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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship The Internet

'Webcaster's Right' in WIPO Treaty 60

Posted by Zonk from the power-to-the-casters dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Andy Oram examines the new concept of a 'webcaster's right' that major Web portals are trying to introduce through a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty. The treaty would allow Web sites to control the dissemination of content they put up. Using the failed database protection laws as an example, and in the context of the carrier's desire to create a tiered Internet, Andy analyzes this new threat to the public domain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Webcaster's Right' in WIPO Treaty More

'Webcaster's Right' in WIPO Treaty

Comments Filter:

  • This is crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @04:52AM (#14470317) Journal
    There's a new restriction on content waiting in the wings--a "webcaster's right" that allows websites to control the dissemination of content they put up. With this new privilege, they'll be able to prevent retransmission even if the copyright on that content is owned by somebody else--even, in fact, if that content was in the public domain.
    That is as far as I read, because all I could think of is "WTF?"

    Okay, I read a little further
    The proposal tries to indicate that the restriction covers only images and sound, but it's not clear that a line can be drawn between such content and other things, including text.
    Ultimately, my problem with this is that it reeks of the bullshit "harmonization" crap that's been going on in recent years.

    Basically, the U.S. or another country, enacts some stupid/ignorant/restrictive I.P. laws and then everyone else is expected to change their laws so that everyone is in "harmony." This is required by existing treaties/agreements/whatever between gov'ts.

    Except in this case, they're skipping the bullshit stages and are trying to get this pushed through by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    I don't really see how this could ever work.

    /I didn't bother to read Page 2 of TFA. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

    • Re:This is crap (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zotz ( 3951 )
      [Ultimately, my problem with this is that it reeks of the bullshit "harmonization" crap that's been going on in recent years.]

      So, if we can find one country to make all works without a copyright notice, new and existing be treated as copyleft instead of all rights reserved, all the rest will have to do the same to harmonize? Which country would be most likely to listen to this idea?

      all the best,

      drew
      ---
      http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123 [ourmedia.org]
      Tings - speaking of copyleft
      how about a novel
      first draft but still

      • Re:This is crap (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bit01 ( 644603 )

        Don't forget: Every new law, patent and copyrighted item is another opportunity for a lawyer to make money.

        "Harmonization", almost always architected by lawyers, will usually be in the direction of more money and opportunities for them and less money and opportunities for the general population. Copyleft is the opposite of that.

        Real life nomic [nomic.net]; adjust the rules and victory conditions so you win.

        • nomic then.

          But these would be copyrighted items. No change there. Just in the default license.

          Here is the debate.

          All works not carrying a copyright notice should be treated as copyright with a copyleft license and not as copyright with an all rights reserved license.

          This is a win for everyone. Those who want it, can still get all rights reserved simply by attaching a notice to that effect. Those that don't still have their works copyrighted but under a copyleft plan. They still have some money earning poten

          • I agree. I'd take it a lot further but it's a start. I'm not sure how to get to there from here though.

            ---

            The name "Copy Right" is incorrect. It's really "Copy Control Privilege". "Patent" is incorrect. It's really "Idea Control Privilege".

        • Re:This is crap (Score:4, Insightful)

          by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @02:35PM (#14472070) Homepage
          Actually it's the various industries that work in these fields that are the main problem. They want the benefit of artificial monopolies to improve, enhance, and deny to others their positions in the market.

          There are plenty of lawyers who don't like harmonization and who don't like the extremes that we're now burdened with.
          • Hey cpt,

            long time.

            What if we harmonize backwards?

            Find a country to pass a better law and all the rest will have to harmonize. (Wishful thinking, but why not?)

            Still, what honest objections exist for automatic copyleft instead of all rights reserved in the case of no notice being affixed?

            all the best,

            drew
            ---
            http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123 [ourmedia.org]
            "Tings" - a BY-SA novel in first draft.
            • What if we harmonize backwards?

              Find a country to pass a better law and all the rest will have to harmonize. (Wishful thinking, but why not?)

              Meh. Honestly, I think that it's silly to try to make copyright laws uniform worldwide. Each country ought to do what's best for its own people. Their differing circumstances will dictate different legal systems. Some countries will feel best-served by granting more copyrights, both for its own citizens and unilaterally for foreigners. Others will find it in their best
              • "Meh. Honestly, I think that it's silly to try to make copyright laws uniform worldwide."

