Slashdot Mirror
Boyle on Webcasters and WIPO
pjones writes "It's always amazing to see an article in Financial Times that supports webcasters and open source, but James Boyle sticks it to the World Intellectual Property Organization in his latest article, "More rights are wrong for webcasters." Boyle lays it out so that "economists, political scientists and people who simply want to make money" can get what's wrong."
then there is no law.
The only people I have seen really respect WIPO and other treaties are those who make money from or directly with IP. This is because they know they will be sued into oblivion. (and even then)
Unless governments start throwing people in jail for 25 years.. I doubt anyone in the not-for-profit blogging and web/podcasting communities really care what these people think. And even if they DO start throwing people in jail for 25 years for trivial offenses, we all know how well that worked for the war on drugs.
(sarcasm)Perhaps camps in Cuba? Syria?(/sarcasm)
Kinda sad. Oh well.
WIPO has confused the issue, and Boyle does little to clear it up. The term "right" has been used in place of "entitlement" or "monopoly" to describe the expanded ability of a broadcaster to claim public domain works as their own for 20 years. This is not a right, this is a reduction in rights of everyone else. It is an entitlement, an entitlement to something that no one else will be allowed to have. It gives broadcasters a monopoly on works that they did not create. Boyle is correct in saying that this is bad policy. Anyone with eyes can see it as so.
But he also tackles the issue from a strange direction. He sees law and policy as a means to an end rather than the description and implementation of a general principle. Laws should reflect the general will of the people, in my opinion, rather than be used to reach a specific outcome. By requiring that laws need a specific goal (in this case to expand broadcast network infrastructure), we leave ourselves open to exactly the problem of industrial horse-trading that Boyle seeks to avoid. If Boyle really believes that these laws are wrong, why does he attack it on the effects it will have rather than on the general principle?
The problem is that by granting special "copyright" to public domain works to broadcasters, it effectively removes those works from the public domain. As a result, the freedom to access or otherwise use those works becomes infringed. This is not a matter of the new rules having no positive effect. It is a matter of reducing the amount of freedoms of everyone except a handful of quick-moving broadcasters. That is the principle at stake here, not some untestable hypothesis regarding the reduced likelihood of new networks being set up.
This is, as Boyle points out, a bad direction on the part of WIPO. It is unnecessary and harms the freedoms of almost all involved. However, fighting this encroachment of rights should not be waged on an effects basis because then we become the horse-traders that Boyle seems to despise. Instead it is necessary to confront this on the basis of first principles from which can be developed a sane and equitable intellectual property policy.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
They know it's wrong. They don't need to be told. It just pays better than doing the right thing. Heck, in this society, doing what pays better IS the right thing. They'll stop when angry starving peasants start sticking pitchforks up their elitist asses. No sooner, no later.
Very well stated. Any time we try to create legislation to accomplish a specific end, we open up the door to a host of unintended consequences and abuses. The cure often ends up being worse than the disease.
The Slashdot Limerick
It seems logical that the FT would be on the side of business - and of course, they are. Virtually their entire readership would agree that making money is a good thing.
However, taken as a whole, entrenched monopolies and cartels are not good for business. Small businesses and startups are essential for the economy, especially in fast growing sectors. Economists know this. As such, it's not all that surprising that the FT will take a stance that is against that of the multinationals.
I'm glad that the article mentions the fact that the United States didn't sign the original extension beyond copyright which prevented redistribution. The same reaons to sign that extension then are being used now by broadcasters--mainly that they have to have incentive to grow their networks. Increasing these rights to 30 years and adding a whole host of unenforcable laws is just going to make the lawyers happy. The truth is that a new business model needs to be designed which can deal with the technological revolution taking place. We cannot treat digital media online like a physical VHS tape anymore because other than a computer, not much is needed to copy the material. Instead a per view price which is reasonable can be inacted and people will gladly pay if it means good content. Why broadcasters don't understand this is beyond me.
------
Wow... I didn't know they came in this arrangement WOW
I agree with your perspective that he does not clear the issue up, but he does question it and rather eloquently. My question is, has he done the same with the DMCA section 1201 tech mandate which shares the same origin? From what I see he does not. I'd really like to see less hypocracy from pundits..
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Then be more amazed:
How open source gave power to the people
By Richard Waters, September 19 2005
The sedentary art of software development and the extreme sports of kitesurfing, sailplaning and canyoning would appear to have little in common.
