'Webcaster's Right' in WIPO Treaty

An anonymous reader writes "Andy Oram examines the new concept of a 'webcaster's right' that major Web portals are trying to introduce through a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty. The treaty would allow Web sites to control the dissemination of content they put up. Using the failed database protection laws as an example, and in the context of the carrier's desire to create a tiered Internet, Andy analyzes this new threat to the public domain."

Comments

Fuck 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Civil disobedience is the only answer to moronic new regulations like these. Ability to control content that's in the public domain? Give me a break!

Re:Fuck 'em

[Elektroschock]

Wrong. The article is wrong.

The WIPO broadcast treaty is not about Webcasters, currently. But an additional protocol is prepared which extends these regulations to the web. The basic broadcast treaty is a dublicate of the Rome Convention plus new protection rights.

Very bad stuff.

Don't believe the news, read the proposals.

This is crap

[TubeSteak]

There's a new restriction on content waiting in the wings--a "webcaster's right" that allows websites to control the dissemination of content they put up. With this new privilege, they'll be able to prevent retransmission even if the copyright on that content is owned by somebody else--even, in fact, if that content was in the public domain.

That is as far as I read, because all I could think of is "WTF?"

Okay, I read a little further

The proposal tries to indicate that the restriction covers only images and sound, but it's not clear that a line can be drawn between such content and other things, including text.

Ultimately, my problem with this is that it reeks of the bullshit "harmonization" crap that's been going on in recent years.

Basically, the U.S. or another country, enacts some stupid/ignorant/restrictive I.P. laws and then everyone else is expected to change their laws so that everyone is in "harmony." This is required by existing treaties/agreements/whatever between gov'ts.

Except in this case, they're skipping the bullshit stages and are trying to get this pushed through by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

I don't really see how this could ever work.

/I didn't bother to read Page 2 of TFA. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

[Ultimately, my problem with this is that it reeks of the bullshit "harmonization" crap that's been going on in recent years.]

So, if we can find one country to make all works without a copyright notice, new and existing be treated as copyleft instead of all rights reserved, all the rest will have to do the same to harmonize? Which country would be most likely to listen to this idea?

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
Tings - speaking of copyleft
how about a novel
first draft but still

Re:This is crap

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Basically, the U.S. or another country, enacts some stupid/ignorant/restrictive I.P. laws and then everyone else is expected to change their laws so that everyone is in "harmony."

Actually the idea is that there exists (in some countries) a "broadcaster's bill of rights" which grants copyright like rights to the company which broadcasts someone else's content. The "harmoney" is to harmonize the internet with this old-school, air-waves, one-way broadcast model.

Re:This is crap

[bit01]

Don't forget: Every new law, patent and copyrighted item is another opportunity for a lawyer to make money.

"Harmonization", almost always architected by lawyers, will usually be in the direction of more money and opportunities for them and less money and opportunities for the general population. Copyleft is the opposite of that.

Real life nomic; adjust the rules and victory conditions so you win.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

nomic then.

But these would be copyrighted items. No change there. Just in the default license.

Here is the debate.

All works not carrying a copyright notice should be treated as copyright with a copyleft license and not as copyright with an all rights reserved license.

This is a win for everyone. Those who want it, can still get all rights reserved simply by attaching a notice to that effect. Those that don't still have their works copyrighted but under a copyleft plan. They still have some money earning potential from the all rights reserved side of things if others want to make use of the work not under a copyleft system. Everyone gets a whole lot of new material to use and reuse free of charge.

What honest, above board objections can anyone have to this proposal?

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
1. Write "Tings" - a "copyleft" novel.
2. ???
3. Profit.
Come on slashdot, help me out with 2.

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually it's the various industries that work in these fields that are the main problem. They want the benefit of artificial monopolies to improve, enhance, and deny to others their positions in the market.

There are plenty of lawyers who don't like harmonization and who don't like the extremes that we're now burdened with.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

Hey cpt,

long time.

What if we harmonize backwards?

Find a country to pass a better law and all the rest will have to harmonize. (Wishful thinking, but why not?)

Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - a BY-SA novel in first draft.

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

What if we harmonize backwards?

Find a country to pass a better law and all the rest will have to harmonize. (Wishful thinking, but why not?)

Meh. Honestly, I think that it's silly to try to make copyright laws uniform worldwide. Each country ought to do what's best for its own people. Their differing circumstances will dictate different legal systems. Some countries will feel best-served by granting more copyrights, both for its own citizens and unilaterally for foreigners. Others will find it in their best interests to protect works only a little, or not at all. Since there is no single answer that's best for everyone, this is perfectly fine.

I would only hope that two principles are held in common. First, national treatment, which ensures that foreigners are treated the same as a country's own nationals. Second, that countries avoid having copyright systems which so conflict with the systems of other countries that it is impossible for an author to get a copyright in both. Other than that, I couldn't care less what sort of copyright laws other countries have. I'm only interested in ensuring that the US has good laws.

Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?

Because if an author cannot even take the trouble to affix notice to a work, or comply with other formalities (such as registration and deposit, which I view as being of great importance), then why should we take the trouble to give them any rights whatsoever? Formalities are an excellent mechanism for sorting out which authors are serious, and therefore were likely incentivized by copyright, and which authors are not. Since copyright is only ever appropriate as a means to incentivize authors so as to serve the overall public interest (which is quite distinct from the interests of authors), we're being frugal, as it were, by only granting copyrights when we must.