                I agree, but we have got it. My point is, why does it only ever seem to work in one direction? Is this in the treaties or whatever themselves. Has anyone ever thought of getting more sane laws passed in one of the countries and then calling for harmonization?

                "Second, that countries avoid having copyright systems which so conflict with the systems of other countries that it is impossible for an author to get a copyright
                • My point is, why does it only ever seem to work in one direction?

                  Chiefly because harmonization is seen as a way to force the US and other countries to enact laws (so as to comply with treaty obligations) that they would not want to enact if they were merely proposed normally. The people behind this are wholly uninterested in good copyright law, only expansive copyright law.

                  Would it not be possible to have a copyright in one, copyright in all plan which still only actually gives the differing protections con
                  • "You're basically saying that if an author doesn't provide notice, that they should get some rights of copyright, but not all of them. I don't think that it's sensible to give them any rights if they cannot comply with formalities, and I would require more formalities, frankly. I'm really not that interested in partial steps."

                    I know you don't think it is sensible, but the fact is they already get all I suggest AND more. Why do you think giving more is better than giving less? (Not that you do, but why argue
                    • For digital submission of digital works, it can approach free.

                      A token fee is still useful for the weeding out process. Besides, the PTO uses electronic filings very heavily, and it really hasn't meant much with regard to fees. They're not entirely meant as a way to cover costs.

                      So, you are basically saying no copyright except registered copyright. Deposit and pay a fee. Do you happen to know when such a system was last in place in the US?

                      1977. Formalities were further reduced with laws in 1989 and 1998. So t
                    • "How could it be? If your desire is to create art for art's sake, and you don't care about money, then a copyright will not incentivize you, and lack of a copyright will not disincentivize you."

                      I respectfully submit that you do not know what will and will not be an incentive or disincentive for me. It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so, espe
                    • It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so,

                      That seems odd to me, and rather childish. I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can. Given that I have no problem with people exploiting a work for its full value (it's just as silly to let a profitable work languish as it is to let fruit rot on the
                    • "That seems odd to me, and rather childish."

                      Please, let's not take this into name calling and related fields.

                      "I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can."

                      I think you misread what I said again. I have no problem with other people making money from my work even if I don't. What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.

                      "A
                    • What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.

                      Let's back up here:

                      First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work. For example, if I make a movie based on a popular public domain fairy tale, such as Snow White, I cannot prevent third parties from also making movies based on that story. Only the new contributions I've made are protectable
                    • "First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work."

                      Understood. But it is really not this simple from a layman's point of view. I keep bringing up the case of "Fake Books" this have public domain songs in them and yet claim a copyright on the individual songs without indicating what they are claiming a copyright on.

                      "Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it."

                      Forget Alice, drew may very well not be
                    • Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind.

                      That's still an economic benefit. Non-economic benefits would be things such as fame, or creating art for art's sake, or creating art and exploiting it economically not in a way dependant on copyrights. This latter would include artists who might make a piece where the value is in the copy, rather than the work, or where the value is in that

          • Actually it's the various industries that work in these fields that are the main problem. They want the benefit of artificial monopolies to improve, enhance, and deny to others their positions in the market.

            Well, as they say the responsibility is joint and several. Just because the lawyers are being paid to do their job doesn't mean they're not partially responsible. They're the ones giving these options to the industries involved and they're the ones supplying the expertese which makes it possible.

            T

    • Basically, the U.S. or another country, enacts some stupid/ignorant/restrictive I.P. laws and then everyone else is expected to change their laws so that everyone is in "harmony."

      Actually the idea is that there exists (in some countries) a "broadcaster's bill of rights" which grants copyright like rights to the company which broadcasts someone else's content. The "harmoney" is to harmonize the internet with this old-school, air-waves, one-way broadcast model.

  • 2 Tiered internet (Score:4, Funny)

    by Freaky Spook ( 811861 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @05:01AM (#14470334)
    This sounds great!! All of the useless images & content will be copyrighted in one tier, leaving the public domain once again empty for geeks to share their star trek fan scripts with each other.

