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 can't commit to this yet (Score:5, Funny)
-Eric
This is out of his league. (Score:5, Interesting)
The proposed "broadcast copyright" that's being debated by WIPO would be an absolute disaster. It would probably be the most fundamental change in U.S. law since it was first laid down, because it would basically allow for re-copyrighting of a work without any creative input or modification.
Right now, if I take a work and simply reproduce it without any modifications at all, there's no additional copyright added. Thus, a photo-reproduction of an old work, like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, is still public domain. It's only when I start doing something to it, that it becomes a new work, and subject to another 100+ years of protection. What the draft WIPO treaty would change, is that simply by reproducing/transmitting, a new layer of copyright would be created. So if I "broadcasted" the 1911 Encyclopedia to you, suddenly it wouldn't just have the expired 1911 copyright on it, it would also have my 2007 copyright on the "broadcast."
As long as you kept the originals locked away somewhere, so that the only way people could ever witness them was via a "broadcast," and then you didn't allow them to record or store those broadcasts, you could effectively extend copyright forever.
Correction: 2nd pgph, 2nd sentence. (Score:2)
Semi-disaster? (Score:2)
Since we're talking about big pictures, I could see a real "fork" develop
I applaud your sentiment, don't buy it though. (Score:2)
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
Re:I cant believe this.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny (Score:2)
If the air space within my sinuses is not my property....
Then I'm scared.
Stew
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Very poor use of the 'T' word. (Score:2, Offtopic)
While the special interest groups and senators behind this bill are a bunch of greedy bastards, they are hardly using a threat of violence to achieve their goal.
The Bush administration on the other hand has used violence and the continued threat of violence ("fighting over there so we don't have to fight over here") to incre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And now for going completely off topic... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
I could see it going one of 3 ways:
1) Nothing really changes, Saddam gets richer and richer, there is a limited, yet brutal abuse of non-Sunnis. While this situation isn't great, it's a hell of a lot better than many other parts of the world.
2) Saddam starts up a military missile program along with nuclear and chemical warhead research and manufacturing. At which point the UN wo
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist - noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. a magic word of american origin invoked to negate all logic and facts in any argument.
Re: (Score:1)
The non-violent option was to not fund or support either in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the equation:
Problem: Islamic terrorists threaten the US
Goal: Stop Islamic terrorists from threatening the US.
OK, now the question lies in whether or not there is a way to stop islamic terrorists from threatening the US.
The question IS NOT "how do we kick Sadam out of Iraq". In fact, "kick Sadam out of Iraq" is more on the solution end than on the question end.
But there are alternatives other than "kick Sadam out of Iraq".
I am not saying that I disagree that this is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, wait, I forgot - it's Slashdot.
I'll forgive your ignorance, but it's even more disconcerting that the mods apparently just as ignorant.
Here's a clue - this is a *good* thing. If you think you can get an angry mod together to protest that broadcasters should be able to claim copyright on public domain works, then, please, go righ
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Me too! Although more limits on the rights of copyright owners is something unavoidable, the right measure would be to put more limits. The tough choice, after all, must be made by the Senate: more limits or more limits. I for one root for the latter, not for the latter.
republican? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be more accurate to say he's a member of the Republic Party, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 f
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People would. The media won't cover him, though.
I recommend that everybody who "hates" him (having been so convinced by the media) to listen to ten of his podcasts [apple.com], which are about 1:30 each. If you don't have 15 minutes to listen to any presidential candidate, we're on on the same plane.
I do think that somebody does need to buy Newt a book on Game Theory. He'll have 25 br
Re: (Score:2)
err... not on the same plane. Of reality.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The auction is a compromise, and a pretty good one.
For the record I believe firmly that is something is broadcast anyone is allowed to pick it up. You don't encrypt? too bad, so sad. Don't encrypt strong enough? so sad, too bad.
It's the redistribution that needs to be disallowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, that would still be using the public airwaves. One example of private distribution would be via retail sale of DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that corporations are run by people, right?
So If You could broadcast, then so can they.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to quote Rush, it's "any god or government". Sorry to be nit picky...
