Slashdot Mirror
UN Broadcasting Treaty May Restrict Speech
ashshy writes "A UN treaty under proposal could lead to unprecedented restrictions on free speech and fair use rights around the world. Ars Technica pulls together what you need to know from multiple sources." From the article: "The proposed broadcasting treaty would create entirely new global rights for broadcasting companies who have neither created nor own the programming. What's even more alarming is the proposal from the United States that the treaty regulate the Internet transmission of audio and video entertainment. It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."
Rights are by default. "Creating rights" means lifting bans, not the other way around.
On Comedy Central I'd say. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have made fun of traditional media- and this attacks their primary way of getting their fake "news" (by Tivo'ing the other channels and picking out stuff to make fun of).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionI dr011=kftdaz9nm1.app13b&cmd=display&page=UserActio n&id=163
First we say the UN is irrelevant and we won't send any of our people to the UN International Court of Justice because the UN has no authority over us.
But, then we say that the UN gave us the ok to invade another country.
However, then we say that the head of UN is corrupt and the whole system needs to be replaced.
But now we're asking this corrupt body who has no authority over us to impose rules on other countries and how they transmit items over the net and elsewhere.
Someone stop the spinning! I'm gonna throw up!
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Depends mostly on if our elected officials grant this unelected body the right to govern us. Happens all the time through various treaties.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Depends on the state/situation. I'll simplify things because you don't really need to know all the law and only weirdos like me find constitutional law interesting. Some 'international' legislation is enacted immediately (for instance, in France European legislation of a certain type is automatically a part of French law), however for the most part, there is almost no chance that 'International law' (the phrase itself is an anathema and complete and utter crap btw, anyone who mentions it needs their heads examined or their phony law degree torn up) can be relied upon in domestic courts. There are however situations in which some international agreements would have some legal force. For instance, in the courts of England and Wales there is a presumption at law that Her Majesty's government intends to honour its treaty obligations - a presumption relied upon heavily in the past 20 years as the House of Lords has gone about carving its own Human Right's jurisprudence. As for this resolution however, any assertion made that it will be applicable or enforceable in domestic courts is laughable. In the United Kingdom, as I presume it would be in US courts which are markedly slow to consider international agreements as having any legal force.
True, but not conforting. Treaties are negotiated between the parties (sometimes with an intermediary like the UN). Then, each party goes through whatever its ratifying process is; in the US case, ratification requires the consent of the Senate, for example (and do you really think they wouldn't?). Once it is ratified, it is law. Now, there is some disagreement amongst scholars (notably Akhil Amar as a famous dissenting voice) as to whether treaties under US law should be considered superior, equvalent, or subordinate to Federal law when they conflict, but most agree that treaty obligations make treaty items enforceable by US courts under most circumstances.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
The traditional mass media is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day thanks to the advent of blogs, podcasts, independent music, and films. You can bet your bottom dollar that the conglomerates have been looking for ways to thwart this "revolution" in mass media and get pieces of the pie - albeit unsuccessfully. This is the **AA's "last stand" - if you will - on a global scale because they want that control back and will do anything by any means necessary.
Seriously, how are they going to crack down? File John Doe lawsuits in Albania?
Get real.
This is a real problem. We have to fend off the US Congress, the FCC (they will be back, Congressional authority or no), the EU, the UN, etc. and as soon as we defeat one attempt another is introduced. We have to win every battle, they to win once. One step is to cut the number of fronts. Just oen more reason to burn the UN building to the ground and send those idiots home.
The UN is useless anyway so it isn't like it wouldn't be a good thing all around. The indisputable fact that it is a 'Parliment of Tyrants' where the unfree votes outnumber the Free by a goodly margin is only mitigated slightly by the fact that the instituition is incapable of action on major issues. But as this attempt makes clear they do have a great potential for mischief on less visible issues, especially when you get a perfect storm of agreement between third world pestholes wanting to control their people and the 1st world wanting to let their **AA organizations control their subjects.
Democrat delenda est
It's an unelected international body. Therefore not binding law. Right?
Right, and after that last sentence I'm not quite sure that the article submitter really understands how treaties work.
Every country handles treaties a little bit differently, but to my knowledge no country allows an international treaty to trump national sovereignty. In the US, for example, treaties must be ratified by both houses of congress and signed by the President to take effect. Thus, there is no danger of an "unelected international body" dictating anything. The supreme court can also overturn any ratified treaty, if it's challenged and is determined to be unconstitutional.
Most other countries that I know of deal with treaties similarly, in that they're basically handled like any other law. A treaty is sort of a master document that guides policy at the legislative level within each individual country. It is not a binding law unto itself, even if it is signed by the ambassadors or even leaders of any country. It still must be ratified by the signatory countries to be binding.
It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting.
