Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WIPO Broadcast Treaty Creates New Legal Rights for Broadcasters

Posted by michael on from the suck-it-up-peons dept.

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.

11 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. There's an old saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rob's Rule of Misgovernment: "When idiots write the law, the law will be idiotic."

  2. They are already doing this successfully! by FreeLinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They are already doing this successfully! by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My school's TV station (and bunches of other TV stations rebroadcasting news clips) get around this by blotting out the logo in the corner. If the content is freely distributable, the broadcaster can't do a thing as long as their logo is not visible, especially if a network broadcast is the only viable way to obtain publicly avaliable content (e.g. speeches, breaking news events, etc.)

  3. silly notion by wmeyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Ow my head by Kenrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  5. One question... by midifarm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What are they worried about? Have the advent of Tivo, the DVD-R and the VCR prevented the purchase of the rampant release of entire season's worth of programming on DVD? Are sales that low? I would think that syndicators would be angrier about the DVD's than things like Tivo.

    Peace

  6. #10 should be #1 by snax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:What the treaty actually says... by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It gives broadcasters the option to copyright their particular transmission of a work. They do not gain any retereospective copyright over works in the public domain as a whole, simply their transmission of it.

    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.
    So what's the point? Broadcasts are by their nature transient. If I record something from the radio then rebroadcast it, it isn't their particular transmission of the work anymore. Their transmission ended 5 minutes ago. This one is mine.
    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.
    I don't think that's quite right. I think it's more like them copyrighting a particular instance of a printing of the book, i.e. the physical book. Clearly that's a stupid and useless idea.
    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  8. Re:I get it now by Kphrak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Probably a troll...but what the hell, I'll assume it's a real question...

    But, to get back to the original point, I find it highly unnerving that the country that claims to be the world's foremost democracy holds democratic ideals in such low regard. If the majority of countries decides one thing, why does the US so often do the exact opposite?

    Answer: Because we (I say "we" as in "Americans", since I'm one) are not citizens of the world, despite what progressives would like to think. We do not answer to a world government -- such a thing does not exist, although there's a club that we're members of called the UN, which has done things like electing the Sudan to the UN Human Rights Committee. We answer to the United States of America, and its Constitution is the final authority unless we decide to amend it (that's why they call it a free country).

    There are many good reasons for this; for one thing, it means that pissants on the other side of the world don't get to tell us what to do. In fact, originally the law was set up to ensure that not even the folks in Washington, DC could tell us what to do in most cases. The federal government became more powerful over time, but every now and then states' rights get asserted (John Ashcroft getting rebuked by the courts for his attempt to shut down the Oregon assisted-suicide legalization is a prime, recent example).

    The US was formed on the principle of self-determination, and that means that we do not have to accede to the rules of another country if they violate our laws (i.e. the Constitution). Which, judging from the article, is a good thing. Europeans are always giving Americans a hard time about how we're so corporate-friendly, but I don't see much difference myself; if anything, it seems like the EU and UK governments are trying to outdo us in bending over and grabbing the socks for the Arrr Aye Double A.

    --

    There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
  9. Re:Broadcast in the public domain? by mrogers · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The treaty applies to all material, not just what's in the public domain. In my opinion the public domain angle misses the point, which is that copyright law will apply to all broadcasts, regardless of the content of the broadcast. The broadcaster, as well as the producer of the content, will have rights over how the broadcast is used. This will allow broadcasters to use the DMCA and other laws to prevent unauthorized access, recording and retransmission of their signals. Implications:
    • Unauthorized cable/satellite decoders will become circumvention devices.
    • It will be illegal to play a radio or TV program in a public place (eg a bar or a TV shop window) without the permission of the broadcaster.
    • It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the permission of the broadcaster - see Article 8 of the treaty.
    • Any recording device which ignores the "broadcast flag" will become a circumvention device.
  10. Does anyone else see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.