the DMCA to the Members of the German Parliament about to repeat most of the DMCA's mistakes in their attempt to implement yet another overreaching implementation of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, the highly controversial "monstrosity" known as European Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.

If I were on the Australian High Court I would I would say the following to him:

Hmmm, yes. Very impressive. This clearly has global implications. You need to bring your case before WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization. Case dissmissed!

-

Emerging issues in Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property covers things that are non-tangible e.g. trademarks, and all those Amazon.com patents. WIPO

The official report of the discussion is here. The part in question starts on page 27.

The article mentions that this fellow has applied for a patent last thursday. Guess what? There's no mention of the patent on the Irish Patent office website or the European patent office website or WIPO website.

They've signed up to the same interantional treaty that the entertainment industry organised in order to subvert the US democratic system.

You're talking about the Wipo Copyright Treaty (WCT) If you look at article 11, the "technological measures" (DRM) need not be "protected" against circumvention if it restricts acts that are "permitted by law".

The main problem is still the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) I don't know how strongly Norway is bound by that. (Norways is not member of the EU, but is in the EEC)

Except, that Norway is a member of WIPO which says that its members must respect the copyright laws of other nations.

European Copyright Directive. [ukcdr.org] The directive demands that "circumvention of effective technological measures" be made illegal in a way similar to the US DMCA

Realize that it isn't the DMCA where this comes from, but rather from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and a treaty agreed to by some 38 countries. Few of those countries, oddly, are in the EU, even though the treaty was signed in Geneva. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

Article 11
Obligations concerning
Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Article 12 is also interesting, but more or less a corollary. It requires contracting parties to make it illegal to remove copy management information from a work or knowingly transmit a work which has had this done to it. I'd love to see a good page listing to what degree this treaty has been put into force of law in agreeing countries.

European Copyright Directive. [ukcdr.org] The directive demands that "circumvention of effective technological measures" be made illegal in a way similar to the US DMCA

Realize that it isn't the DMCA where this comes from, but rather from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and a treaty agreed to by some 38 countries. Few of those countries, oddly, are in the EU, even though the treaty was signed in Geneva. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

Article 11
Obligations concerning
Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Article 12 is also interesting, but more or less a corollary. It requires contracting parties to make it illegal to remove copy management information from a work or knowingly transmit a work which has had this done to it. I'd love to see a good page listing to what degree this treaty has been put into force of law in agreeing countries.

European Copyright Directive. [ukcdr.org] The directive demands that "circumvention of effective technological measures" be made illegal in a way similar to the US DMCA

Realize that it isn't the DMCA where this comes from, but rather from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and a treaty agreed to by some 38 countries. Few of those countries, oddly, are in the EU, even though the treaty was signed in Geneva. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

Article 11
Obligations concerning
Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Article 12 is also interesting, but more or less a corollary. It requires contracting parties to make it illegal to remove copy management information from a work or knowingly transmit a work which has had this done to it. I'd love to see a good page listing to what degree this treaty has been put into force of law in agreeing countries.

I gave this comment before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:

Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali), or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.

INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.

All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.

Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.

P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody in UDRP and Sunrise - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.

The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations !

They authorities know the solution.

When Nissan Motors tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan, their spokesman said "We registered nissancomputer.com and offered it to him for free, but he has no interest in being Nissan Computer -- his real name"

They have nissanmotors.com - so is it not EXACTLY the same as them having no interest in being Nissan Motors -- their real name.

IANAL but Nissan act unlawfully by overreaching their trademark - they cannot claim all occurances of the word 'nissan'. It is against Competition Law for them to prevent others from doing using the word in business - if they are not acting unlawfully (which Mr Nissan is not).

Quote from European Competition Law:

2. Abuses of dominant position (Article 82)

2.2. What are the prohibited practices under Article 82?
c) Abuse of intellectual property rights The mere existence of a patent, trademark or copyright is not sufficient to establish a dominant position.

Like I say, the authorities know the solution to trademark conflict and consumer confusion on the Internet. It is therefore logical to conclude that the US DoC, ICANN and UN WIPO are dishonest (to say the least), as they hide the answer (ratified by honest attorneys).

Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see it. Not associated with corrupt United Nations !

Their time is coming. Are you ready?