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, no, that would be illegal. What he's saying is that if you didn't want to give up copyright, you need to own the distribution method also. So, you'd need to sell DVDs or pump the signal out via a cable system that you own every inch of (plus all the ground underneath it, the right-of-ways, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
"So, you'd need to sell DVDs or pump the signal out via a cable system that you own every inch of (plus all the ground underneath it, the right-of-ways, etc.)."
I see, so basically he is saying nobody should get TV, because without a way to get right of way you won't have cable.
And without copyright, you won't have satallite.
So no news, no descovery channel, no sci-fi channel, no sports, no way to advertise your DVDs.
Tha
Not necessarily. (Score:2)
The way TV is traditionally paid for, is that the stations sell advertising time, and then they pay the networks (well, actually the networks themselves sell a lot of advertising directly; the locals only get to sell some of a program's ads), an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's see how many other medium we can destroy by applying your theory.
Thanks. (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Seriously, TV started and grew into a major industry based entirely upon the revenue of advertisements. There's a lot of early TV (and radio) content which is simply unavailable today, either because the technology didn't exist to record it, or because it was wasn't considered worth keeping. It had already been paid for, and generated profit, upon initial broadcast.
Your implied argument lacks merit.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Really? Do you have any data to back that up?
Re: (Score:1)
The exception being the BBC, but even they have already paid for their content before broadcast.
Most broadcasters don't get a profit off the service they provide, they do so indirectly via selling advertising time, and compare this to the number of people who would 'receive' them.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know. Are they?
They are funded at least in part by advertising, but I have never seen any data to suggest that this covers the whole cost. It could very well be that ads pay for 1/3 of the cost, revenue from cable companys' customers another 1/3 the cost, and DVD sales the last 1/3. In that case, msauve's statement that it generated a profit on the initial broadcast would be wrong.
As it is, I have no clue what percentage is paid by each of these things.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
That's an excellent idea! Please let me know when you email your latest novel over Wi-Fi. After all, it's being broadcast over the public airwaves, so I should be entitled to it.
Honestly, did you think about that for more than 2 seconds before you decided to w
Mod up! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You surrender all copyrights to anything you broadcast onto the public's spectrum, but you're free, on narrowly-defined two-way communications bands, to use any form of encryption, encoding, or obfuscation that you want. At the same time, there's no reverse-engineering protection, so no whining if your encryption turns out to be crap.
To be honest, I'd be satisfied with retaining the current copyright structure but just getting rid of the bizarre anti-circumvention provisions, bec
Re: (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, s
Re: (Score:2)
The same as always, advertising revenue. The fact that people were free to record original Seinfeld episodes (which made a profit the first time they were broadcast) doesn't stop them from being resyndicated - there is still a demand, and a profit to be made. Allowing them to redistribute such content because it's in the public domain would do little to change that. People are lazy that way.
"What happens when someone takes the "private controlled delivery metho
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're missing the point. "Public domain" has a specific legal meaning, and the idea of content losing any copyright status simply because it's been sent over a wireless connection is completely idiotic. Put in a way that might resonate with this audience: that would mean that Linux loses all GPL protections if it's downloaded over a Wi-Fi link (or if one of its network hops is via microwave or satellite).
I'm not even particularly pro-copyright, but that's just am
Re: (Score:2)
As are you.
"If the original poster had something else in mind, he should have said so."
I did. It helps to read the comment before replying. I specifically said that this applies to broadcasters who are granted exclusive (protected, licensed) use of some portion of public spectrum. It does not apply to WiFi, which uses spectrum as an unlicensed shared public resource.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance: if you broadcast your SSN over an encrypted WiFi connection, and I hack in to sniff it out, then it's fair game for me? I have been wanting a new TV, so sounds good to me! You should have used better encryption. Or is it different if the entity being defrauded is an individual?
In my opinion, the fantastically stupid part of this is the original idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, because the socialists who were running everything in the 30's declared it so. When are people going to realize that government is the problem, not the solution? Allow true, permanent ownership of bandwidth, defined by reasonable limits on range, interference, etc., and let the market take care of the rest. You may as well declare that land belongs to the people, and see how far that gets you.
Public Soundwaves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, ever hear of anti-noise ordinances?
