Slashdot Mirror
Draft of 'Broadcast Flag' Treaty Now Available
The Importance of writes "If you liked the broadcast flag, you're going to love WIPO's proposed 'broadcast flag' treaty (PDF link). The draft treaty will give copyright-like rights to broadcasters, cablecasters and, if the US gets its way, webcasters. As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it. The treaty also includes DMCA-like protections, in case you try to circumvent the broadcast flag. The treaty is going to be discussed in Geneva, June 7-9. The draft is discussed over on Corante.com and late last year on the DMCA activists list."
but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it.
I would assume "old" recording technologies such as VCRs and PVRs would still be able to record the signal? (Current protection, Macrovision, is easily scrubbed from a signal.) These bastards have forgotten what the term "Fair Use" is all about.
Trolling is a art,
You can prevent people from recording. You can try, but you'll probably fail just as everyone else has prior.
With the hardware that most manufacturers build and work with, the sort which a broadcaster would use to both create and monitor their transport stream, the ability is needed to record and play back at will, thus, such a flag would pretty much be ignored by most systems if implemented. Besides, if you end up modifying the ATSC standard, in order to prevent breaking all previous encoders/decoders on the market, you would need to make such modifications to portions of the stream which are unused, and existing off the shelf parts would ignore such a modification. Thus, the protection starts off ineffective.
Even after the existing non compliant decoders/recorders/etc on the market are retired to due age or death, newer hardware which ignores such protections would still be available, you'd just have to pay a fair amount.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
The more they make TV a pain to own, pay for or operate, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.
er. wait... I mean, eventually I'll get tired of it and stop watching TV altogether.
As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it.
I say if you don't have the copyright to what you broadcast, you shouldn't have the right to prevent redistribution.
I don't see what's so outrageous about this.
The owls are not what they seem
I am a citizen of the US, I vote for my "leaders" and one way or another have a say in the laws I must follow. BUT A treaty saying what I can and cannot record.
BAH!
Those who won't follow it can't be forced to and those who will aren't offending anyway.
Taiwan will still be the primary source of bootleg video movie and software and the US will be a primary consumer.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Imagine if all of these groups spent as much time dealing with dictators, genocide, hunger, slavery, child abuse, rape, privacy, female genital mutilation, government spending and other important issues as they do protecting corporate greed.
I'm starting to believe that this stuff doesn't matter.
I hate to sound all Princess Leia, but they keep piling this nonsense on, and we keep ignoring it/circumventing it (and ignoring the laws against circumvention). At some point the whole thing becomes a joke and enforcement becomes impossible.
That's not to say that I don't think we'd be better off without this stuff. I'd rather not be a criminal, if it's all the same. OTOH, I'm not going to run Windows just so I can watch DVDs that I've bought.
I guess time will tell.
-Peter
... this would outlaw such things as time shifting? And they could accomplish that...how?
Yes, I'm waiting for some smart guy who can understand lawspeek to read the PDF and translate it into a paragraph or so of normal english.
Next they'll want to brain scan you and make sure you don't REMEMBER a tune or news story or a video scene, because you would be avoiding some royalty payments...
Lets see:
Good content sometimes makes money.
Bad content sometimes makes money.
Good content sometimes loses money.
Bad content sometimes loses money.
YET people still make money making content WITHOUT restrictions on "fair use". The question is, does RESTRICTING fair use make MORE money or LESS money?
The various media outlets know that CONTENT is going to be King soon, and that Advertisements are slowly going to lose out.
They are trying to prop up revenue streams with bad ideas that aren't going to work. All technological measures can be twarted, and in the long run, do not work.
People will pay for content worth consuming. Bands will have to play more concerts, poets will have to do more readings etc. Recording is/was just a new form of revenue which has approached the end of its useful life, in regards to generating a profit stream.
Now we are going to have to go back to what worked 200 years ago, before we had TV, Radio and the Internet.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If I read that correctly, this means that even if I release something for free to the public, they can *still* find a way to prevent people from copying it and distributing it? In that case, I throw my full support behind the lo-techs and their falling cars of doom. Get your VCRs ready. I may even start carrying around 80 gigs of divx files in my head, childhood memories be damned.
I also reply below your current threshold.
