Global Cyber Copyright Treaty In Force Today 27
Guinnessy writes: "The Financial Times has a short story on a global copyright treaty that comes into force today, despite controversy over whether it will help or hinder creativity on the internet. You can find an actual copy of the treaty at the World Intellectual Property Organisation."
It looks like an attempt to enforce the DMCA (Score:1)
As for stifling creativity, any legislation of this type will have this effect, due to fear or actual litigation.
The DMCA was written in support of this treaty (Score:2, Insightful)
Please remember that the purpose of the treaty, and the WIPO international patent system is not to stifle creativity. The purpose is to facilitate the commerce of ideas by having a simple single point of reference to check for ownership of all intellectual property. Everyone is still just as free to create as they were before, but if your creation builds on the IP of others, then they will be protected from being damaged by the dissemination of your obviously derivative works.
That this new IP "clearinghouse" might turn out to be biased in favor of the organizations that pay its bills is completely irrelevant.And so is the fact that whenever I see WIPO I think of it as a "professional" version of the IOC, and the sort of organization that ICANN wishes it were.
Re:The DMCA was written in support of this treaty (Score:1)
Take a close look at Article 12:
...
(emphasis added by me)
This will most likely be interpeted such that anyone creating a computer program or device which copies or transmits a file will be in violation of this treaty
Don't think so? Anyone who writes a ftp client/server, news reader/server, web browser, http server, sound recording, compression (including those for audio/video such as mpeg), or UNIX cp program will know that someone out there will most likely use it to copy or transmit files that have had their DRM removed. That will most certainly qualify as a "person having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement" In fact that premise could be extended to someone who makes an audio tape recorder or VCR--how many times a day are these devices used to illegally copy movies and CDs? They have the same potential for infringing against some DRM scheme--even if it is just holding the mic up to a speaker.
It won't stifle creativity???? That's the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. This will make anyone creating or distributing programs or devices that could potentially be used for a DRM "infringement" afraid to release any such device/program--even if the primary use is completely legitimate!!! And this will have a profound effect on any person attempting to distribute (or even create) their own completely original works on the internet!
This treaty is fucking bullshit!
When I was reading Article 2, I almost thought this might be a reasonable document, but there is way too much crap that leans in the direction of copyright "owners"--**aaahh*corporationsthatstole workfromartists*chhooo**
Yeah, maybe they have the right to use DRM schemes and control how their work is distributed, but they do NOT have the right to shutdown operations that don't use DRM, price-fix, support monoplies, screw their customers!
If I create an original work (text, audio, video, image, or computer program), I should be allowed to distribute it in any resonable way including without DRM. I should not have to worry that someone will be able to find some way to use it that is illegal. They are the ones that are commiting the crime. Not me!!!! How far is this going to go? Will governments start going after car manufacturers because bank robbers use cars as a getaway vehicle???
If I buy unlimited rights to view/listen to a work (such as is implied with videos and CDs). Then I should be allowed to view/listen to that work at any time in any way and not be required to watch fucking commercials!!! Broadcast TV has commercials because that is how they pay for thier content. DVD has commercials because they wish to screw over as many customers as possible while making as much money as they can! In addition I should be able to watch my DVD in any region of the world with any OS or device I choose. The people who designed DVDs took those choices away from me. This is why I never bought a DVD player or drive.
Umm... (Score:1)
I could take the time to make a point by point refutation of your comments (complete with bullet points even!), but instead let me just say that your browser apparently did not process my sarcasm tags properly.
I clearly understand WIPO and its supporting treaties and legislation to be a hobnailed boot on the neck of all who would threaten to bypass current power structures (and the forunes of those who benefit from them) via technological advances.
Naturally, those with power will (ab)use that power. So of course Disney et al will put ever longer advertising messages on their DVDs, and via the current control systems require you to sit through them since the fast forward and chapter skips will be disabled. There is a market based feedback mechanism at work here - if they try to ram too much down our throats at once it will backfire on them. It will take a few years to nurture sufficient arrogance in the people making the decisions as to how much advertising is too much. Then we will see some idiot sell advertising in the last 30 seconds of each DVD chapter - with FF disabled - and this will fail miserably, but there will not be a product recall. Ten years later interchapter advertising will be the norm.
You have not purchased unlimited rights to view/listen to a work. You implied that you have, but until you get a WTO court decision to back you up you have nothing but your rather naive belief against the legally codified property rights of the corporate marketplace.
