Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Back On the Table

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the shuffling-slowly-mumbling-eye-pee dept.

The Media 133

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."

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Keep trying till they sneak it through? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995669)

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.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (5, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#40995727)

Because even when people get bills they do not like killed they still vote for the same politicians the next election cycle.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (4, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | about 2 years ago | (#40995805)

Except that this is the UN. Freaking NOBODY voted for these people. Just goes to show you; Nothing is more tyrannical than rule by Bureaucrat.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995869)

"Nothing is more tyrannical than rule by Bureaucrat."

Ohhhh, I bet you are just going to love Obamacare huh?

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

sqlrob (173498) | about 2 years ago | (#40995871)

Except this still gets voted on by the people you elected.

MPAA selects the candidates (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996599)

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 [pineight.com] .

Re:MPAA selects the candidates (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40996899)

...the movie studios control the news media that help candidates get elected to the U.S. Senate.

But the real problem is that nobody goes beyond mass media for information. If the studios control the media, it's only because we give them the power. So, let's quit trying to blame the other guy for our own failures.

Convince them how? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40997409)

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?

Re:Convince them how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40997657)

Get the non main media to stop sounding like rabid fanbois. Obama farts in church, is America on the road to ruin? Is the sort of headline that wont garner any serious attention, but its the type of hyperbole that is used by nontradtional media, like bloggers.

Re:MPAA selects the candidates (1)

neonKow (1239288) | about 2 years ago | (#40998661)

So you're suggesting we turn more to Twitter and Facebook, Buzz and Youtube, Redditt and Digg? :P If I could, I'd get all my news from gizmodo and my TV from youtube/hulu or the like, but I can't do that and still expect to be even relatively well-informed, and I can't spend all my time vetting a failed system.

If what you say is true, then the fault lies with the government for allowing entities that control both the public media and massive amounts of other industries to exist. We cannot ignore the fact that turning to mass media is supposed to be a convenient and reliable source of information, and even if you can't rely on your local news anchor to do all the research for you, you should be able to rely on them to provide you with a reasonably unbaised subset of the news.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40995919)

To describe the UN as 'tyrannical' is arguably inaccurate. It's pretty hard to be a 'tyranny' when your available power extends just far enough to write nasty notes until the office supplies budget runs out, and where getting any real shit done requires unanimity from the somewhat-togetherness-challenged security council...

The really pernicious thing about the UN is that it provides an excellent alternate venue for the more tyrannically minded members of state governments, and favored industry representatives, to put the stamp of 'law' on things that are either too crazy to ram through more local legislatures, or where support is overwhelmingly strong in certain countries but weak or nonexistent elsewhere.

The UN would be up shit creek without a paddle within about one budget cycle if it displeased its member states too seriously; which is why its assorted baroque treaty bodies can be so... customer service oriented... when it comes to agreeing to crazy stuff.

In this precise case : no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996429)

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.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40997107)

If the UN wrests control of the Internet from ICANN, it will be a totally different matter. The same paper-pushers will be able to kill a site off the Internet just because they don't like the content, with absolutely ZERO recourse.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40997399)

Even in that event, though, the UN would largely be acting in the role of a rubber-stamp for various member states that want color of law for assorted bullshit involving censorship or ghastly telco monopolies...

Don't get me wrong: as a 'respectable', but rather pliable, venue for 'legislation shopping'(about as respectable as doctor shopping for oxycontin; but far more dangerous) the UN is a supremely dangerous instrument. If you can't get your terrible idea adopted at a national level, or your terrible idea requires some sort of transnational suicide pact, you go and shop it to the UN, or the WTO, or the EU, or any other obscure alphabet soup institution, and then you come back and 'harmonize' the law you were gunning for in the first place.

That's the distinction. These assorted treaty bodies and multinational whatnots are not powers unto themselves, as any of the less pathetic nation states are; but can be(and usually are) useful instruments for applying credibility to things that either require a veneer of international consensus or are simply too slimy to easily do domestically.

(Even organizations like the IMF and World Bank, that are traditionally given broad latitude to fuck with little countries that nobody likes, get substantially more tenuous if they step on the toes of countries even a few rungs up the ladder.)

