Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Intellectual Property Law Goes Global
Representatives of "copyright holders" heavily outnumbered freedom advocates, as is typical at this kind of event, but the leadoff speaker, Michael Davis of the Progressive IP Law Association, started the session by talking about how hip-hop sampling would be killed by the Hague Convention if it is ratified in its present form, which has "fair use" provisions nearly as onerous as those contained in the DMCA.
Interestingly, Marilyn Cade of AT&T spoke out against much of the Hague Convention's intent; her company's concern, she said, is keeping global communications and ecommerce free and easy. A representative from Yahoo! was even more negative about this treaty, which would make U.S. authorities responsible for enforcing other countries' copyright and IP laws, and vice versa.
Think about this spectre, which another participant raised: a court in Moscow, Iran or China could decide something posted on a Web site based in the U.S. violated their countries' laws and, as Hague Convention signatories, demand that U.S. authorities force the Web site owner to remove the offending material. This is not a far-fetched idea; remember Yahoo! and the French government's objection to Nazi memorabilia sales?
At the other extreme, the American Society of Media Photographers loves the idea of a treaty that will help its members collect royalties from foreign media that use their images.
Not Just Speaking to the Peanut Gallery
I only counted 36 people in the audience; intellectual property issue discussions never draw mass attention. But the only audience that counted today was the U.S. Hague Convention delegation, and they were here, sitting up front, listening to every panelist's words, asking questions, and generally trying to learn what various constituencies want (and don't want) in the way of intellectual property treaties before they go off to the next negotiating session.
A Nationalized Movie Industry?
Jared Jussim of Sony Pictures talked at length about the "entrepreneurialism" of the movie business and how vigorous international copyright enforcement is needed to keep the movie business healthy. He said, "If we could have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act extended throughout the world, I would be ecstatic about it."
Jussim ranted hard about online freedom-seekers; he dumped on "professors" who "cite each others papers in a big circle" and how they are all "liars." Strong words. But that wasn't enough for the man. He directly stated that if movies or even pieces of them were distributed online or through other means not approved by the movie companies, the entire industry would eventually shut down; that "you would pay a tax" to finance government-produced movies; and that government flunkies would decide what movies got made and what you saw in theaters and on TV. Horrors!
The spectre of a government-controlled film industry obviously is enough to make any right-thinking person want to see all possible copyright protection added to every possible intellectual property treaty.
Faced with this potential evil, it is obvious that the ACLU and all those professors who yammer on about fair use, freedom of speech, constitutionality and similar silliness must be ignored.
Media Attention
The Washington Post showed up. A cameraman from TechTV shot a few moments worth of tape, without sound. One of the local tech newsletters sent a reporter. And me. These were all the "known" journalists I spotted, but others were taking notes, so who can say? Perhaps one of the quiet people in the front row was a secret representative of the Today Show, but somehow I doubt it.
The Hague Convention could make major changes in the way intellectual property and copyright laws are handled on an international scale, but "the public" probably won't hear about any of this -- and won't care if they do -- unless there is some sort of corporate aggression under the Hague Convention that affects as many people as the RIAA's anti-Napster actions. Then you'll see the big-time pundits weigh in. But at this point in the game, they are nowhere to be found.
Enter RMS, Stage Right
Richard M. Stallman, representing the League for Programming Freedom, was scheduled to take part in the afternoon session but he showed up shortly before lunch and was immediately buttonholed by the Washington Post reporter. He spent the lunch break charming a member of the trade delegation, who said she was surprised that she had not heard "strongly" before about any of the intellectual freedom concerns brought up today by Stallman and other panel members. And listen to Stallman she did, with total concentration, while eating a sandwich and drinking a soda on the front lawn of the Library of Congress's Adams Building.
Stallman was not alone in speaking about the rights of intellectual property creators and users. Laurie Racine, of the Red Hat-sponsored Center for the Public Domain, did a turn, as did representatives of the Trial Lawyers of America, a blacksuited young attorney from the MPAA, Jamie Love from the Consumer Project on Technology, people from BMI, ASCAP,AAP, and other "interested parties."
Love brought up a hypothetical situation: Cuba copyrighting the "cuban beat" and demanding 5% royalties from all American music performers who use it -- and under the terms of the proposed Hague treaty, having the legal right to force U.S. officials to help them collect.
But proceedings like this one are basically dominated by lawyers. "What if?" questions get asked and debated. Ties between copyright laws and other cross-border civil and criminal situations get discussed in detail so excruciating that it could make non-smokers want to take up the habit just to have an excuse to slip outside for a few minutes now and then.
Not Just the U.S.
Even if the U.S. delegation to the Hague Convention come down totally on the side of the angels, they will still be just one of many delegations, and other countries may have other ideas. A number of people here today have talked about how, when it comes to copyrights and patents, the U.S. is one of the most restrictive nations around, so American copyright holders probably have more to fear on that front from the rest of the world than the rest of the world has to fear from us.
Where ordinary Americans may lose out is on freedom of speech issues. Many countries have far more restrictive policies on libel and on what citizens may or may not say about touchy subjects like politics or religion, especially if those opinions are published on the Internet.