However, both are examples of a new force that could eventually affect a far broader range of companies and industries: the power of users to shape how products are developed.
More...
A pox on you too, buddy!
Is it moral to let millions die in name of patents. They argue that if patents are not respected then there wont be money for new medical research, well thats crap, medical research should be funded, period.
Currently there's an interview with Matthew Szulik of Red Hat, who says he was first inspired by the potential of open source by work undertaken by Richard Stallman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Also there's a commentary by Lawrence Lessig headlined "The march of the web-enabled amateurs" about "grand collaborative projects carried out by volunteers made possible by wikis."
See Financial Times Digital Business
It's pronounced "Asweepay"!
Heck, I don't think there are enough monopolies, lets have more!
UPS should be able to own the packages it ships for an exclusive 50 year period.
Web-Email providers should be able to own my emails for 50 year period just because I read them over the Internet.
ISPs should be able to own everything sent over their networks for 50 years.
I should be able to setup an open WIFI hotspot and own rights over anything anyone sends through it, for 50 years.
What about supermarkets? They should be able to say how you use their produce, for example: "you shall only use this Walmart pasta sauce with official Walmart pasta".
We need more exclusive IP rights holders, because IP rights are the cause of Americas huge trade surplus.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So where's the money in this festering mess? Is it possibly in the tax base? Expanded IP expands the tax base at a loss to the public interest. IP marks a clear paper trail as to who owns what and what can be expected in terms of revenue and, in turn, tax revenue.
Big government requires big tax revenues and what better to "sell off" than the cultural and intellectual heritage of it's constituents. The infrastructure to oversee IP is minimal while the tax gain is substantial. Basically it's a big tax grab. Maybe it'll be pay raises all around for our elected representatives.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
James Boyle: More rights are wrong for webcasters
>By James Boyle
>Published: September 26 2005 18:58 | Last updated: September 26 2005 18:58
>>
I teach intellectual property law, a subject that is attracting attention from economists, political scientists and people who simply want to make money. These, after all, are the rules that define the hightechnology marketplace. Are we doing a good job of writing those rules? The answer is no. Three tendencies stand out.
First and most lamentably, intellectual property laws are created without any empirical evidence that they are necessary or that they will help rather than hurt. Second, the policymaking process has failed to keep track of the increasing importance of intellectual property rights to everything from freedom of expression and communications policy to economic development or access to educational materials. We still make law as though it were just a deal brokered between industry groups - balancing the interests of content companies with those of broadcasters, for example. The public interest in competition, access, free speech and vigorous technological markets takes a back seat. What matters is making the big boys happy. Finally, communications networks are increasingly built around intellectual property rules, as law regulates technology more and more directly; not always to good effect.
The World Intellectual Property Organisation has now managed to combine all three lamentable tendencies at once. The Broadcasting and Webcasting Treaty, currently being debated in Geneva, is an IP hat trick.
Much of what is broadcast over the airwaves is copyrighted - the broadcaster licenses the film or song from a copyright holder and then plays it to you at home. What you probably do not know is that nearly 50 years ago broadcasters in some countries got an additional right, layered on top of the copyright. Even if the material being broadcast was in the public domain, or the copyright holder had no objection to redistribution, the broadcaster was given a legal right to prevent it - a 20-year period of exclusivity. The ostensible reason was to encourage broadcasters to invest in new networks. The US did not sign this treaty. Has the US broadcast industry stagnated, crippled by the possibility that their signals will be pirated? Hardly. Copyright works well and no additional right has proved necessary. Has WIPO commissioned empirical studies to see if the right was necessary, comparing those nations that adopted it with those that did not? Of course not. This is intellectual property policy: we do not need facts. We can create monopolies on faith.
But now a new diplomatic conference is being convened to reopen the issue. Doubtless the goal is to abolish this right? There was never any empirical evidence behind it. Broadcasters in countries that did not adopt it have flourished, albeit casting envious eyes to the legal monopolies possessed by their counterparts in more credulous nations whose politicians are more deeply in the pockets of broadcasting interests. The right imposes considerable costs. It adds yet another layer of clearances that must be gained before material can be digitised or redistributed - compounding the existing problems of "orphan works", those whose owners cannot be identified. So is the broadcast right on the way out? No.