    We are going to have a geek Renaissance. I think i should move back into my mum's basement.

  • Dubious about bittorrent death claims (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @05:04AM (#14470339) Journal
    I'm rather dubious about the claims in the article concerning bittorrent. It claimed that this "webcasters right" would kill bittorrent, public domain and caching (unless a cache allowed clause was included). I can't see how this would be possible. The public domain difficulties are correct, in that if I put up a piece of The Time Machine on my website, no-one would be able to (legally anyway) place my exact copy on their own website. That's fair enough.

    But it then goes on to say that bit torrent as we know it wouldn't be able to exist under this new law (treaty?). I don't see how that's possible, due to the fact that by placing creating a bittorrent seed for an item, you're giving permission to use that seed for anyone. I can't currently grab any old item willy nilly and place create a bittorrent seed of it, why would that be any different under this law? The only difficulties for bittorrent would be public domain stuff. But that's like saying this webcasters right will kill off HTML.
    • I don't understand why you think it is "fair enough" that you would have any rights to public domain material that you put on your website, beyond normal copyright to the "work as a whole". You certainly don't have copyright rights to the snippet you placed on your website. You would have copyright to the collage you create of various public domain materials, and no one should copy enough of it that they would violate your copyright to the material you created. This doesn't apply, via copyright, to the p
      • I don't understand why you think it is "fair enough" that you would have any rights to public domain material that you put on your website

        The second I hit submit I realised my "fair enough" comment was ambiguous and would be interpretted that way. I meant "fair enough, that's a valid complaint."
    • The model for popdcasting ('net delivery for content) is a private communication between a private individual entity (the podcatcher) and another (the podcaster.)

      This more or less priviledged and protected by common carrier rules of law.

      The way the transmission/transaction and state machine runs is:

      a) material is recorded/produced and uploaded to a server
      b) receive a request for material [repeat once per podcatcher]
      c) send a copy of the from the server to the catcher
      (a smart catcher ca

  • IP rights on comments from other people? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CCFreak2K ( 930973 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @05:09AM (#14470346) Homepage Journal
    In all seriousness, what does this mean for people who post comments on, per se, blogs? Am I now unable to use my own comment in any other place?
    • With this new privilege, they'll be able to prevent retransmission even if the copyright on that content is owned by somebody else--even, in fact, if that content was in the public domain.

      Now, IANAL, but I think you might be right. Basically, Slashdot could legally prevent me from writing my comment on another site having a similar discussion?
      • It sounds like you and slashdot would both have to agree before a copy from slashdot of your post could be used elsewhere, under this WIPO act. However, if you use a text editor, and keep a copy on your hard drive, and cut and paste from your hard drive into slashdot, then slashdot would have no rights over what you do with the copy on your hard drive. Crazy?
    • They are starting with audio and images, so in its current incarnation your text wouldn't yet partially belong to slashdot (but in version 2.0, who knows?) What this means is that if you post a picture of your cat somewhere, and lose the original, you can't just copy the online image without permission from whoever is "broadcasting" little fluffy to the world. How the hell would they know, though? Are they going to watermark this material?

    • what does this mean for people who post comments on, per se, blogs? Am I now unable to use my own comment in any other place?

      How about resumes ? If I add my resume to monster would I be prevented from posting the exact same one to Yahoo ?

  • The Freedom of Speach Threat is Horrific (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bo Vandenberg ( 247590 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @05:44AM (#14470396)
    So if someone witnesses a terrible act and gets proof and pictures they can be silenced by this nameless pressure on thier ISP.

    The vested interests don't even need to defend their assertions to the copyright holder of the image. All they need to do is force the ISP to assert these content rights.

    Rather than forcing a dictator into the open to confront a news blog. That dictator might simply convince\bribe\threaten the ISP to pull the plug - just because. No information for the press. No Bigwig denies and has to go to court for injunction. Just the almighty dollar making it hard for Joe Blow ISP to stay in business unless he toes the line.

    I bet ISPs would hate that sort of pressure.

    There is a reason they call it 'Hosting' not broadcasting. ISP's should be responsible for their network not its content. They are Service providers not Content providers.

    bv
  • I don't quite understand what is going on here.