RMS vs. Sony
Imagine Stallman being accused of "not speaking for the public" on copyright matters by Sony's Jussim -- who also managed to get in a plug for movies being a great entertainment value compared to live theater or professional sports. Imagine Stallman calmly -- aside from a gleam in his eyes -- reminding the poor flak that more money goes to promote movies than to make them, so that more money in the studios' pockets wouldn't necessarily lead to better movies.
This was the first moment of passion in over an hour. Sadly, it only lasted a moment. Then it was back to drone, drone, drone.
"The ISP Community" and "The Content Community" were phrases that got thrown a lot. In the legal sense, we heard, the question of whether "publication" takes place on a server or on the client where it is displayed hasn't been settled yet.
And so on.
Toward the end of the day Jamie Love said, "There hasn't been a single American newspaper article about this treaty, and here you are getting ready to create the Magna Carta of cyberspace."
Love didn't blame the people on the U.S. delegation for working in comparative secret. "I've called reporter after reporter [about this] and their eyes glaze over," he said.
So Slashdot was there. And if you want to read the text of this treaty, it's online here.
And if you are a U.S. citizen who wants to get in touch with the people representing you at the next Hague Convention meeting (in June), three good people to contact are:
Jennifer Lucas at USPTO (jennifer.lucas@uspto.gov)
Jeffrey D. Kovar at U.S. Dept. of State (kovarj@ms.state.gov)
Maneesha Mithal at the Federal Trade Commission (mmithal@ftc.gov)
Mod that down before the government or DMCA reads it. Can't believe I actually posted that!!! Wait, wonder if I can patent that idea? No, could never live with myself and it might could be considered public domain now. If not then consider it GPL'd, at least then m$ will not try to pursue it.
Allah is copyright some crazy Arabic mother fucker. With the new copyright laws, retroactive of course, and made by some crazy American mother fucker.. Probably Senator "Rich fuck born with a silver spoon up his ass, now he's using it to feed you your rights" Lars Ulrich, you are not allowed to use it without the written consent of the original author. This is your official cease and desist letter. You've been warned.. Don't make me get Mad Musslim on yo' ass.
Govt's are passing all sorts of wacky laws. They don't care that no one enforces them. The goal is to create laws such that ANYONE and at ANYTIME can be considered a criminal. This then allows the gov't to swoop down and whack anyone they want for any reason. They will, of course, say that busted the person for [usually unenforced law]. And you will have no defense because, "you broke the law right?" And even if you challenge the law and "win", did you really win? You will have lost many days/weeks/years of your life and spent thousands to millions of $$$ on not-recoverable lawyer fees. Since regular folk can't afford this, they will roll over and accept any "plea bargain" tossed their way. This saves them strife, and builds up case law and precedent to use against the next violator. See how the system works?
a "hacker" being someone who enjoys programming
whoops...
not just programming...
hacking also involves other things such as electronics/mechanics/chemistry...
mod em down!
Next move? How about the C(opyright)-chip? As you type your research papers, emails, reports etc, or play a piece of music on your computer the C-chip notes anything remotely infringing copyright and issues an electronic payment from your bank account to the appropriate authoritative body. Suddenly your computer locks up, a blue screen appears with the notice--"critical fault has occurred in your bank account, C-chip subsystem out of funds, input another account number with access information or shut down system"
So, the Fishman Affidavit linkage would then also legally be approved by the US court? Or would the sciontology church actually have a stronger case then to make the rest of the world also stop linking to this 'copyrighted' document?
The "computer industry" is very much in favor of these draconian IP laws. The computer industry bought the DMCA and the UCITA. The computer industry is very good at asserting itself and when it comes to IP, it has exactly the same interests as the music industry. So please don't delude yourself. Individual programmers and small companies should assert themselves more, but the "computer industry" is just as amoral (as in 'not interested in morality') as any other industry. Erwin
Conversely, will the US allow its citizens to download porn of 17 year olds without question from Amsterdam web sites, where such materials are legal? Surely the US will respect other nations laws as much as we wish them to respect ours, right?
Roblimo, could you (or someone else who knows) post a few more links about this, as well as a time and location for the next public meeting on it? Or, email me privately.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
You forgot the sound track....
I would advocate support of groups such as the Electronic Frontiers Foundation by going to their website now and joining, thus helping them fight the good fight. I have.
--
It wouldn't be so bad to have 1/4 of the world's population use Linux...
...richie - It is a good day to code.
How precisely could this be accomplished?
Treaties are pretty clearly not intended to have the force of law unless enabling laws are passed normally by Congress. Otherwise we'd have a situation whereby the President and 2/3 of the Senate could make law without the input of the House. (even - gasp - in the case of a treaty which required appropriations)
Additionally, Congress is prohibited from recognizing foreign copyrights on the terms that they exist in in their native countries, perhaps unless they were predicated on the same foundation as our own laws. A foreign copyright that was perpetual, did not allow US judicially recognized fair uses, was not initially granted to the author or did not exist for the purpose of promoting the progress of the arts can't be recognized here. There's no power to do so, since those are the only terms upon which they may be recognized. A US copyright could be granted, but it would be no different than any other US copyright, just held by a foreign party. That doesn't sound to me like what is being proposed.
Although many lower courts seem to have difficulty with properly interpreting this body of law (siding with business interests that are totally besides the point anyway) I'd be amazed if this could actually take place.
