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!

New IP Treaty Looming?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the sailing-into-troubled-waters dept.

279

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article by James Boyle in the Financial Times, the United States is helping push a Treaty that would create an entirely new type of intellectual property right in the US, in addition to copyright, covering anything that is broadcast or webcast. (Regardless of whether the work was in the public domain, Creative Commons Licensed etc, the broadcaster would control any copies made from the broadcast for 50 years.) Boyle argues that this is dumb, unconstitutional, and anyway should be debated domestically first."

cancel ×

279 comments

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

Slashdot's Reply (2)

ToxikFetus (925966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527271)

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

Touche.

Re:Slashdot's Reply (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527289)

FP

Come on... (4, Insightful)

bombadillo (706765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527297)

Boyle argues that this is dumb, unconstitutional, and anyway should be debated domestically first."

Having debates on U.S. Policy is sooo pre-2001. Try again in January 2009...

Re:Come on... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527324)

Nah, we're having plenty of debates. The people in control have just realized that they can ignore the debates with no negative consequences.

Re:Come on... (2, Interesting)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527369)

"Having debates on U.S. Policy is sooo pre-2001. Try again in January 2009..."

I disagree, debate is common. Its a good handwaving, misdirecting, tactic.

Now, if you said 'logic' and 'reason' then I'd agree with you.

Re:Come on... (1, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527451)

Ah, but the acme of skill is to couch 'logic' and 'reason' beneath a veneer of jingoistic appeal to fear and hatred.

Unconstitutional? (0)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527414)

Firstly: I am not a constitutional scholar. In fact, although I have read parts, I have not attempted any in-depth study of the US constitution.

I have wondered about treates such as the one discussed in the article. The President and Senate can make treaties. According to the constitution, such treaties "become the law", which implies that the President and Senate, acting together can override the consitution without the normal approval process required for changes to the constitution?

Did I miss something? What if the US signed a treaty with China that each government agreed that criticising the actions of either of the 2 governments would be banned? Goodbye first amendment. Where in the constitution is such a treaty not allowed or limited?

Re:Unconstitutional? (2, Informative)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527448)

Since the Constitution is the law of the land and no law is higher, any laws derived from a treaty that run counter to the Constitution are null and void.

Re:Unconstitutional? (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527515)

> Since the Constitution is the law of the land...

You misspelled "greed".

Re:Unconstitutional? (2, Funny)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527544)

The Constitution is the law of the land...

Well ... in theory anyway. ;-)

Re:Unconstitutional? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527581)

All of you forgot to look at the bottom of the Constitution...you'll find a Presidential Signing Statement from Bush indicating he won't be held to the constitution.

Re:Come on... (0, Troll)

JayDot (920899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527599)

Hmm, I must be residing in an alternate universe. I notice all kinds of debate going on about US policy. Debate about whether to remove an anti-human dictator and he's genocidal, rape-prone sons. Debate about whether it was right to help 25+ million into the free, representative world. Debate about whether we should kill people who are in a coma for too long. As a matter of fact I get in these types of debates all the time, and there are a bunch of politicians who debate it for a living. I'm afraid that I find your contention about a lack of debate incorrect. There is plenty of debate, it's just that one side keeps winning (as shown by the election results) whilst the other side continues to annoy people with their lack of intellectual (and moral) honesty.

Re:Come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527689)

Hmm, I must be residing in an alternate universe.

Yes, you apparently are.

I notice all kinds of debate going on about US policy. Debate about whether to remove an anti-human dictator and he's genocidal, rape-prone sons.

In this universe, that was actually a debate about whether to invade and occupy two foreign nations, with no desire to help their citizens. It also included an argument over whether hundreds of billions of dollars should be given to corporate friends of government leaders, under the guise of removing a dictator from power. The ultimate goal of the war advocates was to kill many thousands of "dirty Muslims" (which they've succeeded in doing, by the way) in imaginary retribution for 9/11, which was committed by completely unrelated parties.

Debate about whether it was right to help 25+ million into the free, representative world.

That was probably a debate about whether our businesses deserve easier access to third-world slave labour. I can guess which side you were on.

As a matter of fact I get in these types of debates all the time, and there are a bunch of politicians who debate it for a living.

