Thanks for the link. I read through the document, and came across these paragraphs:
"Protection granted under this Treaty shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the
protection of copyright or related rights in program material incorporated in broadcasts.
Consequently, no provision of this Treaty may be interpreted as prejudicing such protection."
""Cablecasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks;"
"2.13 Item (g) in Alternative D recognizes the fact that a great majority of Delegations in the
debates in the Standing Committee opposed the extension of the protection to webcasts.
Many Delegations have indicated that further study is needed and have suggested that the
issue of webcasting deserves to be dealt with in future discussions and not in the present
framework."
"6.01 Article 6 contains the provisions on the rights of broadcasting organizations concerning
the retransmission to the public of their broadcasts. The right in respect of retransmission
would provide protection against all retransmissions, by any means, including rebroadcasting
and retransmission by wire, by cable or over computer networks. The expression "exclusive
right of authorizing" has been used, for the sake of consistency with the language of the
WPPT and the WCT, in Article 6 and all subsequent Articles providing for an exclusive right."
"6.04 If, at the end of the day, the negotiating Delegations feel that a more explicit provision in Article 6 on the right of retransmission would be advisable the following wording could be
considered: "Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing
retransmission by any means, including rebroadcasting, retransmission by wire, and
retransmission over computer networks.""
Basically, the entire document is taken up with defining terms, and listing the alternate language for articles. It's a mess that's trying to do the following:
"Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the retransmission
by any means of their broadcasts."
"Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or
indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts."
"The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the
broadcasting took place."
I think this is targeted more toward the commercial re-distribution of broadcasted content, whether it's done live or delayed. In Europe, I know there are a lot pirated satellite dishes, and channels in other countries will pick up content from western channels and show it on their channels, or people will make pirate boxes to pick up encrypted channels. It seems the penalties of this new treaty are meant for such people:
"(2) In particular, effective legal remedies shall be provided against those who:
(i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal; (ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization
of the broadcasting organization that emitted it; (iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an
encrypted program-carrying signal."
Besides, if you put a lot of money and effort into making broadcast-quality programming, would you want it pirated and stolen and repackaged, whether over the air, cable, or computer networks, without credit, permission or paym
If he's that reliable a source, he should have provided a link to the treaty, so we could all see he's correct in his analysis. If you're not getting the other side, it's not a balanced view.
If there's anything I've learned is to not trust a one-sided argument. I'd like to see a link to the proposed treaty before I believe the author of the article. Nowhere in his article does he post a link to the actual treaty, so I can consult the language for myself and see if they're indeed saying that. Remember, everyone has an agenda, news is subjective.
It's one thing to tout the capabilities of a future system, and it's quite another to put it into practice and deliver the goods. I'm reading a book called "Making Change Stick", by Richard C. Reale, and wanted to quote a couple of sentence from it, which apply nicely to this:
"The key question is, why does change so often fail to stick? On closer examination perhaps it's not that we regressed but rather that the change was more illusion than reality. We painted a few eggs gold in the expectation that the goose would be inspired, get the picture, and start laying golden ones. The elements necessary to accomplish and sustain the change were neither identified nor implemented."
I say it applies to this because I haven't heard many good things about BT over the years. On the contrary, I've heard they're stodgy and set in their ways. I'm curious to see how they're going to pull off something this big, and I wonder if it's not a a lot of hot air. But there's something to be said about a hungry workforce from an ex-coal town. They're hungry to work and be productive, so let's see if they can change something at BT.
* 180-degree turns are traumatic, and don't turn out well. This is one such change, and it will be messy and painful. It will alienate a lot of bright folks. From a management standpoint, it's not right. Change is best done gradually, and by co-opting people.
* Making the bright people come into the office in order to straighten out the poor performers, as HP's CIO hints, is yet another silly decision. Yes, I can tell you certain IT personnel should be on-site, but not everyone needs to be there. If HP's IT workforce is peppered with poor employees, this is a recruitment/management issue, not a telecommuting issue. The decision is a non sequitur. If your tire is flat, plugging the exhaust pipe won't solve the problem. Seems to me a much better solution would be to pair up the poor performers with good performers who live in the same area, and have them work together on issues, whether it's at someone's home or my IM/phone. Training would also be another solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, the entire document is taken up with defining terms, and listing the alternate language for articles. It's a mess that's trying to do the following:
I think this is targeted more toward the commercial re-distribution of broadcasted content, whether it's done live or delayed. In Europe, I know there are a lot pirated satellite dishes, and channels in other countries will pick up content from western channels and show it on their channels, or people will make pirate boxes to pick up encrypted channels. It seems the penalties of this new treaty are meant for such people:
Besides, if you put a lot of money and effort into making broadcast-quality programming, would you want it pirated and stolen and repackaged, whether over the air, cable, or computer networks, without credit, permission or paym
If he's that reliable a source, he should have provided a link to the treaty, so we could all see he's correct in his analysis. If you're not getting the other side, it's not a balanced view.
If there's anything I've learned is to not trust a one-sided argument. I'd like to see a link to the proposed treaty before I believe the author of the article. Nowhere in his article does he post a link to the actual treaty, so I can consult the language for myself and see if they're indeed saying that. Remember, everyone has an agenda, news is subjective.
I say it applies to this because I haven't heard many good things about BT over the years. On the contrary, I've heard they're stodgy and set in their ways. I'm curious to see how they're going to pull off something this big, and I wonder if it's not a a lot of hot air. But there's something to be said about a hungry workforce from an ex-coal town. They're hungry to work and be productive, so let's see if they can change something at BT.
Here are my thoughts on this:
l -telecommuting-for-its-it-division/.
* 180-degree turns are traumatic, and don't turn out well. This is one such change, and it will be messy and painful. It will alienate a lot of bright folks. From a management standpoint, it's not right. Change is best done gradually, and by co-opting people.
* Making the bright people come into the office in order to straighten out the poor performers, as HP's CIO hints, is yet another silly decision. Yes, I can tell you certain IT personnel should be on-site, but not everyone needs to be there. If HP's IT workforce is peppered with poor employees, this is a recruitment/management issue, not a telecommuting issue. The decision is a non sequitur. If your tire is flat, plugging the exhaust pipe won't solve the problem. Seems to me a much better solution would be to pair up the poor performers with good performers who live in the same area, and have them work together on issues, whether it's at someone's home or my IM/phone. Training would also be another solution.
I wrote about this in more detail here: http://www.comeacross.info/2006/06/04/hp-to-cance
It's not that Adobe doesn't want PDF to be in Office 12. I think that Microsoft's trying to implement more built-in functionality than Adobe would like, thus infringing into the paid Acrobat product. I just wrote a post on ComeAcross about this that explains it in more detail. Have a look at http://www.comeacross.info/2006/06/04/microsoft-wi ll-drop-pdf-support-as-a-standard-option-in-office -12/.