Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Back On the Table
c0lo writes with a bit from BoingBoing: "The UN's World Intellectual Property Organization's Broadcasting Treaty is back. This is the treaty that EFF and its colleagues killed five years ago, but Big Content won't let it die. Under the treaty, broadcasters would have rights over the material they transmitted, separate from copyright, meaning that if you recorded something from TV, the Internet, cable or satellite, you'd need to get permission from the creator and the broadcaster to re-use it. And unlike copyright, the 'broadcast right' doesn't expire, so even video that is in the public domain can't be used without permission from the broadcaster."
I hate that governments can just rename a treaty or bill and resubmit it. I mean, with SOPA & PIPA, the people have spoken and stated they do not want this. Why can the government just reintroduce it again a few months later? We shouldn't have to be constantly fighting these battles with our own government.
Time to support EFF, be that with time or money.
I think fair use doesn't hurt their profits. So to do something as stupid as this just shows how pro-censorship they are.
We need a Bill of Digital Rights, one that underlies all of our national and international laws and keeps rights for citizens. Unless we have that the corporations will just write laws to keep the rights for themselves and citizens will be left with nothing.
And yes, 'corporations are people, my friend', 'Live free (as in beer) or die' and all that. ;-)
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
When will all this greed end, so that people can live reasonable lives, other than a chosen few who are already rich beyond the dreams of most of us?
...Steve
I hear that a new weapon is on its way...
This is a major problem with all constituions that I know of. You shouldn't be able to continually introduce the same legislation (or sign treaties) again and again with slightly modified content. Omnibus bills should be illegal, etc. Bills should be crystal clear on one subject and when they are defeated they can't be reintroduced for a specific amount of time (many years).
The idea that 'broadcasters' need some sort of newly created right seems unsupportable to the point of insanity(obviously, they want as much as they can get; but that's a different matter). "Broadcasting" has historically been something that people are quite enthusiastic about doing. So much so that the FCC and its equivalents have spent a lot of time busting unlicenced RF sources, and copyright holders have done considerable wailing and gnashing about all their precious content getting shoved out over the airwaves.
Take the robust history of broadcasting, clearly not an endangered activity, and add the fact that newer technology is making it ever cheaper and easier, and it just seems completely insane to award a bigger slice of power to people engaged in it.
History demonstrates that, even without broadcast rights, even in downright wild-west environments, broadcasting gets done. Technological advances are making broadcasting and broadcast-like activity even cheaper and easier, so what possible reason could we have to need to award it any further incentives?
So things like "It's a Wonderful Life" (or one of my Youtube cat videos for that matter) would, in effect, become "owned" by whomever shows it first on TV after the treaty is signed? How could this even possibly be considered as "good" even by big media?
I don't think so. If you want extra rights, stick to the (ridiculous) attempts to expand copyright. At least it has fair use/fair dealing exceptions to allow for parody, criticism, etc.
We always knew they wanted perpetual and more expansive copyright. They already get copyright automatically the moment that someone creates the material to be broadcasted. Why the hell should we grant these companies a permanent monopoly on some new right? What isn't covered by the copyright they already have? What exactly are they going to give back to the public domain in compensation? Just say "no" to this craziness.
With this kind of law in place, next time there's a Tiananmen Square "tank man", or maybe something that plays out unintentionally on live TV that the politicians don't like, all the relevant country and/or company will have to do is assert "broadcast rights" and we'll never get to see it again. Anyone who happened to have the "record" button pressed at the time will get charged if they try to show it to other people. Worse, with a law like this in place, they're probably preparing for a world where the only legal devices to own are ones that respect the "broadcast right" bit, or some foolishness like that.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
I want EVERYTHING.
Not till you grow up and join the MAFIAA dear.
Silence is a state of mime.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We don't have people bringing up slavery bills until they pass: companies, lobbyists, and politicians don't really want to see themselves associated with them all too much. So what is different with copyright legislation that just won't let them take "no" for an answer? How can one stigmatize those that want to clamp down on culture, the sharing of knowledge, like the slavers wanted to clamp down on freedom?
"Broadcast" everything we can get our hands on, ourselves.
Then WE own a 'perpetual copyright' and YOU can't use it....nenner neener
So, all those people who fought for civil rights over a very long span, or other such things should also be punished by death?