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40995991)

That's no more true than arguing that nobody voted for the Attorney General or Secretary of the Treasury: It's technically true, but UN representatives most definitely answer to their respective governments. For instance, if the US representatives support WIPO this time around, it's because President Obama supports WIPO. And according to the rules of the UN, if the UN supports something, that means the US has acquiesced to it.

(The same argument is true for residents of the UK and France.)

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40997453)

Thomas Jefferson described the Supreme Court as "dangerous" because the justices "are not subject to the elective control of the people". I would say the UN-level bureaucrats are the same.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 years ago | (#40997111)

Then stop giving money to organizations like the Tides foundation, people. You keep listening to these oligarchs because they promise you will have freedom and security, but I'll you'll get is disenfranchisement under global governance.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (1)

Anathem (1983388) | about 2 years ago | (#40996059)

Because even when people get bills they do not like killed they still vote for the same politicians the next election cycle.

I think that whether they vote for the same politicians or different politicians, the out come will likely not change. The illusion of choice, no?

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#40996105)

There are choices, but most people have it stuck in their heads that they should only vote for candidates of the two major parties. The lack of choice is not because of the candidates, but because of the majority of the voters.

It's an MPAA frame-up (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996633)

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 [pineight.com] .

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (0)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40995825)

Why can the government just reintroduce it again a few months later?

Because when the corporations own the governments, they can do whatever they damn well want. It's like the U.S. Constitution says: "We the Corporations of the United States..." And all the other countries are under U.S. law, so the Constitution applies to them too.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995921)

So you believe we live in a fascist state where the corporations and the government act as one and tyrannize the citizens.

Let me ask you this? Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40995979)

I stopped bothering long before 2008. The fix is in. Voting is a sucker bet.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996107)

"a sucker bet"

What are you talking about? You complain about the state tyrannizing you but when it comes time for you to stand up, make the right decision and elect leaders who might change things you sit on your hands.

Stop complaining and enjoy the serfdom, or wake up and start working to change things. No one will do this for you.

Do you plan to vote in November and for whom? Are you even registered?

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40996201)

There are no "leaders who might change things." Sucker. bet.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996361)

Well there never will be if people like you keep sitting on your ass complaining and not doing anything.

You are pathetic, enjoy your serfdom.

Vote for which MPAA-approved candidate? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996689)

Other than voting for one MPAA-approved candidate or the other MPAA-approved candidate [pineight.com] , what do you expect people to do?

Re:Vote for which MPAA-approved candidate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40997273)

Screw you and your conspiracy theory crap.

Learn the issues, follow the news and the votes of your representatives, you have elections from school boards to president to participate in. Make your decision and vote.

Thousands have come before you and died to preserve your right to this. People all through history - and now in many countries are deprived of this basic right, that of controlling your own destiny.

And you carp and complain about corporations and fat cats ruining your lives.

You people are worse than pathetic.

It's good that you do not vote, no doubt you would make poor decisions anyway.

Re:Vote for which MPAA-approved candidate? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40997443)

you have elections from school boards to president to participate in. Make your decision and vote.

Copyright is exclusively federal. Elections at the school board or state level do not change it.

Make your decision and vote.

For whom should I vote if, after having researched the candidates on the ballot, none of them represents my interests?

Re:Vote for which MPAA-approved candidate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40997591)

Are you 12?

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (4, Informative)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 2 years ago | (#40995889)

RE: I hate that governments can just rename a treaty or bill and resubmit it. I mean, with SOPA & PIPA.

BTW: It's called CETA now.
And it contains ACTA/SOPA/PIPA laws
and a bonus: Cities not allowed to have "buy local" tenders.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 2 years ago | (#40996989)

...and there's a Western Front too: TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, containing it's own err... "IPR Chapter".

Don't let the limited "fair use" rules news stories blind you. TPP is a direct attack on the free Internet as well.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996737)

We shouldn't have to be constantly fighting these battles with our own government.

"our own government" ?

In capitalism the government belongs to money not people.

