Slashdot Mirror
Look Inside A PC-killing WIPO Treaty
mouthbeef writes "The Broadcast Treaty is a proposal from a WIPO Subcommittee that's supposedly about stopping 'signal theft.' But along the way, this proposal has turned into a huge, convoluted hairball that threatens to make the PC illegal, trash the public domain, break copyleft and put a Broadcast Flag on the Internet. The treaty negotiation process is unbelievably convoluted and hard-to-follow, and they've just wrapped up the latest round in Geneva. But for the first time, a really large group of "civil society" orgs were accredited to attend. Me and another EFF staffer and the Coordinator of the Union for the Public Domain created a heavily editorialized impressionistic transcript of the meeting (EFF mirror, UPD mirror), trying to untie the knots in the negotiation. This is the first time that a really exhaustive peek inside a WIPO treaty negotiation has ever been published -- get it while it's legal!"
Unfortunately, I already beat you to it! and most of the links you mention were alreayd mentione din comments. All I have to say is... if you're going to have an email address so that subscribers can let the editors know of dupes, atleast READ the email you get on it
Signed,
AC
This doesn't only rule out computers; say goodbye to paper and pencil, too.
Depending on what sorts of "encryption" were used with a signal, all sorts of devices could potentially aid in that signal's decryption. I mean, it could be argued that whatever appliance was intended to receive that signal could potentially be modified to aid in decryption. Sounds a little self defeating--lets hope it actually is defeated.
did you lift this write-up from BoingBoing, or vice-versa ?
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Theat's not true. Though it is true that he isn't emitting photons in the visible spectrum. :-)
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Boy, it's obvious the UN isn't in the pocket of the Big Corporations, yessiree!
No, the UN is worse. It's $10-billion oil-for-food scandal makes Wall Street accounting foibles look like kiddy play. This follows directly from Bruce's Law: All unaccountable organizations are corrupt.
As long as you're not tresspassing while taking those photos, you're 100% in the legal right if you take pics of her naked in the bedroom with a zoom lense.
from their homepage:
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an international organization dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit. These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts. Through its work, WIPO plays an important role in enhancing the quality and enjoyment of life, as well as creating real wealth for nations.
With headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, WIPO is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. It administers 23 international treaties dealing with different aspects of intellectual property protection. The Organization counts 180 nations as member states.
see here for more details
The United States is powerful enough to be able to cut its own deals with the rest of the world.
Like it or not, that's the truth.
Thus, we don't need the UN. We don't need the UN dictating what we can and cannot do to us.
Additionally, wouldn't a treaty such as this one violate some parts of the Constitution?
My very limited IANAL legal knowledge, the Constitution is the highest, followed by Treaty, then Statute. Thus, if a treaty like this would break the constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and expression and all that, it's invalid.
Not that anyone would actually dare challenge the WIPO but that's just another point to think about.
One common fallacy that keeps coming up in all these debates with regards to the 2000 election is the word democracy. This is the one word that everyone keeps saying and yet doesn't apply. Why?
Because The United Stated of America is a REPUBLIC. Yes the citizens are given the right to vote. But unlike a true (read: classical) democracy we do not vote on the specific issues, except in state or local elections. We vote in represenatives to do our voting for us. In ancient Greece (Athens) every voting citizen would gather together and vote on the issues that the government was dealing with (taxes, war, trade, etc.) One citizen, one vote. Or as we like to call it: The Popular Vote. (Popular being Populus or Population)
We don't do that in the US. Our Presidental elections were set up from the beginning with an electoral college. We vote to tell other people how to vote. This is the foundation of a Republic (see the combo of the word represent and public?) Etymology and History are neat huh?
I read Slashdot for the
Why, have you been under the delusion that the United States is a democracy?
As has been pointed out here numerous times, the United States is a republic of republics. Your voice counts in local politics, and to some extent, in national politics; but don't be surprised if the people appointed to the Electoral College for your state disagree with your choice for president.
You misunderstand my point.
First up though... it was not the Senate's place to act as the vote in Florida was certified and the electors voted as expected based on the certified results. Quoting from the Federal Election Comission:
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
Now back to my point:
In a democracy, the majority rules, and those eligible to vote are given the opportunity to directly vote on an issue.
In a representative democracy, we elect persons who we believe will represent our interests.
In a republic (as we have (I can prove it later if you don't believe me), we vote for electors and ultimately tell them what we would like them to do, but for the most part they are NOT required to act as we ask.
Only 26 states in the union ( + DC) have laws requiring an elector to cast their ballot in a given way... and yes, Florida is one of those states.
That means of the remaining 24, comprising of 254 Electoral Votes, are NOT required to vote for the candidate that their state does. Traditionally they do, however they are not required to and theoretically, if a large enough number of electors voted differently then the population of the states they represent did... we could have an elected president who received even fewer votes (percentage wise) then Bush did in 2000.
