'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

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

[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

[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.

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?

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

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.