I hope you don't take it as a compliment when I say that you debate just as well as those politicians.

There is plenty of debate, it's just that one side keeps winning (as shown by the election results)

Because we all know that the debate's not won by the correct argument; it's won by the argument that fools the most voters.

whilst the other side continues to annoy people with their lack of intellectual (and moral) honesty.

If you're annoyed by a lack of intellectual and moral honesty, one must wonder how you live with yourself. Then again, you only see two "sides," so perhaps you've assumed some politicians' dishonesty magically grants your own favored politicians complete honesty -- and yourself along with them.

Re:Come on... (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527724)

A: There has been no debate on this subject.

B: The moral and intellectual honesty issue is not
        limited to one party, it is intellectually dishonest
        for you to frame it this way, in my opinion.

Where has all the spam gone? (0, Offtopic)

Spam Sig Opt Out (869192) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527301)

Aside from articles by well know spammers, slashdot is now almost entirely spam free.

Well done, people of slashdot. You learned that joining pyramid schemes doesn't pay. I will be updateing my list of spammers shortly, so if you wish to be removed, please make sure you your sig is spam free by 5:00 pm CDT today.

That is all.

Our country... (5, Funny)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527308)

Our country is run by lawyers. No where is this more obvious than when seeing the lawmaking process. Greased palms, closed door deals.

I have a solution, however. The problem is there are too many lawyers. They have no natural predator, as it were. I propose,then, a lawyer hunting season. Say, from Sept to March. Trophies are based on bank account size.

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.

Re:Our country... (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527345)

Dibs on Marcia Clark!

Re:Our country... (1)

OnlineAlias (828288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527427)

Dibs on Marcia Clark!

I just chucked my lunch.

Re:Our country... (2, Funny)

Namlak (850746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527473)

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.

Dibs on Marcia Clark!

If you want to mount her, be my guest!

Re:Our country... (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527571)

In that case, I'm off to Florida to hunt Jack Thompson, come September.

Re:Our country... (2, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527383)

This is only possible due to a lack of informed voters. When less than 30% of the people bother to vote, who really runs the government? In other words, we could change this situation if we wanted but we are collectively too lazy and content.

Re:Our country... (2, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527462)

Your comment is very true. How much influence would wealthy companies and individuals have if a higher proportion of the people actually informed themselves and then voted?

There is a significant problem of lack of choice though, and on NPR this morning was an interesting comment that re-districting has meant many seats are safe Republican or safe Democrat seats -- which leads the holders to be far right or far left (sine the only competition is from people in the same party).

Re:Our country... (2, Insightful)

Vlad2.0 (956796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527649)

This is only possible due to a lack of informed voters.

Maybe if we translate the Consitution (and all political material) into Spanish we wont have this problem in the future. Reading it in the original English is such a faux pas, anyways.

But seriously - how many students in America's high schools (or even colleges) do you think have actually read and understood the Constitution? In Southern California, we happily graduate anyone who can't read/write English from our high schools. In twenty years (probably less) this problem will be significantly worse.

It seems that the only freedom anyone knows about these days is the freedom of speech...as long as your speech doesn't offend anyone, of course.

Re:Our country... (2, Funny)

Marsmensch (870400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527430)

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.

You pervert! These are lawyers were talking about!

My misread (1)

matt me (850665) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527460)

I misread your comment (i skim) to something liek the following

what we need is a system for evaluating lawyers similar to myspace. the lawyers take scene photos in their bathrrom mirror, hiding behind their fringes, making cpu-intensive profiles. you stalk the hottest ones (you secretly think emos are *cute*) and leave them creepy messages. you join groups toa lign yourself with specific policies. the lawyers with the most friends win.

Re:Our country... (2, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527478)

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.

Eeeewwww!!!

Mounting a dead lawyer? That's rather ghoulish don't you think?

Re:Our country... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527614)

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.
Eeeewwww!!! Mounting a dead lawyer? That's rather ghoulish don't you think?

s/dead //

Re:Our country... (3, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527480)

We have too many lawyers because we have too many laws. Eliminate the excess laws, and we'll have less lawyers as a side effect.

Re:Our country... (2, Funny)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527523)

We have too many lawyers because we have too many laws. Eliminate the excess laws, and we'll have less lawyers as a side effect.

