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.
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
What, so they've got three documents they can ignore when drafting laws instead of just two?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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?
Well, in this particular case, it's the UN acting on behalf of the US-MAFIAA and US-Government to export the US-brand of "copyright" to the rest of the world. And I'm saying "US-brand" because it's the kind of copyright that is obviously and clearly designed to protect the distribution cartel, instead of the original content creators.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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.
What you need is a Third Political Party in the US, one that champions human-people over corporations. The "R" and "D" denominations have a "What's good for Business, is good for the Country. What's good for the Country, is good for its People" mentality. Everything else is splintered to death. I'd say rally behind the US Pirate Party and enjoy the benefits of help from Pirate Parties International, who is on track to gain observer membership in WIPO.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Nothing in the Berne Convention prohibits a government from taxing Intellectual Property.
If Big Content was taxed according to the official **AA value of their properties, they would soon start delivering to public domain.
Same of course could be applied to the broadcasters with "broadcaster eternal copyright". Tax them until they either release copyrights or go bust.