Therefore, for works that are copyrightable but where formalities have not been observed, even a fairly minimal copyright such as you suggest would be too much to bear.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

"Meh. Honestly, I think that it's silly to try to make copyright laws uniform worldwide."

I agree, but we have got it. My point is, why does it only ever seem to work in one direction? Is this in the treaties or whatever themselves. Has anyone ever thought of getting more sane laws passed in one of the countries and then calling for harmonization?

"Second, that countries avoid having copyright systems which so conflict with the systems of other countries that it is impossible for an author to get a copyright in both."

Would it not be possible to have a copyright in one, copyright in all plan which still only actually gives the differing protections contemplated in point one?

"'Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?'

'Because if an author cannot even take the trouble to affix notice to a work, or comply with other formalities (such as registration and deposit, which I view as being of great importance), then why should we take the trouble to give them any rights whatsoever?'"

I don't think you got the gist of the question. Please notice the "instead of." I was not asking about honest objections to both.

That being said, those formalaties can get to be expensive and thus favour the big boys over the little guys. Putting the poor man's work in the public domain because he cannot afford the money to register or the legal advice to register properly only to allow the big players to adapt it and copyright that with not compensation to the poor fellow may not be the best plan.

Now, if there was simple and free digital registration possible, things may be different.

"Therefore, for works that are copyrightable but where formalities have not been observed, even a fairly minimal copyright such as you suggest would be too much to bear."

But we are already bearing much worse. So again, does anyone know of honest objections to moving from where we are to automatic copyleft in the event of no notice. (Baby steps. Most people think I am dreaming big time just proposing this.)

If we want to talk the ideal copyright situation, that is another discussion. I am happy to have that one as well.

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/78870
"Tings" - A novel under a creative commons attribution-sharealike license. ( CC BY-SA )

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

My point is, why does it only ever seem to work in one direction?

Chiefly because harmonization is seen as a way to force the US and other countries to enact laws (so as to comply with treaty obligations) that they would not want to enact if they were merely proposed normally. The people behind this are wholly uninterested in good copyright law, only expansive copyright law.

Would it not be possible to have a copyright in one, copyright in all plan which still only actually gives the differing protections contemplated in point one?

No, I don't think so. For example, I like the fact that much of the collection of the Library of Congress was acquired through copyright formalities (authors had to give the Library copies of their books in order to get a copyright). If we automatically gave someone a copyright for no better reason than that they got one somewhere else, this sort of thing wouldn't work.

Better for an author to have to consider each country on its own terms.

I don't think you got the gist of the question. Please notice the "instead of." I was not asking about honest objections to both.

You're basically saying that if an author doesn't provide notice, that they should get some rights of copyright, but not all of them. I don't think that it's sensible to give them any rights if they cannot comply with formalities, and I would require more formalities, frankly. I'm really not that interested in partial steps. I prefer to work out an agenda, and try to get that. Maybe we fall short of it, but at least we aren't content with an insufficient amount of reform, and can pull compromises in our direction.

That being said, those formalaties can get to be expensive and thus favour the big boys over the little guys. Putting the poor man's work in the public domain because he cannot afford the money to register or the legal advice to register properly only to allow the big players to adapt it and copyright that with not compensation to the poor fellow may not be the best plan.

Now, if there was simple and free digital registration possible, things may be different.

Ha! Right now, there is a $30 fee, you deposit a copy or two of the work in question, and put a copyright notice on your work. Compare that to federal trademarks (around $300 and up) or patents (which can easily run into the thousands, just to begin).

Formalities wouldn't be expensive for copyright and they've never been complicated. But it can't be free. Remember that the purpose of the fee is to weed out authors who would have created their work anyway, even if no copyright had been available. Since we didn't need to give them the incentive of copyright, we shouldn't give them a copyright, provided we can identify them. The fee also defrays the operating costs of the Copyright Office, in that it costs money to process the filing, store the deposited materials, etc.

If you're so poor that you can't afford a modest fee, and you don't expect that the work you've created will make enough money to take the risk, then you ought to be serious and not bother trying to get a copyright. Copyright is an economic right. It should be thought of in dollars and cents terms, and treated as a business decision. If necessary, raise capital. But don't be fuzzy headed or romantic.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

"You're basically saying that if an author doesn't provide notice, that they should get some rights of copyright, but not all of them. I don't think that it's sensible to give them any rights if they cannot comply with formalities, and I would require more formalities, frankly. I'm really not that interested in partial steps."

I know you don't think it is sensible, but the fact is they already get all I suggest AND more. Why do you think giving more is better than giving less? (Not that you do, but why argue with giving less as a first step to giving none? Especially if giving less might be achievable sooner.)

"Formalities wouldn't be expensive for copyright and they've never been complicated. But it can't be free."

For digital submission of digital works, it can approach free.

So, you are basically saying no copyright except registered copyright. Deposit and pay a fee. Do you happen to know when such a system was last in place in the US?

I would live with you system and make do, but given the current mood I see in the world, I don't see getting there anytime soon.

It seems the big boys want the automatic and no notice needed plan so that none of their works can possibly escape in the face of their mistakes. My paranoid self says they also want it to prevent the little people from having a current pool of public domain work to draw upon. The little guys don't want the big guys taking their work and copyrighting derivatives and adaptations. How do you see getting around these attitudes?