It is also dangerous and inappropriate for even elected national officials to undertake the task of destroying rights they are specifically not allowed to destroy (see Constititution, definition of "no law" means "no law").
The rights of the people are best protected when regulations are created and enforced close to home. The International government has no rights to give preferential treatment to one person or party over another. The bigger that government is the, less it should do to try to level any playing field. In the long run, more power at the upper levels of government are almost always abused to create paternalism and cartelization, not to actually protect rights.
Our own Congress in the U.S. has overstepped their bounds with the FCC and the myriad of unconstitutional laws affecting speech. These laws, if wanted by the people per the 9th and 10th amendments, are better suited for the state or the village to create and enforce.
The interstate commerce clause was not meant to give Congress the right to regulate trade or commerce on a control level -- it was written to give Congress the power to penalize states that infringe on a person's right to trade freely with other states within the union of states. Don't read more into simple words than is necessary.
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them. What other people want to do in other countries, states or even cities is none of my business: I have no desire to prevent them from harming themselves or encouraging them to be lazy by paying for their failures. The UN is the epitome of wealth transfer and power transfer, and if you look at the corruption that has occurred that we know about, it only makes me wonder what corruptions have occurred that we don't know about.
True, but "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Doesn't this mean that the Senate shall enact no such treaty?
"It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."
So, someone has finally noticed that the UN is unelected. Quite interesting how nobody seems to mention that when they agree with what the UN is doing.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Without the ability to defend yourself, you have no Constitutionally protected right of self-defense.
Only when they silence the First Amendment, will you need the Second Amendment.
The Internet has been the most democratic invention in human history. Anyone who can get on it has a potential world-wide voice, which is why some countries censor it to heavily. But they can't censor it in secret. So who are these clowns at the UN, and how do we get them thrown out?
[/soapbox]
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
http://www.digmedia.org/content.cfm?id=7223
Since 1997, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been considering a treaty that would modernize broadcaster protection provisions of the Rome Convention to account for digital broadcasting and the challenges of online networks. The focus has been to protect broadcasters against signal piracy, particularly related to the unauthorized commercial retransmission of signals captured over-the-air or intercepted from satellite transmissions. One example of this was in 1999, when a company called iCraveTV captured U.S. television stations' signals and retransmitted them over the Internet without permission or license. Though a Canadian company, iCraveTV had registered its domain name in the U.S. so a U.S. court was able to exercise jurisdiction and end this piracy.
The iCraveTV episode demonstrated the vulnerability of broadcasting to unauthorized retransmission over the Internet that reduces revenue to broadcasters and the copyright owners whose works are being transmitted. Given the risks of signal theft and the potential harm to the broadcast industry, the United States has supported enhancing legal protections for broadcasters by updating the rights addressed in the Rome Convention.
This is a _proposal_ by the United States, so if you want to go and cry blue murder (which I think _is_ appropriate), don't take it to the UN, take it where it belongs - to the Bush administration.
What is with you Americans and this view of the UN? It is the only framework we have for having nations try and work together peacefully, and establish the way they'll play together. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than saying "fuck it, just invade anyone you wish".
Well, it was the US who helped to create the UN, after they said the League of Nations was no longer relevant. You can't throw away the only even remotely-functionaly international treaty organization every time you feel like throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your own way.
The US uses the UN to give them legitimacy when it suits them, and flagrantly disregards the fact that's a signatory to some of those treaties when they wish.
Walk away from it, and you could find yourselves a pariah state, and your relationships with your allies could become rather tenuous. Although, they've been becoming tenuous over the last few years due to the protectionism/xenophobia your leaders are putting forth to the rest of the world.
Le't hope America doesn't decide it want to go it alone so it can become the asshole/bully of the world -- though we see shades of that now.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If it is just the USA that wants this then Europe should have no trouble getting it removed...
Right?
The article is written to make you think this treaty will steal copyrights away from content creators if they choose to broadcast content through some broadcaster of some sort. It does not do that. So the article is being alarmist to attract attention. (That or they probably didn't read the treaty either.)
.mac account. It seems to be giving the webcaster the right to impose such restrictions if they wanted to. In this example .mac would have to add the broadcast flag to the video. Comcast simply being the conduit, could not. So this has the same restrictions as over-the-air broadcasters, I could still chose not to use that service and set up my own server if I didn't agree to the terms.
The Bad: Looks like it would put an end to PVRs as we know them. I'm sure ABC would allow Comcast to rent you a PVR which enforces ABC's rebroadcast requirements. YUCK! So the article got that much right.
The not bad: The so called restrictions on the original content creators don't exist. Basically the treaty states FOX can state terms to Groening that if they are going to broadcast the Simpsons on their network it is going to have the broadcast flag and be restricted according to their policy. Groening could of course not agree to those terms and tell them to fly a kite. Fox may then come back to groening and say OK we won't do the broadcast flag. That my friends will never happen, because Groening wants FOX to get the add revenue (which is of course how they pay him). Even with the broadcast flag on every episode of the Simpsons there would be nothing preventing Groening from hosting a webcast of the show himself without the broadcast flag. That is unless his contract with FOX prevents him from doing so, which I think it already does anyway.