I have posted similar comment several times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:

Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali), or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.

SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.

All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.

Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.

P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.

The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !

Quote: Claims of invasions of privacy online are "baseless," says Mark Corallo, a spokesperson for the Justice Department.

What a load of spin (lies). I have posted similar comment a few times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:

Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.

SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET [zdnet.com]: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.

All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.

Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.

P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.

The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !

you can bypass that scary disclaimer and read all that hidden information here (reg. req'd, blah blah) :)

I have posted similar comment a couple of times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:

Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.

Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.

SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law

This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.

It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.

Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.

P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.

The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !

P.S. All people who have commented on the South African government should consider whether they know enough about it before they make comments, some conceptions are about 10 years out of date ...

I'm sure there are some US citizens who believe .za still has the apartheid regime. But I must admit I haven't read that law either, it would give me a headache.

Anyway, I am not in jail, and I think my PLF mirror should be ok too (until we get software patents) ...

Good to hear. But I'm sure you'll also get software patents like the rest of us, WIPO will take care of that.

So here's the solution: write your code, set up a distribution site in India and lean back. When that's too far, try Poland or Mexico.

Don't forget to register a company or other legal entity in India, since you may be sued in your own country where there's still a patent. Fraunhofer and ST may not win, but you'll sure be broke looking at the costs of litigation.

It's basically the same trick as KaZaa:
When they were sued in The Netherlands, they moved the whole stuff to Australia (however, in appeal, KaZaa won).

IANAL (yet)

Many seem to forget that the EU isn't emulating the USA in this case. The EUCP and DMCA are both the results of an international copyright treaty by WIPO, an organization created by the WTO (World Trade Organization).

With 179 members, almost all countries in the world are covered, including Canada and Switzerland.

Can anyone comment on the possibilities of constitutional federal initiative and referendum laws in Switzerland being possible to use to get rid of this, assuming the public eventually voted it down in a referendum? Or is it too late to get rid of the law if it has already been passed?

Not Yet!

But, the DMCA is the local embodiment of an international Treaty* - ALL COUNTRIES (i bet *your* listed here(!) will end up w/ a DMCA:

See here

*From the dmca: World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, the relevant part (which gave birth to the DMCA) is here:

Article 18

Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.


And, for good measure, here is what Microsoft (our fav friend, w/ MPAA && RIAA) think (quite well of) these bodies/treaties: here

Whats my point? First, WIPO is a body of MultiNational Corporations. America is the seat of Global Capitalism. Global Capitalists are driving treaties like these, and will use American legislation to say ""Look at the wonderful state of the Intellectual Property Industry in America(TM) and you will see what We can do for You. Just enact a law -- JUST LIKE THE DMCA -- and we will play nice with you. If not, you are a Rogue Nation in an the next Axis of Evil.

So, basically, we're all fucked. This problem (global governance via Corporation) is only starting - and its so far off the radar of most -- not the Anti-Capitalists, they may not know this particular play in the detail as most /.ers, but this is Modus Operendi for these types -- but most people havnt a clue..

Wait about 10-15 years, the best is yet to come im sure..

The .biz tld definition, whatever it says, doesn't trump trademark law and 250+ years of precedent. A trademark is only infringing if it uses the same (or very similar) mark to market a product or service within the same class as the registered mark. Molsen doesn't own the mark for word "Canadian" in any and all contexts; It only owns it as related specifically to beer.

For example, let's say you own the mark to the phrase "Fucking Moron". You market jelly beans under that mark: "Fucking Moron's Old Style Jelly Beans".

Now, along comes another guy, and he wants to sell fishing tackle under the same name: "Fucking Moron's Fishing Tackle".

Can you sue him? Yes, but you'll lose.

Can you challenge the mark? Yes but, again, you'll lose.

Why? Because jelly beans and fishing tackle are not in the same market space. It's that simple.

Read, and be less of a fucking moron.

Quote: "Honeyman says existing steganography cannot be completely undetectable and adds that the key used to hide messages in images can be revealed with brute force computing power."

Any weakness of steganographic systems can be overcome.

For example; to beat brute force computing power only requires to have the message as an image of obfuscated text. There are several ways to do this; for one - think red-green colourblind eye test charts. It can also be multi-layered - each with seperate key. This would require manual viewing at every single attempt to crack it. The man hours required are too large to estimate.

