Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Music Control Treaty Ratified
Greyfox writes: "Here's one that slipped through the cracks. The WIPO (You know, that unelected, unaccountable organization that lives in the Corporate back pockets) has ratified a anti-music piracy treaty which will go into effect on May 20. It apparently has anti-circumvention measures similar to the DMCA and will carry the force of law in the USA and other member countries." We had a more informative story about these two treaties a few months ago. The only new information is that the Phonograms and Performances Treaty now has enough signatures to go into effect in May.
Bush won't be pushed around by big, evil corporations!
from the referenced CNN article:
Does it have the "force of law," or does it simply mean that nations have agreed to enact laws aligned with the treaty?
Not that the intellectual "property" goons at the media empires have a prayer in the long run, anyway. They can't get away with selling bandwidth to the public on one hand and locking up content on the other. They're mutually exclusive.
(You know, that unelected, unaccountable organization that lives in the Corporate back pockets)
WIPO is a treaty. If one of the 177 countries is unhappy about being part of the WIPO treaty, they can leave. So the fact that a country is part of WIPO is indicitive of the will of the lawmaking body of the country. Furthermore, the treaty had to be ratified by each country, so it was elected. And to say that it lives in corporate back pockets indicates that you don't know much about WIPO. While it has capitalist goals, it is by no means controled by any company in any country.
My email is real.
And he was worried that global organizations were hurting national sovereignty, if I interpreted his speech correctly. He was talking about organizations like the World Trade Organization whose agreements bind member nations to follow their policy above their own local laws, or be punished. It isn't just the national organiztaions that we must pay attention to now, but international ones like the World Intellectual Property Organizations whose treaties bind their members to follow their laws, for better or for worse.
Are you trolling?
This treaty has been SHOVED down the throats of the "177 countries" by threats of catastrophic loss of trade agreements and obscene tolls by the USA. It's a "you're either with out entertainment industry or you're against us" treaty.
The owls are not what they seem
Just because the treaty was ratified by 177 countries doesn't mean it was democratic. After all, what does the US do if we don't like other countries' policies? We strongarm investors to suck all their capital out of the country until they do what we tell them to. And if they go along with our policies, we reward them (or at least their corrupt leaders) with massive loans from the World Bank or IMF.
The point is that these policies are getting more universal and more severe. Take a look at the article last week about the Chinese government's firewall built by eager US corporations. We're getting to the point where the internet no longer guarantees that information will be free (like speech or beer).
Between laws enforcing intellectual property, technology that can monitor and censor internet traffic, and governments cracking down on terrorism and digital theft, we risk losing the promise of the internet.
International treaties like this one are as important to the slashdot community as anything Bill Gates or George Bush does.
(Now we just have to find effective ways to fight back)
Teaching, coding, coffee, revolution.
Can this treaty realy be compared to the DMCA. As I see it the worst part about the DMCA - restricting the freedom of speech by outlawing the *construction* of circumvention devices (read programs) - is not present in this treaty. The clost they get to this seem to be Article 18 and 19 which I interpred solely as forbing the *use* of said devices/programs. Which of course is bad that too... but not as bad as the DMCA.
It's bad enough that there are some great foreign films that will be probably never viewed in the United States because they are a different region (which negates travelling and legally buying the DVD and brining it back) and distributors do not consider the films worthy enough to port over to region 1. But to think that one day people might be denied exposure to music from the world's many cultures for the same reason is barbaric.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
"...has ratified a anti-music piracy treaty"
;-)
I assume you meant "anti-music-piracy" or "anti music-piracy" but I like your version better.
Seems like all these damned laws are anti-music.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Your argument is missing some distinctions.
First, "countries" are not atomic entities. There are interest groups within them. The RIAA/MPAA + media giants have their allies within many of the signatory countries. They would like nothing more than to control content and the means of distributing content completely. They would also like to control prices, limit competition, and some guranteed income in the form of hardware taxes.
These groups have the advantage of money and organization, but the disadvanatge that many of them live in democratic countries. So to get what they want, they have to do an end run around the democratic process. One way to do this is with economic treaties, which are negotiated in secret, by the very groups who will benefit most from them, and are then passed on to legislatures to be rubber stamped.
