Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Broadcast Treaty Creates New Legal Rights for Broadcasters
An anonymous reader writes "WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization) created by the UN is now creating a new copyright for 'broadcast transmissions' giving broadcasters ownership of the content that they broadcast (even if the program being broadcast is in the public domain). IP Justice has created a Top 10 List of
reasons to reject this proposal and has published a detailed report that dissects the proposal from a civil liberties and freedom of expression point
of view." See our previous story for more information.
See the Union for the Public Domain. We're also working on these issues and have summaries of WIPO proceedings and an analysis of the treaty.
I keep wondering how long it will be until we have the completely formed "perfect enemy" -- that combination of totalitarianism and corporatism all rolled together.
I hereby propose the creation of WOFO -- the World Public Domain, Fair Use, Open Content and Free Software Organisation.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
*off to start broadcasting illegal copies of stuff and then re-download it as the owner of those things*
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
as long as they pay me royalty for tresspassing my property with their airwaves without my consent.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Of course I didn't RTFA, but would this mean if I broadcasted the latest RIAA single I would own the rights to a recording of that broadcast? Even if I never owned the rights to the actual songs in the broadcast?
Steal This Sig
This proposal by the UN can, and has been used to define web content distribution.
Seems to indicate that in the case of public domain content, such as a government-created documentary or a very old movie or audio recording--you would not be able to freely store and redistribute that content.
Sigs cause cancer.
11. When I broadcast a fart, I don't want to be legally responsible for damage it does.
Seems to me that this goes hand-in-hand with the broadcast flag.
Rob's Rule of Misgovernment: "When idiots write the law, the law will be idiotic."
Would sound be a "broadcast"? Is anything I say automatically covered by this?
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
Perhaps you have noticed that most broadcasters are super imposing their logos and other copyrighted images on your screen. That logo effectively stamps the film that they are broadcasting. They own the logo. You can't copy or distribute that logo without their permission. Therefore, you can't use the film in the background without their permission either.
Why does every organization created with a specific purpose have to have its finger in EVERY single issue. The UN I had hoped would be above corporations and actually stand to make the world a bit more UNified.
I'd guess that the MPAA might disagree with the notion of a broadcaster acquiring ownership of a feature film, simply because he broadcast it one night.
Europe seems determined to do away with property rights altogether.
--- Bill
does this mean if I broadcast on my network, I can sue anyone who recieves it for copyright infringement?
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
This does suggest that there is anything in the public domain that anyone would want to broadcast.
Considering the vast majority of the public domain is targetted at an audience who were around 95 years ago, and is likely to be highly degraded, or even non-existant, this sounds like a largely academic objetion.
This is how copyright holders are shoving the First Ammendment up our collective asses. Many of the articles in this treaty are patently unconstitutional. However, international treaty is held to supersede the constitution, thus conveniently bypassing any constitutional protections in place.
On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
Really this isn't much different from a record company deciding to produce a CD of work so old that it is out of copyright. They would have copyright on the arrangement of bit on the CD, but not on the underlying work. This treaty seems to be an attempt to bring things into line with this, to be honest.
Or alternatively you can take a copy of a Dickens novel and reproduce the words (since they are out of copyright) but you can't simply photocopy a recently printed copy of the novel and distribute that without breaching copyright.
Is there a list of 10 reasons to support this? I would like to read what they have to say and make up my mind. Some of the 10 reasons offered up by ipjustice look specious at best. I just want to be able to make up my own mind about this.
How about:
Worldwide
Alliance of
People
With
A
Clue
They're bits folks. Copy here, copy there. You can pass all the laws you want.
I wonder, will they get sued by David Letterman for having a top 10 list?
Anyway, the link in the headline doesn't link directoy to the top 10 list.
Gotta love #2: It defies the Laws of Physics.
Howdy Doodly Doo!
Anybody want some Toast?
Unfortunately, there's nothing more mind-numbing than international law, particularly regarding intellectual property rights. A cursory read of the linked articles had me praying for death. Can someone objective sum up the issues and present them here, in colloquial English. Thanks. And dear God please no more acronyms.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Peace
Read the list. Go. Now. Look at #10.
The proposed treaty would grant broadcasters the right to stop the original creators from otherwise distributing their work!
That, mes amis, is WRONG.
It's called a broadcast license, and it gets paid to the entire citizenry of your nation.
