New IP Treaty Looming? 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."
Slashdot's Reply (Score:2)
Touche.
Come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having debates on U.S. Policy is sooo pre-2001. Try again in January 2009...
Re:Come on... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Come on... (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Come on... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:5, Funny)
You misspelled "greed".
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Funny)
Well
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I have not done an in-depth study of the constitution either, that was just how I was taught about it in school.
Of course, just because something isn't constitution doesn't mean it won't happen anyways.Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? - Nope. (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's tremendous your country is willing to fund a help desk to resolve Constitutional dilemmas. That degree of faith in civic duty is becoming increasingly rare. =D
Re:Come on... (Score:2)
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.
Our country... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:2)
Re:Our country... (Score:2, Funny)
Dibs on Marcia Clark!
If you want to mount her, be my guest!
Re:Our country... (Score:2)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Getting more alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea how you could have a genuinely open, fair, multi-party system. It would presumably need to borrow some ideas from proportional representation, as that seems to be the only method of reliably getting multiple parties into politics. Italy, however, shows the risks of the opposite extreme - having too many parties. There, the former Prime Minister is actively working to bring down the current Government in an effort to pull off a coup and seize power. There very nearly wasn't a current Government, as he'd refused to step down even after losing the election.
My best guess at this time would be for the top two or three candidates to represent the constituancy in direct proportion to the percent of vote they received. So, a person getting 50% of the vote would have 50% of the voting block. This avoids the whole problem of what to do in a tie, as you'd simply have more than one person with the same voting strength.
I also think that the system needs a third, unelected house, where members are selected from the jury pool and who can place bills on trial, as per any other trial. The idea would be to have a group of anonymous people that lobbyists could not identify to corrupt, and who would retain any influence for such a short time that power itself could not corrupt them.
What I do not know is how you could implement either of these ideas within the framework of the US Constitution, or how they could be adapted to fit within the expectations of having a clear line of responsibility, or how they could be debugged on the basis of how political systems actually work in practice.
I guess that information, if anyone did have it, would be covered by this new IP treaty and could not, therefore, be divulged except at a great price.
Re:Our country... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (probab
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree with that. But...
I don't know if simply increasing the turnout would help. If 80% of the people voted, but continued to blindly vote along party lines without bothering to educate themselves about the candidates, I don't think the result would be significantly different. Conversely, if the turnout stayed at 30%, but those who voted were better infor
Re:Our country... (Score:2)
Ideally we should just ban political parties and create some rule that says individuals must aquire their own funding locally. They'd spend a lot less money and probably produce a much better election process. There would still be nothing to stop richy rich from running with his own money but the playing field would at least be more even. Presidential elections would probably have to have
Re:Our country... (Score:2)
I think the problem is that most people, especially those with little education and/or poor
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Newspaper
TV/Radio
Internet
Now rules have come along lately and changed ownership rules for the first two, and lo-and-behold net neutrality could stand to threaten the third.
Its kinda like the education system in this country - if all kids know are facts and not how to engage in logic, reason and critical thinking, what chance do they have? They'll just believe whatever their preferred party te
Re:Our country... (Score:2, Funny)
Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.
You pervert! These are lawyers were talking about!
My misread (Score:2)
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:My misread (Score:2)
Except that the participants aren't exclusively lawyers, that's a pretty fair summary of the status quo political system.
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Funny)
Eeeewwww!!!
Mounting a dead lawyer? That's rather ghoulish don't you think?
Re:Our country... (Score:2)
s/dead //
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Funny)
But we have too many laws, because we have too many lawyers, therefore we need too many lawyers - etc.
Re:Our country... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the # is small enough, it should 1) give the legislators some reason to use more precise wording, 2) they'll only be able to cover the "basics" of running a society, 3) it w
Re:Our country... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Of course, mounting your kill is perfectly acceptable.
Before or after you shoot it?
Re:Our country... (Score:2, Funny)
Catch 22 works for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Catch 22 works for me (Score:2)
So who's the broadcaster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple answer: (Score:5, Interesting)
The one with the most money to spend on lawyers.
Re:So who's the broadcaster? (Score:2, Funny)
I'll give you a hint: it won't be the guy with the server farm.
Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Well written article. This sounds like a poor idea
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
That's [arstechnica.com] what [eetimes.com] you [lwn.net] think [extremetech.com].
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
You're missing the whole point... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Understanding the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Webcasting != Broadcasting (Score:2)
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
I'm sure (Score:2, Funny)
Here's the scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Ka-ching!
Re:Here's the scam (Score:2)
Umm
Re:Here's the scam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the scam (Score:3, Insightful)
People who know more about this than I, is this accurate?
Re:Here's the scam (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that may be the way it works in Europe, but in the United States, the Constitution states:
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 (Score:2)
Re:Here's the scam (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the short, short version. The Constitution discusses treaties in its "supremacy clause [wikipedia.org]," Now, this seems pretty clear to me that the order of precedence is Constitution->Laws->Treaties, but for some reason, others have disagreed.
