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."

5 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...

  2. 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)
  3. 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
  4. 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!