The unclear: The webcast amendment doesn't appear to read like Comcast can tack on a broadcast flag to a home movie my parents stream from my
So, for content creators the sky is not falling, but for PVR users it probably is. This isn't really anything new, just more of the same. I am not sure what to think about this actually. I don't think it's evil as some would like to suggest. If everyone skipped all commercials, networks would go out of business as we know them. That wouldn't cause an end to media, it would just transform the way we get it. Content would end up being sold pay-per-view for everything. We already seem to be starting that transition. So if you don't want to pay for everything, and are willing to live with ads to pay for some content, allowing things like the 'broadcast flag' may be the necessary evil. Just a thought.
** Names of companies and TV shows were pulled out of thin air for the purposes of illustration. Don't read anything this post as implying these particular companies are or aren't behind this treaty.
Its where you keep Americans! .. Ba-da-boom
.. its a joke .. its meant to be funny (well at least to the majority of the world (6 billion or so minus 300 million). Besides, I'm living here now, so I am poking fun against myself - nyah nyah nyah. Thats sad really .. can I go home now??
Yes
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I guess that's true. Look at Saddaam Houssein. He defied the UN for years and got away with it. A different group of nations (who happen to be members of the UN) finally got sick of it, but the UN itself pretty much did nothing nothing.
Moral: Unless the US gets mad, the worst you have to fear from the UN is talk.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The US proposed this as an UN treaty. It's not yet signed.
Actually everyone (well, every nation that's a member and has the right to, but let's ignore the details for now) can make a proposal. China could propose to have everyone shot that dares to speak up against the ruling bodies of the nations.
What's scary is, it might even get a majority... but let's ignore that detail too.
In fact, if you want to get irate, at least pick the right target. It's not the "UN" who proposed it, it's the US. Or, rather, its leaders.
And I find it quite amusing, in a grim way, that the US government turns to the UN to push through their copywrong internationally. Whenever it goes against their ways, the UN is brushed aside, but suddenly it becomes interesting again.
Face it. The UN is a tool to some countries. No wonder pretty much everyone ignores it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
(emphasis mine)
If you think this is unlikely, remember that if you make up a song and sing it without writing it down or recording it, you have no US rights to that song.
And should you make a major label record, the label owns the copyright to the song you wrote and performed!
AFIAC, both major US political parties are my enemies. I intend to protest by splitting my vote amongst any third parties on the ballot this November. Clearly, my government, as well, it seems, as every other government are in the multinational corporations' back pockets.
Is it going to take an armed revolution to get our countries, our world, back? My country's declaration of independance starts with "We, the People." We, the people aren't being represented at all any more.
Fucking slashdot, I was already in a bad mood today >=(
In any democratic nation a signed treaty is not law until Parliamnent or its equivalent passes enabling legislation. Just because representives sign a treaty doesn't make it law or even certain that Parliament will pass the treaty legislation. Even though Canada has signed on to the WIPO protocols (the alleged impetus in the U.S. for the hated DMCA act) we still haven't passed the required enabling legislation, although the preceding Liberal government did introduce legislation as required by the treaty before it died. Most treaties contain language stating the minimum requirements to meet treaty obligations and dates for compliance. The United States signed the Kyoto Protocol yet President Bush later reversed that decision, so it's not like Kyoto became law in the U.S. the second Clinton signed the treaty.
I know in the U.S. the Senate holds exclusive authority over treaty legislation and once passed treaty obligations are considered equivalent to domestic law, if memory serves. I don't see how the Senate could pass treaty legislation that violates the constitution, but I am not a contitutional expert.
Remember how the DMCA, SonnyBono-copyright-extension act, etc started in USA: as something Congress felt they were required to do, in order to have US law match treaties such as WIPO.
Actually, the DMCA started when the US pushed for the WIPO copyright treaty, then pushed for the DMCA on the grounds that US law had to match WIPO. A handy scheme to get around local objections.
Time to build Dogbertland, I think.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Well if by "American" you mean "the AmericaS," well, maybe, but last I checked, Nantes was not in the Americas.
: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _1_rev.doc
n g_id=5762
n g_id=5022
n g_id=4823
From the agenda for this week's meetings:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http
Protection of broadcasting organizations
- Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc, Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute (IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor André Lucas, Nantes University, Nantes, France.
And let's see
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeti
"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)"
Nope, not America.
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeti
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003"
America? Where are you?
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeti
"Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)"
Oh hey! FINALLY!!! Canada! That's American!!!
Honestly, folks, dig a little deeper, okay?