Supposedly the treaty intends to copyright the signal that is broadcast.
My understanding is that the signal is modulated electromagnetic radiation.
Before the signal even leaves the antenna it will be further modulated by signals from other sources of radiation, such as other broadcasting stations, noisy electrical equipment and mostly solar radiation.
So what now becomes copyright?
and maybe guns too. Comms gear and guns. Lots of guns.
This is going to get ugly. A free society needs free information, as Popper elucidated. The neofascists who want control over information flow MUST be stopped. By whatever means necessary, including flaming microwave pulse death.
I do have some questions about a couple:
Now, my prospective, like a lot of slashdotters, is as a US citizen. When the US signs on to a treaty, it becomes law. However, laws cannot override the constitution, and Copyright and Fair Use rights are a part of the constitution. Therefore, at least in this country, this attempt to thwart Fair Use would be unconstitutional, even though it is an international treaty.
However, how this law is treated in other countries can affect us. A major problem with copyright in this country is that its length is being continually lengthened. The top ten list does not discuss length of copyright, but I wonder if it is trying to make copyright last forever, or to start the timer over every time you broadcast something.
Anyway, other countries might limit copyright for a shorter length than our country, but if their copyright and fair use laws are not part of the constitution, this might be changed by this treaty. So while before we could look forward to downloading stuff from other countries when it enters the public domain in that country, now it will be lawfully protected by copyright in perpetuity. But this goes against the spirit of the reason that copyright was created in the first place.
Also interesting is #10
It seems ridiculous that a broadcaster would be able to usurp the copyright from its owner simply by broadcasting it. Already there are several people making jokes about this in this discussion. It sounds more like the copyright holder would maintain their rights, but that broadcasters would be given rights to intellectual property that they don't even own.
This makes me think of how big corporations will use songs in their commercials without permission or paying royalties. This has happened a lot to Fishbone who are even an RIAA signed band. So, I wonder, would this give big broadcasters "the right" to violate individual people's copyright?
Howdy Doodly Doo!
Anybody want some Toast?
.. it never ends, agenda 21, the desertification treaty,small arms, abuses by UN troops, issuing bogus vaccines, it never ends, now this amalgamation of bad news
"Article 6 - Right of Retransmission
Article 6 provides broadcasting organizations with an exclusive right to authorize the retransmission by any means of their broadcasts. The phrase "by any means" creates a dangerously broad grant of control over all retransmissions, including rebroadcasting and retransmission by wire, cable, or even over computer networks. This grant is broad enough to include a consumer who is sending a public domain movie through the Internet for non-commercial purposes. By including the redistribution through the Internet of broadcast media, the proposal goes well beyond its stated goal of applying to broadcasting organizations and regulates an enormous breadth of ordinary consumer activity, endangering freedom of expression on the Internet.
And this grant would give the traditional broadcasting industry a competitive advantage over webcasters and other "new-media" retransmitters who discover new and innovative ways of providing entertainment to consumers but will be prevented from doing so because this broad grant forecloses all future means of redistribution that is yet to be discovered.
Article 6 also provides broadcasting organizations with higher levels of protection over broadcasts than the law gives to the actual creators of the content being broadcast. Canada proposed a reservation to Article 6 out of concern that it creates "a situation where the level of protection of broadcasts would exceed the rights of the rightsholders of the content being broadcast."
further down it mentions an ubercopyright-like experience giveing broadcasters 50 years of ownership which *could* be construed to over rule even the original copyright! What masterminds thunked this up?
If that ain't sucky or what! Wonder how much them bozos got paid off for THIS masterpiece!
UN=somewhat decent idea, abysmal implementation, more stoopid and corrupt than most nations out there. Scrap it, start over again, IMO. And put their headquarters over to boogorillaville someplace, NOT inside the US. Let them goombahs enjoy the ambience someplace else.
It can't be done, "global government" would be orders of magnitude even more inefficient and more corrrupt than the soverign nations it wants to replace. We don't need either flavor of NWO, not the corporate axis of profit brand, nor the "stealth" axis of profit brand represented by the UN.
Always, and always superior to any federal, state, or local law. Just watch what happens on the Interstate Highways with Mexican trucks.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says in every speech that the justices need to grow from their narrow Constitution-centric views to interpreting laws in the broader international framework.