P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department are hiding the simple solution to uniquely identify all registered trademarks on the Internet. The answer to this problem has been ratified by honest Lawyers. I believe UN WIPO and US DoC to be corrupt.

If you have heard of the respected Dr. Milton Mueller, you may be interested in the conclusion of his recent report, Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP. My comments and link to it on ICANN forum. His conclusion matches what I told UN WIPO and Nominet UK over a year ago.

Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - Not associated with visit United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization

They're different from Blockbuster because Blockbuster pays more than the ~$20 retail price for a VHS tape or DVD in exchange for permission from the copyright holders (usually MPAA studios) to rent out movies (well, and for early availibility too). Film88 is more like pay-per-view than Blockbuster, but again, the PPV channel has paid for permission to broadcast the movie.

It's the permission that's the key here; simply buying a copy of a movie does not give one the right to make more copies or give public viewings (however you want to interpret streaming video), as the FBI warning at the front clearly states.

Iran is not a signatory country to the Berne Convention or Copyright Treaties so it would be tough to go after a company based there. However, those treaties do allow the copyright owners to enforce their copyright in the signatory countries, so a customer could be prosecuted under the laws of the country where they live. So for those of us in the USA, read that FBI warning a little more closely.

Some disclaimers: IANAL. I also don't think that copyright holders should be allowed to pre-emptively prosecute or otherwise limit the rights of anyone who 'might' infringe, so please don't read any more into my comment than I put there, even if it appears to go against the Slashdot flow.

Just my 2 rials,
Paul

They're different from Blockbuster because Blockbuster pays more than the ~$20 retail price for a VHS tape or DVD in exchange for permission from the copyright holders (usually MPAA studios) to rent out movies (well, and for early availibility too). Film88 is more like pay-per-view than Blockbuster, but again, the PPV channel has paid for permission to broadcast the movie.

It's the permission that's the key here; simply buying a copy of a movie does not give one the right to make more copies or give public viewings (however you want to interpret streaming video), as the FBI warning at the front clearly states.

Iran is not a signatory country to the Berne Convention or Copyright Treaties so it would be tough to go after a company based there. However, those treaties do allow the copyright owners to enforce their copyright in the signatory countries, so a customer could be prosecuted under the laws of the country where they live. So for those of us in the USA, read that FBI warning a little more closely.

Some disclaimers: IANAL. I also don't think that copyright holders should be allowed to pre-emptively prosecute or otherwise limit the rights of anyone who 'might' infringe, so please don't read any more into my comment than I put there, even if it appears to go against the Slashdot flow.

Just my 2 rials,
Paul

Yeah, and to just name a few: MPAA, RIAA, and WIPO.

"Whoever came up with this intellectual property stuff anyway?"

Lawyers - when they had one of their annual "How can we make even more money than we do now?" meetings. But seriously it dates back to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act in the UK and for the latest developments in intellectual property there's WIPO.

Also look at the WIPO essays. The English one doesn't appear to argue directly for or against IP laws. He mentions the disadvantages that IP laws have in terms of education and entertainment, often being worse for both the user and the creator, while being glad of the protection he'll get for his own ideas. Personally I think what's needed is a non-patent-office, where people can register their ideas and allow them to be used freely, preventing real patents from being made on similar ideas. It would act as an archive of evidence demonstrating that many patents that are applied for are not original. This would prevent stupid patents that are based on common sense and that could easily be thought up by someone else without being aware that someone has come up with a similar idea.

Posted by Michael Fraase, 3/23/02 at 9:54:46 PM.

When elephants dance, its best to get out of the way. Thats exactly whats happening now as the entertainment industrythe recording, publishing, and motion picture industries, mainlyattempts a worldwide intellectual property power grab with two distinct targets. Think of it: a coup and a lock on all published content in the same year, amazing isnt it?

Target number 1 is the average customer: anyone who purchases software, an audio CD, an electronic book, or a movie on DVD. The entertainment industry sees customers as pirates, plain and simple. In their collective minds eye, we all have a wooden leg, eye patch, and a filthy talking parrot on our shoulder. While the Constitution grants customers certain rights with regard to copyrighted material, the entertainment industry very much wants to separate us from those rights.

