WIPO Broadcast Treaty Creates New Legal Rights for Broadcasters 223
An anonymous reader writes "WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization) created by the UN is now creating a new copyright for 'broadcast transmissions' giving broadcasters ownership of the content that they broadcast (even if the program being broadcast is in the public domain). IP Justice has created a Top 10 List of
reasons to reject this proposal and has published a detailed report that dissects the proposal from a civil liberties and freedom of expression point
of view." See our previous story for more information.
Also see (Score:5, Informative)
The "perfect enemy" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The "perfect enemy" (Score:2)
WPDO (Score:5, Interesting)
I hereby propose the creation of WOFO -- the World Public Domain, Fair Use, Open Content and Free Software Organisation.
Re:WPDO (Score:2, Informative)
Also this needs to also go and cover the situation between radio stations and record companies. Do you know that radio stations have to PAY the record companies per song, despite the fact that the stations is doing multiple services for the record company. They track songs, tell which are good, provide free advertising for the cd, and usually provide encouragement for people to buy the CD's.
This new WOFO group would make it free for radio stations to use ANY song as long as they provide tho
Re:WPDO (Score:5, Funny)
How about World Organization for Open and Free Software.
WOOF!
Re:WPDO (Score:2)
In other words, the ASSWIPO.
Re:WPDO (Score:2)
Re:WPDO (Score:2)
What if they don't own it (Score:5, Funny)
Fine by me... (Score:5, Funny)
as long as they pay me royalty for tresspassing my property with their airwaves without my consent.
Re:They already do. (Score:2)
Fuzzy (Score:4, Interesting)
No, copyright is a multi-layered thing (Score:3, Informative)
It's analogous to the copyright a printer has in the typesetting of a book. You are infringing copyright if you photocopy a recently typeset Penguin Classic of a public domain work, but not if you transcribe it. You can however photocopy older published books at your leisure.
Another example: Dangermouse infringed on both the Beatle
Distributing freely? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to indicate that in the case of public domain content, such as a government-created documentary or a very old movie or audio recording--you would not be able to freely store and redistribute that content.
Re:Distributing freely? (Score:2)
So no public domain then?
So if writers are contributing nothing to the public domain, tell us again why they deserve the exclusive privileges part of copyright which is their payment for writing work for the public domain?
The public domain is dead dude (Score:2)
Face it. It will be litigated into oblivion, and simply mentioning that it ever existed will be made illegal.
Long live the new public domain! [google.com]
It's really, really time to reconsider anarchism guys. Democracy been has proven so flawed by capitalism, that it really hurts. By the people for the people my ass. Any mention of that and you're a communist/terririst/cyber-criminal (insert favorite none-commercialist decoy hot-word of the day here).
In case you can't stand the idea of anarchism, at least it's
Easier location method (Score:2)
Do you have ANY idea how long lawyers have been around? As long as Democracy; longer, even. Never heard a quote from a Greek philosopher about lawyers, eh? They were considered a "necessary" evil WAAAAY back then too.
What should be considered the moment of decline (in that regard) is when people decided they could make a quick million by acting like a retard and hurting themselves and not taking responsibility for their
reason.. (Score:3, Funny)
Hand-in-Hand with Broadcast Flag (Score:4, Interesting)
There's an old saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's an old saying... (Score:2)
They are already doing this successfully! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They are already doing this successfully! (Score:2)
Other than for purposes of Fair Use, you'd agree. Satire, criticism, etc.
The creeping doom here is the removal of Fair Use by all means subvert and obvert.
Re:They are already doing this successfully! (Score:2)
Already done. The corporate content owner simply files suit on any unauthorized use and forces the user to hire a lawyer to defend fair use. If the gain from the fair use is less than the cost of defending the suit, the user loses, even if he's right. Rather than take the risk of having to defend fair use, most will either license it or do without.
Re:They are already doing this successfully! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They are already doing this successfully! (Score:2)
Re:They are already doing this successfully! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound and Light! (Score:2, Informative)
silly notion (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe seems determined to do away with property rights altogether.
Not so silly... (Score:2)
Re:Not so silly... (Score:2)
Broadcast in the public domain? (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering the vast majority of the public domain is targetted at an audience who were around 95 years ago, and is likely to be highly degraded, or even non-existant, this sounds like a largely academic objetion.