Oh, but then again I forgot that our government is rather corrupt these days. Silly me.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The second that Bulgaria came forward and said the FBI had to nab an OpEd writer for the NY Times because of something he said on the paper's web site, the paper, the ACLU, and any # of congressmen, senators, and lawyers would start making the argument about the fact that a world wide convention can not supercede the constitution that governs this nation.
... the default modus operandi would be to adhere to the treaty and string up, figuratively speeking, the offending speeker. If the offendor against Bulgaria's Sacred Copyright were lucky enough to get sufficient attention I'm sure everyone, including the much maligned (and, ironicly, most deserving of our respect) ACLU, would jump into the fray on their behalf.
... our web sites or other offending material would simply be expunged, censored, in accordance with international law, with no one but our own ever thinning wallets to defend a fading right against the inertia and will of a hundred governments.
Only popular speech would garner such protection
But what about the ten thousand other people, little guys like you and I who never draw the atteniton of more than a dozen friends and acquaintances? We would enjoy no such protections
Don't kid yourself. This sort of thing will tip the scales immensly to favor censorship and corporate content control over an individual's right to free speech. One or two poster children notwithstanding, the vast majority of us will be forced into doing what the Copyright Cartels have been demanding for the last two years: "Get your bitch asses back on the couch and shut the hell up."
You, like I, may refuse to go back to a passive existence as a couch potato without a fight, and certainly not without complaint, but in the end, do either of us, much less the many thousands of others so affected, have the wealth to mount anything even approaching an effective defense against such an onslaught? I sincerely doubt it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm neither promoting nor critisizing the current state of legislation, but it's useless without worldwide standardization.
Hogwash.
Put another way: for a useless piece of legislation, Copyright Law certainly has allowed some very powerful, and very wealthy, Copyright Cartels to form (RIAA, MPAA, etc.), all without the "global standardization" you seem to hold in such high regard.
One of the unwritten checks and balances on the current IP system has been the diversity of intellectual property law, which has allowed certain documents which would otherwise have been completely suppressed using one nation's laws or another to remain a part of the global information sphere. This check isn't enough to reign in the ever more draconian intellectual property regimes of the west, but it has allowed information to get out, into the public hands, where it could do some good despite efforts at outright censorship based in no small part one copyright law of one location or another.
Imagine Chinese copyright law claiming ownership of any footage containing any Chinese Officials or Uniformed troups. Tiannamen Square would never have seen the light of day. Those are the kinds of unconstitutional (in the USA) laws which the treaty will require our government to enforce. What little regard the authorities in the US have left for the constitution will be swept under the rug with the all-encompassing excuse "the Hague Convention requires us to take these actions." Yes, someone, somewhere may have the cash and be willing to put the rest of their life on the line to fight such actions, and perhaps the supreme court will even see its way past its own petty politics to uphold the constitution (although there recent track record is anything but promising in this regard), but in the meantime we will all have been very effectively stripped of what few rights we have. Ditto for every other nation on the planet.
All these freedoms, and the sacrifices of our forefathers they represent, squandered, simply to preserve the outdated business models of organizations that produce the least worthwile things in our culture: popular music and Hollywood tripe.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Microsoft offers you Office for $50
.. it's more like $250 for the 'upgrade' or $500+ if you buy it outright.
You wish
If Microsoft weren't so bent on screwing everyone and anyone, there'd be much less piracy of their products, as there would obviously be less incentive.
--
Delphis
Delphis
The difficulty is not with governments. At least as government is practiced in the U.S. today, it is big and conspicuous, but at this point it is only a tool of corporations. Thanks to our system of campaign financing, politicians are already paid-for corporate property by the time they arrive in office. The only issues on which the government can freely exercise a will of its own are those issues on which corporations have no preference.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
It's true. And they don't notice. So what aren't we noticing?
Any answer I could give would obviously be wrong.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Guess what. That's the intent. The Republicans are even less libertarian than the Democrats. This is so extreme that they must be consciously working at it.
The only hope that I see is that the pace of change will keep increasing fast enough to derail them. This may happen, but is by no means a foregone conclusion.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
For example, while the rest of the world has been using the first-to-file approach to patents, the US uses a first-to-invent approach. That is - even if you patent an invention in the US, someone else may sue you after you've made millions of dollars and claim that "i've already done that before you did that", and demand that you pay him _lots_ of royalties.
Thus, in the US, these are the steps to take in order to make big bucks on patents:
- Make sure you're a patent attourney
- Locate a company that have a patent on something fairly trivial (Do I hear "one-click shopping", or "XOR Cursor"?)
- Make sure the company has made big bucks using the methods patented
- Now locate an unsuspecting citizen or a small firm that did something that can be applied on the patent prior to it being filed
- Make sure you offer them your service - with a hughe percentage
- Sue the company, claiming that your client made the invention
As they say, US is the land of opportuneties...Anyway, for the 4.5 billion non US-citizens of the world, it's time for the US to accept the international view on IP.