Why do the legislatures rubber stamp them? Well, for one thing, the lawmakers tend to be predisposed to favor this stuff in the first place, due to a variety of filters. For instance, in the US, to even be eligable to make a run for congress requires that you raise about $1,000,000/year from wealthy individuals. This means that our representatives are not exactly a "cross-section" of the population. So the lawmakers don't view the public as some group to be served, but as an annoying constituency which should be kept quiet and under control. I'm generalizing here, but the principle is fairly accuarate. In other countries there are other filters, of varying restrictiveness.
Moreover, the media doesn't highlight these amendments. Where was the huge public debate about the Telecommunications Act? Where was the public debate about the DMCA? Why do these agreements slip under the radar? There is little discussion of them in the media -- unless through leaks or lack of control word spreads anyways, and then there is a rush to defend them. So the Nafta debate, which was caused only because Perot -- who can buy his own air time -- forced the issue onto the airwaves. And then there was a rush by the NYTimes, Washington Post, etc. to villify him and to not present the opposing views.
Finally there is the method of bundling, by which these agreements are presented to congress without possibility to amend them, as part of a larger package, for a straight up or down vote. Threats of boycotts, higher tariffs, cutting of loans/aid are big clubs than can be used against other countries to get them to sign. But the key point is that the legislatures generally want to sign these things, and the aforementioned threats are provided as cover for them to say to their citizens -- "we had to do it."
At the end of the day, you end up paying taxes when you buy a hard drive, and the police can arrest you for reverse engineering, even if your goal is to interoperate, or just provide a lower price substitute.
I recommend reading an article about the derailed Multilateral Agreement on Investements to see this dynamic at work. In the case of the MAI, media leaks, mostly on the internet, launched a grassroots effort to oppose the provisions of the MAI. This resulted in derailing the agreement as more and more of the provisions came to light, and public hearings in several countries were called. A brief excerpt:
The [Wall Street] journal goes on to urge that it will be necessary "to drum up business support" so as to beat back the hordes [of people opposed to the MAI]. Until now, business hasn't recognized the severity of the threat. And it is severe indeed. "Veteran trade diplomats" warn that with "growing demands for greater openness and accountability," it is becoming "harder for negotiators to do deals behind closed doors and submit them for rubber-stamping by parliaments." "Instead, they face pressure to gain wider popular legitimacy for their actions by explaining and defending them in public," no easy task when the hordes are concerned about "social and economic security," and when the impact of trade agreements "on ordinary people's lives...risks stirring up popular resentment" and "sensitivities over issues such as enviromental and food safety standards." It might even become impossible "to resist demands for direct participation by lobby groups in WTO decisions, which would violate one of the body's central principles": "'This is the place where governments collude in private against their domestic pressure groups,' says a former WTO official."
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
This was lobbyed for very heavily by the IFPI and the RIAA. Jason Berman is the head of the IFPI (and the former head of the RIAA, he reccommended Hilary Rosen to replace him. He is based out out New York and has been a steady fixture at the WIPO meeting and debates. One has to ask why the head of an organization based in London, lives in New York, unless this was the plan all along. He is a former Warner Bros exec and a Senate aide. While we were watching the Hilary, Berman was expanding US copyright policy to the world. More on Berman.
Imagine if someone looked through your window at the wallpaper in your house, decided it was an ugly color, and then broke into your house to paint all your walls pink. Would that be cool with you??
Oh yeah? How would YOU like it if every time someone flew a white helicopter over your father's tomato farm, a rhinoceros shows up and steps on his bicycle? Yeah, would that be cool with you??
Yeah, I didn't THINK so!
Here's an interesting little snipped from Article VI of the US Constitution that most of you probably didn't know about (emphasis mine):
This Constitution... and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that international treaties hold the same weight as the Constitution. This means that if a WIPO treaty trumps the First Amendment, you're up a creek.
Back in the 1950's there was a bill floating around Congress known as the Bricker Amendment that would have forbade Congress from ratifying a treaty (only requires 2/3 of the Senate) that would require a constituational amendment to do otherwise (which requires 2/3 of both houses and then 2/3 of the states). It didn't pass. Do a Google for more info.
This means that a group of people who we don't have any control over for six years at a time can trump the Constitution whenever 67 of them agree to. (Yet another reason to repeal the 17th, probably.)
There's been a new interest in the Bricker Amendment in recent years from the political right and other groups, but I don't think anything's been really done about it.
BEGIN subtleHint();
Perhaps if we all wrote to our Congresscritters and Senators and bitched about the lack of such a law protecting us from abuses in WIPO and WTO something might get done about it.
END subtleHint();