Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Media Your Rights Online

WIPO Talks May Portend Sweeping Broacast-Based Copyright 113

An anonymous reader writes "It seems the nasty 'Broadcast Treaty' is rearing its head again in the WIPO talks. This would give a new copyright to what is uncopyrighted or out of copyright material to anyone who broadcasts the material. It essentially re-ups the copyright — not to the original copyright holder, but to the broadcaster, without any contract to the original holder."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Talks May Portend Sweeping Broacast-Based Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • Re:I am confused (Score:5, Informative)

    by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @07:45AM (#36566820) Journal

    What am I missing?

    Billions of dollars and thousands of lobbyists?

  • Re:I am confused (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nursie ( 632944 ) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @07:47AM (#36566838)

    Sorry, your broadcast wasn't on a major network so it doesn't count. Silly citizen thinking this law would apply to you!

    No, you are the target, your actions make you a target for a lawsuit when one of the real people picks up the copyright.

    Yeah, I can't think of a way this law makes any sense either, but then that's been true of a lot of laws in the last decade or so.

  • by Hazel Bergeron ( 2015538 ) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @07:57AM (#36566888) Journal

    Out-of-copyright work was given to Google to scan and in return the BL accepted that Google would have exclusive commercial rights to the scans for a while. It's not quite the same as giving over the copyright on the original works - in theory another organisation arrange a deal with the BL to have physical possession of the works for a while at no cost to make their own copies. Good luck with that, non-profits.

    Incidentally, the BL estimated the cost of the work for them would have been £6 million, which is not very much by the standards of this sort of work and certainly not a figure on the publications' cultural value. This is just another government gift to a large corporation - indeed, previous meetings and announcements suggest Cameron has a bit of a hard-on for Google.

  • by mfnickster ( 182520 ) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @08:15AM (#36566998)

    Not originally, at least in the US. The justification for copyrights and patents in the Constitution was "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."

    The authors and inventors may also be the distributors, but that's certainly not a requirement. Notice it doesn't say "publishers and marketers."

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons