WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Back On the Table 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."
Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Bill of Digital Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
What, so they've got three documents they can ignore when drafting laws instead of just two?
Insanity... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Keep trying till they sneak it through? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:A suggestion for the UN... (Score:4, Insightful)