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."
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
'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)
Well, there's a lot of give-and-take, since the Senate must ratify any treaty before it goes into effect. Just like judicial nominations, the Executive Branch needs to consider whether a treaty or nominee will be confirmed before they issue their own stamp of approval.
In essence, these Senators are sending a message to the Executive Department that the treaty faces a tough time in the Senate unless it is narrowed in scope.
FYI, this is how the legislative and executive branches have worked out compromises in all but the most dysfunctional presidencies (Jackson is a notable exception -- the Senate and he couldn't get on the same page at all).
On the flip side, you could ask how the Executive Branch can ask the Senate and House to focus on certain issues, since theoretically they have no input into the functions of those bodies, only a veto power on the output. But it's surprising how much the two branches depend on eachother, and it's only recently that the Executive Branch has held so mouch power that it's been able to dictate actions in the Legislature -- and what we are witnessing here is an example of the pendulum swinging back to more Legislative influence (I hope).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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?
Not to mention that anything broadcast over public airwaves IS free to pick up right now. For example, I have rabbit ears which I use to pick up CTV, CBC and Global. For FREE! Public airwaves, free content. This certainly hasn't killed CTV, CBC or Global. In fact, the CBC has almost built its success on Hockey Night in Canada being able to reach almost 100% of the Canadian population, whether they can afford private access to cable networks or not.
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.
Joking aside, this is far bigger than an "internet issue;" it's a Copyright issue, and that means it's going to affect not only the internet, but virtually all types of media. When people start re-jiggering Copyright, they're manipulating the foundations that underlie (or undermine, depending on your point of view) our shared culture.
The proposed "broadcast copyright" that's being debated by WIPO would be an absolute disaster. It would probably be the most fundamental change in U.S. law since it was first laid down, because it would basically allow for re-copyrighting of a work without any creative input or modification.
Right now, if I take a work and simply reproduce it without any modifications at all, there's no additional copyright added. Thus, a photo-reproduction of an old work, like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, is still public domain. It's only when I start doing something to it, that it becomes a new work, and subject to another 100+ years of protection. What the draft WIPO treaty would change, is that simply by reproducing/transmitting, a new layer of copyright would be created. So if I "broadcasted" the 1911 Encyclopedia to you, suddenly it wouldn't just have the expired 1911 copyright on it, it would also have my 2007 copyright on the "broadcast."
As long as you kept the originals locked away somewhere, so that the only way people could ever witness them was via a "broadcast," and then you didn't allow them to record or store those broadcasts, you could effectively extend copyright forever.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How blind can you be. The only people who lived in peace under Saddam were his tribal Sunni cronies. If you were a Kurd or a Shi'ite, you could be killed for no good reason. You didn't hear about it much was because it was a cause the western press could get behind. Oh, but let those naughty Americans call Saddam on it and then the Americans are terrorists.
The problem with the sanctions for Iraq was that they had maybe 6 months left before France and every other EU country voted to eliminate them. Some folks in the US government thought they had run their course as well, because it was pretty clear that the sanctions weren't working. Saddam got richer and built more palaces while his people starved.
The whole "Oil for Food" program was a joke as well and certainly eliminated any effect the sanctions had on Saddam and his friends.
So, the floodgates were about to open, one way or another. With Saddam having access to even more cash and no limits on trade and no more monitoring, what do you think would have happened?
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