That would have the effect of making society stagnate -- there is only ever one opportunity to change a law, with all subsequent attempts punishable by death.
Unfortunately, your brilliant solution cuts both ways. Though, the irony of people subsequently trying to outlaw abortion being burned at the stake is kind of amusing, I'm afraid that what you've not really thought this through.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
They broadcast the songs 'n shit because we want to hear it. Then they play us commercials because they want to get paid. Now they want to get paid for us hearing it? heh, America needs to update it's lady statue in New York to something older. Maybe a huge statue of an old lady in a nursing home bed, being raped by a doctor, a lawyer, and a politician, and her hand raised putting in a 100 dollar bill into her radio so it'll sing her a good song to take her mind off the shittiness that has become her.
I will not recognize nor comply with any such thing.
These white collar traitors and criminals, will just try, and keep trying to shove their tyrannical laws down our throats.
Short of actually identifying and shooting the people attempting these corporate power grabs, we all must come to the realization that the corporate fascists will simply keep trying and trying until they succeed.
We must adjust accordingly, and simply move to a kind of permanent war footing. They will never let up, and we must assume that they'll keep trying it on.
We must realize that this is a war that it will never end, and that the fight will NEVER be over -- and plan and fund that fight accordingly.
Treason is a very specific charge, defined in the US Constitution - it requires aiding and abetting a declared enemy of the United States. For instance, when John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, that was capital murder, not treason. If he had done the same thing because he had received an order from Moscow, then it would have been treason.
The other problem with your proposal is that slightly modifying the wording might legitimately make an objectionable proposal acceptable: e.g. Someone who opposed throwing kittens into the Potomac would quite possibly not object to throwing stuffed kittens into the Potomac.
I am officially gone from
I'm not a US citizen, but wouldn't this violate the Constitution in the US? I mean, freedom of speech does have certain bounds, but the only one having something to do with anything resembling property rights, as far as I can recall, has something to do with authors and absolutely nothing to do with printers, newsboys, broadcasters or other similar middlemen of any kind. Restricting speech just because someone else has performed it smells of a big constitutional no-no to me.
Ezekiel 23:20
I don't even know where to begin with this shit. First of all, rights of unlimited duration would be unconstitutional in the United States since the Article I Section 8 of the Constitution specifically calls for limited rights. Second of all, this would give broadcasters greater rights over the content that they broadcast than the actual content creators! This is what the big broadcasters want since they likely produce their own content, but this would screw all of the independent content creators that depend on broadcasters to distribute their works.
While I don't normally support the repeal of copyright laws, at the rate we're going I could see myself going in that direction. If these greedy fucks want to act like children and keep changing the rules to tip them further in their favor, then I'm all for taking all of their toys away for a little while. That would let me them see just how good they had it when their only protection over content was a "measly" copyright of 120 years.
Dear WIPO,
We, the users of the internet, don't want this treaty. It is only broadcasters who want this agreement, and we believe that the evidence is scant that there is a problem with broadcasting that would be solved with this treaty.
Please don't pursue a course of action which is going to end in many people questioning your legitimacy; it's not good for you, it's not good for the UN, and it's not good for the concept of copyright when there is overreaching by any party.
Yours,
The Internet.
If Disney can get a law to extend Mickey's copyright, then this isn't about balancing the rights of consumers versus artists to further the creative arts.
It's about an specific group using a perhaps underhanded process to get a new law so they can get more than they are currently entitled to.
This is a time honored tradition that can only stop when enough folks stand up and say enough.
In theory, that's what November is for, but given the selection, not so much.
Getting the actual working text of the treaty would be useful.
Then perhaps another SOPA/PIPA like protest to let the law makers know they are way out of the reasonable ballpark.
If you want to fight fire with fire, then spend money to get Mickey's law repealed.
So, if a song gets leaked out on the Internet before it's broadcast on the radio, then whomever distributed it has the broadcast rights?
Or is there some clause like the persion has to be the copyright owner?