The second that Bulgaria came forward and said the FBI had to nab an OpEd writer for the NY Times because of something he said on the paper's web site, the paper, the ACLU, and any # of congressmen, senators, and lawyers would start making the argument about the fact that a world wide convention can not supercede the constitution that governs this nation
Treaties are not "on the same level" as the Constituion. The Constitution is the document upon which all other laws must be judged. The only legal way to supercede the Constitution is to ammend it. Congress may very well attempt to pass laws and sign treaties that go counter to the Constituion. This is why we have to other branches of government to keep them (and each other) in check.
What if a technology based on quantum entanglement is perfected that makes it impossible for anybody to eavesdrop on private peer-to-peer communication? What will the fascist governements do?
Outlaw it, of course. If the RIAA can strangle digital audiotape technology to death in the cradle, then governments who have more power to decide legality can easily prevent the technology from coming to market.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
no text
gagg! Personally, I'd rather watch blink tags than pay money for that!!!
but anyway, this page lists a canuk representative's email address...
http://www.hcch.net/e/members/no_ca.html
Please be courteous and firm.
Cheers,
-David.
This brings up the issue of the US Constitution versus Int. Treaties. Does the Senate have the right or ability to approve a treaty that directly contradicts the United States Constitution without amend the USC?
Though the idea of the Chinese government dragging MPAA members off to prison for portraying the PRC in a negative light does bring a smile to my face.
In some Asian countries practically everything you can buy is pirated.
In Singapore, which is considered to be a first world nation, they have shops (sometimes 2-3 in a row) in the major arcades that just sell pirated software. It's all quite open and seemingly accepted. The only time I ever saw anything to the contrary was when all the pirate shops suddenly shut down at once. Apparently they'd been tipped off about a raid.
I can't imagine a "less developed nation" wanting to, or being able to, enforce IP law, if a technological mecca like Singapore can't manage it.
skribe
Blog
Pleaaaaaase mod the parent up! It's worth repeating...
-- Colin
Interesting sig. I'm not a physicist or anything, but it would seem that in absence of this arrow of time, that there needs to be another explanation for what we call "reality". The only one my feeble layman's mind can think of is that everybody is collapsing their own "reality" from the myriad of possible quantum states that they can potentially observe. Figuring out why these 6 billion "realities" never seem to conflict is the hard part though...
An absolute dimensionless time makes this easy, because all 3-D coordinates are on one time-plane (ok, I'm starting to make up words now). Although it would perhaps make you wonder if some of these "magical" formulas (forces varying by powers of two, etc.) are just artifacts of energy being consumed in some "invisible" dimension. Ok, I better stop talking out my ass...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I particularly liked that bit about the US having more to lose than the rest of the world.
Of course they were talking about degrees of control over public discourse/action, not dollars per se. Still ... I want to hope
that on a Gaian scale, there might actually
be some useful constraints how fully the
corporate system replaces more equitable
"seven generations" planning.
All I can say about this is that I hope that a sensible copyright scheme comes out of this.
Right, like that's going to happen. The whole point of this treaty is to further reduce your freedom and the freedom of citizens in other countries as well.
Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti and Graham Beachum: not freedom fighters.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
One reason America's form of government works well is that in it, power is distributed among its levels. There's a general concept of putting power close to those it affects; and even at the highest levels, government is elected or otherwise subject to change and influence by the governed. The states are a laboratory for government, and provide choice and therefor competition, which is a good thing. For instance, the "Uniform Commercial Code" is not Federal Law. It's a set of nearly -- but not totally -- similar laws adopted independantly by each of the states.
With a one-world government as it is currently shaping up, we're in for a bad thing. How much of the UN and NGO government-wannabes are elected and accountable to the people directly? None. When was the last time you voted for any part of the UN? Including all the treaties that set up law we must live under that may, in fact, limit, alter or supplant local law, including the Constitution?
"Federalism" isn't a complete joke, and it's a good thing it's not. We need more Federalism, not less. And any would-be World Government needs to be very Federalist.
The whole idea behind the US Federal Government was a common defense for the states, uniform inter-state commerce, a uniform currency, and standard weights and measures. That was it. The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the government, not the people. The Constitution did not provide for federal environmental law, federal hate-crimes law, federal workplace reglations, etc. See Section 8. As Madison stated, the Bill of Rights was redundant. Thankfully, we have it; because the clear (back then) intention of the Constitution has been subverted, and without the Amendments listing specific rights, we'd be a lot worse off than we are today.
Federalism is not isolationism. And Free Trade is not isolationism. But forcing our laws on other nations in Imperialism. And the UN forcing other nations' laws, or extra-U.S. laws of their own devising, on us is as well.
I'm of the opinion that, U.S. protections for commerce end at our borders. I believe in a separation of Church and State, and think a separation of Business and State is a good thing as well. Look at the mess that combining church and state got us into (i.e., the Dark Ages). Mixing Business and State is doing no better for us. How about this for an Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of trade, of the free excercise thereof."
If IBM wants to do business in China, good for them, but they don't get to run to the U.S. Federal Government for aid in doing it. And special subsidies and protections don't get handed out to businesses like ADM ("ethanol subsidy") and tobacco farmers (tobacco quotas and price subsidies). Also, no monopolies. All actual monopolies are charted by governments. The rest are, at best, temporary -- given policing of illegal behavior such as fraud, threats, etc.