The same adage will always be true... If you can play it, you can copy it. No copy protection mechanism will ever escape that simple fact.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This seems like as good a time as any to ask:
In the discussion following a similar article a few months ago, someone posted a list of the different states for the broadcast flag, and their corresponding values (ie. 000 forever, 001 1 hour, 010 2 hours, etc.). However, I've been unable to find it again.
Does anyone have this information that they could re-post here? It's pretty relevant to the current discussion.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
there is no way they can lock things down well enough to stop people finding a way of making a copy of the content. Even if everything is 100% locked down, you can still take the DVI-D stream from your video card and capture the co-ordinates on the video stream with the television tuner software playing. I bet people will go out of their way to pirate content just because the powers that be are trying to stop them.
Of course, I'd dearly like to know what exactly this broadcast flag is supposed to be...but I'm willing to bet that this broadcast flag is going to essentially come down to a small sequence of bits (like the "second generation" marker that is used to prevent you from dubbing one MiniDisc digitally to another) or a signal overlay (like Macrovision that causes severe degredation if you copy the content). I don't think there's ever been a time that all the various hardware and content groups have been able to agree on a standard.
...simple to remove. Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up, but there will also be a large percentage...the same people who go out and purchase "video enhancers" to remove Macrovision...that find ways to defeat it. That works for me. Sure, we are breaking the law, but it's civil disobedience, just like making backups of your DVDs and, just like the original Betamax case, time shifting your viewing material.
So, here's how I think it will shake out. There will be a small bit sequence in a digital broadcast that says "do not copy". It will be trivial to add that support to hardware, and simple to include that in broadcasts.
AND
Maybe, eventually, some company somewhere will sue people who bypass this signal, or a company who makes a signal filter. When that happens, hopefully they will have the balls to take it through the court system to try and positively affirm the public's rights the way previous cases have.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
through over-regulation.
Theres a massive market for high quality recording off of tv/dvd/hd/whatever. All that legislation like this does is raise the barrier to entry, and thereby cause LESS competition, giving the consumer (fitting word in this example) less of an option.
Besides, if/when it becomes widely known that you cant record your favorite sports game/movie/whatever with these new tools, people simply wont purchase them, and will stick with their old equipment.
And when that happens, theyll blame "piracy."
no
... until the UN runs the internet!
If they UN ran the internet, the committee would probably be headed by a nation like Tongo seeing how the UN's great wisdom lead to Libya heading up the Human Rights committee.
evil_bit broadcast_flag sue_and_kill_evil_pirate's_dog
0 1 0
1 1 1
evil_bit
1 forAll evil_pirates
0 forAll good_guys(TM) = {RIAA, MPAA, political_puppets}
broadcast_flag
1 always 1
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
You've got the question backwards. The point of copyright is to further the people's interest by encouraging the creation of new works. So long as copyright is providing enough incentive to entice people to create more art, then the system is working as intended.
It isn't the copyright system's purpose to maximize profits for creators, but merely to ensure that there is just enough - and no more - commercial advantage to keep them producing more art.
Somehow, somewhere along the way popular perception changed to the idea that copyright serves the author. Not so, it always was about the people's interest.
The second dark age will not be caused by organized religion, but by the "content" industries and those politicians that deliberately or unwittingly serve their interests. Their power will come, not from the flawed dogma of authoritarian religion, but from the flawed dogma of intellectual property.
The people pushing this are not creators, in fact, if they really understood creativity they would understand why the whole concept of knowledge as property is so flawed. Walter Elias Disney understood, but those that control today's Disney Corp certainly does not (or just don't care).
The free software movement is a powerful demonstration of why these concepts are flawed, but could be rendered powerless by some of the more potent forms of intellectual property, such as patent law.
We must fight this on the political battlefield, if you haven't contacted your political representatives about this - now is the time.
I have only given the treaty a quick scan, and see no fair use provisions
Article 9
Right of Reproduction
Alternative N
Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts.
Alternative O (1) Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to prohibit the reproduction of fixations of their broadcasts. (2) Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of their broadcasts from fixations made pursuant to Article 14 when such reproduction would not be permitted by that Article or otherwise made without their authorization.