Right-wingers would call what WIPO is doing "legislating from the bench." And if a pro-lifer opposes it, it must be good.
Like Bill Clinton said, "Wave of the hand, law of the land. Cool."
More and more new 'Rights'! For EVERYONE... er unless you are a member of the class that pays for the whole sorry structure... you ARE?!?! NO Rights for YOU!
If I brodcast something the IP rights transfer to me?
While UPN owns Star Trek WB dose not own Yugioh. Most brodcasters don't own any of the content they brodcast but liccens it from the actual creators.
As IP law is now the act of creation itself gives you the rights so this dosen't matter if the brodcaster and creater are the same entity but when they are diffrent entitys this could mean a liccens to broudcast becomes a transfer of ownership.
On a side note it's the UNs job to foster peace through out the world. Ecconomic matters such as IP law shouldn't be part of the UN agenda.
Some nations may be cought between the rock of UN IP law that would basicly make there exports illegal and the hard place of the only aternitive of making wepons also banned by the UN.
If the only choice they had was to drop out of the UN I don't believe such a nation would have any market for the peaceful export.
I don't actually exist.
Our trade laws have been challenged by Mexico and Canada under NAFTA. We have lost 9 times out of 10. For you folks in Rio Lindo, that means our laws are subordinate to a treaty every time an international committee says they are.
And conversely, it means we prevail over international treaties when the UN says they do.
Do you remember voting for WIPO members? Neither do I. You may want to tell your representatives that too.
I know I am stating the obvious here, but a coalition needs to be formed. Any ideas... send me an email.
..."he who has the gold rules."
Over time, the interests of the rich will be superimposed over the interests of the many.
I don't like it, but that seems to be the way it works.
I don't claim to understand all of this, but it seems to either do nothing or do way to much.
Ok, one view says that you are not fixing the signal, you are fixing the "interpretation" of the signal. The signal itself is modulated EMR.
However, the bad physics aside, this seems to prohibit (or allow Broadcasting Organizations (BOs) to prohibit) (nearly?) all recording. No more VCRs. No more time- or space-shifting. As written, this might even apply to a person with a very good memory! If I watch TV on my PC (not common around here, but definately possible), the image gets stored in RAM. Worse yet, it might be swapped onto the hard drive. This would make that illegal. Modern TVs have chips and RAM in them. There is no limitation on how long a fixation has to stick around to be illegal.
There are more examples, but that is more than enough. This is a bad plan and the writers should be brought up on drug charges.
There really is no such thing as "International Law", per se. There are treaties that many of the players agree upon- but if they can't or won't agree upon it, that treaty doesn't apply- PERIOD. There is no Sovereignty over the US, save that which the Constitution grants to the Government by way of the approval of the people. If the Constitution prohibits our signing a given treaty, that's it- we don't agree to it. We can't, legally. Any Congress or President that does so is guilty of Treason.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
From Dictionary.com:
Also from Dictionary.com:
The complex of agreed upon treaties and the laws enacted by the various signatories thereof are what comprises "international law". Treaties, in and of themselves aren't the law. They're agreements for a given group of countries to act in a specified way that is signed by various diplomats for varying concessions. Law is where the countries enact the rules by which they endeavor to carry out the promises made in the treaty.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I agree, every time I see "WIPO", I cringe, because I know they are going to do something just plain evil. Either take away a trademark that a person has a right to, or enforce overbearing copyrights, patnets, or try to microregulate the internet.
Somebody just plain needs to shut them down and that's all there is too it. I'd really like to know who'se funding them. Perhaps a two pronged atack, go after the people funding them on the one hand, promote new technologies that make copyright enforcement impossible on the other.
Just like the old USSR looked strong, but was weak when push came to shove, I think the same is true with the WIPO. I doubt they ever innovate, only sit on their ass and restrict those who do. I'm sure we can outmanuver them.
Next frontier liberty - Project Libertopia
Treaties don't supersede the constitution, nor are they "just paper". Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
So the treaties which the United States makes are legally binding according to the constitution (and rightly so, in my opinion).