"Since we didn't need to give them the incentive of copyright, we shouldn't give them a copyright, provided we can identify them."

Yes, but not quite. We don't necessarily want to get into providing a disincentive to publish either.

For instance, I wrote a novel as a part of this 2005's nanowrimo competition. Since I get a free copyright, I posted it up on ourmedia here:

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123

If I had to pay, it might just not be available to the world right now. (I am not actually claiming that that would be such a big loss, but you never know.) Both from a payment point of view, and from the possibility of having someone else take advantage of it to my detriment if I didn't copyright it.

"The fee also defrays the operating costs of the Copyright Office, in that it costs money to process the filing, store the deposited materials, etc."

The Internet Archive will store your digital stuff "forever" at no cost to you. How much defraying is needed in the case of digital documents?

"Copyright is an economic right."

It may be supposed to be one, but these days it is so much more. It is a right to censor as well. To remove "goods" from the public market. (Perhaps not existing books, but new books, public performances, etc.)

"But don't be fuzzy headed or romantic."

To be honest, we have the right to be both. I do appreciate the admonition not to be fuzzy headed, but I take a bit of umbrage at the admonition to not be romantic.

Once again, all the best,

drew

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

For digital submission of digital works, it can approach free.

A token fee is still useful for the weeding out process. Besides, the PTO uses electronic filings very heavily, and it really hasn't meant much with regard to fees. They're not entirely meant as a way to cover costs.

So, you are basically saying no copyright except registered copyright. Deposit and pay a fee. Do you happen to know when such a system was last in place in the US?

1977. Formalities were further reduced with laws in 1989 and 1998. So the current system is still pretty recent, honestly.

Yes, but not quite. We don't necessarily want to get into providing a disincentive to publish either.

How could it be? If your desire is to create art for art's sake, and you don't care about money, then a copyright will not incentivize you, and lack of a copyright will not disincentivize you. There are plenty of motives for people to create works. Copyright only deals with money. For example, your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you have not posted them if they would be public domain (unless you registered them, paid the fee, etc.)? Seems doubtful to me. So if you were going to do it anyway, why should I give you a reward?

The Internet Archive will store your digital stuff "forever" at no cost to you. How much defraying is needed in the case of digital documents?

You'd be surprised. Aside from the costs of administering it, storage, a bulletproof backup system, a highly usable data-retrival system (the PTO tries really hard, but they're not that great, IMO) and bandwidth? Document formats die out over time. It's a pain in the ass to migrate them. In a hundred years, do you expect that people will have a copy of WinXP to run Flash on? Paper books and other similar media are more practical over long periods of time. I would avoid letting best copies be electronic copies, particularly if not in highly standardized formats. They're a pain in the ass to preserve.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

"How could it be? If your desire is to create art for art's sake, and you don't care about money, then a copyright will not incentivize you, and lack of a copyright will not disincentivize you."

I respectfully submit that you do not know what will and will not be an incentive or disincentive for me. It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so, especially in the case where those others have shown the willingness to push for the passage of laws which result in jail time of up to five years for the simle posession of a non-bonafide dvd or cd which I may have bought in innocence. To be honest, and the ability to get such laws passed. Again especially when their copyrights on my work will last a hundred years or more. You better believe in that instance it will be a disincentive for me to make my work public if I cannot afford the moeny, time, or hassle to get a registered copyright.

"I would avoid letting best copies be electronic copies, particularly if not in highly standardized formats."

Best copy could be paper if paper is published, electronic if no paper is produced.

"They're a pain in the ass to preserve."

So, something like what Massachusets is doing is all the more important in this proposed situation then.

Personally, I don't think I would like to see the registration and deposit requirements reinstituted unless the copyright terms were dropped to forteen years at the same time. I think people ought to be able to build upon the works that were current in their childhood.

No, if we have serious plans to get somewhere like that, I'm all ears. If not, I am for taking small steps to make the current terrible situation a bit better one step at a time.

all the best,

drew

ps - I always appreciate your insight and willingness to educate.

pps - as to win xp pro, I don't run it now and certainly wouldn't expect to in twenty years much less a hundred. I like to keep my writings as plain text files. I don't run any sort of windows day to day. I wiped XP off my laptop without letting it boot for the first time.

Re:This is crap

[bit01]

Actually it's the various industries that work in these fields that are the main problem. They want the benefit of artificial monopolies to improve, enhance, and deny to others their positions in the market.

Well, as they say the responsibility is joint and several. Just because the lawyers are being paid to do their job doesn't mean they're not partially responsible. They're the ones giving these options to the industries involved and they're the ones supplying the expertese which makes it possible.

There are plenty of lawyers who don't like harmonization and who don't like the extremes that we're now burdened with.

True. I have a lot of respect for people like Larry Lessig, Eben Moglen and many others (e.g. on groklaw) who are working hard to preserve various freedoms.

The problems arise because the "system" as it currently stands tends to reward lawyers who game the system at the expense of others. Lawyers have to have a strong ethical streak or other incentives to buck that tendency.

Unfortunately, I think it's a big weakness in the constitution that the founding fathers weren't able to consider current technology circumstances. That is, using technical tricks to do end runs around the law (e.g. the DMCA and region coding indirectly denies personal freedoms) or the fact that the mass media is itself a political player that controls public perception and thus votes.

---

The USA and Europe should harmonise their software patent laws with China and India.

Re:This is crap

[bit01]

I agree. I'd take it a lot further but it's a start. I'm not sure how to get to there from here though.

---

The name "Copy Right" is incorrect. It's really "Copy Control Privilege". "Patent" is incorrect. It's really "Idea Control Privilege".

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so,

That seems odd to me, and rather childish. I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can. Given that I have no problem with people exploiting a work for its full value (it's just as silly to let a profitable work languish as it is to let fruit rot on the vine) I don't care whether third parties do it if the author isn't going to. Someone should.

Also n.b. that copyrights vest in the authors of works. The copyrights can be transferred to others, and sometimes you can be surprised as to who really is the author, but if anyone gets them to begin with, it's the author. So you've no legitimate worries about other people copyrighting your work away from you.

especially in the case where those others have shown the willingness to push for the passage of laws which result in jail time of up to five years for the simle posession of a non-bonafide dvd or cd which I may have bought in innocence.

Possession of an unlawfully made copy isn't infringing. Making the copy or distributing it are what's infringing.

Personally, I don't think I would like to see the registration and deposit requirements reinstituted unless the copyright terms were dropped to forteen years at the same time. I think people ought to be able to build upon the works that were current in their childhood.

I agree about the last part -- although I think it's that we should not cause our children to have to suffer copyrights dating from our generation -- but I think that we need formalities regardless of term length. They're not that tightly related anyway.

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

"That seems odd to me, and rather childish."

Please, let's not take this into name calling and related fields.

"I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can."

I think you misread what I said again. I have no problem with other people making money from my work even if I don't. What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.

"Also n.b. that copyrights vest in the authors of works."

They do now, but under what you are proposing and the situation I laid out, my work would enter the public domain.

"Possession of an unlawfully made copy isn't infringing. Making the copy or distributing it are what's infringing."

You may know the laws in your country, but do you know them in mine? A while back, some group here put full page ads in the national paper(s) talking about the (new?) copyright laws and such. They put it that posession of such copies is a violation. I asked a lawyer friend, she agreed. So, seems like, around here, posession of one knock-off DVD can get you 5 years in jail and a big fine. $20,000 or more if memory serves.

"They're not that tightly related anyway."

They may not be tightly coupled, but I would hate to see things being "fixed" but only in those areas that make it worse for the public in general and the small guys.

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984
da bubble man - smokeless smoke rings underwater?
CC BY-SA license

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.

Let's back up here:

First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work. For example, if I make a movie based on a popular public domain fairy tale, such as Snow White, I cannot prevent third parties from also making movies based on that story. Only the new contributions I've made are protectable by me.

See, the situation we're looking at is where Alice writes a book, but cannot be bothered to go through a simple procedure to copyright it. Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it. The book is in the public domain, as a result. If the book is in the public domain, and Bob writes a sequel (which would be unlawful if the book were copyrighted), then I see no problem with that.

Now, the goal of copyright is to maximize the net public benefit, which consists of encouraging the creation of original works, encouraging the creation of derivative works, encouraging publication, having no or minimal restrictions on the public's enjoyment of the work (i.e. having the least possible copyright), and putting the work into the public domain as fast as possible (which furthers promote publication, public enjoyment, and creation of derivatives).

Whether Alice writes a sequel, or Bob writes a sequel, I don't actually care. The goal is to get these derivative works written. If we give a copyright to Alice, who appears not to care, given her behavior, we're unlikely to get a sequel; copyright is providing no incentive for her, or she would have evidenced that it was by seeking out a copyright, and Bob is not allowed to write one. If we don't give a copyright to Alice, then Bob is free to write a sequel (as is Alice), and we get something. Bob can't prevent Alice from writing her own sequels. And the same thing applies to Bob as applied to Alice -- if he wants a copyright on the material he's added to the material derived, he has to evidence this with some affirmative steps. Nothing difficult, but enough to determine who wants a copyright, and who doesn't care.

Boiled down, you're saying that because Alice didn't care about a copyright on her book, Bob shouldn't be allowed to get a copyright even if he does care, for no better reason than that he wrote a sequel to Alice's book. I just don't see how that's fair. Alice had her chance to exploit her book for whatever it was worth, and she didn't take it. She should be stuck with the consequences of that decision, whether she's happy with the outcome or not.

They do now, but under what you are proposing and the situation I laid out, my work would enter the public domain.

I meant that they vest with authors, if they vest with anyone. Bob cannot copyright the book Alice wrote. Alice can sell him the copyright. Or Bob can be the true author of the book, and Alice was just his employee, working for him (like how a secretary taking dictation isn't the author of what he's writing down). But people cannot snatch copyrights from the people they should rightfully vest in.

You may know the laws in your country, but do you know them in mine?

My apologies, but the default around here is to assume American law.

They may not be tightly coupled, but I would hate to see things being "fixed" but only in those areas that make it worse for the public in general and the small guys.

Formalities are good for the public in general, because they tend to ensure that copyright is limited to those that actually need it, it preserves copies of the work against future potential loss, and it provides notice to the public as to what they cannot copy, letting them safely assume that they can copy anything without notice.

And since they're so easy to comply with, they're perfectly fine for small authors, who are also exp

Re:This is crap

[zotz]

"First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work."

