Slashdot Mirror
New IP Treaty Looming?
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article by James Boyle in the Financial Times, the United States is helping push a Treaty that would create an entirely new type of intellectual property right in the US, in addition to copyright, covering anything that is broadcast or webcast. (Regardless of whether the work was in the public domain, Creative Commons Licensed etc, the broadcaster would control any copies made from the broadcast for 50 years.) Boyle argues that this is dumb, unconstitutional, and anyway should be debated domestically first."
Boyle argues that this is dumb, unconstitutional, and anyway should be debated domestically first."
Having debates on U.S. Policy is sooo pre-2001. Try again in January 2009...
Copyleft content can only be distributed under it's copyleft license. If someone wants to change the license terms then the redistribution license is void and the copyright owner can seek civil remedies for infringement. With regard to copyleft content, these bills are stillborn!
The guy who owns the server, the guy who paid for an account on the server, or the ISP the server colos at or is connected to?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
the United States is helping push a Treaty that would create an entirely new type of intellectual property right in the US
The summary is a bit misleading. Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.
It is our policy to push our ideas on as many nations as possible.
It helps distract from the fact that the people of our country have no say of their own...
(end of post)
You see, the US and Micrisofts and Hollywoods "vision" of the future is that instead of providing goods and services to pay off the huge US debts, they provide IP. While it's an interesting trade off: phoney property for printed up paper money, the problem is that for people to live day to day they need real goods and services. The problem is also that the information age implies just the opposite, information is becomming commoditized which means that it's service value is becoming worth more than it's IP value. Not to mention, that the information age is also making it impossible for the Fed to lie to people about the value of their money. Mees thinks all hell is about to break loose when the real world kicks in and ripps these people a new one.
This is only possible due to a lack of informed voters. When less than 30% of the people bother to vote, who really runs the government? In other words, we could change this situation if we wanted but we are collectively too lazy and content.
Its all for greed.... If the they make money off of it they want it... They don't care about our rights... They only care whats going into their pockets.... If they could they would charge you for how many times you go to the bathroom.....
Linux, because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
The theory is that both copyright and treaty-making are in the constitution. The RIAA and the MPAA are whispering in the ears of congress, "If you pass a law giving us new rights, it can be constitutionally challenged and we lose, but if you make it part of a treaty, then we can contend that overturning the new treaty is just as unconstitutional as granting us a new right. We can contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn a treaty."
Ka-ching!
I don't want to be too off-topic or political here, so if I am, I apologize, but I have a few honest & serious questions.
Most people I know agree that copyright is messed up, and this proposal just makes the situation even more complicated.
From TFA: "rights have to be of limited duration". So, why is it that as a nation, we have not had any noticeable impact on the situation in our country? Do we really want to have copyright limited to a fixed duration again? Do we really want to have more freedom in obtaining, sharing, distributing content and ideas? Then why isn't that happening on a larger scale?
Things such as the GPL, Creative Commons type of licensing, etc. seem like a step in the right direction, but clearly even they have limitations. Why can't the public seem to get amendments that seem to work more in its favor (instead of in the favor of organizations, companies, etc.) on the table and then signed into law? Reasons other than capitalism, I mean...
SixD
We have too many lawyers because we have too many laws. Eliminate the excess laws, and we'll have less lawyers as a side effect.
This is only possible due to a lack of informed voters.
Maybe if we translate the Consitution (and all political material) into Spanish we wont have this problem in the future. Reading it in the original English is such a faux pas, anyways.
But seriously - how many students in America's high schools (or even colleges) do you think have actually read and understood the Constitution? In Southern California, we happily graduate anyone who can't read/write English from our high schools. In twenty years (probably less) this problem will be significantly worse.
It seems that the only freedom anyone knows about these days is the freedom of speech...as long as your speech doesn't offend anyone, of course.
With the DMCA and the broadcast flag it will be illegal to save a copy. So even after the broadcast rights expires in 50 years, copies will still be unavailable thus making copyrights perpetual constitutional or not. Just broadcast again in 49 years to get another renewal. If someone proves it's identical they must have violated the DMCA.
I don't know if simply increasing the turnout would help. If 80% of the people voted, but continued to blindly vote along party lines without bothering to educate themselves about the candidates, I don't think the result would be significantly different. Conversely, if the turnout stayed at 30%, but those who voted were better informed, I think we'd see real change.
What I'd like to see is ballots that don't list any party affiliations, just names. You could still vote a "party ticket" if you wanted to, but you'd have to do at least enough research into your party to know their candidates' names.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
...over my dead body!
If I wrote, performed and recorded the material, then *I alone* (or in partnership with other musicians who contributed to these works) get to decide how the material is to be licensed. If I release something under a creative commons license (as I have), then it is free (as in "speech") for others to use, *PERIOD*.
While I might be willing to sign over rights to my creative works to a publisher so that my works can be distributed, there's no way I would be willing to sign a contract that assigns the rights to my creative works to the broadcaster.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
...insofar as broadcasts deserve protection -- that is, to the extent that they include original creative work, even if they are derivative works -- they creator of the broadcast already is protected by copyright; as is the original underlying work. There is no use for "broadcast property" except to protect broadcasts that are of material that is not subject to copyright in the first place -- which is very little (since just putting together a broadcast usually creates an original work of authorship), except material already in the public domain.
Yea but what communication channels do you (a third party) have to reach people? For people to do their own research?
Newspaper
TV/Radio
Internet
Now rules have come along lately and changed ownership rules for the first two, and lo-and-behold net neutrality could stand to threaten the third.
Its kinda like the education system in this country - if all kids know are facts and not how to engage in logic, reason and critical thinking, what chance do they have? They'll just believe whatever their preferred party tells them and assume that the other party is wrong without listening to the other side and thinking about why they say that - is there some valid reasons or are they just batshitinsane?
For us geeks, did you know you can subscribe to RSS feeds for your elected officials to see what votes they have made lately?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.