If they own the broadcast, can they put in a disclaimer that says I cant skip commercials/cut out commercials if I record it?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
it'll only apply to public domain stuff, stuff no one claims ownership of. Come'on people, do you think the RIAA/MPAA just missed this little law? They've got their lawyers/lobbiests all over it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Whatever you say, Hitler would be very proud of such broad media control like they try to exert here. Soon it will be illegal to see, hear or think anything different than the state controlled/controlling media companies. News casts under copyright. 9-11-critical videos on your private website with news cast footage? Copyright infringement, take down immediately! Bushs speech about "Saddam Hussein HAS weapons of mass destruction" saved for further reference? No no no no no, illegal!
Control over the flow of information means control over the public. Owning each and every picture, sound and text means owning the minds of every man and women. Resist these lies, don't believe them. They create possibilities for crowd control, media control and population control in general and the use "the bad guys" only as a decoy. Don't be fooled and don't buy into their phoney arguments.
Filesharers are hit first by this development but God prevent us from naively thinking the population controllers will stop sometime. The drug wars didn't stop the drugs, the terror war brought us more terror and each and every government law, treaty or project is directly aimed at removing civil rights. With no exceptions they create a scapegoat, be it drug dealers, terrorists or evil filesharers sharing kiddie porn and then remove broadly the rights of every man and woman in this country.
Totalitarism cannot be stopped once established. No whining and leaflet printing will help then, freedom can best be secured when still a bit free. And it is damn close before it IS too late. Imagine them forging the elections this year - do you think the media will report it? Do you think anyone will do more than murmuring to himself? Or will they just call you a "conspiracy nutcase" if you think there went something horribly wrong?
The media is almost controlled by fewer and fewer corporations and now they are voting for even stricter deals. Please wake up! Don't tell us about the criminals some law catches, don't tell us about the supposed intentions of a law, don't tell us "it's not *that* worse, stop hyperventilating" - the time it IS almost up and we will only know in hindsight when it was too late to react.
This chip - unpon receipt of proper proof of payment - will unlock the individual's eyes and ears. This is to protect our investment in the patented design of flowers and birds... So that we can continue to innovate and develop new species for your entertainment.
Thank you very much...
That this is the first step in re-creating the old guild system of the middle ages?
The net effect of all these laws and treaties is to eliminate the public domain and force all of us into a pay-per-listen kind of license?
All under the guise of "protecting the musician".
I wonder who is stupid enough to fall for it. I mean, besides congress.
It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 8).
It will be illegal to retransmit a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 6).
It will be illegal to distribute or retransmit recordings of a broadcast, including private copying (articles 9-12).
An exclusive "right of communication", broader than copyright, will apply to anything shown in cinemas (article 7).
Webcasts may or may not count as broadcasts. On-demand services (reception occurs at time and place of receiver's choosing) will not count.
Does anybody think anything created by any committee of the United Nations would actually have our best interests at heart?
(Mod me Troll is you must, but at least give some good example to back up your opinion.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The Supreme Court IMHO hasn't been strictly Constitution-centric since Marbury v. Madison.
English is easier said than done.
How about Multicultural Organization for Open and Free software...
MOOF!
;-)
I miss the dogcow...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
What benifit does this give to the broadcasters?
I wish, in criticizing WIPO's physics, that IP Justice had at least gotten their own physics right. In #2 on their top 10, and elsewhere on the site, they complain that broadcast signals cannot become "fixed" since "broadcast signals exist only in the air and dissolve upon reaching [solid] matter". This is bullshit. I am a physicist. Broadcast signals (e.g. RF) pass right through many solid materials. They are absorbed by other materials to varying degrees. They certainly do not "dissolve" on contact with solid matter, however. By criticizing supposedly-bad physics from WIPO with bad physics of their own, IP Justice just lowers their own credibility.
The WIPO Copyright Treaty was internationally developed back in a time when people, especially politicians, had no grasp of how digital data was an integral part of the modern world. The Internet, and copying of files, was seen as something awfully scary which threatened companies. Old white men fear change, and in 1996 the Internet looked like a pretty wild frontier. WIPO demands that digital data be treated specially, which IMHO is a big mistake. Everything we do these days relies on digital media and copying, an inherent action of computers and networks.
The WIPO was ratified in the United States to create the DMCA, which you all know and love. The similar EU laws, which are just as bent as the US's DMCA, also came from WIPO.
Now Canada is looking at bringing the WIPO, i.e. their own version of the DMCA, into Canadian copyright law. Terrible idea - visit this site if you want to learn more, and exert political pressure to stop this from happening.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio -- TV host Sean Hannity was found dead in his hotel room last night after a book signing. The coroner has not yet officially ruled it a suicide, but apparently that's what it's going to be ruled.