This does not stop the government for regulating fraud, or outlawing and punishing actual crimes, such as theft, maiming and killing people, etc.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
For good measure, here are the specific authorizations granted the federal government:
... is kind of broad, and means that the Federal Government gets to police the whole ocean, as well as "define and punish ... offenses against the law of nations" .. i.e., be hte police of the world. I'd prefer Switzerland's approach of neutrality combined with a highly armed and trained populace to ward off attacks.
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
[...]
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
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;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
... I'm of the opinion that there should be a few less authorizations and a few more limitations. For instance, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
Interestingly, this limitation: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." would seem to put the damper on internet sales taxes, just as it has on catalog mail-order sales; if you're not in the state it's being shipped from, then the good is being exported and the state can levy no tax on it.
And there's teh famous "Interstate commerce" clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" -- on top of which they have balanced so many laws. The problem with regulating commerce is the same as with regulating religion. The government and those it regulates end up scratching each other's backs, until the lines of power are blurred. If government had no power to grant special priviledge to businesses, think how much cleaner our government would be. I doubt "Campaign Finance Reform" (i.e., an attack on the 1st amendment) would be an issue. Why bribe people who can't help you? And why become part of the government to make a buck from it, if you can't make a buck from it?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This got pushed off the end, so I'm copying it here so people will see it:
... is kind of broad, and means that the Federal Government gets to police the whole ocean, as well as "define and punish ... offenses against the law of nations" .. i.e., be hte police of the world. I'd prefer Switzerland's approach of neutrality combined with a highly armed and trained populace to ward off attacks.
... I'm of the opinion that there should be a few less authorizations and a few more limitations. For instance, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
Interestingly, this limitation: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." would seem to put the damper on internet sales taxes, just as it has on catalog mail-order sales; if you're not in the state it's being shipped from, then the good is being exported and the state can levy no tax on it.
And there's teh famous "Interstate commerce" clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" -- on top of which they have balanced so many laws. The problem with regulating commerce is the same as with regulating religion. The government and those it regulates end up scratching each other's backs, until the lines of power are blurred. If government had no power to grant special priviledge to businesses, think how much cleaner our government would be. I doubt "Campaign Finance Reform" (i.e., an attack on the 1st amendment) would be an issue. Why bribe people who can't help you? And why become part of the government to make a buck from it, if you can't make a buck from it?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I agree; but a treaty that causes each nation to enforce the laws of the other signatories is not a good treaty, and its product is not free trade.
I'm all for free trade. But if I wanted to live under another country's laws, I figured I'd have to move there, rather than they would bring the law here.
We can have trade -- even free trade -- without this kind of mess.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
At the risk of waking up the conspiracy theorists, this is one more step towards a global government. The whole idea of treaties like this is to bind together the member governments. Treay here, treaty there, and after a while all the gaps are sewn shut.
George Washington: Internationalism -- derided as "globalism" and falsely presented as "free trade" (as opposed to "sanctioned and licensed trade", which it is), is going in exactly the direction George Washington warned against. More entangling alliances. Less sovreignty.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
IANAL, but Treaties (ratified by the US Senate) are on the same level as the US Constitution, so could override the First Ammendment (free speech).
Very scary
"There really ought to be a section of politically aware sites like /. devoted to upcoming events where people can participate. I know I'd be there sometimes.
So, how about it? How many people would like to see a calendar page about upcoming political events that have significance to us? What do you think? There's a large readership here, and if only a small percentage turn out...it could be noticed. But that's just my opinion. "
Here's one: the Independent Media Center. It's a global network of independent media groups, offering news and opinion on issues like this that the MegaMedia won't cover, including upcoming protest dates and eyewitness coverage of same. I give occasional tech assistance to the group that runs the London site.
(NB: our Philadelphia site uses Slash! I wouldn't mind if the London site used it too!)
</feeble-karma-hoovering-attempt>
We need more info on actions defending Free Speech, IMHO, and we'd be delighted to receive articles, essays, and dates on actions against Copyright Barons like the ones described in this article.
--
JDF
Yes, and a lot of it is also crap. Why would I want my tax dollars going towards that?
--
OliverWillis.Com
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
Crap. A pirated copy of Windows isn't "blocking" anything. Users install Windows if they want Windows, and Linux if they want Linux. Piracy just gives them a wider range of options, by allowing them to choose software that they can't afford to license.
Piracy is competition - Microsoft offers you Office for $50, w4r3z d00dz offer you the same product for the price of a CDR. If Microsoft gets out-competed, tough shit. Yes, they invested a lot of money to develop the software. But that doesn't give them a "right" to make a profit - try applying that principle to another industry to see how absurd it is. Does your local convenience store have a "right" to stop your local supermarket from selling food, just because the supermarket's undercutting them? Of course not. The convenience store might have invested a lot of money in food that isn't selling. Tough shit.
Piracy is raw competition, and if there's one thing that corporations hate, it's competition.
Unless I have signed an agreement saying that I will not do so, I think I have the right to copy any information in my possession.
Anyone can undersell someone else if they do not have to pay for the product they are selling and the other guy has to.
True. That's why, without laws that distort the market by preventing competition, it would be almost impossible to run a business based on selling information. (Although individual artists might make a living selling information, by depending on the goodwill and honesty of their audience.)
... then copyright everything in existence and demand that royalties be paid to you. Imagine what sealand could do with this!