Target number 2 in the sights of the entertainment industry are technology behemoths like Microsoft, Intel, IBM, and Apple. These companies, in the perverse worldview of the entertainment industry, make the toolscomputers mostlythat allow customers to practice their piracy.

Let me point out that I am a copyright owner, as is everyone else who has ever created a work in tangible form. Thats all authors, for short. Authors are almost never members of the entertainment industry club. The entertainment industry hates authors almost as much as they hate customers. Sometimes, especially when authors get uppity, the entertainment industry hates authors much more than customers. Until recently, authors have always been seen to be at least a marginal threat while customers were seen as merely necessary annoyances.

To complicate matters by at least an order of magnitude, the consumer electronics manufacturersthe companies that make stereos, VCRs, and DVD playershave aligned with the entertainment industry. At least some of them, and at least to some extent.

Unfortunately for usboth authors and customerswere likely to get squished as these elephants dance. The intent of the entertainment industry, believe it or not, is to outlaw personal computers. As security and cryptography expert Bruce Schneier explains it to Mike Godwin: If you think about it, the entertainment industry does not want people to have computers; theyre too powerful, too flexible, and too extensible. They want people to have Internet Entertainment Platforms: televisions, VCRs, game consoles, etc.

Copy-protected CDs

The recording industry is selling shiny plastic discs that contain music that cant be copied to or even played on some customers equipment. Philips, the owner of the CD format says these discs cannot be called CDs because they do not meet the standard of what a CD is. Sony, one of those weird hybrid companies that, as a member in good standing of both the technology and entertainment industries, finds itself on both sides of this issue says it cant guarantee the audio quality of these discs. The technology used to protect these discs sometimes prevents the discs from playing on computer CD-ROM drives, DVD players, and other devices specifically designed to play standard audio CDs.

Sales of recorded music are down 10% in the United States over the last year. The recording industry blames this downturn not on the economic recession, not on the crappy music that theyve released in the past few years, but on Internet piracy.

And its only going to get worse. Hilary B. Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) told Congress on 28 February 2001 that the practice of copy-protecting audio CDs would expand in the United States. If technology can be used to pirate copyrighted content, Rosen wrote in her response to a Congressional query, shouldnt technology likewise be used to protect copyrighted content? Surely, no one can expect copyright owners to ignore what is happening in the marketplace and fail to protect their creative works because some people engage in copying just for their personal use. Her pal, Michael Eisner, head of Disney, said he was tired of being finessed by the technology industry, whatever that means.

Unfortunately for Eisner, Rosen, Disney, and the RIAA, personal useand more importantly the rights associated with that use of copyrighted materialis exactly why copying of copyrighted material is not just allowed, but mandated by the Constitution. That some individuals illegally sell copied CDs or distribute copies of the music on the Internet is immaterial. In fact, fairly casual observation indicates that if customers are treated like criminals they will indeed begin to behave like criminals.

It has become common practice for music-loving computer owners to legally transfer audio CDs they purchase to .mp3 format files on their computers. The copy protection technology employed by the recording industry prevents such transfers by adding distortions to the music of the recordings. The industry insists that these distortions are inaudible when the disc is played on a standard CD player but result in pops when the music is transferred to a computer. In any case, its usually impossible to tell whether or not a disc includes the copy protection technology; in general, the copy-protected discs are not labeled.

Ironically, or probably not, .mp3 player manufacturers could easily defeat the copy protection technology, but they fear doing so would risk prosecution under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which prohibits the bypassing of copy protection systems. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that .mp3 players did not violate copyright law because customers have the right to space shift music they have purchased.

Moral rights

Interestingly, the act of using the copy protection technology is much more prevalent in Europe. Most European countries, unlike the United States, recognize an artists moral rights in the work they create.

Moral rights are a package of intellectual property rights granted to the original creator of a work, and include:

• The right of integrity;
• The right of attribution;
• The right of disclosure;
• The right to withdraw or retract; and
• The right to reply to criticism.

These moral rights are separate from the economic copyright that these days generally transfers from an author to a publisher and they can survive the author. The idea originated with the French, who believe that any creative work, by definition, includes the personality and character of the author. Where copyright is a property right that can be transferred, moral rights are part of the authors personality and character and non-transferable.