Re:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (2)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 years ago | (#40998605)

I hate that industries 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 industriy just reintroduce it again a few months later? We shouldn't have to be constantly fighting these battles with the industries that own our own government.

FTFY

It's probably best to disabuse ourselves of the notion that government is anything other than the legislative/judicial/wait staff division of MegaCorps Inc.

Good luck EFF (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995673)

Time to support EFF, be that with time or money.

My two cents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995685)

I think fair use doesn't hurt their profits. So to do something as stupid as this just shows how pro-censorship they are.

Bill of Digital Rights (2)

boyfaceddog (788041) | about 2 years ago | (#40995689)

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. ;-)

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#40995721)

What, so they've got three documents they can ignore when drafting laws instead of just two?

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996035)

Indeed. Governments are keen to sign contracts like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but they are also equally happy to ignore them as soon as they're even a little in the way of what they want to do.

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995961)

What good would that do? We have constitutional rights in the states and those rights get violated all the time, by police, the law makers, and the courts. It's to the point that their authorities are not recognized by a lot of people either.

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996335)

It's called the 9th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Poop on the Ninth (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996703)

Since when has the U.S. Supreme Court shown itself willing to do something other than defecate on the Ninth Amendment?

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (2)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40996527)

We need a Bill of Digital Rights, one that underlies all of our national and international laws and keeps rights for citizens.

We already have that, and it's called the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works [wipo.int] . It says in a nutshell that Big Content has the right to extort huge amounts of money by artificially restricting distribution, and that Citizens have the right to get fleeced and the right to pay through the nose each time they want to read or hear and watch something, LONG after the content creator died. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, and that's essentially what it is. Your Bill of Digital Rights won't help here, because ratified international treaties have precedence of national laws. And the probability that the US would get out of the Berne Convention is literally zero.

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (3, Interesting)

Lucky_Norseman (682487) | about 2 years ago | (#40998417)

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.

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#40996979)

We need a Bill of Digital Rights

I think not, for two reasons.

First, because you used the word "digital."

Second, because you're putting the cart before the horse, trying to have a "bill of rights" to dogmatically persuade people to support freedom, instead of first persuading people to support freedom and then passing this "bill of rights" as a manifesto explaining the tolerable limits of policies.

Current popular opinion (and it's nearly unanimous; I'm not talking about some kind of 60% vs 40% thing) is that freedom is a bad idea, and that our elected rulers should consist of those who will fight against freedom. Even if you create stone tablets enumerating our rights, the tablets will not have the support of the people or the policy-makers they elect, so they will be ignored. Your "bill of rights" represents no power. And if you look at what America has done with its earlier constitutional Bill of Rights, you should have seen by now how pathetic it is when parts of the bill fall out of favor. Seriously, we'd be better off if unsupported rights not not been ratified at all, or at least that they be formally repealed. (Remember the 9th and 10th? And have you noticed the amount of respect lately given to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th?)

It is better to persuade the people that freedom is good, and that those who fight against freedom are the enemy. If you can achieve that, then eventually there will be elections resulting in policy-makers who do things that are compatible with, rather than incompatible with, your "bill of rights." Then ratify a Bill of Rights that the people have already spoken in support of -- one that is actually a testament of the people's passionately-held agenda. That will be a dogma with some real authority behind it, and woe to those who run on a platform of opposing it.

Right now, any bill of rights would be a totally empty threat. It is not yet time. We have a war for hearts and minds to win, first.

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#40997787)

Posting to undo a bad mod. Selected "redundant" rather than "insightful."

Re:Bill of Digital Rights (3, Interesting)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about 2 years ago | (#40997049)

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.

Greed (3, Insightful)

Shaman (1148) | about 2 years ago | (#40995701)

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?

Re:Greed (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#40995813)

When will all this greed end

Never is the short answer. Everybody has staked their fortune and future on the idea of this kind of property rights, and people will just keep extending it to its extreme conclusion.