Its probably going to be a long time (perhaps even after hell freezes over) before we could get most of the world to recognize everyone's copyright laws. I wouldn't hold my breath for this one...
I ate my sig.
This is the essence of police state, not to brually enforce laws that don't make sense, but to instead create large masses of senseless laws and *optionally* enforce them.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
1981??? how 'bout 1984.
It's working, too. There's an annual report on compliance with the TRIPS agreement describing countries that the US is putting the screws on for not being tough enough on content piracy.
fuck :(
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
And my point is that, if the "creator" chooses to waive those rights, then those rights vanish and no one should profit from those copyrights anymore. The copyright is then expired, as whatever it is should then be a part of society, in which case it should be allowed to be freely duplicated and distributed.
Which, as I said, is wrong. The publisher or anyone other than the creator did NOT create whatever entity it is, so has no right to own the copyright.
This is a very thin sketch of an idea, and I lack the knowledge necessary to expand too much further on it. Would the brilliant readers of slashdot care to help me out a bit?
I wouldn't just roll over when they're trying to pass the global DMCA. It doesn't matter to me that the pirate shops in China will be able to stay open. What's important is that a law like this will be used for evil purposes by corporations that can't see beyond the dollar signs dancing in front of their eyes. "Here, RIAA, take some ammunition so you can go bully foreign countries into doing your bidding. It's okay, because we'll still have China." Does that make much sense?
Sure they can make IP laws all over the world. What is the chance that they will be enforced everywhere? Zero. In some Asian countries practically everything you can buy is pirated. They have copyright laws, but they aren't enforced. People would see these and say "Hey another stupid unenforceable law." They would then continue selling pirated Win2k CDs.
My opinion - Don't worry too much.
Dammit!
/.ers:
Dear Roblio, dear
For the 15340398th time: the Yahoo! ruling has nothing to do with the French government. The French justice is completely independent from the government. In this specific ruling, a bunch of bigots have found a sympathetic judge who has a very peculiar and twisted interpretation of French (mild) laws on racial hatred.
It's amazing how this kind of misinformation can be resilient.
And, BTW, at least the French did not force Yahoo! to remove their porn videos pages, but others oh-so-free did...
Maybe you might not consider them such, but most do. An objet d'Art is what you like. A grose monstrosity is what you don't. Like it or lump it, NFB & Telefilm shows don't even make good filler for the "We're having technical difficulty" signs because most people would rather watch nothing than a crudely drawn carton trumpet (literally) on about nothing... Here's some of your tax dollars at work:
The best part is, you have to actually PAY to see those movies. They aren't even totally free because this is Telefilm Canada, not the NFB! Yes, my Canadian freinds, you helped PAY for it, you INVESTED in it, and now you get to PAY again. Kinda like surtax. Such fun I haven't seen!
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Made sense to me.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
if you are a U.S. citizen who wants to get in touch with the people representing you at the next Hague Convention meeting (in June)
Does anyone have a list of the members from other countries? Canada? UK? Oz? etc??
of a government-controlled film industry obviously is enough to make any right-thinking person want to see all possible copyright protection added to every possible intellectual property treaty.
Faced with this potential evil
Im not sure what you mean but:
I am Canadian. I am happy and proud that Canada's National Film Board and CRTC exist to assist film makers and artists create their works. Art and film is valuable to a healthy culture and should be publicly supported. For profit films are mostly not art - they would be profit vehicles first, creative works second.
Nowhere in the site could I find the date for this convention.
I work in Den Haag (quite nearby the place where it will take place) and I would find it interesting to go take a look if the discussions were public. (And maybe hand in some fliers with the top 100 reasons why this proposal shouldn't be enforced).
Your supermarket example doesn't match the Microsoft example, because in the case above, the pirate is selling something acquired illegally (even if they bought it, they are forbidden by license to redistribute it). M$ doesn't have a "right" to make a profit -- but they have the law on their side when it comes to piracy.
Similarly, in the case of the supermarket, of course the convenience does not have a "right" to stop the supermarket from selling food -- but if the supermarket STOLE the food from the convenience store (or otherwise obtained the food illegally), the the convenience store would have LEGAL recourse against the supermarket.
Piracy is not competition. Anyone can undersell someone else if they do not have to pay for the product they are selling and the other guy has to.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
The right time indeed.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
except that I patented revolts, so you're not allowed.. nyah nyah! :P..
woo woo, clue train coming your way! The article is about COPYRIGHT, it said nothing about PATENTS.
Not everybody has the luxuries of both Internet access and free time to worry about such things. We're only able to think about them because our basic needs are already met. If you had to worry about paying the electric bill because you didn't know where your next paycheck was coming from and you had to take your son to the doctor (sans health insurance), would you worry about what a bunch of suits in Washington thought about things on paper that you couldn't see?
These people don't realize just how unecessary they are to the world ;-) Various industries have come and gone through history, why not this overpriced, fat cat infested, tax loop hole subsidized, silly, and uncreative one?
Do they think that 100,000 people with digital editing suites (how many installations of those kinds of programs are out there I wonder), and next generation video cameras can't produce their own entertainment? Rap music performers did as much with less equipment. Now that I think of it why are there 3 or 4 big studios and not 500,000 small ones. Small restaurants seem to be able to cook and prepare food that is often better than many multinational chains; is it impossible that the same conditions might obtain in movie production?