Understood. But it is really not this simple from a layman's point of view. I keep bringing up the case of "Fake Books" this have public domain songs in them and yet claim a copyright on the individual songs without indicating what they are claiming a copyright on.

"Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it."

Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind. This is a possibility brought about by the application of copyleft ideas overlayed on copyrights.

"Whether Alice writes a sequel, or Bob writes a sequel, I don't actually care. The goal is to get these derivative works written. If we give a copyright to Alice, who appears not to care, given her behavior, we're unlikely to get a sequel; copyright is providing no incentive for her, or she would have evidenced that it was by seeking out a copyright, and Bob is not allowed to write one."

Here you are thinking only copyright "all rights reserved" or public domain. Copyright with a copyleft license provides another option.

"Nothing difficult, but enough to determine who wants a copyright, and who doesn't care."

If submitting the "best copy" intended for distribution, which could simply be submitting a digital copy to a web server, or even a link to a digital copy one a web server is enough, I can't argue too much. (I would prefer something else, but that can work.)

"Boiled down, you're saying that because Alice didn't care about a copyright on her book, Bob shouldn't be allowed to get a copyright even if he does care, for no better reason than that he wrote a sequel to Alice's book."

Where did I say this? What I want is to be able to get a copyright, cheaply and easily and then give out a copyleft license to my works so that I get paid in kind. Then it is a free for all as to who make what on whose work. That is the game I want to play and the market I want to play in.

IIRC, this originally started becuase I brought up the idea of non marked works getting a copyleft instead of an all rights reserved.

This would allow all works to be built upon and sold by whoever wants to as long as all derivatives, etc. are also copyleft. It would also allow those who want an all rights reserved license to get one very simply.

I brought this up because it does indeed solve one of the high costs to the public that result from giving an automatic all rights reserved copyright on all fixed works. It simply costs too much to determine if something is copyrigth or in the public domain. My idea would fix that for many.

"Formalities are good for the public in general, ... and it provides notice to the public as to what they cannot copy, letting them safely assume that they can copy anything without notice."

This last thing is certainly what I am trying to accomplish or at least move towards.

"And since they're so easy to comply with, they're perfectly fine for small authors..."

But they are not, as now run, so easy to comply with, especially as results to a remix culture. I may make only a small contribution to a program, but I wan't my copyright because it puts me at the table, but if I make many such small contributions, I can end up paying a significant amount when I have no intentions of earning from it. I am already paying enough in my time for what I am giving to the world.

Volunteer labour may also like copyrights, but they may very well be unwilling to contribute money as well as time to the world.

"I meant that they vest with authors, if they vest with anyone."

Yes, but in the example I gave under the conditions you propose, they would vest with no one. My work would be in the public domain. I may very well not want this but not be able to afford the registra

Re:This is crap

[cpt kangarooski]

Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind.

That's still an economic benefit. Non-economic benefits would be things such as fame, or creating art for art's sake, or creating art and exploiting it economically not in a way dependant on copyrights. This latter would include artists who might make a piece where the value is in the copy, rather than the work, or where the value is in that they made it, regardless of whether someone else made a perfect duplicate. For example, Picasso often paid his bills with little sketches. The value was that people would pay a lot for a work made by him. If I drew the same thing, no one would care. If I tried to sell copies of the same thing, it still wouldn't have cut into his earnings because he made money regardless of copyright.

So if you want rights in someone else's derivative work based on your work, the appropriate thing to do is to get a copyright and trade on its value to get what you want, if you can. But if you indicate no interest in exploiting your work's economic value, however you would do so, you still shouldn't get those rights anyway.

Basically, you keep giving authors rights at the expense of the public. Where this serves the public interest, that's fine, but when it doesn't, it's not tolerable. Artists that didn't care about getting rights, and who didn't create their work in order to get rights in it, shouldn't get those rights. Granting them would be like paying money for something you got for free. It's wasteful. And it's not even your money that you're paying with.

It simply costs too much to determine if something is copyrigth or in the public domain. My idea would fix that for many.

How? If you're unwilling to require people to fill out a form or put notice on their works, then why do you think you can require people to put a GPL-notice on their works. For unregistered works, you're still in the dark.

My system would be to make registration manditory in order to get a copyright, along with notice. If you found a copy of a work without notice, you'd know you were ok. If you wanted to check, you could consult the Copyright Office database, just like you can search the PTO database for patents and trademarks. (Of course, part of my agenda would be setting up a good copyright search database, and swiftly terminating old copyrights so that we rapidly need only deal with the new system)

But they are not, as now run, so easy to comply with, especially as results to a remix culture. I may make only a small contribution to a program, but I wan't my copyright because it puts me at the table, but if I make many such small contributions, I can end up paying a significant amount when I have no intentions of earning from it. I am already paying enough in my time for what I am giving to the world.

Well, I'm not psychic. I cannot differentiate between Alice, who modifies a work with the intent of pursuing some kind of economic benefit, whether as money or a viral GPL, and Bob, who modifies a work to feel good about himself, and needs no further reward.

Formalities are just a way for Alice to step forward and make herself stand out from Bob. It is appropriate to shift the burden on to her; she is best at knowing her own motives and identifying herself.