[End of Article 9]
Article 16
Obligations concerning Technological Measures
(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by broadcasting organizations in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their broadcasts, that are not authorized or are prohibited by the broadcasting organizations concerned or permitted by law.
Alternative V
(2) In particular, effective legal remedies shall be provided against those who: (i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal; (ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization of the broadcasting organization that emitted it; (iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal.
Alternative W (2) [No such provision]
Article 15
Term of Protection
The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the broadcasting took place.
[End of Article 15]
...When you provide a sizeable portion of its support, both with money and enforcement, you should have the ability to dictate policy. Of course, looking at the UN's record, Lybia, The Sudan, and Syria would be at the head of the Internet censorship^W policy control, just like they are on the human rights.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
They want their content displayable on any device but they don't want to pay for the devices.
I paid for the TV set.
I paid for the PC. (The P is for Personal, remember?)
They came up with the DVD player and the Xbox. Fine, make those gadgets able to read DVD and obey *Their* rules. That's implied.
If they want PCs to read them too, well then, they can't have it both ways!
These TV people and Spammers want the same thing: a Free Ride on US.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Because you not only get a chance to make money, but you're entitled to it, and if anything changes and you can't adapt, fuck them, change the law so you're still profitable.
We Americans as a whole have become a bunch of self-important, arrogant, whiny twits, who seem to believe that we are owed something simply because we exist.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
...when amassing a huge collection of Ed, Edd, and Eddy episodes is outlawed, only outlaws will amass a huge collection of Ed, Edd, and Eddy episodes.
Gravy!
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Man - I can't even watch a movie or listen to music without feeling like a criminal. It's time we invented a new form of entertainment. Open source entertainment with a GPL like license. In the 90's it was "information wants to be free". In the new millenium, entertainment wants to be free. (That's not free as in beer)
Standard disclaimer - I am an entertainer, and I do both "freeware" shows (open mic nite) and paid shows.
Alternative V
(2) In particular, legal remedies shall be provided against those who:
(i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal;
(ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization of the broadcasting organizatoin that emitted it;
(iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal.
so... this means that digital TVs would become illegal. Or, in fact, any device that would allow you to actually watch the encrypted TV, since the proposal is that a device which can decrypt the content under any circumstances (even to watch it) is illegal. Period. No exceptions. Only part (ii) here has an exemption for express authorization by the broadcaster. Part (i) makes it illegal to watch TV if it was encrypted (since you have to decrypt it to watch it) and part (iii) makes it illegal to sell a TV.
Y'know, I'm thinking maybe that isn't what they meant. Isn't overbroad legislation wonderful? :-)
the idea of a broadcast flag is a good one - there should be metadata telling you exactly what is copyrighted material, but it should be your choice if you want to 'break the law' and record it. At most gadgets should simply say 'it is illigal to record this material, are you sure you want to continue?' and let you choose. why should manufactures be forced to cripple their hardware? why should consumers be banned from buying/owning un-crippled hardware from overseas? this is a monopoly in so many ways - why should corporate sponsors have sole ownership of the governments policies? why should we live with this? America simply cannot call itself free or democratic at this time, and europe is just following allong.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Do we really need this? What will it solve? Television programming is ALREADY copyrighted. By adding this explicity copying restriction then are calling all television viewers CRIMINALS.
Also. This thing needs a new name. Just like DRM's correct name is "Digital Restrictions Management". Calling this a "broadcast flag" isn't descriptive enough to the average person. It needs to be referred to as something else. "Copy prevention flag", etc...
Also, keep in mind, it's really not preventing only copies to be made. It actually prevents you from even making a FIRST GENERATION recording of a live program as well. Guess what, no more timeshifting. TIVO just got a whole lot less useful. No more instant replays of Janet Jackson's boob.
What's going to happen when people start walking around with "personal memory augmenters" that record everything they see and hear for their own personal data mining later on?
Are they going to make such a device illegal because you might wear it to a concert / movie / theme park and then get to play back your experience again later?
What happens when the technology advances so far that it becomes a sort of implant?
When we begin to become practically symbiotic with such a device such that our competitiveness and our daliy lives begin to depend on it more and more, will we still be told by large media organizations what we can and can't re-experience?
When our human memories become fully meshed with technology (which I expect will happen within the next 100 years), where will we draw the line between our rights to re-experience something from memory and the content producer's right to get compensated for repeated experiences?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
There's no MAYBE in that sentence. It is absolutely going to happen. With the DMCA tied to this, it will be illegal to even try and make a machine that will ignore the broadcast bit. And they've learned from their mistakes from DeCeSS, and failing to sue DVD-John from Norway.
The companies are slowly lining up everything exactly the way they need it to hit a home run and have an iron fist on this right out of the starting gate.
Ever wonder why HDTV is going so slow in catching on? Because they want to get all this crap out of the way to start with.
And the U.S. government will pass ANY LAW they can to make this happen because they have a deadline on selling all the HDTV airwave range to these companies. They desperately HAVE to sell this spectrum to the content companies because it's been allocated in their budgets for many years now.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Anyone else thinking "you know what? keep your damn content - I'll take on a new hobby, go out enjoy nature, read more books, learn to cook, take up hiking, etc." ? If they're going to these great lengths to protect their content, why not just keep it to themselves? It's like going into the water at the beach. You're afraid you'll miss this crap until you fully do it - disconnect. Then you realize what a fool you've been wasting your non-refundable, one-shot & short life in front of a non-interactive tube.
Must-not-watch TV!
Um, you mean the same Swiss that collaborated with the Nazis during World War II?
i go ld/intro.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/naz
Or how about that whole bit denying insurance payouts to survivors of the holocaust?
Yeah, I think the Swiss would work really well there.
InThane
After all, the UN has always stood for freedom.
Until you read Article 29, Section 3.
Seriously, how is it possible that series DVD sales are through the roof yet piracy is supposedly so rampant that it warrents an international treaty to spend billions of dollars to develop and disseminate technology to stop people from recording a show broadcast on tv?
Here's the end result: now I can't record my favorite program 'x' and watch it later because I have to work late.
Wow, awesome. Who did we put into office that treats the entire population like criminals because a miniscule fraction actually are? I think it's time to pass some laws about lobbying - you should be able to mail one(1) letter, 2,000 words or less, stating your case to the politician of your choice. That's it, fini. Nada mas. No more big business can afford 3 full time lobbyists to push and pull the administration at their whim. Everyone gets an equal opportunity to affect policy decisions, because policy is what determines our laws and how our society functions. Only the elections are democratic, the rest of the system is as corrupt and elite money-driven as any communist state.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Now if only broadcaster's would broadcast something worth recording. Since FOX canceled both Firefly and Wonderfalls, and after Angel's demise (the show, not the character) at the end of the season, I'll be watching one single TV show for the 2004-2005 season.
I'm personally not a reality TV fan, or a teen-sex drama fan, or a law and order fan, so there's not much more on these days. There's a reason I'm watching less TV, and it's not all because of EverCrack. Thank god for Netflix.
Which I guess is a good thing -- sitting in front of the TV really kills your... your... what's that thing called? The one in my... uhh... uhh...
"If the USA can ignore the UN and attack Iraq, then they can sure as shit ignore the UN for *any* reason."
To be fair, the UN wasn't doing their job with Iraq. The US didn't ignore them, they just couldn't wait any longer. Somehow I doubt that'll take place here, especially if the US's interests are being served.
"Derp de derp."
I know I'm just talking to an idiot kneejerk redneck from BackWater, Alabayma, but how is that different than Article. III, Section. 3 of the US constitution, which explicitly talks about treason?
What would a requirement to use the broadcast flag mean for a software radio like the GNU Radio? It seems to me that once software radio matures to the point where we can interpret these transmissions in real-time then all the software has to do is ignore the broadcast flag. Or do will they try to require all software to adhere to this flag as well?
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
They couldn't wait any longer? Couldn't? As in, "Oh, boy, I can't wait to go start a war!"?
...Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds pretty much correct.
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
"They couldn't wait any longer? Couldn't? As in, "Oh, boy, I can't wait to go start a war!"?
Yes, the US was eager to get it taken care of. They had an itchy trigger finger, so to speak. Of course, in the space of 10 years or so, Saddam had racked up 17 UN violations. Pity Clinton didn't take care of it.
"Derp de derp."