Since the industry is so uncreative that half of its product consists in remaking foreign films in American English, ripping off independent film makers or filming the same story over and over (4 movies about comets destroying the earth; 4 movies about invasions from outer space; 4 movies about *humorous* invasions from outer space ... and on and on ...) who would really miss it?
Wow, was that melodramatic for you enough? Not to mention incoherent. Sorry slashdot.
Let it come. Let the proverbial shackles clasp around the ankles of currently free people. Tyrants can't stand forever; the natural state of man is to be free. If worse comes to worse and the shit hits the fan, people will wake up and revolt. A little revolution once in awhile is good for a society, it's just that, until now, all the revolutions and potential revolutions in the US have happened peacefully.
Yeah, it doesn't matter. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. 2+2=5.
I think it is interesting that the views about the C-chip are remarkable similar to the views of some paranoid Christian groups. These groups are basically afraid that the government will eventually be able to check up on it's citizens through the internet. (a la 1984) Some of them actually believe the internet is the antichrist IIRC
Although I'm not paranoid (I am a Christian) I can see a bit what they and the author of the parent are worried about.
I think that copyright laws may always have been unreasonable. The technology to enforce them just didn't exist. Now that the techonoly is advancing people are beginning to notice how unreasonable the laws actually are.
For free speech you might have the same situation. I live in Europe and here it's illegal to say some things (about racism etc.) Although I can understand where it comes from I also think it's a dangerous principle. I prefer the free-speech type laws you have in the US. Although I don't think that downloading kiddy-porn in a public library can be defended by free-speech principles.
Regardless of the legitimacy ore reasonableness of copyright law, It's truly ineffective if it isn't adopted worldwide. I'm neither promoting nor critisizing the current state of legislation, but it's useless without worldwide standardization.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Gives new meaning to the term "Thought Police," huh? (think Intellectual Property)
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
What if a technology based on quantum entanglement is perfected that makes it impossible for anybody to eavesdrop on private peer-to-peer communication? What will the fascist governements do?
Indeed, what will they do? Put a camera in every room in your home or apartment and/or force you to wear spook technology so they can watch your every move? If that happens, we'll all rise up and kick their collective Orwellian arses!
The internet is your weapon. Download it all and copy it all! Demand liberty!
This is damn funny. Do you do stand up comedy?
That is all this amounts to. We should resist all laws that impinge on our freedom.
The only way they can enforce these fascist laws to the letter is by instituting Orwellian forms of governments around the world. If that happens, we should all rise up and kick their collective Orwellian arses.
The internet is your weapon. Copy it all and download it all!
If someone is being that lazy as to not think about their fellow man and more importantly, their fellow US citizen, why should I care for them? This is the kind of "I'm a victim, give me" mentality that is way too prevalent in today's American culture. I care about what affects my neighbors, friends, and family, which is why I vote, and why it's my responsibility to think about, and act on, such things! Freedom is not a luxury, it takes work. And if that means caring about the laws your government is trying to push on you, then you need to work at taking time to care for such things. Even if it means taking a day off work, and lose a precious days' wages, to go protest at your local or national courthouse.
I don't think it will be that much longer before something like this could be passed as law in the UN. 20 years ago everyone laughed at the possibility of ever uniting Europe under one currency or government. The EU is well on it's way to uniting Europe now, though.
The recent protests at a few multinational summits are a pleasant change of pace, but are the exception
/. editors are obviously in the know of when these things happen. Please guys: let people know in advance of this kind of stuff.
And they achieved what?
It beats me, but, what they were protesting about?
think your answer, you'll be surprised.
The article makes mention that the public just aren't interested. That's untrue. There is a sizable minority of people who do care--even if it's only 1% of the public who cares at all, that's still 3 million Americans. That's a lot of people.
You kill your own argument: if 99% don't care. then people don't care. Democracies are based on the rule of the majority (under certain bounds that protects minorities). 1% of somehow interested peopl is not seizable, because the law has to please (or fool) the mejority, not the 1% that cares.
I agree with you about the awarness part.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
True, but every time a government gets away with making a decision that benefits a few CEO's to the detriment of We the People, they get the message that it's OK to take kickbacks in preference to caring about you, or your electric bill or healthcare. After we're properly screwed on the circusses, then they'll start on the bread.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Or is there already one? Giving date and place and ways to get a guest or participant would help a lot more than /.ting websites and making all the same discussions on ./ again and again. People on ./ know about thess isssues.
And I think a real world /. effects on such events would be much more effective than only RMS appearing.
It is a shame that only abortion, weapons and globalization events get protests in the US.
In Germany it is environmental issues and globalization, and there are the neonazis and the popular counter demonstrations.
But I can't help myself: A crowd of pale geek zealots in DeCSS t-shirts shouting "bytes are bytes", "Don't patent Pythagoras" and "Ideas need to fly" makes me laugh.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
1. Intellectual Property
2. Innovation
3. Proactive
4. Closure
5. Empowered
I'll forever equate the first two with "theft of another's ideas". The third really doesn't exist as a legitimate word. The fourth and fifth are pure Californiisms, usually seen only on late night TV paid programming for psychic hotlines.