I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will mourn his passing -- even if you didn't agree with him, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
WIPO plans to extend copyrights for any broadcasted material (including everything in public domain!) from 20 years to 50 years, link here:
m l
http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/release20040608.sht
Capitalization is the difference between "Helping your uncle jack off a horse" and "Helping your uncle Jack off a horse"
why a large portion of the world doesn't like America right now.
I personally don't have anything against America as a country. Some of the things it does and it's current administration are another story, but America as a country on a whole (I don't support giving out weapons) I don't have a problem with.
However a lot of the world does have a big problem with America. And it's things like this that are the reason. It's why we also have problems with other countries.
You would not own rights to the song, but you would own rights to the broadcast; copyright can have many layers with different people holding the rights to the different layers.
It's analogous to the copyright a printer has in the typesetting of a book. You are infringing copyright if you photocopy a recently typeset Penguin Classic of a public domain work, but not if you transcribe it. You can however photocopy older published books at your leisure.
Another example: Dangermouse infringed on both the Beatles and Jay-Zs copyright in creating the Grey Album but he still holds copyright on that work, e.g. the Beatles or Jay-Z could not just decide to appropriate it and sell it themselves (without his permission).
If this is not the first post...I will roll around in garbage and dive into a barrel of hungry crabs.
So that's what I smell.
Right to knowledge has to be a universal human right. It is really sad that some people claim
to own knowledge just because they happen to find
it first.
Face it. It will be litigated into oblivion, and simply mentioning that it ever existed will be made illegal.
Long live the new public domain!
It's really, really time to reconsider anarchism guys. Democracy been has proven so flawed by capitalism, that it really hurts. By the people for the people my ass. Any mention of that and you're a communist/terririst/cyber-criminal (insert favorite none-commercialist decoy hot-word of the day here).
In case you can't stand the idea of anarchism, at least it's about time to reconsider democracy and what's it's about. I, for once, would consider the second lawyers are needed the moment of decline. But again that's just me.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
You're saying god sent lawyers to punish humans for our misdeeds?!? Ok, nevermind. It sounds reasonable enough.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
So if the international society, UN or whatever agrees on something everyone has to abide. For instance, Iraq failed to live up to what was decided (by the UN) it had to too. Result? A US-led invasion. The rules seems clear. UN decides, you abide, NO questions asked.
Now lets change recipient. US disobeys the UN? Results? "The rules don't apply to us bevause blahblah constitution and free country and given by God and BLAHBLAHBLAH OUR PENISES ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS".
You people seriously needs to understand what treaties, laws, democracy and basic principles means. And grand parent is not a troll. You are. By any none-USian eyes, I dare claim.
I still can't believe you people still believe that you live in a civilized country.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Wow, oh wow! Does that work counter-effectively these days or what?
Except for US-soldies, I mean.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
The source material will be lying safely in a safe, somewhere. The owner is not in any way required to give me access to it. This effectively stops my ability to access the public domain work through this route.
Of course, any other copies will now be covered with copyright! In the past I could grab _any_ copy of the work, and do with it whatever I like. Now I cannot get any of the second-tier copies, and the chances of the original source material being available are negligible.
Effectively, this creates an eternal copyright. All that is needed to maintain it is to carefully lock up the original source material.
It could be argued that I could tape whatever I wanted to have, wait 50 years, and _then_ use it. This is both extremely impractical and, in combination with technical restrictions on taping things, unfeasible as well.
> I, for once, would consider the second lawyers are needed the moment of decline
Do you have ANY idea how long lawyers have been around? As long as Democracy; longer, even. Never heard a quote from a Greek philosopher about lawyers, eh? They were considered a "necessary" evil WAAAAY back then too.
What should be considered the moment of decline (in that regard) is when people decided they could make a quick million by acting like a retard and hurting themselves and not taking responsibility for their idiocy.
Sorry, I'm not trying to insult any retards by equating them with lawsuit-happy assholes.
This is a new copyright-like right. Modifying the broadcast will not save you -- it may make it worse.
They can say no recording and you won't be able to use a VCR let alone a PVR.
As soon as your mail server starts re-broadcasting the signal my ISP broadcast, you will be violating their copyrights.