1. They have lost all control of their schedules. With easy, good-quality time-shifting, they can no longer target a particular show for a particular day and time. Counter-programming one show against another is futile.
2. They have to stop people from easily skipping commercials. With any PVR, that's a simple matter of recording a show, and starting to watch it about 20 minutes after it starts.
Instead of adapting to the new reality of the consumer being in charge of their own entertainment, the broadcast networks are forced into these draconian measures.
The first network to use this flag will get a lot of complaints, and lose viewers to the competition. That competition will be most happy to use its lack of the broadcast flag as a major selling point.
Corporate greed created this flag, and that same corporate greed will prevent its widespread use. This whole issue will become a tempest in a TV plot.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Sure, we are breaking the law, but it's civil disobedience, just like making backups of your DVDs and, just like the original Betamax case, time shifting your viewing material.
Don't forget that the second and most important part of civil disobedience is getting caught and paying for the crime to win the sympathy of the masses. Man I can't wait to see so many of you geeks who like to argue over trivial things go to jail or be forced to declare bankrupcy.
Sooner or later, the whole system is going to implode. And it'll be nasty. I doubt restricting people's ability to record their favourite TV shows will be the catalyst... but it's not going to help. (Maybe Ashcroft's anti-Pr0n crusade will be a contributing factor!)
You must think in Russian.
My understanding is that the broadcast flag (at least in the US) is primarily aimed at High Definition broadcasts sent over the air, not via cable or satellite. Analog VCR's, and non-HD Direct Tivos won't be affected (I don't know about cable).
The way I see it, this will threaten the adaptation of HDTV by the American public before the deadline set by Congress (2006? 2007?), and cause the broadcasters more angst than copying.
For myself, I'm quite happy with analog TV (the little that I watch it). I have no intentions of spending a fortune for a High Def home theater. And, if I have to choose between High Def and my Tivo, the Tivo will win hands-down.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
are you kidding me? After all those trees Saruman cut down and the subjication and degradation of the Middle Earth Orc/Orge/Troll population...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Hm. Well, if just UN violations is the way you're counting, Bush definetly ranks up there pretty high as well, not to mention all the non-UN-related stuff that he's done like saying the First Amendment only applies in certain areas, TWICE (you'll have to scroll that page, sorry, no anchors). But anyway, the rest of the world agreed that a war was NOT necessary or at all the best way to go about things (and they've been proven correct) so yes, the US did have "an itchy trigger finger".
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
"Yeah.. which is exactly why many have a problem with it. An itchy trigger finger is likely to get you in jail, even in the USA, why would it be acceptable behavior from a country as a whole?"
Why are you asking me? I didn't say it was acceptable. I think the UN's lack of action was less acceptable, however. Nobody seems to care about that. Guess it's easier to hate the US than it is to see the problem that the UN created.
"Untill you realize that big friend Israel has been racking about double that amount of resolutions since 1867 alone.. when is the USA gonna take action there?"
Not really relevant to this dicussion, sorry.
"The bottomline is that GW and soem peopel he appointed to his government had an issue to settle with Sadam still. GW because he doesn't like peopel who try to kill his dad, and some peopel in his government because of wanting to finish what they had started when Bush senior was president."
Not a very strong point as Clinton had Saddam's ousting on his schedule as well. Even if this is about revenge for attempting assasination of Bush Sr., there's still the matter of the rest of the staff going along with it. Not very impressed with this argument.
"The rest fof it was a partially made-up, and completely blown out of proportion argument to justify it."
Perhaps. The problem is we don't know if the info was made up, or just unreliable. It's bad either way, but it would be interesting to know from a motive stand point.
One thing to consider, though, is re-election. Would Bush really roll the dice to make up a reason to hit Iraq and risk it being sniffed out just before the 04 election? Frankly, I'm not convinced of this. I mean seriously, how would he possibly talk Blair into going in on it? It's possible, but it doesn't make that much sense.
"Luckily there are many Americans who are sick of the idiot attitude of their current government as well and don't want to be ruled by a bunch of lying fascists, I hope they manage to do something about it because the way things are now, the USA is going to cause a major war if not a 3rd world war."