Of course, this is absurd, because this is creating a new kind of right for them. They don't own the work, but somehow the work + the specific set of commercials (and channel identification on screen) has now become a new protected class. Eventually America might try to reject it because it wasn't in the Constitution, but in the mean time they'll keep foisting it on the rest of the world -- having tied their fortunes to IP, the American government is being very aggressive about exporting such laws.

If they don't pass it now, they'll keep taking a run at it. When we're all beholden to them and can't do anything without their permission, then they'll just find new things -- probably things that say we're required to watch their shows or buy their stuff.

I know a lot of people think it sounds a little extreme, but it's hard not to see the many forms of dystopian futures hurtling at us. Pick one, either the government are all invasive and control our lives, or the corporations do. Eventually, there's convergence.

Re:Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995835)

No matter how much money the richest individuals have, most always want more; it's some kind of human hoarding instinct run amok. Hoarding is a noted behaviour among feral and neglected children, the two phenomenons probably being related.

And while we may complain about wealthy corporations doing immoral things to make money, remember they're not required to be a fount of morality - they're legally required to maximise profits for shareholders within the law. Change the gameplan CEOs are legally required to play by and they'll behave at least a bit better.

Re:Greed (0)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#40996027)

Just shoot the bastards. They can't take their money with them.

Re:Greed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996907)

You can shoot the first bastard. Then the remainder start putting up cameras, walls and sentry guns to stop domestic terrorism.

Re:Greed (2)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#40996151)

And while we may complain about wealthy corporations doing immoral things to make money, remember they're not required to be a fount of morality - they're legally required to maximise profits for shareholders within the law.

Actually, no they are not. 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) if they are not actively looting the company, so even that requirement is frequently ignored.

If corporate executives act immorally, it is because they have no morals, not because they are being coerced.

Getting called on this more subtly (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996761)

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.

Re:Greed (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#40995967)

They kind of remind me of my kids at times: "Dad, we just want this one more toy. Just this one and we'll be satisfied and will be good and will never ask for anything again and will clean our room and will love you forever and ever."

I don't fall for it because I know they'll be happy for about a week before the toy gets tossed aside as they cry for New Shiny Toy Number 573. We shouldn't fall for it when the media companies say they just need this one additional bill to "fight piracy and protect the artists" and, if we give them this, they'll be satisfied. They won't ever be. Each bill is just a springboard to another bill for them.

Re:Greed (1)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#40996023)

I don't know about ending, but I think we have already passed peak copyright, and things may look very different in a decade or so.

Not to worry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995709)

I hear that a new weapon is on its way...

Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995743)

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).

Re:Rights (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#40995879)

We tried a presidential line item veto act, but it was ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the presentment clause.

Insanity... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40995763)

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?

Re:Insanity... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 years ago | (#40996575)

I am broadcasting my thoughts right now. I own them forever, read them and you shall be a criminal!

It doesn't just seem like it, it IS not only unsupportable to point of insanity, in further yet, it is well in the area of insanity.

Not right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995765)

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?

Some kind of uber-copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995771)

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" [wikipedia.org] , 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.

A suggestion for the UN... (2)

blcamp (211756) | about 2 years ago | (#40995821)

...I wish the UN would exercise it's right to go f*** itself.

Re:A suggestion for the UN... (3, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40996439)

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.

Re:A suggestion for the UN... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996519)

s/UN/US/

Mommy, mommy... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 years ago | (#40995831)

I want EVERYTHING.
Not till you grow up and join the MAFIAA dear.

Best deterrent for this idiocy (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about 2 years ago | (#40995837)

Would be to bring back the charge of treason, with enhanced punishment.

If you present legislation that mirrors an existing proposal, or has slightly modified wording than the original that has already been defeated, you would be charged.
If convicted, no imprisonment, only punishable by death.

I nominate burned at the stake in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Re:Best deterrent for this idiocy (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#40995925)

If you present legislation that mirrors an existing proposal, or has slightly modified wording than the original that has already been defeated, you would be charged.
If convicted, no imprisonment, only punishable by death.

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.

Re:Best deterrent for this idiocy (2)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about 2 years ago | (#40996715)

Ironically, as someone who is pro-life, I can see what you are saying with this.