But we have too many laws, because we have too many lawyers, therefore we need too many lawyers - etc.

Re:Our country... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527601)

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.

Oh, good! They'll go great in my tropy room, along with my three game wardens, seven hunters and pure, white, Jersey cow.

Re:Our country... (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527604)

Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.

Before or after you shoot it?

Re:Our country... (2, Funny)

dufachi (973647) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527638)

Why not just give Dick Cheney a gun in each hand at a lawyer convention while letting quail fly around the room?

Catch 22 works for me (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527316)

Copyleft content can only be distributed under it's copyleft license. If someone wants to change the license terms then the redistribution license is void and the copyright owner can seek civil remedies for infringement. With regard to copyleft content, these bills are stillborn!

So who's the broadcaster? (5, Insightful)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527323)

The guy who owns the server, the guy who paid for an account on the server, or the ISP the server colos at or is connected to?

Re:So who's the broadcaster? (1)

AgentGibbled (688180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527388)

>The guy who owns the server, the guy who paid for an account on the server, or the ISP the server colos at or is connected to?

All of the above. In fact, due to the lack of "net neutrality", all of the networks on the way to the audience get a slice too.

Oh sure, it'll inevitably lead to disputes over who owns the associated rights, but the ensuing lawsuit circlejerk will make laywers lots of money.

Yes, I'm kidding (I hope).

Simple answer: (5, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527463)

The guy who owns the server, the guy who paid for an account on the server, or the ISP the server colos at or is connected to?

The one with the most money to spend on lawyers.

Re:So who's the broadcaster? (2, Funny)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527543)

Whoever buys the most members of Congress in order to have himself legislated the broadcaster, duh.

I'll give you a hint: it won't be the guy with the server farm.

Stupid (4, Informative)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527327)

What if only Fox or CBS has the footage of a particular public event? Do we let the broadcaster eviscerate the ideas of fair use, prohibiting other networks from showing fragments so as to comment on the events, or criticise the original coverage? The proposed treaty text allows for fair use-like exceptions but does not require them. Once again, we harmonise upward property rights for powerful commercial entities, but leave to individual states the discretion whether and how to frame of the equally crucial public interest exceptions to those rights. Increased property rights for broadcasters are required. The public interest in education, access, and free speech is optional. (Among other things, most of the recent drafts would outlaw home recording of TV and radio unless a special exception was put into the law, state by state.)

Well written article. This sounds like a poor idea ... that will more than likely pass simply because of the big company backing ... of course it would be almost impossible to enforce at the individual level ... nobody has the resources to check such things as recording tv or radio programs on your home pc, tape deck, etc.

Re:Stupid (1)

Toba82 (871257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527453)

So why do we pass it if it can't be enforced fully? Think about it, the answer is always money or despotism.

read more on my blog [toba.ath.cx] .

Re:Stupid (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527507)

nobody has the resources to check such things as recording tv or radio programs on your home pc, tape deck, etc.
That's [arstechnica.com] what [eetimes.com] you [lwn.net] think [extremetech.com] .

Re:Stupid (1)

carterhawk001 (681941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527521)

Didnt the betamax case [wikipedia.org] grant everyone the right to do exactly what this treaty is outlawing?

Re:Stupid (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527560)

The Betamax case had the Court ruling that there was nothing to prohibit recording broadcasts. However, the Court also clearly stated that this wasn't an inherit right, and that Congress could introduce legislation banning it if they wanted.

Not just US (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527333)

the United States is helping push a Treaty that would create an entirely new type of intellectual property right in the US

The summary is a bit misleading. Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.

Re:Not just US (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527546)

The summary is a bit misleading. Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.

It does say 'Treaty'. Doesn't really imply (to me) that it's just the U.S.

Re:Not just US (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527607)

Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.

Of course they are doing it this way. WIPO isn't accountable to the USA people in the same way the USA government is supposed to be, so it's a lot easier to ram it through WIPO so that it's legally binding for the USA than to make things happen in the USA first.

This is just a way of circumventing democracy.

You're missing the whole point... (5, Insightful)

dubmun (891874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527336)

It is our policy to push our ideas on as many nations as possible.