The problems all got started in 1918 with Missouri v. Holland [wikipedia.org], where the Congress, seeking to regulate bird hunting (which it doesn't have a clear way in the Constitution to do -- this was before the courts expanded Interstate Commerce to include everything you could possibly imagine), entered into a treaty with the U.K. to regulate bird hunting. Basically, this eventually went up to the USSC, which declared that treaties entered into by the USA overpower States' rights under the 10th Amendment.
This, in time, started to make people rather nervous, since it meant that the executive and legislative branches of government could basically do anything they wanted, if they could enter into a treaty that required it. There were some unsuccessful attempts at revising the Constitution to prevent this, and make it clear that treaties weren't the supreme law of the land, but were rather limited by the Constitution itself: this was the failed Bricker Amendment [wikipedia.org]. I happen to think this would have been a very good idea, and it's a shame it didn't go through.
The establishment of the current situation came with Reid v. Covert [wikipedia.org], where the USSC overturned the conviction of a civilian military dependent by a court martial, saying that a treaty doesn't overpower the Constitution in capital cases. (Why they limited it to capital cases, I have no idea, and one of the justices basically asks this in the opinion.) But basically it was seen as a clarification that you can't have treaties that blatantly violate the Constitution. (It also has interesting bearing on the current situation vis a vis Gitmo detainees and the WoT, but that's another story.)
There may have been more cases since then, but that's as far as I've read them. Basically, treaties right now have some effect which is greater than conventional Federal laws (or at least not bound by the traditional powers of Congress, apparently), but less than the Constitution. So it would still be possible, were the Court so inclined, for them to strike down a very bad WIPO treaty on Constitutional grounds. Whether you think the USSC would actually do that, in its current state and incarnation...well, I'll leave that for another comment.
Re:Here's the scam (Score:2)
Re:Here's the scam (Score:2)
Your understanding is incomplete. According to the U.S. Constitution, Aticle VI, treaties are the supreme law of the land [usconstitution.net]:
"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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Law
Re:Here's the scam (Score:2)
Did you notice that "treaty" was missing in that phrase.
But really, this is all about quibbling interpretations. The fact is that craven despots are in power at all levels who really don't give a tinker's damn about what the constitution says, so if they want to let corporations shake you down for your entire life savings, they'll
Re:Here's the scam (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 i
Other links (Score:3, Informative)
bunch of damn communists (Score:2)
unless you're out to outlaw rights, and this is the start of it.....
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Er... What if I speak about it ? Will I be covered. ? I mean could I sue anyone repeating what I said ?
Re:Question (Score:2)
That'll be $5M in licensing fees please.
Re:Question (Score:2)
Er... What if I speak about it ? Will I be covered. ? I mean could I sue anyone repeating what I said ?
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
Not unconstitutional (Score:2)
Re:Not unconstitutional (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not unconstitutional (Score:2)
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 Congr
Re:Not unconstitutional (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not unconstitutional (Score:2)
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
Re:Not unconstitutional (Score:2)
In related news, FedEx & UPS push for an IP ac (Score:5, Interesting)
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?! (Score:3, Funny)
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?! (Score:2)
Repackage the complete works of Dickens and start suing people who teach English literature.
Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (Score:2)
Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (Score:2)
Sorry to burst your otherwise great idea though.
Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (Score:3, Informative)
You illustrate why its stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (Score:2)
**AA Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
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"? (Score:2)
AND WE'RE DOING IT ANYWAY. That's the New American Way, in the New American Century. Four more years!
public domain? (Score:3, Interesting)
My head asploded.
Tom
Wait, this isn't such a bad thing! (Score:3, Interesting)
CC (Score:2)
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Already in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:Marvelous (Score:2)
Be careful we don't liberate you, too.
Yours Sincerely,
The US Government
Re:Marvelous (Score:2)
Somewhat confused. (Score:2)
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 ? (Score:2)
With limits... (Score:2)
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
Back door to perpetual copyrights (Score:2, Insightful)
"IP" is no longer an unchallenged idea (Score:2)
This is the dialog which the powers-that-be do not wish to enter into. There was no opposition to the original Berne Convention (can I hear a "Fuck you, Victor Hugo"?), nor could there have been. But some of us believe that we now know better. They wi
Re:"IP" is no longer an unchallenged idea (Score:2)
Physical objects are not subject to property laws because they are naturally scarce.
They are subject to property laws because protecting them encourages people to create value.
This is also the reason -- rather more expressly, in the US -- that information is protected as "intellectual property".
As a musician, my response is... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I wrote, performed and recorded the material, then *I alone* (or in partnership with other musicians who contributed to these works) get to decide how the material is to be licensed. If I release something under a creative commons license (as I have), then it is free (as in "speech") for others to use, *PERIOD*.
While I might be willing to sign over rights to my creative works to a publisher so that my works can be distributed, there's no way I would be willing to sign a contract that assigns the rights to my creative works to the broadcaster.
Re:Not just US (Score:2)
It does say 'Treaty'. Doesn't really imply (to me) that it's just the U.S.
Re:Not just US (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not so fast! (Score:2)
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.