In the funhouse world that is intellectual property policy, WIPO is considering a proposal to expand the length of the right by 30 years and a US-backed initiative to apply it to webcasts as well. After all, we know that the internet is growing so slowly. Clearly what is needed is an entirely new legal monopoly, on top of copyright, so that there are even more middlemen, even deeper thickets of rights.
What is the rationale for this proposal? Parity: "If the broadcasters have the right, we should too." But wait. There was never any evidence that even broadcasters needed the right. And the capital requirements and business models of the two industries are entirely dif
It's unfortunate that the masses have to succumb to the decisions of the elite. The elite who likely don't use the technology they are so afraid of. The elite who don't believe that anyone should have access to anything unless there is an exchange of payment in some form. It's too bad that they didn't learn anything from all those hours in college and all of the shared knowledge and experienced they gained so much from. For without the sharing of knowledge our society would be a hapless group of lemmings merely wandering in a senseless existence....oh wait....
It's great that people are starting to see "intellectual property" is just another way for corporations and crooks to control people's data and behaviour once the product leaves the producer's hands. Most of the examples given could come true, and we'd have all the corporate shills telling us that Walmart's pasta sauce is "licensed" and not sold, or some such nonsense.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
The article says they want to extend the period BY thirty years, making a total of 50 whole years. This of course gives them thirty-years breathing time in which to think up reasons for extending it to a hundred, then a thousand years.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
> He sees law and policy as a means to an end rather than the description and implementation of a
> general principle
Well, approaching this issue in the same direction as those who pass the law is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your goal is to deconstruct this view. You show how the policies created with this mindset fail. He seems to be doing this job fairly well. Even the constitution states that copyright law exists to further the sciences and arts thus being to achieve an objective and not to uphold principles. Perhaps the principle being upheld is that we as a society want to technologically advance thus our laws must reflect that.
He is merely stating that given the objectives, the law providing additional rights to broadcasters has failed. Stating that copyrights are wrong or extending copyrights is wrong shifts the framing of the debate to something the broadcast industry doesn't want to hear. They will be far more likely to listen to someone who says, I agree with your goals, but this isn't going to accomplish them. Often, its better to just deconstruct the views of an opponent in a debate than to repeatedly yell your view point.
but then, what do I know... my idea of debating an issue is slashdot...
When all else fails, try.
That's a famous quote from Willie Sutton, in the 1930's (USA). FYI, it's the *classic* example of for why lawyers are told to *never* put their defendant on the stand in a trial (because it was a stupid admission of guilt after the prosecutor lulled the defendant into confident and cocky behavior on the stand). On Willie's life: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton /sutton.htm>
Would copyleft music throw a monkey wrench into the schemes of these broadcasters?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/63600
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
What ideas will be left that aren't patented, copyrighted and/or DRMed in 20 years? How much of the penny will WIPO and governments eventually shave to adminstrate all of this? I'm not even sure more broadcast/webcast rules do anything good even for big media.
-- $G
The problem is that information can be viewed as a property or as communication. Both points of view are correct and both points of view are wrong.
If information cannot be communicated, it doesn't exist. If you have no information to communicate you have no communication, By trying to restrict the communication of information by locking it up, (say, in my case, by saying that articles still belong to the publisher when that publisher has ceased to exist,) they are debasing their own stock.
These two views of information (and media) are at their heart diametrically opposed and working against each other.
The case against Google is a case in point. If information about something is NOT available, then that something might as well not exist. The case against Google will be a Phyrric victory if the authors win since the best means of validating against infringement, typing a phrase into Google and seeing what matches, will be unavailable to those authors. They will be MORE liable to copyright infringement than before. In fact, their copyright, and sales of their materiel, could be usurped when someone else 'comes up' with a seachable version. Who wan't that?
If information about something IS available, then it DOES exist, but it may be restricted (DRMed.)
But it can't be restricted too, uh, restrictively. There are more than one operating system, there are going to be others coming down the pike (Windows, *nix-es, Linux and OS X are NOT the be-all and end-all of computing.)
By making the DRM scheme a single vendor solution, the guy is making a complete fool of himself since he has GIVEN his copyright away. HE should be the one controlling the content, not the vendor.