Things may well not be as bleak as I am painting them. I seem to recall that some of the "rich and powerful" are starting to wonder if they have gone too far. Even if they do make the decision to "ease up" a bit, these sort of institutionalized movements have really enormous inertia... kind of like big dinosaurs recognizing the threat of itsy bitsy mammals - and ignoring that asteroid on a collision course with Yucatan.
Re:Umm... (Score:1)
Ooops...sorry. Apparently <sarcasm> tags are stripped out by slashdot's software--maybe you should use < instead. ;-)
...or ask Commander Taco to give all those who can't recognize good sarcasm an automatic -1 moderation on all their posts. ;-)
Earth Inc. (Score:1)
" Don't think, we already a patented you thougths "
Mod this up!!! (Score:1)
Short article (Score:4, Insightful)
There are 6 billion people on the planet and hardship caused to less than a thousand does not warrant an international treaty.
If it impacted a million people adversly, it would not warrent a treaty.
So when does the first county (Score:2)
Re:So when does the first county (Score:1)
CSS ratified and PVR/VCRs criminalized (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this gives the MPAA and the RIAA one more lobbying tool to get their way.
Copyright holders get to choose where and when you get to see their IP.
The good thing about this, is that I'm going to start copyrighting my phone calls. And then I can just use the agreed statment on article 8 that "the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication" as an excuse for not answering my phone.
Article 11 slipped right through without a peep. (Score:2, Insightful)
Obligations concerning Technological Measures
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law."
I wonder how many RIAA and MPAA dollars went it to that one? This gives all contries the mandate to implement SSSCA- and DCMA-like laws. I, for one, am very dissapointed in the WIPO.Not as bad as the DMCA (Score:1)
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures ... and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not ... permitted by law.
This isn't the DMCA, exactly. The DMCA appears to restrict fair use, whereas this WIPO treaty only restricts actions that are "not ... permitted by law." Notwithstanding 17 USC 1201 [cornell.edu], fair use [cornell.edu] is still not an infringement of copyright. This treaty states only that countries have to prohibit acts of circumvention that result in copyright infringement.
RIAA and MPAA are going to have a field-day. (Score:1)
I'll just go hide under a rock, until someone copyrights rocks as their "artistic expression" and I'll have to move.
Term of copyright? (Score:2)
Secondly, when the say "computer programs are copyrightable works," do they mean binaries, or source code? I don't know, and I'm not certain they're sure what they meant when they wrote it.
Re:Term of copyright? (Score:1, Informative)
"Such protection applies to computer programs, whatever may be the mode or form of their expression."
Jurisprudences, especially in Europe, have already declared that computer program source code AND binary format are protected by copyright.
Re:Term of copyright? (Score:1)
Yeah, I don't see why there should be a difference. A program is still a work whether it is in ASCII form or translated to Java bytecodes/x86 binary opcodes/etc...
Mod the parent up. Everyone needs to see this AC!
Protest against WIPO (Score:2)
Seriously, that's really sad that such texts could be accepted. If you're a coder and have made softwares that could be used as a copy protection circumvention device (even if they have legitimate uses). You're now more than ever in danger due to the articles 11 and 12 of this treaty.
How the Treaty was bought (Score:3, Informative)
by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn (10/2/96)
"Last September 12, some 1,500 of Hollywood's most beautiful people mustered at Greenacres, the old Harold Lloyd estate in Beverly Hills, and listened to Barbra Streisand serenade Bill Clinton..."
Confusing? (Score:1)
But as a media production major at UNC Chapel Hill, I need to understand this stuff, because obviously it will affect my future work one day.
It appears to me that this treaty is way too broad, and will only cause problems. I'm gonna try and explain some of these as good as I can guess at them, and I'd appreciate if someone would clear me up on this.
Ok, so if a record company puts its music library online, then that will show the courts that there is an original source online which the copyrighted/pirated material came from. This will help lawyers for record companies in court protect their copyrights.
Well, it seems like there would still be a way around this with different formats out there. However, the fact that copyright protection extends to "expressions", then they could cancel that idea out. However, it seems like that would fringe on a LOT of our established rights.
I've got plenty more to question and talk about, but I'm headed down for food...leave me some comments and then I'll be back shortly for more!
WIPO is not binding. (Score:2)
It is worth considering that this treaty has exactly the same authority as the UN Charter on Human Rights, and look how widely obeyed that is!