Slashdot Mirror
Senators Smack Down WIPO Broadcast Treaty
Tighthead writes "Two influential US senators want the US to support a pared-down version of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty that is still being negotiated. In a letter sent to the US delegation, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the ranking Republican member, Arlen Specter, expressed their concerns that the Broadcast Treaty 'would needlessly create a new layer of rights that would disrupt United States copyright law.' They instructed the US delegates to work towards a treaty that is 'significantly narrower in scope, one that would provide no more protection than that necessary to protect the signals of broadcasters.' The next meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee will be in June."
'would needlessly create a new layer of rights that would disrupt United States copyright law.'
If that is not the proof all of you need to get a angry mob together to stand in front of the capitol building with torches and pitchforks demanding the heads of these to terrorists I don't know what is.
The fact that these terrorists were ever elected into our government throughly disgusts me.
yes, I am calling them terrorists, they are doing far more harm to the United states than all of the physical terrorists have ever done.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
not citizen rights.
I swear, you terrorists that don't read the article do more damage to slashdot than all of the physical terrorists have ever done.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Anything broadcast over the public airwaves (_all_ spectra is a natural public resource, spectrum "auctions" be damned), should be considered to have been placed into the public domain (it has, quite literally, but it should apply legally, also).
That should be the price paid to the public for the licensed, exclusive use of that part of our resource by a private party. They want copyright, fine - just use some private, controlled delivery method.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It is a little disingenuous to call Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter a Republican.
Why? Republicans aren't small-government conservatives anymore, at least on the national level. Most of them are big-spending, authoritarian, pro illegal-immigration, Amendment #2-only big-business lackeys. Hmm, take out the second amendment and so are the Democrats.
Don't get me wrong, in the above vs the above plus the people unable to defend themselves against an oppressive government, the first is preferable, but Reagan is firmly dead now. We'll see how Newt does.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If the Congress passes a law that encroaches on American's Constitutional rights, the courts can nullify the law by the doctrine of judicial review. Are Americans similarly protected against treaties whose enforcement within our border would violate our Constitutional rights?
If so, does the court get to nullify the whole treaty, or just its local enforcement?
What non-violent option was there to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan or Saddam and his sons and cronies out of Iraq?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Not sure where you're going with that one. As for getting the Taliban out of Afghanistan, there really wasn't a good non-violent option, thus it was a traditional war. In the case of Saddam however, it's a little fuzzier. Saddam was so heavily sanctioned and monitored, it's not like he had any power to commit the same atrocities as he had in the past. He wasn't an international threat. And the people of his country, albeit stifled, lived in relative peace with one another. So if the goal was to remove Saddam for a position where he created a threat outside (or even within) his borders, we had already accomplished that. If the goal was to convert Iraq to a Democracy, then the non-violent option was simple: Patience. Wait it out, Saddam would eventually grow old and step down or die. Years of careful negotiations and marketing to make Iraq a more west-friendly nation would likely lead to a more liberal leader, and eventually the founding of a democratically elected government.
In either case, if our goal was to instill peace, prosperity, and democracy in foreign countries, there are some other nations who could have actually used our help. Somalia, Uganda, Congo... There are war torn countries across the world we mass Genocide is being actively perused and the US is wasting time, resources, and lives on disposing of a has been dictator who was already castrated.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
what we are witnessing here is an example of the pendulum swinging back to more Legislative influence (I hope).
Why do you prefer 535 tyrants to one? Or someone who has to fool less than 300,000 people to retain power indefinitely vs. a term limited chief executive.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Let me get this straight...
A republican senator from the USA, is using US copyright law to strike down a worldwide trade treaty brought to WIPO that would give too much power to larger corporations and those with means in a not only easily abused draft but as well as an unethical transfer of rights away from the creators of original works...
I think Hell just froze over O_o