    As far as I know, the material in a broadcast(a concept which now is extended to the internet) is copyrighted, so you need a license anyway to retransmit it. There are limits to this right, as depending on your method of transmission, the content gets pushed i.e. broadcasted to tons of places. As far as I am concerned this includes the right to use deep links as long as the content linked to can stand by itself, and several courts have agreed to this concept(al
    • "Currently, neither broadcasts nor websites do enter the public domain,"...It is (now) only copyright that prevents someone from recording and distributing a broadcast. When the copyright expires on the broadcast, why doesn't it go into the public domain? How this is different is that you not only have to get the owner of the copyright's permission, you also have to get permission from the broadcaster, who would be extended rights equal to copyright. This is *not* rights attributed to "creation", but rat
    • The core is institutional interests of WIPO. They want urgently want something to codify.

    • . . .when every Joe and his Mom are using it,

      There will be no need for VoIP services, whose only raison d'etre is being able to tap into the POTS system.

      Juat about any half baked geek can write a computer to computer VoIP program, and I think about half of them have already. A fair number of those know how to imbed the program into a dedicated computing device. It's a software issue.

      This is what the panties of the telcos are all tied up in knots over. On the internet a bit is a bit is a bit is a bit is a. .

    • Much of the material broadcast is copyrighted and would not really be affected by "webcaster's rights" since it could not be redistributed without the copyright holder's permission. However, there are materials that are not copyrighted that would be affected. One category consists of material whose copyright has expired. Suppose that somebody webcasts an old movie, one whose copyright has expired. At present, you can redistribute it since the only restriction is copyright and there isn't any anymore. If we

  • Think of the bright side. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zotz ( 3951 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @06:47AM (#14470503) Homepage Journal
    This could kill off the big portals who try to pull this stunt.

    This could give a big advantage to a big portal who pulls this stunt but only asserts a copyleft instead of an all rights reserved.

    This could give an even bigger advantage to those portals that don't try to pull this stunt at all.

    Besides all of this, where is this hugh supply of public domain sound and video content that would make such a play worthwhile?

    all the best,

    drew
    ---
    http://www.ourmedia.org/node/111123 [ourmedia.org]
    "Tings" - try this "copyleft" type novel on for size
    Warning! Danger! - first draft and temporal black hole.

  • Executive summary? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Qrlx ( 258924 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @07:30AM (#14470588) Homepage Journal
    Please, someone who understans the WIPO layer of the ISO/OSI model, boil this down for me:

    Does this mean I have to start paying for pr0n?

  • Tightens the Noose on P2P and Free Speech Suffers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xoip ( 920266 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:27AM (#14470712) Homepage
    Looks like this has been dreamed up so that there is another legal tool to go after P2P because you are not talking about the right to copy material for personal use. Now you just won't be able to broadcast/publish/share any information that was generated by someone else.
  • You could now sue any Radio Station, Media outlet who snarf's stuff and puts it on their site without paying for it.
  • Any law which gives someone other than the copyright holders any power to control distribution is lame, broken and flawed.

    Its the same with the laws that were proposed that basicly give the TV channels the power to decide what copy control flags to add to content instead of the copyright holder having that right.

    It is up to the copyright holder to decide what distribution licence to apply to any material, including webcasts.

    What I want to know is, why do the web portals want this power anyway? And, also, wh

  • We're using lawyers and the police (Score:4, Funny)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @10:50AM (#14471149) Homepage
    just like the Taliban used bands of roving youths in trucks and violence to enforce the anti-music fatwah. (If it brought anybody any pleasure, mullah Omar would issue a fatwah against it in a second...)

    They were more effective. Afghanistan was a much quieter place than before or since.

    If you're going to repress something, use the appropriate mechanism.

    We need roving bands of Amish youth going around the country terrorising all users of technology.

  • EFF version (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    At the bottom of this piece is a link to the EFF cliff notes version, it is more understandable for some perhaps:

    http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/ [eff.org]

    It's pretty bogus, think **AA wet dream legislation, now add in the "blessed packets" nonsense that the major telcos want. Not only could the middle men skimmers ownzor their stuff, they could ownzor YOUR stuff as soon as they broadcast it! It would kill news blogging, VOIP except for the carriers versions, any sort of home tivo like action, commerci

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close