They also tend to keep Alice from trying to get rights on absolutely trivial things, though even very modest things are acceptable since the burden is still quite low. (E.g. posts on /., or intraoffice memos are not worth copyrighting, and really shouldn't be copyrighted -- copyright should be reserved for published material such as books or videos or music or pamphlets.)

I may very well not want this but not be able to afford the registration fee and so will not publish my work untill I can get the money together.

If you can't get $30 + postage + cost of a couple of best copies,

2 Tiered internet

[Freaky Spook]

This sounds great!! All of the useless images & content will be copyrighted in one tier, leaving the public domain once again empty for geeks to share their star trek fan scripts with each other.

We are going to have a geek Renaissance. I think i should move back into my mum's basement.

Re:2 Tiered internet

[Bloke down the pub]

We are going to have a geek Renaissance. I think i should move back into my mum's basement.

Moving back into mom's basement is easy - but getting your virginity back might be a problem.

Er, wait...

Re:2 Tiered internet

[Moderatbastard]

FFS, whoever modded this flamebait is fucking retarded. And has never got laid.

Dubious about bittorrent death claims

[aussie_a]

I'm rather dubious about the claims in the article concerning bittorrent. It claimed that this "webcasters right" would kill bittorrent, public domain and caching (unless a cache allowed clause was included). I can't see how this would be possible. The public domain difficulties are correct, in that if I put up a piece of The Time Machine on my website, no-one would be able to (legally anyway) place my exact copy on their own website. That's fair enough.

But it then goes on to say that bit torrent as we know it wouldn't be able to exist under this new law (treaty?). I don't see how that's possible, due to the fact that by placing creating a bittorrent seed for an item, you're giving permission to use that seed for anyone. I can't currently grab any old item willy nilly and place create a bittorrent seed of it, why would that be any different under this law? The only difficulties for bittorrent would be public domain stuff. But that's like saying this webcasters right will kill off HTML.

IP rights on comments from other people?

[CCFreak2K]

In all seriousness, what does this mean for people who post comments on, per se, blogs? Am I now unable to use my own comment in any other place?

Re:IP rights on comments from other people?

[MoonFog]

With this new privilege, they'll be able to prevent retransmission even if the copyright on that content is owned by somebody else--even, in fact, if that content was in the public domain.

Now, IANAL, but I think you might be right. Basically, Slashdot could legally prevent me from writing my comment on another site having a similar discussion?

Re:IP rights on comments from other people?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It sounds like you and slashdot would both have to agree before a copy from slashdot of your post could be used elsewhere, under this WIPO act. However, if you use a text editor, and keep a copy on your hard drive, and cut and paste from your hard drive into slashdot, then slashdot would have no rights over what you do with the copy on your hard drive. Crazy?

Re:IP rights on comments from other people?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

They are starting with audio and images, so in its current incarnation your text wouldn't yet partially belong to slashdot (but in version 2.0, who knows?) What this means is that if you post a picture of your cat somewhere, and lose the original, you can't just copy the online image without permission from whoever is "broadcasting" little fluffy to the world. How the hell would they know, though? Are they going to watermark this material?

Re:IP rights on comments from other people?

[data64]

what does this mean for people who post comments on, per se, blogs? Am I now unable to use my own comment in any other place?

How about resumes ? If I add my resume to monster would I be prevented from posting the exact same one to Yahoo ?

Re:Dubious about bittorrent death claims

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I don't understand why you think it is "fair enough" that you would have any rights to public domain material that you put on your website, beyond normal copyright to the "work as a whole". You certainly don't have copyright rights to the snippet you placed on your website. You would have copyright to the collage you create of various public domain materials, and no one should copy enough of it that they would violate your copyright to the material you created. This doesn't apply, via copyright, to the public domain snippet, and I don't see why "broadcasting" public domain material should give you rights to it.

In terms of bittorrent, the only way I can see a problem is if they require written, signed permission. Then you'd recieve postcards, to which you'd have to reply. Likewise, as people get permisssion, and "piggybacking" starts, there would be a snailmail time delay, as postcards roundtrip signatures making it legal to proceed. But this does seem a stretch to me. The question remains, under a "signature requirement", could you grant the public blanket permission to use material that is to be distributed over the internet? But this is a stretch...

The Freedom of Speach Threat is Horrific

[Bo Vandenberg]

So if someone witnesses a terrible act and gets proof and pictures they can be silenced by this nameless pressure on thier ISP.

The vested interests don't even need to defend their assertions to the copyright holder of the image. All they need to do is force the ISP to assert these content rights.

Rather than forcing a dictator into the open to confront a news blog. That dictator might simply convince\bribe\threaten the ISP to pull the plug - just because. No information for the press. No Bigwig denies and has to go to court for injunction. Just the almighty dollar making it hard for Joe Blow ISP to stay in business unless he toes the line.

I bet ISPs would hate that sort of pressure.

There is a reason they call it 'Hosting' not broadcasting. ISP's should be responsible for their network not its content. They are Service providers not Content providers.

bv

incompatible with copyleft licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Title says it all, "share and share alike" trumps these parasites.

Re:Dubious about bittorrent death claims

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only difficulties for bittorrent would be public domain stuff. But that's like saying this webcasters right will kill off HTML."

You're reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Don't confuse content with representation. The proposed webcasting right is concerned only with content, not with representation.

• Public-domain "stuff" is content that was created by somebody whose copyright has expired; as such anybody in the world is entitled to use any public-domain stuff however and whenever he/she likes without any restrictions, which is what this WIPO treaty is intended to kill.

• HTML is an example of a language for representation of content; as such the mere use of HTML is not subject to any current or proposed restrictions.

I don't quite understand - redundant laws?

[RedLaggedTeut]

I don't quite understand what is going on here.

As far as I know, the material in a broadcast(a concept which now is extended to the internet) is copyrighted, so you need a license anyway to retransmit it. There are limits to this right, as depending on your method of transmission, the content gets pushed i.e. broadcasted to tons of places. As far as I am concerned this includes the right to use deep links as long as the content linked to can stand by itself, and several courts have agreed to this concept(although you never know about these wacky US courts and international treaties pushed by the US).

Currently, neither broadcasts nor websites do enter the public domain, so you have no rights to upload them to P2P filesharing services. There may be exceptions to this, as for example when you are sharing drivers and utilities for hardware you can to some extent assume that this is in the interest of the manufactures, since the final user will have to agree to a license aka EULA anyway before using the software.

The second issue in TFA is that the web is mutating to a point where premium services are offered. This is to some extent the fault of the fucking users of the internet, since voice-over-ip users are relying on a "quality of service" that before was reserved to phone users. Moreover, the internet is competing with the phone lines for bandwidth, so it is only natural for carriers to start charging for voice-over-ip, one way or another, because when every Joe and his Mom are using it, it will be just the same service as the phone.

Re:I don't quite understand - redundant laws?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Currently, neither broadcasts nor websites do enter the public domain,"...It is (now) only copyright that prevents someone from recording and distributing a broadcast. When the copyright expires on the broadcast, why doesn't it go into the public domain? How this is different is that you not only have to get the owner of the copyright's permission, you also have to get permission from the broadcaster, who would be extended rights equal to copyright. This is *not* rights attributed to "creation", but rather rights associated with owning the channel through which the material is broadcast.

Re:I don't quite understand - redundant laws?

[Elektroschock]

The core is institutional interests of WIPO. They want urgently want something to codify.

Re:I don't quite understand - redundant laws?

[kfg]

. . .when every Joe and his Mom are using it,

There will be no need for VoIP services, whose only raison d'etre is being able to tap into the POTS system.

Juat about any half baked geek can write a computer to computer VoIP program, and I think about half of them have already. A fair number of those know how to imbed the program into a dedicated computing device. It's a software issue.

This is what the panties of the telcos are all tied up in knots over. On the internet a bit is a bit is a bit is a bit is a. . .

You only need a telco if the bits leave the Internet.

KFG

Re:I don't quite understand - redundant laws?

[belmolis]

Much of the material broadcast is copyrighted and would not really be affected by "webcaster's rights" since it could not be redistributed without the copyright holder's permission. However, there are materials that are not copyrighted that would be affected. One category consists of material whose copyright has expired. Suppose that somebody webcasts an old movie, one whose copyright has expired. At present, you can redistribute it since the only restriction is copyright and there isn't any anymore. If webcaster's rights come into effect, you wouldn't be able to redistribute that old movie, or even, arguably, store your own copy, even though it had passed into the public domain.

Now, this arguably isn't real important, but there is another case that is. That is the case of material that is in the public domain from the outset, such as recordings of legislative debates and hearings or the proceedings of courts. If those recordings are made by the government, or are purely mechanical, without "creative" content, then at least in the United States they are in the public domain from the outset. At present, if this stuff is broadcast, you can copy it and redistribute it as you wish. With webcaster's rights, you would be unable to do so without the webcaster's permission. This would allow webcasters to decide who could do research and who could use such material in political campaigns and so forth.

Think of the bright side.

[zotz]

This could kill off the big portals who try to pull this stunt.

This could give a big advantage to a big portal who pulls this stunt but only asserts a copyleft instead of an all rights reserved.

This could give an even bigger advantage to those portals that don't try to pull this stunt at all.

Besides all of this, where is this hugh supply of public domain sound and video content that would make such a play worthwhile?

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
"Tings" - try this "copyleft" type novel on for size
Warning! Danger! - first draft and temporal black hole.

Re:Think of the bright side.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Where are the public domain sound and videos hiding? How about theGrateful Dead? I found that through Public Domain Movie Links.

The interesting thing is that the Grateful Dead is available as a streaming MP3, but in the comments section people tell you how to save it. Note: the Dead not only let people record shows, but would even offer technical help.

Re:Think of the bright side.

[zotz]

Are you sure the dead stuff is PD? Do the videos show performances of copyrighted songs?

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123
1. Tings
2. ???
3. Profit

Re:Think of the bright side.

[Tony Hoyle]

This would instantly kill Google News and Google Images. Quite possibly Google itself.

The Wayback machine would be dead too.

Re:Think of the bright side.

[zotz]

Believe me, I am not for this, I think it is stupid. I am pointing out the "bright" side, because I think it would kill those who assert these rights.

Please explain how this would kill what you claim though.

As we like to say around here. (If not around now.)

Break it down.

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane design 001 video
CC BY-SA License

Should be rejected for being economically harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

The proposed new webcasting right should be rejected because it fails to recognise the economic benefits of the creativity that is enabled by the widespread re-usability of public-domain materials for productive purposes. Stories, images and films from the public domain underpin economic development in the creative industries.