It helps distract from the fact that the people of our country have no say of their own...

Re:You're missing the whole point... (4, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527384)

Are you referring to our short-sighted government, our greedy corporate overlords, or our apathetic fellow citizens?

Re:You're missing the whole point... (1)

dubmun (891874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527539)

Exactly.

Re:You're missing the whole point... (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527650)

Perfect example of The Golden Rule:

"He who has all the Gold, makes all the Rules."

Fookers.

Understanding the US (3, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527357)

You see, the US and Micrisofts and Hollywoods "vision" of the future is that instead of providing goods and services to pay off the huge US debts, they provide IP. While it's an interesting trade off: phoney property for printed up paper money, the problem is that for people to live day to day they need real goods and services. The problem is also that the information age implies just the opposite, information is becomming commoditized which means that it's service value is becoming worth more than it's IP value. Not to mention, that the information age is also making it impossible for the Fed to lie to people about the value of their money. Mees thinks all hell is about to break loose when the real world kicks in and ripps these people a new one.

Re:Understanding the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527481)

Bring it on!

Re:Understanding the US (1)

iogan (943605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527630)

"Mees thinks all hell is about to break loose when the real world kicks in and ripps these people a new one."

Like starting to trade oil in Euros and Roubles? [aljazeera.com] Yeah, that will create sort of an interesting situation, considering it's mostly the fact that all the debt the US ows the rest of the world is in dollars thats keeping the american economy afloat at the moment -- imagine what would happen if Japan and China, for instance, started dumping their dollars for euros...

(OT:can you help me with a survey? [johansforskning.co.nr] will take one minute! )

you fAIL it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527359)

obligated to care new core is going go of the minutiae Walk up to a play

Webcasting != Broadcasting (1)

w33t (978574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527370)

I'm always skeptical about anything that puts webcasting and broadcasting in the same boat.

Yes, superficially they appear very similar. A single originating source distributing to the masses. But there the similarities stop.

With broadcasting there are certain physical limitations to take into account - for instance, if I want 100 people to hear/see my broadcast I need a signal of a certain power and frequency. If I want 1000 people to be able to hear it I must increase the broadcast power and I may need to change frequencies (depending upon what certain areas of the spectrum are defined for). Now, if I pay for 1000 people to listen to me, but only 1 actually tunes in the radio - it doesn't matter: I'm still paying the same amount for if 10,000 or 1 person hears me. I need to keep pumping the signal strength.

With webcasting I only pay bandwidth based upon how many users are actively connected to me. Furthermore - by using p2p technologies I can emmensely leverage the bandwith problem. Suddenly the differential between reaching one listener and reaching 10,000 is greatly altered in webcasting from that of broadcasting.

Webcasting and broadcasting are essentially two different entities.

I'm sure (3, Funny)

LoonyMike (917095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527373)

...Piratbyrån's opinion will be taken into account.

greed... (2, Insightful)

agentdunken (912306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527385)

Its all for greed.... If the they make money off of it they want it... They don't care about our rights... They only care whats going into their pockets.... If they could they would charge you for how many times you go to the bathroom.....

Here's the scam (4, Insightful)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527386)

The theory is that both copyright and treaty-making are in the constitution. The RIAA and the MPAA are whispering in the ears of congress, "If you pass a law giving us new rights, it can be constitutionally challenged and we lose, but if you make it part of a treaty, then we can contend that overturning the new treaty is just as unconstitutional as granting us a new right. We can contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn a treaty."

Ka-ching!

Re:Here's the scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527486)

MOD UP! This is probably exactly what they're thinking. You, sir, should be a lobbyist!

Re:Here's the scam (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527524)

We can contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn a treaty.

Umm ... the SCOTUS can declare anything repugnant to the Constitution unconstitutional. It is their job.

Re:Here's the scam (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527585)

By my understanding, treaties don't actually do anything domestically. If the US signs and ratifies a treaty, it doesn't actually do anything except demonstrate the country's commitment to the treaty. The Congress would then have to pass a law to make US statutes consistant with the treaty.

People who know more about this than I, is this accurate?

Re:Here's the scam (2, Interesting)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527678)

I think that may be the way it works in Europe, but in the United States, the Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

So if I read this properly, treaties made are placed on the same level as the Constitution. Bit of a loophole.

