Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Your Rights Online

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Back On the Table 133

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the shuffling-slowly-mumbling-eye-pee dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Back On the Table

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:57AM (#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.

    • by characterZer0 (138196) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:02AM (#40995727)

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

      • by d3ac0n (715594) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:11AM (#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.

        • by sqlrob (173498)

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

          • by tepples (727027) <tepples@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @09:31AM (#40996599) Homepage Journal

            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].

            • ...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.

              • 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?
                • In the US, mass media may have a large effect on the outcome of elections, but only in the most ridiculous way.

                  The vast majority of people don't care who they vote for. They vote a straight party line [either R or D]. And they are pretty much split almost exactly 50-50 across the whole country.

                  So the election comes down to:
                  -preventing the other side from voting [cold-calling them and telling them the wrong date/place to vote, or making it more difficult to vote [state ID requirements]
                  -voter turnout [alive

                  • [Both the designated R and the designated D] have pledged to support what the movie studios push. Otherwise, they wouldn't have even won the primaries

                    The vast majority of people don't care who they vote for. They vote a straight party line [either R or D].

                    That's why I mentioned the primary elections. The movie studios have already had their say by the time those are over.

                • 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?

                  As Jello Biafra says, You become the media. We have access to publishing tools on the internet that have toppled several regimes in as many years. We have devices that can circumvent digital blockades. We have the technology to 'get the word out' something's rotten. I'm not sure why things haven't moved in a more-positive direction in the United States in the past 13 years, but I'd wager it has to do something with a lack of general education. Perhaps people are just scared for themselves and their fam

                  • by Anonymous Coward

                    You have to understand the psychology behind all fascist movements [whale.to] (pdf). The process is universal. It crosses all political and cultural boundaries without prejudice and without any regard for religion creed.

              • by neonKow (1239288)

                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 th

        • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:23AM (#40995919) Journal

          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.

        • by dkleinsc (563838)

          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.)

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            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.

            • by dkleinsc (563838)

              I would say the UN-level bureaucrats are the same.

              And you would be wrong. If, for instance, Mitt Romney won in the upcoming presidential election, then the current US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, would be replaced in relatively short order. By contrast, Justice Scalia will be on the Supreme Court for as long as he is willing and able to serve.

        • by operagost (62405)
          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.
      • by Anathem (1983388)

        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?

    • by crazyjj (2598719) *

      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.

    • by denis-The-menace (471988) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:20AM (#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.

      • ...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.

    • 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:58AM (#40995673)

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

  • by boyfaceddog (788041) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:59AM (#40995689) Journal

    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. ;-)

    • by LordLucless (582312) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:01AM (#40995721)

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

    • by cpghost (719344)

      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

      • by Lucky_Norseman (682487) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @11:53AM (#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.
    • by Sloppy (14984)

      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

      • by kimvette (919543)

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

      • for as long as religion dominates western/US thought (and it does) we will not TRULY respect or desire freedom.

        think about that.

    • by CanEHdian (1098955) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @10:09AM (#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.
    • by Tuoqui (1091447)

      "Corporations are People"

      I forget who said it but I'll restate it "I'll believe that when a corporation is executed in Texas" :P

  • Greed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shaman (1148) <{ten.sok} {ta} {namahs}> on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @07:59AM (#40995701) Homepage

    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?

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      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

      • its not extreme; those in power are never happy with 'enough'.

        how much do they need?

        "more than I have now! don't try to stop me, either."

        sociopathic behavior is rampant in 'property owners'. sharing is not even in their vocabulary. "mine mine mine!" is all they think.

        sad, really. those are the ones 'running things', too, for all practical purposes. running ALL things.

        nice world we have here, huh?

        but, to be fair, mankind has always been like this. modern day life just accentuates it and shows the reall

    • 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 artis

    • by mbone (558574)

      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.

  • Insanity... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:06AM (#40995763) Journal

    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?

    • by Carewolf (581105)

      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.

  • by blcamp (211756) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:12AM (#40995821) Homepage

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

    • by cpghost (719344) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @09:17AM (#40996439) Homepage
      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.
  • I want EVERYTHING.
    Not till you grow up and join the MAFIAA dear.
  • 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.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      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.

      Unfort

      • by Kr1ll1n (579971)

        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 fol

        • 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

          • 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.
            • by Kr1ll1n (579971)

              Duly noted how you phrased it as "a sentient being vs. immature offspring" as opposed to sentient being vs. underdeveloped being.

              Does scientific fact bother you much?

              By your own example, if a 2 year old gets out of line, then the parent should be able to kill them, since they are just "immature offspring" and all..

