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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.