'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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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

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.

[Tony Hoyle]

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

The Wayback machine would be dead too.

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.

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.