P.S. This broadcast treaty would be unconstitutional in the US if there's no time limit on it... from Section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
(emphasis mine)
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Funnily enough WIPO is budget nearly 90 or 95% independently from the UN. If the UN were to crash and burn, it would still live on. Furthermore there are very good program in the UN, mostly those that no member state find political (be it the west , the east block or the petty 3rd world dictator). But as soon as something goes against one of those block, the UN get kicked in its spoke or blocked by the security council, even the US is guilty of it.
Except this still gets voted on by the people you elected.
Who have pledged to support what the movie studios push. Otherwise, they wouldn't have even won the primaries because the movie studios control the news media that help candidates get elected to the U.S. Senate.
The majority of U.S. voters have chosen to trust MPAA-owned television news sources as their source for information about the issues and the candidates. This puts the MPAA in a unique position to frame the debate.
Other than voting for one MPAA-approved candidate or the other MPAA-approved candidate, what do you expect people to do?
Since when has the U.S. Supreme Court shown itself willing to do something other than defecate on the Ninth Amendment?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
they're legally required to maximise profits for shareholders within the law.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to act in their shareholder's best interest, which is rather different. And, in practice, they almost never get called on this (i.e., sued by shareholders)
There exist forms of "get[ting] called on this" more subtle than a shareholder lawsuit. Institutional shareholders such as pension funds could just sell their shares in a company and buy shares in a competitor if failure to be greedy puts the return on investment of the company's stock noticeably below the average in the industry.
but the only one having something to do with anything resembling property rights, as far as I can recall, has something to do with authors and absolutely nothing to do with printers, newsboys, broadcasters or other similar middlemen of any kind.
Copyright works on the basis that authors have the exclusive right to designate what middleman is allowed to publish a work.
Based on how I read Eldred v. Ashcroft, a copyright term limited to the lifetime of the Sun still counts as "limited Times".
While some cases of fair use are statutory others are constitutional and can not be revoked. I think that applies to most uses for critique and commentary.
3... 2... 1...
Not just blackout, but again a full-scale "contact" campaign where phones and faxes ring off the hook and the e-mail inboxes are flooded with angry civilians.
Unfortunately, you and I are outvoted by the majority of the general public, which has already chosen to trust the mass media. So how do you recommend that people outside the mass media convince the majority of the general public to stop trusting the mass media?
So, who introduced this?? Think man! Are the "evil Chinese" pushing for tough IP laws? The Russians? Is it Canada? Is it Indonesia? Or perhaps Germany? Maybe one of the nations in sub-Saharan Africa just said "enough with recording our shows!"
There is one nation that is pushing IP laws down everyone's thoughts. It is a nation where their constitution has been labeled as "just a piece of paper" by some of the very people that are suppose to defend it.
So which nation is very likely behind introducing this crap in the UN?
i am of similar stance with some edits
1 Rape : i would prefer that the child be adopted using WitSec Protocols but...
2 Risk to the Mother: this should be a last resort The Doctor made a mistake/just did not have the skills thing (is the mother going to die RIGHT NOW?)
4Incest: this speaks to risk to mother
5 Deformity: This is one of those The Doctor needs to Bet His license things
On the Flip side of this i am all in favor of
1 better creche tech (Medco creates a creche that can support a -6 months baby then they can have a whole new CLASS of patents)
2 Rape/Incest should be a Capital Crime (with special circs)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Corporations, if things go well for them, can live forever. Therefore, they
will seek rights of unlimited duration. And, if they don't win this one, they will
keep trying.
Also, this seems a sneaky way of reigning in one of the things they really
hate: public domain content. I'm sure they consider content that is freely
available (whether originally created free or just having outlasted copyright
limits) an affront to all they hold dear.
I'm not buying any more entertainment from the 'industry'. I'll support individual musicians or groups but not if any portion would go to industry powers. The entertainment industry must die!
The UN does NOT have the authority over the world, just like the US shouldn't police other countries. We need to exit the UN now.
Who put you in charge of judging life? Who are you to say what another sentient being can do with their immature offspring? Perhaps you should think more and speak less.
Good-bye
It is a good idea to make your voice heard. Obama would be the person that controls foreign policy and would be the person to give your opinion too.
> Rape/Incest should be a Capital Crime (with special circs)
You realize that would result in more victims being murdered afterwards? What makes you think this is a good idea?
