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.
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
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?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
"Broadcast" everything we can get our hands on, ourselves.
Then WE own a 'perpetual copyright' and YOU can't use it....nenner neener
It would be entertaining for the pirate bay to acquire unprecedented intellectual property rights over the vast majority of the western world's commercial cultural output...
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
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.
Yup, that would be funny. Too bad that the Pirate Bay didn't broadcast anything... except for the torrents that pointed to the individual broadcasters. On the other hand, MegaUpload and other cyber lockers did and do broadcast a lot of stuff. Under the new regime, they would be filthy rich in terms of broadcasted IP portfolio.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Based on how I read Eldred v. Ashcroft, a copyright term limited to the lifetime of the Sun still counts as "limited Times".
Use the write in space.
If your vote is actually counted accurately (ha!) and enough people vote "No Confidence" it will send a clear signal to the politicians.
Sadly, the signal will probably be to legally change names to "No Confidence"...
Not a sentence!