Noone talks about this, but to me the difference between intellectual property and CopyRight is quite crucial That is, in France at least, the author of a work of art has IP over his work ; this is unsellable, so that for all of his life he'll keep some control over his work. Thus, movies/books/records aren't owned by Big Corporations but single artists. The lobbies aren't as big anymore, and the need to push IP up to eternity is much lower. I hear in the states, the length of IP after ones death is typically the time that has passed since Walt Disney's death...
Would this mean that it doesn't matter if the Japanese patent office approves the One-click patent?
--
"Stuff produced locally is never
pirated because such piracy is prosecuted. "
Heh, truly Russian style - darn patriotic even when stealing stuff.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
The treaty defines jurisdiction by four properties: under whose law it was formed, where the central admin resides, the location of its principle business, and where it has its statutory seat. Much of the hypothetical questions are groundless. The treaty explicitly states an situation is subject to the Nations (called State in the treaty) laws, and that NOTHING supercedes these laws except perhaps if the principle business is located in the country who feels is laws are being violated in which case the applicable law shouldn't be just those governing the physical location since the content isn't under that jurisdiction. It's a first step, and it isn't going away. however, it isn't to the point where we are trying to establish a global governing body. Heck, we just got kicked out of two major joint policy-making International colaitions.
... to consider that most peoples' interest are pretty narrow: The price of electricity, the price of gas, where their next paycheck will come from. Maybe they worry about taking their kids to the doctor when they get sick. Other than that, they don't really care about much.
... and when they came for me, there was no one left to complain.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
All I can say about this is that I hope that a sensible copyright scheme comes out of this. No more bullshit like the DMCA. Copyrights may be necessary, but there are limitations. Otherwise groups like the RIAA and Micro$oft are left to run amok.
Submitting a patent for idiocy,
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
Let's face it: laws and treaties like this get passed because the people in charge hear only from the big corporations. The public never has a voice, or a presence. The recent protests at a few multinational summits are a pleasant change of pace, but are the exception.
/. that I would have gone to if only I'd known about it. Sure, it was a panel discussion, not an event where audience members could officially participate, but wouldn't it have drawn some attention by the decision-makers and the Post reporter if fifty people had shown up wearing "DON'T PASS THE HAGUE CONVENTION!" buttons? Not as trouble-makers, but as well-behaved audience members who came out to make their opinions known to the reporters and others, during the breaks and what-not.
/. devoted to upcoming events where people can participate. I know I'd be there sometimes.
The article makes mention that the public just aren't interested. That's untrue. There is a sizable minority of people who do care--even if it's only 1% of the public who cares at all, that's still 3 million Americans. That's a lot of people.
The problem is, none of them has any idea when things like this happen. I think this is roughly the fourth event I've heard of on
Something like that could have happened. Likewise, the protest against the DMCA that happened a long while back, where a disappointing 20 people showed up, could have been a major event. Why wasn't it? No one knew.
I could have come, and I'm sure there are others here who would have been glad to make a great turn-out. But instead of telling us beforehand, Slashdot whines about it after. I mean, come on! There are a lot of people who read this site who could take half a day or a day off every once in a while to participate in issues like this. But "News for Nerds" only tells us things that have already happened, complaining about how no one cares. Well, if they'd tell us a week beforehand, we could actually be there to participate.
There really ought to be a section of politically aware sites like
So, how about it? How many people would like to see a calendar page about upcoming political events that have significance to us? What do you think? There's a large readership here, and if only a small percentage turn out...it could be noticed. But that's just my opinion.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Thanks for the update, albeit a scary one indeed. As an author, I am truly unsure of where I stand on IP and copyright laws. Piracy is an issue, freedoms are at stake, but the rights of content creators are also at stake. F*^# Sony, New Riders, WROX, Time Warner, etc. These are the companies that are in business to make $$ per-eee-id! They care not about the content, the use of the content, the benefit or damage cause by the content. Only the popularity of the content and how many copies can be sold. While these companies have some legitimate arguments regarding author's creativity and their right to be paid, it makes me sick as an author because they don't care about me. If I will write a book for $50 and a free copy, they' be happy to pay me. Leave out the rebuttals against the companies and have a discussion on rights, content, and the freedoms that are enjoyed by many of us. BTW, the US needs to enforce its own laws, not those of other countries. With regard to copyrights, let China and other countries choose to enforce or not.
...to start studying IT law. If agreements like this are passed into International Law, it could make my JD/LLM program 4 years instead of three. Not would you have to learn the intracices of US intellectual property, copyright, and cyberspace law, but the laws, rules and regulations of the other major players world-wide. Looks like I'll be holed up in a library from now until 2004.
"I do not regret the things I have done, but those that I did not do."
I should claim that the 3-d array defined by a 320x240x256 containing (256)^76800 records is MY intellectual property and copyright the formula defining it, as it will contain ALL possible images in the 320x240 by 256 color domain. Thus i could merely plug in a value and get a still image from the movie "The Matrix" or better yet define a set of records to represent any and every movie ever conceived. Suddenly I own the rights to all video imagery.
Sure, it's absurd, but you know someone is going to try pulling something like that.
Slashdot.org, the DDoS of the GNU Generation.
. echo -e \\04 >