Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New IP Treaty Looming?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sailing-into-troubled-waters dept.

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."

10 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Come on... by bombadillo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, we're having plenty of debates. The people in control have just realized that they can ignore the debates with no negative consequences.

  2. Catch 22 works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  3. So who's the broadcaster? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  4. You're missing the whole point... by dubmun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:You're missing the whole point... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you referring to our short-sighted government, our greedy corporate overlords, or our apathetic fellow citizens?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  5. Understanding the US by argoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Here's the scam by HaeMaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  7. Re:Our country... by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. As a musician, my response is... by element-o.p. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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?