Heh. Well the only way we're going to fix our government is to radically change how people get into office in the first place. There is a lot of bad motivators out there to get into office, and a lot of crappy ways (i.e. abuse of the media) to get in there. It's not a matter of electing the right man, that's futile, it's a matter of removing those bad influences.
As for the 3rd world war, sorry, no, that's just not in our future. I don't doubt that more blood will be spilled, but it's very difficult to imagine that it'd escalate to nuclear proportions. A lot of things would have to change.
"Derp de derp."
"Note I didn't say that Kerry, Clinton or some other random "Democrat" would have done anything better."
Yes, you are right. I wasn't thinking of you specifically when I wrote that. Sorry for not being clearer about that.
"It just makes me fucking sick when I see guys who still believe that the people who have clawed their way up to the highest leadership positions in the country really care about morals and not just about money and power."
We share agreement here.
" I arrived at the conslusion that the system does not reward people who care about morals all on my own, imagine that."
I agree with you here as well. I don't think the system is encouraging the right people to come by and be president. Wish I knew how to fix it but I'm still chewing on what the actual problem is. I feel that if you have to win by pointing out the faults of your competitors on TV (be they truthful or not), then anybody who campaigns is negatively tainted.
"Derp de derp."
> Guess it's easier to hate the US than it is to see the problem that the UN created.
Not exactly, I guess it is easier to blame the UN for the consistant undermining by the former USSR and the USA mostly (China had a bit of a share as well)
Does the UN need reform? definitely. But one of the most needed reforms is getting rid of the veto. That would have meant that France would have been unable to sabotage the discussion about Iraq (maybe with the same, maybe with a different outcome) and it would stop the USA from sabotaging any efford to get a less one sided picture of the situation in the middle east.
> Not really relevant to this dicussion, sorry.
As you can read from the above, it is very relevant because in both cases the inaction of the UN is caused by the exact same thing.
Also, it is relevant because the USA uses the exact same argument to block any actions regarding the middle east (linking it to other unresolved situations)
> Heh. Well the only way we're going to fix our government is to radically change how people get into office in the first place. There is a lot of bad motivators out there to get into office, and a lot of crappy ways (i.e. abuse of the media) to get in there. It's not a matter of electing the right man, that's futile, it's a matter of removing those bad influences
And there I can agree completely.
> As for the 3rd world war, sorry, no, that's just not in our future. I don't doubt that more blood will be spilled, but it's very difficult to imagine that it'd escalate to nuclear proportions. A lot of things would have to change.
You really think so?
It may be hard to imagine from your point of view, but that would be because of being out of touch with what the behavior of the current administration is triggering outside the USA.
In the end the most dangerous part of what the current administration is doing is demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. That is simply bound to make you a lot of enemies. SO while they may not be the first one to hit the button, they very much create the circumstances in which dangerous idiots can gather popular support and do very foolish things.
Just to get something straigt, I do not believe the USA as such is evil, nor that its peopel are. I do however believe that there are a few very misguided ideas about the world that have gotten a hold there, esp. among the current administration and their closest supporters, but with a resonance among a much broader part of the population.
You can get away for a while with not caring about that rest of the world with regards to what they think and want, but seeing how they have like almost 20x the number of people, and happen to have most of the real dangerous tech as well, that is really not going to last, and is bound to backfire very badly. That is why I am saying they have a decent chance of triggering a 3rd world war, I wasn't so much saying they'd start it directly.
Guys, I can't post non-anonymously right now so mod me up if you can please.
I wonder about the effect these moves are having on kids. I have two kids, and they have already heard an earful from me about how the corporations and government are conspiring to take away their rights. They are growing up to absolutely LOATHE government and corporations.
The future generation, mark my words, the ones who are little kids now will start the revolution. No longer will there be a demarcation between libertarians ("the government sucks, problems are all the government's fault, take fetters off corporations") and socialists ("the corporations suck, problems are all the corporations' fault, take fetters off the government). Finally people realize it is BOTH their faults. And the little kids are feeling the loss of their rights worst of all. My kids are smart. Want to hear the type of conversation that actually goes on in my house, and probably in millions of others:
Child: "Why can't Daddy record Finding Nemo for me?"