"Despite the benefits, and despite the fact that the data is available to everyone, the use of illegally obtained records in a law enforcement investigation is highly dubious and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of due process. Privacy and civil liberties advocates point out that purchasing private phone records allows law enforcement agencies to circumvent judicial oversight and other applicable constraints."
Well, if it's good enough for the Bush administration and the NSA, it's good enough for your local gendarme. Nice job, break the law to enforce the law. In the post 9/11 era, we've finally adopted that old Marxist maxim that the end justifies the means and two wrongs actually do make a right.
I get tired of saying that we can't pretend to uphold the constitution with one hand while trampling on it with the other.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Scholarly debate notwithstanding, case law is really fairly clear that treaties are on a par with federal statute, and that both are subordinate to the Constitution in any case - see, e.g., Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957).
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
The fact that the UN refuses to recognize a legitimately free nation like Taiwan is evidence enough that the organization is full of shit.
Basically, because the Supreme Court said so. I will go ahead and give their reasoning behind this. If a person from another state can somehow receive the good or service (in their own state or the atate of origin) it is interstate commerce. And, if a state attempted to ban the sale of something to someone from another state, that would be unconstitutional since it is regulating interstate commerce. It really stinks, but that is how they get away with it.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-- U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
Yes. It is the basis they use for all civil rights legislation. Since any state or local discriminatory laws could possibly affect a traveler from another state. The other way they control states is with purse strings. The congress writes legislation that says is a state does this (say lower speed limits) they will get federal funding for something. The corollary is is a state doesn't do this, it will not get the federal money. When you are talking about things like highway dollars and federal money for entitlements, that's a mighty big stick and carrot.
I think this part of Article six applies:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So yes, once we sign a treaty- it becomes law at the level of the constitution, overriding state laws- not sure about federal laws.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.
Hey, the South will Rise again!
Seriously though, I don't think that's true at all. Damage was done there, but it was really FDR and his New Deal that drove the final nail in the coffin. Income Tax, Social Security, the Federal Reserve. These things all gave the federal government the power and funding it needed to exert greater control over the states.
Find coupons in Greeley
Basically, you're parsing the thing incorrectly.
Here's the clause:
Let's go through it line by line.
The supreme law of the land shall be: 1) this constitution, 2) the laws of the US made in pursuance thereof, and 3) treaties made under the authority of the US. State judges shall be bound by these three groups of laws. Nothing in state constitutions or state laws can change this.
Frankly, that's the only way that it makes any sense. The framers were not stupid, and would not have said that the federal Constitution is supreme, and then said that it's not.
But more importantly, you aren't even understanding what they said at all. When they say "the Constitution or Laws of any State" they mean just that: the state's constitution or the state's laws. In the federal constitution itself, the framers never used the term 'the Constitution' to refer to that document. Instead they always said either 'this Constitution' or 'the Constitution of the United States.' So if they meant what you think they meant, they would have kept the same style. They didn't, and that is a big clue. Also, it is not grammatical to say 'the Constitution' meaning the federal constitution, followed by 'or Laws of any State' without an article. If it were like you think, it would be 'the Constitution or the Laws of any State' and again, it is not, and this also indicates that you are wrong.
It's pretty sad that even when corrected by someone who'd know, you're still sticking to your wrong and uninformed opinion.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The meaning of that statements depends on the binding of the clause "any State." There are two possible parenthesizations:
"every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in (the Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
vs.
"every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in (the Constitution) or (Laws of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The first meaning implies that a treaty can overrule a State's constitution. The second meaning implies that a treaty can overrule the UNITED STATES Constitution. So which interpretation is correct?
The "in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" clause is used twice in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely:
In short, you do not have right to political asylum in Argentina just because you happen to be a Nazi criminal of war, nor can you be drafted to gas Jews. Ssorry for the double invocation of Goodwin's law, but just after the war that's probably the sort of people they were thinking about.
As for the "purposes and principles of the United Nations", these are not just the swaying opinion of the secretary general of the day, but they are clearly written in the first chapter of the Charter of the United Nations, that sum up to pacifism, freedom, antiracism, and lots of lofty ideals.
Just to get back in topic, see principle number 7:
So, the broadcasting treaty may actually be violating the UN's principles and be thusly busted, as broadcasting laws seem an unnecessary intrusion that has nothing to do with peacekeeping. Chapter VII, in case you wondered, is about "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression", nothing to do with broadcasting rights.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Oh, and explain me again the theory that whatever governments do is evil while corporations can do no wrong because they are a part of a "free market" and should only make money for their stock holders.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Yes. It is the basis they use for all civil rights legislation. Since any state or local discriminatory laws could possibly affect a traveler from another state.
That's not even remotely accurate. Federal civil rights legislation is based on the 14th amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The due process/equal protection clause is what pretty much all federal civil rights, voting, and criminal legislation is based on.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.