Re:Broadcast in the public domain? (Score:2)
Re:Broadcast in the public domain? (Score:2)
Re:Broadcast in the public domain? (Score:2)
But there is. There's a lot of material in the public domain because they were American works that failed to renew or register in the first place. Old news casts, most of Ed Wood's movies, a lot of Charlie Chaplin's works are just some of the things in the public domain.
I'm currently preparing something copied from TV for Project Gutenberg. It's not academic for me.
Furthermore, if you look around Wal-Mart,
Re:Broadcast in the public domain? (Score:5, Insightful)
I get it now (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I get it now (Score:5, Informative)
However, international treaty is held to supersede the constitution, thus conveniently bypassing any constitutional protections in place.
In what dreamworld? the constitution is the supreme law. International treaties themselves are just paper - it is only local laws that implement those treaties that hold any force, and they are also subject to the constitution.
Treaties are NOT International Law. (Score:2)
Re:Treaties are NOT International Law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I don't know when in recent history they started to consider treaties such as the International Court in effect just because a portion of the signers ratified it. I'm fairly certain that's pretty new to h
Re:I get it now (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably a troll...but what the hell, I'll assume it's a real question...
But, to get back to the original point, I find it highly unnerving that the country that claims to be the world's foremost democracy holds democratic ideals in such low regard. If the majority of countries decides one thing, why does the US so often do the exact opposite?
Answer: Because we (I say "we" as in "Americans", since I'm one) are not citizens of the world, despite what progressives would like to think. We do not answer to a world government -- such a thing does not exist, although there's a club that we're members of called the UN, which has done things like electing the Sudan to the UN Human Rights Committee. We answer to the United States of America, and its Constitution is the final authority unless we decide to amend it (that's why they call it a free country).
There are many good reasons for this; for one thing, it means that pissants on the other side of the world don't get to tell us what to do. In fact, originally the law was set up to ensure that not even the folks in Washington, DC could tell us what to do in most cases. The federal government became more powerful over time, but every now and then states' rights get asserted (John Ashcroft getting rebuked by the courts for his attempt to shut down the Oregon assisted-suicide legalization is a prime, recent example).
The US was formed on the principle of self-determination, and that means that we do not have to accede to the rules of another country if they violate our laws (i.e. the Constitution). Which, judging from the article, is a good thing. Europeans are always giving Americans a hard time about how we're so corporate-friendly, but I don't see much difference myself; if anything, it seems like the EU and UK governments are trying to outdo us in bending over and grabbing the socks for the Arrr Aye Double A.
I get it too (Score:2)
So if the international society, UN or whatever agrees on something everyone has to abide. For instance, Iraq failed to live up to what was decided (by the UN) it had to too. Result? A US-led invasion. The rules seems clear. UN decides, you abide, NO questions asked.
Now lets change recipient. US disobeys the UN? Results? "The rules don't apply to us bevause blahblah constitution and free country and given by God and BLAHBLAHBLAH OUR PENISES ARE BIGGER THAN YOURS".
You people seriously needs to underst
You know what's REALLY scary? (Score:2)
From Dictionary.com:
Also from Dictionary.com:
Re:You know what's REALLY scary? (Score:2)
The complex of agreed upon treaties and the laws enacted by the various signatories thereof are what comprises "international law".
First off, don't quote the dictionary as evidence of anything other than common usage. It just makes you look like an ass. Second, international law differs from other kinds of law in that it is largely unenforced on member states. As another poster pointed out, there is no world government. It's more like a bunch of unruly kids in a sandbox.
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
"Clause 2: 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 Constitutio
Counter-effective number uno! (Score:2)
Wow, oh wow! Does that work counter-effectively these days or what?
Except for US-soldies, I mean.
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
I doubt there's any country that doesn't put local laws above international treaties.
I find it highly unnerving that the country that claims to be the world's foremost democracy holds democratic ideals in such low regard.
Democracy is one man, one vote. If some despotic dictator has an opinion, that doesn't mean we should listen to him.
If the majority of countries decides one thing, why does the US so often do the ex
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
You really don't know us that well, do ya? The American people are not really that gung ho on free trade. Corporations and politicians are, but they are hardly representative of the people today. The only reason the US promotes free trade despite the fact that American's don't love it is because we have a two party system, and now both parties push free trade.