[Both the designated R and the designated D] have pledged to support what the movie studios push. Otherwise, they wouldn't have even won the primaries
The vast majority of people don't care who they vote for. They vote a straight party line [either R or D].
That's why I mentioned the primary elections. The movie studios have already had their say by the time those are over.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Before you condemn this measure, please think it through.
This is, fairly obviously, an attempt to create a situation whereby any alien intelligence that finds our noisy little planet will arrive here already indebted to intellectual property holders, and be forced to trade their own intellectual property in order to satisfy the debt.
Sure, its a short-term loss for freedom of expression. But imagine our collective satisfaction when we discover the massive amount of licensing fees racked up by alien scientists and exologists as they traded our broadcast signals around prior to visiting. We'll start off with a positive balance of trade, and that's a big win!
Note to humanity: the demand for licensing fees should be hand-delivered by the lawyers who thought up this genius scheme.
much better than chopping their heads off.
afterall, a hot steak is better than a cold chop!
(soitenly!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
lets start killing off a few of them every time they bring forth a law like this , maybe make some robots that can do it for us
japan sells some
Off topic but:
1) Most conceptions end in failure. It is around 80% in nature (from high school biology) - so "god" decided the result. When you use advanced science to prevent nature's course you are going against "god's intent" and anybody who thinks "god" is working by using godless science is beneath intelligent discussion. Often ironically, the god's will argument is used on the pro-life position at the same time.
2) Severity of deformations is impossible to quantify since there will be no agreed upon position. This is a nation where a brain dead woman can't be allowed to die without a national political fight - oddly enough, the whole debate was framed wrong: she was already dead. Point is the fight will never end and comes down to beliefs since there is no 100% accepted authority (science only makes it a little easier.)
3) Consciousness does not exist in babies; chimps are more conscious and smarter - we do experimentation on them. Point is - I use cognitive development as a threshold which is consistent with our other existing positions. You use a baseless religious position you were indoctrinated into thinking a few human cells (with 46 chromosomes) are human. BIG BIG difference between human cells and a human. I find that a bit funny in itself since the majority of cells within a human are NOT human cells! (see gut symbiosis.) Back on point:
WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE greatly differs and no position has a 100% accepted authority. It comes down FAITH or an educated guess. It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL to establish religious laws; when you define life based on FAITH you are imposing a religious belief onto others.
QED.
Yes, it is that simple to win the debate; you can't impose your religious belief (when is it a person) as law onto others.
Yes i am considered odd because im Pro-Life and Pro-Capitol Punishment.
Did you know that under Your Rules Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart would have been aborted as being "deformed"??
Yes i would normally Choose Life but i also believe that Some People Can Not Live.
I am not The Judge or on The Jury but when push comes to shove...
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This would naturally be balanced by the "You Only get Caught Once" thing. So some Critter forces himself on a girl maybe beats her up some and then twigs to the small fact that he is going to get tracked down and put down. He Knows that he has a 98% chance of having a short prison visit and then a personal rendition of "Ride The Lighting". Do you really think that at this point he is going to kill his victim and smoke his 2% chance of flipping to a i was rabid/drunk/stoned defense???
Or do you think that maybe the Critter will keep his tackle in the box so that he does not risk getting "shot while resiting arrest"?
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
LOL, so on the one hand, you're pro-life and all life is sacred, but on the other hand you're advocating the death penalty?
You can't have it both ways, or you're just a hypocrite.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are you suggesting 100% of murders get solved?
Meanwhile in reality, the odds of getting caught are ostensibly significantly lower when there are no witnesses. Since the rape-scenario will usually involve but a single witness, one that already happens to be overpowered and at the mercy of the perpetrator, the solution seems obvious...
Putting people in a situation where they have nothing to lose (and a 98% chance of execution (to use your numbers) would mean 'nothing to lose' to most people (98% of them, in fact ;))) is never a good idea.
> Or do you think that maybe the Critter will keep his tackle in the box so that he does not risk getting "shot while resiting arrest"?
Are you suggesting the police murdering suspects of serious crimes is a desirable deterrent?
As I understand it, courts have still interpreted "authors" to include those heirs designated in an author's last will and testament.
Broadcasts cross state lines are are therefore "commerce [...] among the several states", which the Congress has power to regulate even if no author is involved.