The first two moral rightsthe right of integrity and the right of attributionare especially important because they are codified as international law in the Berne Convention. The United States claims its intellectual property law complies with the Berne Convention, but this is just two instances where it doesnt.

The most important of these rights is the first, the right of integrity. Basically it prohibits an authors work from being distorted in any way that would harm the authors reputation and dates to the 1957 French law of droit au respect de l'oeuvre. Its a safe bet that a cross-reference over which the author had no control would be seen as a distortion of the work.

Seemingly, in Europe at least, an artist could make an argument against the production of a copy-protected version of her work on the sole basis of moral rights. Especially in the case of an audio CD to which distortion is intentionally added by the publisher.

In the United States, Representative Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) appears to be taking the point position in questioning the behavior of the entertainment industry. He believes that instead of using copyright to obtain fair compensation for the works theyve licensed, the copyright owner industryincluding the recording industryis attempting to exercise complete dominance and total control of the copyrighted work.

And just how much money does an artist receive in the form of royalties? Use Moses Avalons royalty calculator to figure it out.

A DMCA rewrite?

Representative Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) plans to introduce legislation that would regulateand maybe outright bancopy-protected compact discs. Boucher reportedly has concerns about customers buying copy-protected discs without knowing it and the compatibility problems inherent with the copy protection mechanism. In an interview with Wired News, Boucher said, The big problem initially is that consumers have no information that is complete and reliable about the disabilities which attend copy-protected CDs. These CDs will not play in DVD players, not play on personal computers (and) not even play on all CD players.

Boucher isnt talking about what kind of legislation he might introduce to accomplish his goal of protecting audio CD customers, and the possibilities are intriguing. At the simplest level, legislation may require copy-protected CDs to carry a warning label. At a more interesting level, Boucher may try to rewrite the DMCA. In fact, Boucher announced that he would introduce such legislation last July and reiterated his commitment to that approach in early March of this year.

Internet radio

Under the U.S. Copyright Offices interpretation of the DMCA, Internet radio may be a thing of the past. KFJC, KPIG, and RadioParadise may all be goners. Why is this tragic? Because any of these stations are orders of magnitude better than the sorry excuse for radio available on the traditional dial.

Internet radio is routing around an obsolete and unaccountable industrys safely padded environs and making a difference. Corporate radio sounds exactly the same from coast to coast because it is exactly the same. Sit and watch that website for a few minutes; if it doesnt nauseate you, itll damn sure hypnotize you.

Adding to the arsenal of tools deployed by big media is the Copyright Arbitration and Royalty Panel (CARP). CARP met secretly for the past several months and issued the CARP Report in late February. The keystone of this report is steep licensing fees for webcast music. Lets be clear: compulsory licensing is a good idea, consistent with the intent of copyright law. Usury licensing fees for small webcasters is not.

KPIG responded almost immediately with a plea to save the Pig from the digital slaughterhouse:

Independent webcasters such as KPIG are facing a grave threat to our existence. It may be an evil conspiracy on the part of the big record companies and corporate webcasters, ormore likelyits just a dumb mistake. In either case, KPIG could soon be liable for huge music usage fees ($5,000 - $10,000 per month) that would make it impossible for us to stay online. For background on the issue, see The Death of Web Radio? below and the SaveInternetRadio.org website.

Doc Searls, in his article Bizarre vs. Bazaar, eloquently sums up the combination of DMCA and CARP as the destruction of the Net as a commons and its replacement with a plumbing system for the distribution of content (a word hardly used in a shipping context before Big Media got all drooly over The Promise of The Net).

A brief history of copyright

Copyright, until this recent entertainment industry power-grab, has always been a delicatemaybe even precariousbalance between the rights of the author to benefit from his or her work for a short period of time and the rights of the rest of us to innovate and benefit from those works when they fall into the public domain.

The Constitution granted Congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. Originally, the Copyright Act of 1790 established the limited times of copyright protection of 14 years with an option for the author to renew the copyright for an additional 14 years if he or she were still alive. That copyright term was good enough for the first 100 years of intellectual property in the United States. During the next 100 years, Congress extended the copyright term 11 times.

