New IP Treaty Looming? 279
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article by James Boyle in the Financial Times, the United States is helping push a Treaty that would create an entirely new type of intellectual property right in the US, in addition to copyright, covering anything that is broadcast or webcast. (Regardless of whether the work was in the public domain, Creative Commons Licensed etc, the broadcaster would control any copies made from the broadcast for 50 years.) Boyle argues that this is dumb, unconstitutional, and anyway should be debated domestically first."
Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Well written article. This sounds like a poor idea
Other links (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Informative)
There is a significant problem of lack of choice though, and on NPR this morning was an interesting comment that re-districting has meant many seats are safe Republican or safe Democrat seats -- which leads the holders to be far right or far left (sine the only competition is from people in the same party).
Already in Europe (Score:4, Informative)
It seems that whoever is first to broadcast a copyrighted work is granted a right, independently of the copyright holder, to enjoin redistribution of that work. In other words, the broadcaster gets right of first refusal for any material they were ever first to broadcast.
It's not at all clear why they got this right in the first place (incentive to broadcast material they didn't produce themselves?), but today it's largely seen as highly anachronistic, and often described in derisive terms.
Schwab
Re:Not unconstitutional (Score:3, Informative)
In retrospect, the Old Right bloc may have gotten a few things right after all; unfortunately not quite enough people saw it that way at the time.
Re:Repackaged content deserves copyright?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I have not done an in-depth study of the constitution either, that was just how I was taught about it in school.
Of course, just because something isn't constitution doesn't mean it won't happen anyways.Re:Here's the scam (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the short, short version. The Constitution discusses treaties in its "supremacy clause [wikipedia.org]," Now, this seems pretty clear to me that the order of precedence is Constitution->Laws->Treaties, but for some reason, others have disagreed.
The problems all got started in 1918 with Missouri v. Holland [wikipedia.org], where the Congress, seeking to regulate bird hunting (which it doesn't have a clear way in the Constitution to do -- this was before the courts expanded Interstate Commerce to include everything you could possibly imagine), entered into a treaty with the U.K. to regulate bird hunting. Basically, this eventually went up to the USSC, which declared that treaties entered into by the USA overpower States' rights under the 10th Amendment.
This, in time, started to make people rather nervous, since it meant that the executive and legislative branches of government could basically do anything they wanted, if they could enter into a treaty that required it. There were some unsuccessful attempts at revising the Constitution to prevent this, and make it clear that treaties weren't the supreme law of the land, but were rather limited by the Constitution itself: this was the failed Bricker Amendment [wikipedia.org]. I happen to think this would have been a very good idea, and it's a shame it didn't go through.
The establishment of the current situation came with Reid v. Covert [wikipedia.org], where the USSC overturned the conviction of a civilian military dependent by a court martial, saying that a treaty doesn't overpower the Constitution in capital cases. (Why they limited it to capital cases, I have no idea, and one of the justices basically asks this in the opinion.) But basically it was seen as a clarification that you can't have treaties that blatantly violate the Constitution. (It also has interesting bearing on the current situation vis a vis Gitmo detainees and the WoT, but that's another story.)
There may have been more cases since then, but that's as far as I've read them. Basically, treaties right now have some effect which is greater than conventional Federal laws (or at least not bound by the traditional powers of Congress, apparently), but less than the Constitution. So it would still be possible, were the Court so inclined, for them to strike down a very bad WIPO treaty on Constitutional grounds. Whether you think the USSC would actually do that, in its current state and incarnation...well, I'll leave that for another comment.
Re:Here's the scam (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? - Nope. (Score:2, Informative)
Now granted, the Article I power belongs to Congress, and treaties are made by the President and only one house of the Congress, but the President's ability to make treaties (and thus the federal government's ability to make treaties, because only the executive branch has the power to make the agreement in the first place) would be meaningless if there wasn't some overlap with the broader legislative domain of the Congress. Think about it- the US is already a party to scads of treaties in the commerce and economic areas (which are traditionally in Congress' domain). Including treaties governing copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Informative)