Clinton, from the party that claimed to represent the primary opponents o
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
I consider the UN essential so long as WW III is possible. But that doesn't meant that WW III wou
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
That is because, to most people inside those borders, the other people REALLY DO NOT MATTER. We never have any interaction with you, so we don't care what you do. Just like what we do inside our borders really doesn't matter to you, unless you choose to get upset by it.
It helps that you have a different perspective: it's almost trivial for you to go to another count
Re:Close but no cigar... (Score:2)
Assuming they don't violate the Constitution. AFAICT (IANACL -- I am not a constitutional lawyer), this particular clause was intended to make treaties coequal to federal law, but the Constitution trumps.
If a treaty violates the US Constitution, then the US CAN NOT RATIFY IT.
OK, it can ratify it, but the courts can make the government withdraw such ratification.
Re:Close but no cigar... (Score:2)
Yes. The problem is twofold:
Re:Close but no cigar... (Score:2)
The federal constitution is always supreme. Under that are federal statutes and treaties, which are on an equal basis, but the most recently passed always controls (just as with any other laws not superior or inferior to one another). Then there's various administrative rules, and so forth, beneath all that.
Re:Close but no cigar... (Score:2)
Clause 2: 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 Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This appears to put the t
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
- I am referring to the US bullying Europe into accepting genetically modified food products, despite the fact that the voters here don't want them, and will not re-elect politicians who agree to this. People will not buy GM products other than General Motors (which is called Vauxhall or Opel here anyway) unless the fact that they are GM is conceale
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
I refer you to the various drug laws and of course the ammendment to the Constitution of the United States which brought about the period known as "Prohibition", not to mention controls on explosives, firearms, and other materials deemed dangerous, and, of course, certain "adult" materials. Consumers get denied the choice to buy certain things all the time.
The above list is by no means inclusive.
Re:I get it now (Score:4, Informative)
In reality, treaties are given equal precedence with federal law (in case of conflict, whichever treaty or law was ratified/passed most recently takes priority).
The Constitution has higher precedence than either treaties or federal law.
The bigger problem is that we've gotten very, very sloppy about enforcing the Constitution as written.
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
There is certainly an explicit (and unconditional) prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" (amendment 8).
Re:I get it now (Score:2)
What the treaty actually says... (Score:5, Informative)
Really this isn't much different from a record company deciding to produce a CD of work so old that it is out of copyright. They would have copyright on the arrangement of bit on the CD, but not on the underlying work. This treaty seems to be an attempt to bring things into line with this, to be honest.
Or alternatively you can take a copy of a Dickens novel and reproduce the words (since they are out of copyright) but you can't simply photocopy a recently printed copy of the novel and distribute that without breaching copyright.
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:2)
However, the issue of books is not a good analogy, as there are usually many editions of anything worth caring about, many of them old enough to no longer be under copyri
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:2)
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:2)
The treaty also gives the broadcaster rights over "fixations" of the broadcast, and their reproduction and retransmission by any means (not just rebroadcasting, but private copying too).
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:3, Informative)
You can take an "ancient" copy (as in one of the original copies) of Dickens' novel and reproduce it yourself. However, a recently printed copy of the same novel can also be reproduced without the printing company having any recourse to your doing so.
The reason is that the work has fallen into the public domain. Anyone can use it as they see fit. This means that anyone can reproduce the work in full or in part but the person
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:2)
That is not true. The processes of editing (if any was done) and typesetting (which was certainly done, for a printed work) both create copyright.
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:2)
The reason these books are so cheap is that there's competition between publishers selling different editions of the same text.
Re:What the treaty actually says... (Score:2)
It depends. In the UK, there's exists a 25 year copyright for the typesetting of a text. In the US, however, no such copyright exists. You have to make creative
This creates an eternal copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
The source material will be lying safely in a safe, somewhere. The owner is not in any way required to give me access to it. This effectively stops my ability to access the public domain work through this route.
Of course, any other copies will now be covered w
Ow my head (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ow my head (Score:2)
Re:Ow my head (Score:2)
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
see if I don't!
Re:Ow my head (Score:2)
All your copyrights are belong to us.
Re:Ow my head (Score:2)
Summary of the treaty (Score:2)
It will be illegal to record a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 8).
It will be illegal to retransmit a broadcast without the broadcaster's permission (article 6).
It will be illegal to distribute or retransmit recordings of a broadcast, including private copying (articles 9-12).