Certain uses of a protected work that would ordinarily be seen as infringing are specifically allowed for education, criticism, etc. These uses are allowed under the fair use provision. The core concept of fair use is that, in general, any use that does not exploit the commercial value of the original is permissible.

The fair use statute recognizes four criteria by which a use can be determined to be fair or unfair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted wok as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

William S. Strong, in The Copyright Book: A Practical Guide , provides an interpretation for working writers:

As a general rule a critic or reporter should not quote at any one point more than two or three paragraphs of a book or journal article, a stanza of a poem, or a solitary chart or graph from a technical treatise.

The Net allows ordinary citizens to exercise their fair use rights in ways never imagined by the entertainment industry. Subsequently, the reaction is to pressure innovation by extending the copyright term for any given work. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that will likely determine the legitimacy of the most recent copyright term extension, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. This law extends the copyright term to the life of the author plus 70 years. In the case of works made for hire in which a corporation owns the copyright, the copyright term is now 95 years.

While one side of the entertainment industry was pushing, an activity that eventually became the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the other side was pulling. That activity eventually resulted in the DMCA. Designed specifically to control the uses that can be made of published works, the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copyright-protection technology. The result: the entertainment industry controls not only what you see and hear but the methods and devices with which you see and hear it. Even if the copy-protection is circumvented to enable the fair use of a published work, it is prohibited and deemed to be a criminal act.

Digital TV

According to Mike Godwin, digital television is the tipping point in the war between the entertainment and technology industries. Never mind that every time the entertainment industry shoots itself in the foot, the technology industry comes to its rescue. Remember in the 1970s when the movie industry was in a deep funk and that vampire Jack Valenti said that VCRs would kill it for good? As it turns out, the VCR revived the film industry. The film industry was failing not because of customer VCR usage but because they were putting out epically craptacular films. Just like the recording industry todaywhen in doubt blame those dang customers.

Anyway, Godwin says digital television is the flashpoint because its quality (technical, not artistic) is way too good and unlike DVDs, its unencrypted and has to stay unencrypted to be useful. Oh, and the pesky FCC regulations say that broadcast television signals must be sent unencrypted.

The purveyors of digital television think they have the answer: digital watermarks. They think thats the answer for the online distribution of music, and any other digital content as well. Unfortunately for them, in order for a watermark to be used to restrict copying of digital content, consumer devices used to play the content will have to have technology included thats capable of receiving those watermarks. That would require the cooperation of the technology industry, and that cooperation has not been forthcoming.

Godwin cites the theory of Edward Felten, a computer scientist at Princeton, holding that any sort of tagging system that is undetectable by the user will likely be easy to remove.

Digital rights management

Perhaps the weirdest part of all of this is that the technology industry is just as enamored of protecting intellectual property. Theyre just going about it in a minimally different way. Digital rights management (DRM) is the battle cry of the techheads. And where they differ from their entertainment industry brethren is the question of government mandates. The technology industry wants to lock up published content just as badly as the entertainment industry; they just dont want the government (or anyone else) telling them that they have to. Remember that the entertainment and technology industries both lobbied heavily in favor of the DMCA.

And then there are the schizoids, the companieslike AOL Time Warner and Sonythat are so large that they find themselves on both sides of the fence depending which way the wind blows.

SSSCA > CBDTPA

The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), kept on a leash but regularly trotted out by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, can best be thought of as a sort of appendix to the DCMA. It is clearly designed to further extend legal protections for digital content owned or licensed by enormous media conglomerates.

According to the draft language of the bill, it would be illegal to create or distribute any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies approved by the Commerce Department. Even though MIT professor and RSA Data Security co-founder Ron Rivest has referred to the proposed legislation as the Digital Rectal Thermometer Security Act its really just mandatory corporate welfare for media conglomerates subsidized by the actual creators and consumers of intellectual property.

Felony penalties for distributing copyrighted material without the certified security technologies fully enabled or using a computer that circumvents those technologies are up to five years in prison and fines up to US$500,000.

Even worse, the proposed legislation calls for manufacturers of digital devices and the media conglomerates to collaboratively develop a copy protection system. If, after two years, they cant come up with a mechanism both industries can live with, the federal government will specify a standard. Hollings bill fails to include the actual creators or users of content in any of the machinations.

Should we be surprised that four of Hollings top campaign donors are media conglomerates?

