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.
Rob's Rule of Misgovernment: "When idiots write the law, the law will be idiotic."
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.
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.
However, international treaty is held to supersede the constitution, thus conveniently bypassing any constitutional protections in place.
In what dreamworld? the constitution is the supreme law. International treaties themselves are just paper - it is only local laws that implement those treaties that hold any force, and they are also subject to the constitution.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Yes - here in the UK, playing music loudly into the street is considered "broadcasting", and requires the payment of royalties. But then, in the UK, signalling to neighbours across the street by opening your curtains is considered to be "transmitting by the modulation of electromagnetic radiation" and requires a licence, or it certainly used to.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
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.