Re: (Score:2)
(Obvious response: "But that'd violate the First Amendment."
Response to that: "Yes, but don't the controls over radio speech do that too?")
Re: (Score:2)
Speech has a far shorter range than radio. The problems of audio conversations interferring with each other and radio broadcasts interferring with each other are pretty dissimilar.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadcasters already pay to license the airwaves from the public, and they are not usually the copyright holder of the works they broadcast. I don't think copyright holders would permit broadcasters to use their work if the result would be that work entering the Public Domain.
Now, if you want to argue that Copyright should expire and the work should enter the Public Domain after a reas
Re: (Score:2)
No. The current system where you can use it for any personal/private purpose you want, is just fine. Public domain suggests you can resell it to others.
All your method would do is to ensure that nothing good would be broadcast in the clear, and heavy encryption with DRM would be required by the public to listen to the radio,
Instructed ? (Score:2)
Re:Instructed ? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there's a lot of give-and-take, since the Senate must ratify any treaty before it goes into effect. Just like judicial nominations, the Executive Branch needs to consider whether a treaty or nominee will be confirmed before they issue their own stamp of approval.
In essence, these Senators are sending a message to the Executive Department that the treaty faces a tough time in the Senate unless it is narrowed in scope.
FYI, this is how the legislative and executive branches have worked out compromises in all but the most dysfunctional presidencies (Jackson is a notable exception -- the Senate and he couldn't get on the same page at all).
On the flip side, you could ask how the Executive Branch can ask the Senate and House to focus on certain issues, since theoretically they have no input into the functions of those bodies, only a veto power on the output. But it's surprising how much the two branches depend on eachother, and it's only recently that the Executive Branch has held so mouch power that it's been able to dictate actions in the Legislature -- and what we are witnessing here is an example of the pendulum swinging back to more Legislative influence (I hope).
Re: (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: (Score:2)
To your second question... The size of congressional districts are more like 600,000 people.
I'd prefer it if the size of congressional districts were further reduced, down to 150,000 people. This would mean we'd have around 1200 representatives instead of 435, but as I said... 1200 people aren't likely to agree on anything, unless it's actually a good idea.
As to term limits. They're a HORRIBLE idea. When you place term
Re: (Score:2)
Stew
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that is the downside of that proposal, making the senators heads even more inflated and egotistical. Just what we need... a super ego John McCain, as if the gynormous ego he has now isn't already big enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, I don't know, something about dilution of power keeping one moron from doing irrevocable harm?
Very few representatives have to fool fewer than 300,000 people. Reps average 690,000 constituents, Senators 3,000,000. And again, that power is diluted.
IMO, we need representation more along the lines of 50,000 to 1, so that the decision-makers are direc
Re: (Score:1)
The president has vastly more power than any individual senator or congressman as he or she has executive control of dozens of agencies including the military, the power
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.answers.com/instruct [answers.com]
Re: (Score:1)
right... (Score:2)
Thats an understatement.
I don't know (Score:2, Offtopic)
Same goes to "blast." If I wanted to read sensationalist crap, I'd turn on fox. Let's not have any of that here!
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: (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: (Score:2)
Is it ironic or hypocritical... (Score:2)
...that the protection of copyright in this case seeks to keep rights with the creators and away from the distributors? I mean, considering that the rights to most of what is broadcast belong almost exclusively to another level of distributor, and not to the original creators?
Read the article. (Score:1)
The article indicates they don't want _broadcasters_ to have new rights over content.
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
Re:This is interesting, but st.p.d (Score:2)
Too late.
Now, if WIPO decides that US patent law and copyright law - as well as DCMA - have gotten out of hand - that's called justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
One can always dream. And since they don't like the US much nowadays, one has more hope than usual
Just out of curiosity. (Score:2)
Not that I have any particular respect or admiration for either guy; they're both blowhards who are somewhat guaranteed their seats as long as they choose to run. (Like most of the more irritating Senators, including that douche Hollings who basically had his nose up the RIAA/MPAA's collective asses, and that toady Orrin Hatch.)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if I can smack myself in the face with a clue stick and still manage to yell "RTF Summary!" five or six times...