            • Yes i am considered odd because im Pro-Life and Pro-Capitol Punishment.

              Did you know that under Your Rules Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart would have been aborted as being "deformed"??

              Yes i would normally Choose Life but i also believe that Some People Can Not Live.

              I am not The Judge or on The Jury but when push comes to shove...

          • by Thiez (1281866)

            > Rape/Incest should be a Capital Crime (with special circs)

            You realize that would result in more victims being murdered afterwards? What makes you think this is a good idea?

            • This would naturally be balanced by the "You Only get Caught Once" thing. So some Critter forces himself on a girl maybe beats her up some and then twigs to the small fact that he is going to get tracked down and put down. He Knows that he has a 98% chance of having a short prison visit and then a personal rendition of "Ride The Lighting". Do you really think that at this point he is going to kill his victim and smoke his 2% chance of flipping to a i was rabid/drunk/stoned defense???

              Or do you think that may

              • by Thiez (1281866)

                Are you suggesting 100% of murders get solved?

                Meanwhile in reality, the odds of getting caught are ostensibly significantly lower when there are no witnesses. Since the rape-scenario will usually involve but a single witness, one that already happens to be overpowered and at the mercy of the perpetrator, the solution seems obvious...

                Putting people in a situation where they have nothing to lose (and a 98% chance of execution (to use your numbers) would mean 'nothing to lose' to most people (98% of them, in f

        • by gstoddart (321705)

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

          LOL, so on the one hand, you're pro-life and all life is sacred, but on the other hand you're advocating the death penalty?

          You can't have it both ways, or you're just a hypocrite.

          • by Kr1ll1n (579971)

            Surely you are not that ignorant;

            death penalty = mortal punishment for a crime that has greatly and negatively impacted society.
            abortion = mortally wounding another human (46 chromosomes = human) for daring to exist.

            The death penalty and abortion are mutually exclusive of each other, and have nothing in common.
            Try Harder.

            • by Kr1ll1n (579971)

              Added note;

              The zygote, or embryo, or fetus, have yet to even participate in society. Abortion, in the majority of cases, is saying that women should have the right to reserve judgement on who is allowed to enter into society.

              The death penalty, on the other hand, is saying someone has, by their own actions, established that they cannot be trusted to function in society without being a detriment to it, in some way, shape or form.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      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 ki

    • much better than chopping their heads off.

      afterall, a hot steak is better than a cold chop!

      (soitenly!)

  • by Anonymous Coward

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

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

    • "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...

      • by cpghost (719344)
        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.
        • 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 lik

  • by benjfowler (239527) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @08:33AM (#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.

    • that's wise. really, its wisdom.

      knowing this about mankind and its nature and then dealing with it as a given is pretty smart.

      problem is, not enough people are on the same page. they don't get that it really is a war of control and that We The People are not winning or gaining anything by granting big media more and more priviledges.

      one phrase is 'voting against your own best interests' and that's exactly what people are being trained to do. its horrifying to watch people willingly vote for some candidat

  • 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.
    • 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.

  • 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 d
    • by cpghost (719344)

      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.

      • btw, how much extra for that last day? I need to know that so I can get with my people and make a decision. have your guy call my guy. we'll do lunch.

  • 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.

    • dear internet,

      your days are numbered. we own most of your ass right now. what we don't own, we have plans on owning.

      and we control the purse-strings. we're like the old phone company. we don't care. we don't have to.

      have a nice day.

      The Job Creators

  • 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)

    • Based on how I read Eldred v. Ashcroft, a copyright term limited to the lifetime of the Sun still counts as "limited Times".
    • by zzsmirkzz (974536)
      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

      • As I understand it, courts have still interpreted "authors" to include those heirs designated in an author's last will and testament.
        • by zzsmirkzz (974536)
          Yes, the Author's estate has been decided to also be included in this and can be willed just like any other asset the Author holds. However, they did not create new rights for the heirs, only allowed the inheritance of the existing rights. This is talking about creating new rights for the Broadcasters of said writings which is basically saying the "Broadcast" of the existing work is a completely new work and the Author is the broadcaster which is complete and utter BS. I can't wholesale copy someone else's
  • 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!
  • 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.

  • Before you condemn this measure, please think it through.

    This is, fairly obviously, an attempt to create a situation whereby any alien intelligence that finds our noisy little planet will arrive here already indebted to intellectual property holders, and be forced to trade their own intellectual property in order to satisfy the debt.

    Sure, its a short-term loss for freedom of expression. But imagine our collective satisfaction when we discover the massive amount of licensing fees racked up by alien scientist

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...