Re:Here's the scam (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527654)

"We can contend that the Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn a treaty."

You can contend all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS does, indeed, have the power to overturn treaties. No treaty is enforceable until passed by Congress, and anything with legislative force passed by Congress (such as a treaty) can go to the SCOTUS for review if a case is filed with them. Whether they choose to hear it or not is a different matter.

Re:Here's the scam (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527672)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause [wikipedia.org]

Still, it's a lot harder to get out of a treaty than a regular law, and so the copyright cabal is especially interested in seeing something like this pass - not just for the imposition of US copyright law on other countries, but to further ensconce these laws in US statute.

What I want to know.. (2, Insightful)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527390)

I don't want to be too off-topic or political here, so if I am, I apologize, but I have a few honest & serious questions.

Most people I know agree that copyright is messed up, and this proposal just makes the situation even more complicated.

From TFA: "rights have to be of limited duration". So, why is it that as a nation, we have not had any noticeable impact on the situation in our country? Do we really want to have copyright limited to a fixed duration again? Do we really want to have more freedom in obtaining, sharing, distributing content and ideas? Then why isn't that happening on a larger scale?

Things such as the GPL, Creative Commons type of licensing, etc. seem like a step in the right direction, but clearly even they have limitations. Why can't the public seem to get amendments that seem to work more in its favor (instead of in the favor of organizations, companies, etc.) on the table and then signed into law? Reasons other than capitalism, I mean...

SixD

Re:What I want to know.. (1)

iogan (943605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527639)

It's mainly because of the capitali... oh, I see.. nevermind.

Other links (3, Informative)

torunforever (930672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527393)

Since Boyle first wrote about this last September, I was wondering what others had to say about it. Here's a blog entry from Lawrence Lessig [lessig.org] . Not too much written there, but it led me to an EFF page [eff.org] and CPTech action page [cptech.org] .

bunch of damn communists (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527399)

every one of them. content CREATORS own the content. content LESSORS HAVE RIGHTS.

unless you're out to outlaw rights, and this is the start of it.....

Re:bunch of damn communists (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527643)

Amen.

Question (2, Interesting)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527403)

anything that is broadcast or webcast

Er... What if I speak about it ? Will I be covered. ? I mean could I sue anyone repeating what I said ? :o)

Re:Question (1)

petabyte (238821) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527522)

Jinx!

That'll be $5M in licensing fees please.

Re:Question (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527596)

anything that is broadcast or webcast

Er... What if I speak about it ? Will I be covered. ? I mean could I sue anyone repeating what I said ? :o)


Hmmm..that brings up an interesting model:

1. Webcast a video of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, with a reading of the text.

2. Register said webcast & the content under the new treaty.

3. Sue the U.S./National Archive/Library of Congress/History textbook publishers/etc. etc. for infringement.

4. Rinse & repeat for every signatory to the new treaty.

5. Profit!

No "?" step!!

Don't worry..I shall be a benevolent Planetary Emperor. :P

Cheers!

Strat

Not unconstitutional (1)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527415)

The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants copyright power to Congress, but it doesn't deny further IP legislation, and in fact says that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. That is, unless something in the treaty is explicitly banned by the Constitution, any powers any treaties give to Congress are valid. See STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

Re:Not unconstitutional (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527625)

The most interesting part about the history of U.S. treaty law happened in the 1950s, and was called the Bricker Amendment [wikipedia.org] . Before you go click on that link, let me give you the bad news first: it didn't pass. It came rather close, but it didn't make 2/3rds majority. If it had, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, because Bricker would have limited treaty powers in such a way that they couldn't be used to override established Constitutional rights, including ones held by the States under the 10th Amendment.

In retrospect, the Old Right bloc may have gotten a few things right after all; unfortunately not quite enough people saw it that way at the time.

Re:Not unconstitutional (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527679)

Of course, treaties already can't override established Constitutional Rights (see Reid v. Covert), its just that the powers retained by the States under Amendment X do not include those granted to the federal government, including the treaty power in all its scope under the bare text of the unamended Constitution.

Of course, we'd still be having this discussion, because the proponents of the treaty would (and will, now, anyway) argue that it (or, rather, the domestic implementing legislation) is within Congress Commerce power.

