Senators Smack Down WIPO Broadcast Treaty 100
Tighthead writes "Two influential US senators want the US to support a pared-down version of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty that is still being negotiated. In a letter sent to the US delegation, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the ranking Republican member, Arlen Specter, expressed their concerns that the Broadcast Treaty 'would needlessly create a new layer of rights that would disrupt United States copyright law.' They instructed the US delegates to work towards a treaty that is 'significantly narrower in scope, one that would provide no more protection than that necessary to protect the signals of broadcasters.' The next meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee will be in June."
I cant believe this.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If that is not the proof all of you need to get a angry mob together to stand in front of the capitol building with torches and pitchforks demanding the heads of these to terrorists I don't know what is.
The fact that these terrorists were ever elected into our government throughly disgusts me.
yes, I am calling them terrorists, they are doing far more harm to the United states than all of the physical terrorists have ever done.
They are talking about the broadcasters rights (Score:3, Insightful)
I swear, you terrorists that don't read the article do more damage to slashdot than all of the physical terrorists have ever done.
Public Domain... (Score:5, Insightful)
That should be the price paid to the public for the licensed, exclusive use of that part of our resource by a private party. They want copyright, fine - just use some private, controlled delivery method.
Re:republican? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Republicans aren't small-government conservatives anymore, at least on the national level. Most of them are big-spending, authoritarian, pro illegal-immigration, Amendment #2-only big-business lackeys. Hmm, take out the second amendment and so are the Democrats.
Don't get me wrong, in the above vs the above plus the people unable to defend themselves against an oppressive government, the first is preferable, but Reagan is firmly dead now. We'll see how Newt does.
Can the courts rule here? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Congress passes a law that encroaches on American's Constitutional rights, the courts can nullify the law by the doctrine of judicial review. Are Americans similarly protected against treaties whose enforcement within our border would violate our Constitutional rights?
If so, does the court get to nullify the whole treaty, or just its local enforcement?
Re:Very poor use of the 'T' word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can the courts rule here? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Public Domain... (Score:2, Insightful)
That should be the price paid to the public for the licensed, exclusive use of that part of our resource by a private party. They want copyright, fine - just use some private, controlled delivery method.
What, then, is the incentive for broadcast? To be sure, some people will do it for the love of broadcasting, or the pleasure of creating something, but who will do the broadcasting? It seems like only funded broadcasts, which have some other motive would be broadcast. For example, someone seeking political influence might be happy to create biased content for free, while underfunded opponents might have difficulty getting their messages out. Would all content by necessity be created by the state?
What happens when someone takes the "private controlled delivery method" and broadcasts that (e.g. buys a DVD then broadcasts it)?
Are satellite communications also public domain? Cell phone calls? Can a broadcaster scramble the signal to prevent unauthorized interception?
And now for going completely off topic... (Score:1, Insightful)
In either case, if our goal was to instill peace, prosperity, and democracy in foreign countries, there are some other nations who could have actually used our help. Somalia, Uganda, Congo... There are war torn countries across the world we mass Genocide is being actively perused and the US is wasting time, resources, and lives on disposing of a has been dictator who was already castrated.
-Rick
Re:Instructed ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why do you prefer 535 tyrants to one? Or someone who has to fool less than 300,000 people to retain power indefinitely vs. a term limited chief executive.
Re:And now for going completely off topic... (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole "Oil for Food" program was a joke as well and certainly eliminated any effect the sanctions had on Saddam and his friends.
So, the floodgates were about to open, one way or another. With Saddam having access to even more cash and no limits on trade and no more monitoring, what do you think would have happened?
This is interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
A republican senator from the USA, is using US copyright law to strike down a worldwide trade treaty brought to WIPO that would give too much power to larger corporations and those with means in a not only easily abused draft but as well as an unethical transfer of rights away from the creators of original works...
I think Hell just froze over O_o