Mom: "Because the government and corporations got together and passed a bad law to make it difficult for Daddy to do so. DVDs aren't like VCRs. "They" won't let us copy DVDs, and Daddy has to try to figure out how to do it on his computer, although they're trying to take that right away, too."
Child: "I HATE corporations and the government! They don't sound any different than those bad kings over in the Middle East who weren't letting their people even dance or play music."
Dad: "Well, you're right. There are a lot of similarities. As citizens, it's our job to fight against mean people who make bad rules, try to stop them from doing so."
Child: "When I grow up, I'm not gonna let them."
Actual conversation. Happens more and more frequently, too. Think I'm kidding? These clowns in the fascist UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA new government we seem to have will reap what they sow. They're teaching the current crop of little kids to HATE THEM with a passion. NEVER fuck with a little kid's Finding Nemo.
Don't underestimate the strength Joe & Janet Sixpack's wish to timeshift their soaps & reality TV fixes. That might be enough, if the bit does it wrong.
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
I believe that the grand parent poster was referring to the General Assembly.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
To be fair, the UN wasn't doing their job with Iraq. The US didn't ignore them, they just couldn't wait any longer. Somehow I doubt that'll take place here, especially if the US's interests are being served.
The US has done everything it can to make the UN completely ineffective. To use their ineffectiveness as a rationalization for a war that was already decided before the 2000 election is a bit like beating your wife and then rationalizing your visit to a hooker because your wife has ugly bruises on her face. Knowing the whole time you were going to see the hooker anyway.
Bush has abused his position. He should be impeached, tried and removed. Preferably in chains.
It's ironic that one of the most un-American people in the country is the leader of it.
That's right I said it.
This treaty is not being created to bring other countries in line. It is being created to do an end-run around the US constitution to bypass the fair use provisions in the copyright. You see, ratified treaties can take precedence over things written into the constitution. Only one other country needs to ratify it in addition to the US and fair use will be trumped. IOTW: THIS TREATY IS DESIGNED TO ENFORCE THE BROADCAST FLAG HERE IN THE US.
It blows me away how many people are completely unaware of why the UN was created. It wasn't created to be a world government body to solve all the world's problems. It was created to prevent WW III, which primarily involving giving the super powers a forum to work out disagreements instead of declaring war. The atom bomb had a lot to do with why the UN was created.
Veto power was and still is the only means of keeping the superpowers (those with the most nukes) involved, primarily the US, Russia and China. This hasn't changed. Proposing getting rid of veto power is an invitation to nuclear holocaust, because the US, Russia and China would simply withdraw. They have no incentive to permit smaller nations to dictate what they can and cannot do. If a ruling passed they disagreed with they could either ignore it, or go to war if the ruling resulted in harm to their country (e.g., global embargo of the US.) The veto power is the only thing that protects them from "majority rule".
This seems illogical to a lot of people, particularly if you subscribe to the philosophy that the majority is always right. But you really have to ignore the concept and reality of what a superpower is to pretend that no veto could ever work. Being a superpower means that even the UN and all the nations in the world can't force you to do something that you don't want to do. The solution? Why create a war over it when you can simply veto it?
The reason France was given veto power is slightly different, but at the time it revolved around ensuring stability in Europe.
Open Standards Portal
Ah, but even that has its limits. In the not too distant future, I suspect that the analog hole will exist only as long as we use old equipment and software.
Unfortunately, there is heavy research into DRM techniques such as digital watermarks which survive DA/AD conversion. They can be distributed across the medium, making removal impossible without significantly deteriorating the quality. Not only could these watermarks be used stenographically to uniquely identify copies for legal prosecution, but also to hold DRM authorization information.
Of course, even with old analog equipment, forces like macrovision (V1,V2) are still trying to close the analog hole. So, at the very least, technically, it will be a hassle and more costly to break whatever DRM system is used.
I used to believe as you and your sibling poster, holding high my and my fellow engineer's technical skills, which gave me peace of mind that I would always retain my freedom. But I've grown to be saddened when I see such posts because that attitude breeds apathy.
Ultimately, the war will be won or lost through legislation and its enforcement, and currently, those of us interested in "fair use" and freedom are losing. Consider that even in the best case, what good is technical freedom if you are fined or thrown in jail for exercising it?