Predictably, the politicians split along party lines over the SSSCA. Or, more accurately, the split is along the lines of entertainment industry campaign contributions. Democrats, who received US$24.2 million in contributions from the entertainment industry tend to support the idea of legislating the protection of copyrighted material in digital form. Republicans, who received a relatively paltry US$13.3 million in entertainment industry contributions usually oppose the SSSCA, claiming it is too interventionist.

In mid-March 2002, the other shoe dropped. Senator Hollings, better known as the Senator from Disney, transformed the SSSCA into the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) and ceased his tip-toeing around. The CBDTPA is real legislation, and enjoys the support of five other co-authors: Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), John Breaux (D-Louisiana), Bill Nelson (D-Florida) and Dianne Feinstein (D-California). Just think, one more author and they could have been the seven dwarves. The CBDTPA would require all digital deviceseverything from fax machines to MP3 players and computers (as well as the software that runs on them)to be equipped with embedded copy protection schemes, approved by the federal government.

Whats most disturbing about this is relatively paltry sum it took to buy this legislation. During the 2002 election cycle, only two of the dirty half-dozen were in the top 20 recipients of soft money from the entertainment industry. So far in the 2002 election cycle, Hollings has received only US$19,000 and Stevens has taken only US$39,621. To get the real story, we have to look back several election cycles:

Senator

2002

2000

1998

1996

Total

Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina)

$19,000

$32,750

$215,284

$43,300

$310,334

Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

$39,621

$69,900

$109,521

Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)

$49,852

$49,852

John Breaux (D-Louisiana)

$120,920

$120,920

Bill Nelson (D-Florida)

$47,550

N/A

N/A

$47,550

Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

$211,638

$211,638

$849,815

Theres no question why Fritz Hollings carried the water for this puppy, is there? But check those senatorial links in the table carefully because they tell the even bigger story of who the top contributing industries were for each politician. In every case, the entertainment industry scored big in the top 20 contributors for every Senator. And remember the 2002 campaign cycle isnt over yet. Not hardly.

So, how much does it cost to get your bill through the Senate? Looks to me like itll come in right around US$1 million.

Enter DigitalConsumer.org

The technology industry was quick to respond to the CBDTPA threat by launching DigitalConsumer.org and its attendant Consumer Technology Bill of Rights. Launched by two of the co-founders of Excite, DigitalConsumer.org is basically trying to protect the fair use rights of customers in digital media. The groups principles, outlined in the Bill of Rights are deceptively simple:

1. Users have the right to time-shift content that they have legally acquired.
2. Users have the right to space-shift content that they have legally acquired.
3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content.
4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.
5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats.
6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned.

The depth and breadth of support this lobbying group will receive remains to be seen. Some of the precepts are in direct conflict with the interests of some of the largest technology industry members. Microsoft, for example, almost certainly wants to be the digital rights management company of record and is none too keen on, say, items 2, 3, 4, and 5.

A solution

The solution is actually quite simple and requires only three steps:

1. Revert the term of copyright to 14 years, immediately and retroactive to all existing works.
2. Recognize moral rights in the works authors create, like every other civilized country on the planet. Make it immediate and retroactive to all existing works.
3. Prohibit any corporation from owning a copyright. Corporations create nothing; theyre consensual hallucinations and exist at our pleasure. I dont know about you, but Im not much pleased any more.

The basis of the problem is found in a single court ruling: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In this 1886 dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a private corporation was a natural person under the Constitution and enjoyed the same protections as a citizen under the Bill of Rights. Corporations from that point forward were granted all of the rights and freedoms of a private citizen, yet none of the responsibilities. We made a mistake; hey, shit happens. Its not too late to fix it.

What, you think WIPO should arbitrate?

Article 11

Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Here is the only language in the treaty concerning anti-circumvention measures:

Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

A Contracting Party is a country that has signed the treaty. Note that the above language only requires countries to punish people who used a technological measure to violate a performer's rights, that is, to punish people who use technological measures to do piracy. A signer is not obliged to implement something like the DMCA; a far narrower law would suffice to comply with the treaty.

You can look at a list of all of the countries on the WIPO website.

http://www.wipo.org/treaties/docs/english/e-berne. doc

More interesting is that the US didn't become a member until 1989.