Rumors of a 'Whisper Campaign' Forming Against Fair Use

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica reports that a group of companies and organizations it calls 'big content' is currently engaged in a worldwide 'whisper campaign' against Fair Use. 'The counter-reformation in question takes the form of a "whispering campaign" in which ministries in different countries are told that plans to expand fair use rights might well run afoul of the Berne Convention's "three-step test." The Convention, which goes back to the late 1800s, was one of the earliest international copyright treaties and is now administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).'"

Comments

Re:The "3 steps"

[AvitarX]

These steps read fairly clear to me (though the law associated may not).

1) not the default, this is for exceptions, (sounds redundant though).

2) Does not cost the owner in lost sales/reduced sale price

3) This reads as a ban on things like fanfic, where the character of the original work can be altered by additional information

The problem with the law is that one person's interpretations of this becomes law for future reference, and it takes years of training to have a moderate understanding of that background, and the ability to find the specifics when you need it.

SCOTUS Stacked Against Berne Convention

[monxrtr]

See the recent Texas death penalty case and international law. Once the Copyright Laws are ruled unconstitutional on length of term and excessive fine grounds, the Berne Convention too will be in the target cross-hairs. And once the US is folded out of Berne, separate international movements will do vast damage to world-wide attempts at standards and control.

They already can't enforce the laws on the books, because they are PR disasters, that only constantly serve to diminish the credibility of the law. The big media content owners are starting to run scared, as well they should be. Look at the comments regarding yesterday's study that 95% of 18-24 year olds copy content illegally. Nothing but solid contempt for these insane copyright laws. The tide is shifting, and politicians voting to screw consumers will be assuming ever higher political liability for doing so.

This is all good. These people are the evil cousins to the ultimate evil international bankers without any country loyalty or concern for consumers who confiscated real money world-wide and instituted fiat paper money debt control. They finance wars, they could care less who is at war as long as there is war somewhere from which to profit through the issuance of debt and confiscation through bankruptcy. And ultimately, the war on copyright is just the warm up battle to the war on fiat paper money. They are just printing control and printing taxation at will, at the expense of disparate international citizens. It's nothing put pure theft of the wealth which is the property of culture, of all, just like free speech and free trade.

Perhaps other countries will now better understand American disdain for the United Nations when they see other international institutions like the IMF, WB, and now the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They are there to finance themselves by legalized theft against your rights.

In politics, it's not a "whispering campaign"

[hey!]

It's lobbying.

Politics does not select for politicians who are deep thinkers -- although possibly there may be a few odd examples. Politics favors the gregarious, the people pleasers, the networkers.

So, suppose you are such a person, who makes his way in the world by being popular. You aren't stupid by any means, and let's stipulate for the purposes of argument you are not corrupt, but well intentioned. Still it's a fair bet you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to hike to a lonely spot in the mountains, to spend a pleasant afternoon contemplating the role of the unrestricted flow of information in maintaining a vibrant and free society.

But this is exactly the most important kind of issue that comes in front of you as an elected official. And in all probably, you don't have a deep reservoir of accumulated thought to draw upon when this comes up. You have deeply held convictions but you haven't worked out how they all apply in cases like these.

So, being a gregarious person, you draw upon the thoughts of others who had the foresight to propose the connections in advance. Furthermore, being a people pleaser by nature, your first inclination when they did this was to receive their argument favorably. You certainly did not tear it down and throw it in their face as a load of rubbish.

Having received the argument favorably, and since the argument connects the question to some of your values, like "private enterprise", you're primed to take it up as your own.

That's why buying access is such a huge win for special interests and a huge loss for democracy. It's not that there isn't corruption, of course there is. But a politician doesn't have to be personally corrupt for you to corrupt his opinions.

It's an odd thing, but being the kind of person who likes to spend quiet afternoons contemplating big questions, I have found vigorous "men of action" remarkably easy to steer. They're always up to do something and they think of themselves as "far sighted", but that usually means they don't have a clear view of how the ground in front of their feet is connected to the goals they see on the horizon. And they tend to be completely unaware that they are acting without a road map, so when you slip one under their nose, they internalize it. You can see that this is just one of many possible alternatives, but they have a way of seeing it as the one true path that they have been following all along.

Re:Leeches

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was the entire basis of Scientology? Evil spirits wandering around and re-inhabiting random vessels.

I'm not the same AC as this guy, but it's funny he mentions them in the context of a "whisper campaign" against fair use.

Sonny Bono was a Scilon and a Congressman. In 1998, he didn't just argue for copyright extension, he got the Mickey Mouse Protection Act named after him: The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).

The Scilons, via Bono and via the rest of their Hollywood connections, were strong advocates for the DMCA. Within months of its passage, they were using DMCA threats to out critics and open them up for further harassment. They've used the DMCA as a legal cudgel against everyone from Google (they tried to prevent Google from linking to critics' sites) to Slashdot (the only time in Slashdot history that the Editors have been forced to delete a post).

Using back channels to lobby for the end of fair use would be a major legislative victory for the Scilons; the only reason they don't sue on the basis of the phrase "seventy-five million years ago" is because they'd be laughed out of court. Under cult doctrine, "the purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass", and if fair use (using quotations from cult materials for purposes of parody, expression, or criticism) goes away, they'd have standing to file such suits.

That AC's closer to the truth than he knows. It wouldn't surprise me one damn bit to see the Scilons behind this.