Re:Not unconstitutional (1)

adam.dorsey (957024) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527640)

That is, unless something in the treaty is explicitly banned by the Constitution, any powers any treaties give to Congress are valid.

Is it just me, or does that statement conflict with this:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:Not unconstitutional (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527695)

No, because the Treaty Power is itself a power delegated to the US by the Constitution, and thus Amendment X does nothing to limit the treaty power. That's the central holding of the case (Missouri v. Holland) cited by the grandparent.

Re:Not unconstitutional (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527652)

The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants copyright power to Congress, but it doesn't deny further IP legislation, and in fact says that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. That is, unless something in the treaty is explicitly banned by the Constitution, any powers any treaties give to Congress are valid.
Insofar as such "IP" legislation necessarily infringes on the freedom of speech, press, etc., it certainly does, see Amendment I; this is distinguished from the claim that Amendment X forbade the power claimedin Missouri v. Holland because Amendment X by its own terms only reserves those powers not already given to the Federal government (which would make it powerless to restrict the treaty power), whereas Amendment I limits the powers of the federal government, including, inter alia, the treaty power.

STOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527450)

The government is just getting stupid now. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL THE INTERNET!

In related news, FedEx & UPS push for an IP ac (4, Interesting)

MasterC (70492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527468)

In related news, FedEx & UPS join forces to get the FedUPS Act of 2006 passed that would give transportation companies intellectual claim to every copyrighted material they transport.

Seriously, why should FedEx or UPS lay claim on a book they transport? Why is a (TV) broadcaster any more special because they transmit a signal? Cuz they put there little logo in the bottom right? Or because they do all kinds of fancy pop-outs that advertise other shows?

Neither FedEx nor a broadcaster do anything original, why do they get protection from Big Brother?

Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (2, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527490)

Are you kidding me?! Take some free content and repackage it and suddenly it gets a copyright? There's GOT to be a way I can use this... I've got it!

I'm going to repackage "The King James Version" and other versions of "The Bible" and then sue every church that attempts to teach from it.

Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527580)

Actually, the King James Version of the bible has perpetual crown copyright, although that may be in the UK only, I'm not sure how the Bern convention treats crown copyright. You need the permission of the monarch, their representative or the university printers of Oxford or Cambridge (the monarch's 'official' printers) to print it.

Repackage the complete works of Dickens and start suing people who teach English literature.

Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527597)

Of course crown copyright was a leading reason the revolution came about.

Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527595)

It would only affect churches whose copies of the Bible are derived from your broadcast.

Sorry to burst your otherwise great idea though.

Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (2, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527667)

You misunderstand the idea. Let's say some radio show broadcasts a dramatic reading of The Fall of the House of Usher,m by Edgar Allen Poe. That perfomance is covered by this, just as it's already covered by copyright. The story itself, however, remains in the public domain, just as it does now. Frankly, from what I can see, this is a tempest in a teapot, over a possible new treaty that doesn't change anything.

Stop it. Stop It! STOP IT!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527727)

Quit spoiling the rantings of the slashbots with facts and reasoned discussion.

Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527670)

Taking into account the average intelligence of those who teach from the KJV, I fully support your efforts.

**AA Solution (2, Interesting)

DaveRexel (887813) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527503)

Maybe this is the **AA solution to the massive failure of the current stategy?

With regard to FOSS/GPL/CC offerings, will this make the proprietors of the infrastructure (telcos) owners of the information being transmitted, trumping the rights of the original copyright holders?

"Intellectual"? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527536)

"dumb, unconstitutional, and anyway should be debated domestically first"

AND WE'RE DOING IT ANYWAY. That's the New American Way, in the New American Century. Four more years!

public domain? (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527563)

Gah you can't make something that is public domain and make it not public domain in terms of distribution.

My head asploded.

Tom

Wait, this isn't such a bad thing! (3, Interesting)

izam_oron (942139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527568)

Pirate steals stream, hosts it over P2P (and if it's on there, he doesn't care about intellectual property), millions of other people host it and suddenly everyone's an Intellectual Property holder! How can this be a bad thing? (Yeah, sort of naïve to beleive that, but it's worth a shot . . .)