If you think for a moment that the fact that "The fact that Gore acquiesced" counts him out, you are sadly mistaken and need to do some reading on how US Presidential Elections work.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The subject pronoun should be "I", as in "I created a heavily editorialized....". Just think how silly "Me created a...." sounds to see the error.
Unless you are Jarjar Binks.
Actually, there's a funny story about that... heh.. you see, I've actually been reading the notes on the treaty for the past couple of days, and a whole bunch of nations, notably Brazil and several others, are quite opposed to this treaty, out and out stating that it's a danger to creativity, the free flow of information, etc. etc. etc., and they repeatedly keep asking for this treaty, or at least several particularly nasty parts of it, to be removed. Only a few nations seem to be eager to see this mess go through, and chief among them is the US: the US delegates keep harping on about how industry needs the protection that this treaty will give it, and how the other nations just don't *understand* the real meaning of the many nasty clauses in the treaty. So, basically, it's the US that is doing most of the pushing to get this treaty passed as is, with all the nastyness. Keep in mind that most of the stuff on this treaty wouldn't affect the government itself. It wouldn't be illegal for the NSA to use encryption. It *would* be illegal for normal citizens to use it, or attempt to crack or understand it. The US government, and a large chunk of big business, would love nothing better than to see this treaty go through, since all of it benefits them, and none of it benefits the average joe.
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
Here is some interesting reading. Just Google for it. It's funny how you don't hear much about this on the nightly news. If it's not bad enough that the UN is a sprawling bureaucracy that burns through billions of dollars a year and can always be counted on to sit on its ass while tens of millions of civilians are murdered by their own governments, it still maintains a petina of legitimacy among those who like to maintain their comfortable illusions. Just listen to how dogmatically its apologists defend it. "It must be good... because it must be." It's only real contribution to the world is to provide a meeting place for representatives from around the world to talk. But surely a tables and chairs can be had for less than the UN's annual budget.
And that's why I buy undyed detergents for my hunting clothes, as the dye highlights you in the eyes of deer, moose, etc.
(I know, totally OT)
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Apparently most/all of Canada's comments were completely disregarded.
I'm left to wonder if our representation is that bad (probably) or if Canada is just expected to go along with the status quo, as put forth by the US (probably).
Personally - while radical and unlikely - I'd just as soon see Canada completely withdraw from this organisation.
I believe the word you're looking for is plutocracy.
Yes, someone else had this idea a long time ago.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The industry calls them optical brighteners. It's what they put in color safe bleach. Color safe bleach is really a misnomer, since it's not actually bleach, nor does it truly get the clothes any cleaner...it just gives the illusion of cleaner colors.
Wish I had points, I'd mod you up.
"When laws stop making any kind of sense or justice, I stop obeying them."
If I remember my Thoreau correctly, one must not merely disobey an unjust law, but must do so publicly, and must be willing to accept whatever punishment is required by the law. Thus simultaneously showing respect for the principle of law while protesting its injustice in a particular instance. I think this point is often overlooked by those claiming to practice "civil" disobedience.
On the other hand, today's laws are so complex and numerous that we are all constantly breaking them in one way or another. :)
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
A PC per se does not help any more than the power station that supplies the power to run the PC or the antenna that receives the signal. There is nothing in the structure of the PC that is specific to the problem of decrypting broadcasts. Consequently, a PC is not "helpful" in the sense of being specifically adapted to the problem. However, a hooky smart card or a decryption program is specifically adapted to the problem and is therefore "helpful".
Furthermore, since something needs to be added to a PC to get it to decrypt, the requirement of providing adequate legal protection (Art. 16(1)) can be met by preventing the supply of the something that needs to be added and implicitly puts bounds of the interpretation of Art. 16(2) which is primarily explanatory. Thus, Art. 16(2) defines the types of activity that where prevention should be employed insofar as is necessary for the prime objective of Art. 16(1) to be achieved.
Finally, the text is just a draft and may well yet be amended to exclude explicitly devices have significant other uses or which are not primarily concerned with decryption. For example, the equivalent part (Art. 6) of the EU Copyright Directive includes the following subsection:
You should read The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and in particular Arts. 31 and 32, especially the reference to the "object and purpose".
/laughs hysterically
This has been said, slightly paraphrased, in every generation of American politics. I suspect it has been said of every Legislative body in the history of the world.
The Electoral College was not invented to prevent the people from making a mistake. It was invented to give smaller states enough influence in the Presidential elections that their concerns could not be ignored by the Presidential candidates. It does that nicely.
Also, note its secondary purpose - to convince the smaller states that their interests would not be ignored so that they would ratify the Constitution. Which it also did nicely.
If you believe that the Electoral College no longer serves a useful purpose, I suggest you write to your representative and senators, asking them to introduce a Constitutional Amendment abolishing same, and requiring the direct election of President/Vice. Then wait for the process to work - if enough people agree, it will eventually happen.
Not, mind you, that I think it is a good idea, or that you will ever convince the majority of 38 Legislatures that it is a good idea....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"