If the proposed legislation denied rights, as opposed to expanded them, then this would prevent this problem.
This is especially true in the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument, which would never make it to a treason charge, since a zygote is human based on the its composition of 46 chromosomes, you could say that expanding the rights of a human would give shelter from the treason charge.

Added note:
I am o.k. with abortion in the following cases, and so are the majority of pro-life advocates;

1. rape
2. Risk of maternal life
3. Fetal death has occurred
4. incest (this usually goes hand in hand with rape)
5. Severe deformation of development (severity would have to be quantified)

Also, available statistics seem to indicate that less than 3% of abortions are for the reasons listed above.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html [johnstonsarchive.net]

Re:Best deterrent for this idiocy (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#40998175)

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)

Re:Best deterrent for this idiocy (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#40998671)

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.

Re:Best deterrent for this idiocy (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40996111)

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.

How to address those bills? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995863)

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?

The solution is simple... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995885)

"Broadcast" everything we can get our hands on, ourselves.

Then WE own a 'perpetual copyright' and YOU can't use it....nenner neener

Re:The solution is simple... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40995975)

"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...

Re:The solution is simple... (2)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40996623)

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.

Re:The solution is simple... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#40998383)

True enough.(though, given that the treaty is probably not intended to grant all broadcast rights to Akamai and their ilk, or to petty regional affiliates of broadcasters, I wouldn't be too surprised to see some hilarious/alarming overbroad definition of what 'broadcasting' actually is, specifically intended to ensure that the exciting new rights accrue directly to the top, without any accidentally being lodged in the middlemen who just do boring things like 'making the broadcast work'. Since it is also likely being written by people who either don't understand bittorrent or who consider it to be on par with leprosy and chemical weapons, it may or may not have that use case very clearly laid out...)

Turn up the suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995927)

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.

NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40995935)

I will not recognize nor comply with any such thing.

Permanent war footing (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#40996005)

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.

Constitutionality (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#40996221)

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.

Re:Constitutionality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996681)

Who gives a shit about the constitution anymore? nobody in government gives a flying fuck about that piece of goddamn paper. The only people that care about it are those that want to be protected from the government. the idea that a piece of paper can protect your rights is just as silly as the notion that Jesus (another silly idea with no basis in reality) can save your soul.

It was up to the people to hold their government accountable and remain vigilant against things getting out of hand. Instead we just went to sleep after the civil war and started believing that the government would abide by their own laws and that the SCOTUS would rule in favor of the constitution. Well as you can see that didn't work out so well and now it is far too late to do anything about it.

Forget about any silly notions about rights, personal liberty or a fair government they are likely not coming back in any of our lifetimes.

Who chooses the middleman (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996793)

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.

Who introduced this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40998083)

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?

Enough Is Enough (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 2 years ago | (#40996259)

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.

Re:Enough Is Enough (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40996393)

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.

"Limited" includes perpetual minus 1 day, i.e. up to the End of the Universe^W United States, minus 1 day.

Dear WIPO - we don't want this (1)

Bozovision (107228) | about 2 years ago | (#40996281)

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.

Yet another Mickey Mouse law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996285)

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 there's a song leak... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 2 years ago | (#40996421)

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)

Lifetime of the Sun (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#40996807)

Based on how I read Eldred v. Ashcroft, a copyright term limited to the lifetime of the Sun still counts as "limited Times".

Re:So, if there's a song leak... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40997301)

So when has being unconstitutional ever stopped our government?

Re:So, if there's a song leak... (1)

zzsmirkzz (974536) | about 2 years ago | (#40998559)

You highlighted the wrong phrase that makes this unconstituional.

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

Re:So, if there's a song leak... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40998589)

But that's only for Authors and Inventors, not Broadcasters.

Re: Fair Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996913)

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.

Call for Internet Blackouts in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40996941)

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.

it won't stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40998181)

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.

The last straw (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 2 years ago | (#40998235)

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!

Get out of the UN (1)

Nogrial (2574291) | about 2 years ago | (#40998419)

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.

Write Obama (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | about 2 years ago | (#40998673)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>