Evil Corporations (0)

PeolesDru (535625) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527578)

Any time a corporation can get its hands on the machinery of state, we often end up with anti-competitive outcomes. At which point leftists point to this as an example of how evil corporations are and how we need the government to protect us from them. All the while failing to understand that it is the government and its monopoly on force that allows the corporations to do naughty things with our freedoms. ("Freedom of Speech, can you show me where the mean Senator touched you?")

There are plenty of captains of industry that have no more respect for rule of law and a properly functioning competitive capitalist economy than the bandana-wearing anarchist at your local Move-On rally. The key, since we the people ultimately make the hiring and firing decisions in the legislature, is for us to work to keep some people's grubby hands off of the controls of the "do it or I'll shoot you" machinery. The problem we encounter is that we can hardly agree whose hands are grubby and whose are pure.

I propose we limit the powers of the national government to a very limited list of roles we can all agree on, and leave all other powers to the states or the people themselves. (We used to call this "The Constitution") This includes limiting the power of the judiciary to invent new, controversial federal powers by "interpreting" the "living Constitution", and chucking those earmarking career politicians out of office. And yes, that means voting out the likes of Robert Byrd if you're a West Virginian even though he does "so much good" for your particular state. (Read: "he takes everyone elses money and funnels it to us"). Ask yourself: Why do politicians start their careers rich and end them spectacularly, obscenely wealthy? Politicians should not be allowed to make *any* income other than their salary. And that salary should be equal to the national average. Eliminate the lucrative career path.

CC (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527589)

So how long before I can license my work CC-BY-YOU-CAN'T-BROADCAST-THIS-IN-THE-US-3.0?

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Not so fast! (1)

raoul Pop (959233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527605)

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.

Re:Not so fast! (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527666)

From TFA:

James Boyle is William Neal Reynolds Professor of Law at Duke Law School, co-founder of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain and the author of "A Manifesto on WIPO". His most recent work is Bound By Law, a "graphic novel" on the effects of intellectual property on documentary film.

Sounds reliable to me.

Already in Europe (3, Informative)

ewhac (5844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527612)

This sounds like an attempt to import into the US a goofy "right" that has existed in Europe for some time.

It seems that whoever is first to broadcast a copyrighted work is granted a right, independently of the copyright holder, to enjoin redistribution of that work. In other words, the broadcaster gets right of first refusal for any material they were ever first to broadcast.

It's not at all clear why they got this right in the first place (incentive to broadcast material they didn't produce themselves?), but today it's largely seen as highly anachronistic, and often described in derisive terms.

Schwab

Marvelous (2, Funny)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527615)

Dear US Government,

Get stuffed.

Yours sincerely,

The Rest of the World.

I have no problem with the US introducing stupid laws in their own country. But why on earth does this need to be pushed into the WIPO? Surely there are more important things to be worrying about than yet more rules to line the pockets of big business?

I don't care about such FUD!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15527617)

I download all that stuff for free. And If that is wrong I'll move to Sweden.

Everything I like to do has been continuously threatened by assholes so that moving and paying taxes somewhere else has really become a good idea.

I don't think staying in a country that sucks and demonstrate against it's goverment makes sence anymore since demonstrations are not soo TV anymore.

Somewhat confused. (1)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527665)

Surely any event, performance, interview etc is already covered by contract or other agreement before the event. For example, a movie broadcast on the TV cannot then be in any sense owned by the broadcaster for the next 50 years.

When you see a video crew doing vox-pops in the street, that young thing with the clipboard is obtaining permissions to use the interviews.

Is this just broadcasters trying to save on paper work?

So WHAT Now ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527714)

U.S. people have been passive in the wake of corporate attack against their freedom for over a long time now. And the attack progresses day by day. Now what is it gonna be next ?

With limits... (1)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15527733)

Protecting the rights to the broadcast as a whole I like.

Believe it or not, there can be a great deal of creativity in how you present a broadcast of material copyrighted by others. This should be protected as a performance.

That said, if you copy a DJ set for instance, and cut it up into individual tracks, those individual tracks should not be covered by this "broadcast copyright", as they are divorced from the context that the broadcaster put them in, and copyright should go to the recorders/performers of the individual tracks.
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>