For example, the Disney Corporation would have met a huge roadblock preventing its massive growth from the 1920s onwards if it had been prohibited to create films by re-using public-domain materials. Many of Disney's best films were created by directly re-using stories from the published works of the Brothers Grimm whose 19th-century copyright had expired so the stories were in the public domain.

Introducing a webcasting right will damage the future of the public domain which would be economically very harmful; for this reason the proposal should be rejected.

Learn more about what public domain means.

Re:Dubious about bittorrent death claims

[aussie_a]

I don't understand why you think it is "fair enough" that you would have any rights to public domain material that you put on your website

The second I hit submit I realised my "fair enough" comment was ambiguous and would be interpretted that way. I meant "fair enough, that's a valid complaint."

Executive summary?

[Qrlx]

Please, someone who understans the WIPO layer of the ISO/OSI model, boil this down for me:

Does this mean I have to start paying for pr0n?

Tightens the Noose on P2P and Free Speech Suffers

[xoip]

Looks like this has been dreamed up so that there is another legal tool to go after P2P because you are not talking about the right to copy material for personal use. Now you just won't be able to broadcast/publish/share any information that was generated by someone else.

On the Bright Side

[xoip]

You could now sue any Radio Station, Media outlet who snarf's stuff and puts it on their site without paying for it.

This is lame

[jonwil]

Any law which gives someone other than the copyright holders any power to control distribution is lame, broken and flawed.

Its the same with the laws that were proposed that basicly give the TV channels the power to decide what copy control flags to add to content instead of the copyright holder having that right.

It is up to the copyright holder to decide what distribution licence to apply to any material, including webcasts.

What I want to know is, why do the web portals want this power anyway? And, also, what is an example of the sort of content covered by this proposal?

That shows the ignorance of the law & the 'net

[crovira]

The model for popdcasting ('net delivery for content) is a private communication between a private individual entity (the podcatcher) and another (the podcaster.)

This more or less priviledged and protected by common carrier rules of law.

The way the transmission/transaction and state machine runs is:

a) material is recorded/produced and uploaded to a server
b) receive a request for material [repeat once per podcatcher]
c) send a copy of the from the server to the catcher
      (a smart catcher can recover/resume from interuption)

Payment, collection and the remaining commercialization mechanisms are external to this and use/require their own state machines. These may be mediated through the use of the 'net/web but they are entirely separate.

Also note that advertising/promotion, the use RSS for 'catching up on missed episodes', various models for financing or contracting for the production of content, also lie outside of the podcast/podcast.

The abuse of the 'net's inherent 'content cast/catch' nature as a medium for broad or even narrow casting will require an enormous bandwidth requirement and a capability for buffering and streaming that I doubt will ever survive an encounter with reality.

Streaming of content from transmitter to reciever places certain demands on and makes certain assumptions about the nature of the medium. Even at that, it does NOT degrade gracefully, if we can use the term when referring to a 'snow' filled screen. Digital broadcasting is quite annoying because it stops and starts randomly and chopppily and requires more focus from us to 'fill in the lost frames.'

Much like digital TV 'over the air' can only work when and where you have a direct line of sight between transmitter and receiver. It was frankly a waste of my money. "Its foggy tonight? Well, what have I got to read?"

Someone had an idea from a lab demo of a digital TV set and said "Lets make it all work this way." But reality is that the conditions outside the lab it impossible to deliver on.

Likewise the idea of using the 'net as a broadcasting medium will become less appealign the more its is used as such.

We're using lawyers and the police

[crovira]

just like the Taliban used bands of roving youths in trucks and violence to enforce the anti-music fatwah. (If it brought anybody any pleasure, mullah Omar would issue a fatwah against it in a second...)

They were more effective. Afghanistan was a much quieter place than before or since.

If you're going to repress something, use the appropriate mechanism.

We need roving bands of Amish youth going around the country terrorising all users of technology.

Re:We're using lawyers and the police

[real gumby]

We need roving bands of Amish youth going around the country terrorising all users of technology.

I'm afraid this already happens.

EFF version

[Anonymous Coward]

At the bottom of this piece is a link to the EFF cliff notes version, it is more understandable for some perhaps:

http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/

It's pretty bogus, think **AA wet dream legislation, now add in the "blessed packets" nonsense that the major telcos want. Not only could the middle men skimmers ownzor their stuff, they could ownzor YOUR stuff as soon as they broadcast it! It would kill news blogging, VOIP except for the carriers versions, any sort of home tivo like action, commercial or DIY, "rich" media transfers outside the already established outlets, and make the net a big whopping version of the AOL walled garden concept.

Basically, it's your normal globalist "screw the little guy, only the already exisiting big guys matter, and you gonna pay us big bux forever, suckah" type deal.

I wondered when this would happen, it was only a matter of time before they started civilizing the free, cheap and easy wild wild west anarchy styled web. No big corporations or governments want YOU to have ANY control, not in the past, not now, and not in the future. And politicians go where the anonymous bags of cash are, end of story.

Re: XCaster

[schock]

The threat from the Xcaster treaty is very real. No one ever thought that the intellectual monopoly industries would succeed in their nefarious scheme to link copyright, patent, and trademark law to trade agreements, but they got the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) passed. To follow, and participate in, the battle against Xcaster, check out the Access to Knowledge (A2K) initiative.