An exclusive "right of communication", broader than copyright, will apply to anything shown in cinemas (article 7)
One question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Peace
#10 should be #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The proposed treaty would grant broadcasters the right to stop the original creators from otherwise distributing their work!
That, mes amis, is WRONG.
Start stockpiling comms gear, folks.... (Score:2, Funny)
This is going to get ugly. A free society needs free information, as Popper elucidated. The neofascists who want control over information flow MUST be stopped. By whatever means necessary, including flaming microwave pulse death.
the UN is teh sux (Score:2, Insightful)
"Article 6 - Right of Retransmission
Article 6 provides broadcasting organizations with an exclusive right to authorize the retransmission by any means of their broadcasts. The phrase "by any means" creates a dangerously broad grant of control over all retransmissions, including rebroadcasting and retransmission by wire, cable, or even over comput
Dose this mean? (Score:2, Interesting)
While UPN owns Star Trek WB dose not own Yugioh. Most brodcasters don't own any of the content they brodcast but liccens it from the actual creators.
As IP law is now the act of creation itself gives you the rights so this dosen't matter if the brodcaster and creater are the same entity but when they are diffrent entitys this could mean a liccens to broudcast becomes a transfer of ownership.
On a side note it's the UNs job to foster peace through out the w
No more TV! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't claim to understand all of this, but it seems to either do nothing or do way to much.
Ok, one view says that you are not fixing the signal, you are fixing the "interpretation" of the signal. The signal itself is modulated EMR.
However, the bad physics aside, this seems to prohibit (or allow Broadcasti
So I cant skip the comercials on my Tivo? (Score:2)
Re:So I cant skip the comercials on my Tivo? (Score:2)
In related news (Score:2)
This chip - unpon receipt of proper proof of payment - will unlock the individual's eyes and ears. This is to protect our investment in the patented design of flowers and birds... So that we can continue to innovate and develop new species for your entertainment.
Thank you very much...
Does anyone else see... (Score:3, Insightful)
The net effect of all these laws and treaties is to eliminate the public domain and force all of us into a pay-per-listen kind of license?
All under the guise of "protecting the musician".
I wonder who is stupid enough to fall for it. I mean, besides congress.
Avoid the UN (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anybody think anything created by any committee of the United Nations would actually have our best interests at heart?
(Mod me Troll is you must, but at least give some good example to back up your opinion.)
Why do broadcasters want this? (Score:3, Insightful)
IP Justice physics (Score:3, Informative)
Background on WIPO (Score:4, Informative)
The WIPO was ratified in the United States to create the DMCA, which you all know and love. The similar EU laws, which are just as bent as the US's DMCA, also came from WIPO.
Now Canada is looking at bringing the WIPO [parl.gc.ca], i.e. their own version of the DMCA, into Canadian copyright law. Terrible idea - visit this site [digital-copyright.ca] if you want to learn more, and exert political pressure to stop this from happening.
Re:So I wonder how they define a "broadcast". (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So I wonder how they define a "broadcast". (Score:2)
Re:So I wonder how they define a "broadcast". (Score:2)
No, now it belongs to me since I just 're-broadcast' what you said. Simple isn't it?
Now, don't quote *this* post, because it's mine, mine, mine, all mine!
Bwahahahahaha...
.... All your thoughts are belong to us.
Re:The Role of the UN (Score:2)
The UN has a number of specialised agencies such as the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) which is ridiculously ineffective. I can see how copyrights on broadcrasting could even perhaps be violating certain human rights.
So does that mean that people will sue WIPO for compromising their human rights through the UNHRC? In my opinion, that would result in an infinite loop of people suing one anoth
The Role of the God in this? (Score:2)
You're saying god sent lawyers to punish humans for our misdeeds?!? Ok, nevermind. It sounds reasonable enough.
Re:The Role of the UN (Score:2)
Everyone thinks we're consumers. But, the plan is for us all to be producers. If they can get us to consume things that aren't worth squat (like broadcasts of the public domain), but prevent us from buying things of real value (like land, mansions, luxury cars, and jets), then we'll still have the illusion of being consumers, while we continue to produce for "the man".
Re:Patent/Copyright of Signals? (Score:2)
I 2nd that (Score:2)
Somebody just plain needs to shut them down and that's all there is too it. I'd really like to know who'se funding them. Perhaps a two pronged atack, go after the people funding them on the one hand, promote new technologies that make copyright enforcement impo