He is in far more danger than the authors. They only face oblivion. He faces being nickle-and-dimed for all eternity, or until something else comes along which wipes him out as colateral damage. (Microsoft has set itself up to have to win at everything every time and this is clearly impossible.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
http://www.prisonsoup.com/
http://www.dance-industries.com/home.php
That should give you some leads.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The article doesn't discuss just "more rights" for just any "webcaster". It specifically talks about how a "US-backed initiative" is designed to turn a 30-year "exclusive right to broadcast certain content" that some broadcasters in some (non-US) countries enjoy into an 80-year worldwide right for all webcasters. That broadcaster would, apparently, mean that webcasting a song or show would entitle a single webcaster to own it for a (long) lifetime - presumably when the time will be extended. That content includes even public domain content, stealing it from the public for a single webcaster. It's insane, and it seems like it will become the global content monopoly law.
Webcasters do need more rights, just not at the very top like that insane monopoly law. At the bottom, webcasters must pay a minimum $500:year to stream copyrighted content. Per-play rates are $0.0007:listen for songs. That's $90:year for a 24/7/365 listener, so webcasters would have to stream continuously to at least 6, or more like 20-50 listeners just to afford the "blanket" rates.
Nevermind that the per-play rates are created by dividing the total purchase price of Broadcast.com by Yahoo by the number of songs in Broadcast.com's library, so per-play rates are equal to the price Yahoo paid for unlimited plays. Or that the sale was in Yahoo stock at their most hyperinflated bubble price, and the value of the rest of Broadcast.com in addition to the songs, all counted as value of the songs. Those rates are about 100x any fair price, if a fair rate could even be derived from such a transaction in unrelated terms. And again, it's $500 just to get in the game.
Then there's the "song frequency" rules which prohibit "heavy rotation" of songs, or even artists, much more strictly than on radio transmission. Or the absolute prohibition on "interactive" (requests) services. These rules are all designed to cripple the hobbyist or personal-scale webcaster, even nonprofits (like small/public colleges), and anyone producing "Internet radio" any different than the stale preprogrammed formats driving people away from radio in droves.
Webcasters have rights. These rules take them away. That repression creates rebellion. In the meantime, it creates profits for the global masters like Viacom, ClearChannel, NewsCorp, Disney. Welcome to our mickey mouse New World Order.
--
make install -not war
Broadcasters are not the authors of a public domain work that they broadcast. If this section doesn't apply, then the First Amendment reigns supreme.
-- and if the author of a work doesn't mind it's retransmission, then there is no way that this section allows someone else to prevent the retransmission of his work, as that infringes the artist's right of free speech, and their exclusive right to their work.
(IANAL)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
He sees law and policy as a means to an end rather than the description and implementation of a general principle.
"The Congress shall have power:
This from a group that is generally acknowledged to have opposed monopolies on principle.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"running a car is both socially and environmentally irresponsible"
Lets deconstruct this a bit:
"running a car is [...] socially irresponsible"
In what way? Because it breaks some sort of societal contract? Are you upset because people choose not to live in dirty, overcrowded cities? Sounds like you're mainly upset that the automobile give people a choice. A choice you feel they should be allowed to make because it upsets the way you think society should run. Sorry, *you* don't get to choose how I live.
"running a car is [...] environmentally irresponsible"
Because it uses resources? By that measure, your mother having children is irresponsible. You may feel you've got the moral high ground on this issue, but there is no moral high ground on this issue. You use the environmental argument as a way to somehow give substance to your original point: you've decided how best society should work and anything that differs from your ideal is "irresponsible", as if you get to measure that.
I think what you've done with your entire life is irresponsible, but its not my business; that's up to you. My job isn't to moralize to you about what you should or shouldn't do. I can disapprove, but I'm at least wise enough to keep it to myself.
Idiot.
No kidding. I think I understand it less after reading the article than I did previously and previously I was unaware of the issue.
Does this mean that (if this had been in force in the US) a TV station in New York could put on their own production of one of Shakespeare's works or Beethoven's symphonies, and then forbid any other station in the US from doing the same for 20 years? 'Cause that's what it sounds like, and I can't see how anyone could possibly come up with any kind of believable justification for it.
I welcome any clarification from anyone actually familiar with this particular provision of whatever that treaty was.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This is all just another argument in favor of unregulated P2P. It's all about consumers taking back their Fair Use and Public Domain rights.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Because for every secretary that could be employed to type the words that I am writing, there could be another secretary that could be the secretary's secretary, typing up things like what I am writing for tse. Therefor production of any text which is not typed by a secretary typing for a secretary should be charged a "secretary's secretary tax", to support those poor secretaries of secretaries who lose money due to the single-secretary writing of text.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.