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."
Come on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having debates on U.S. Policy is sooo pre-2001. Try again in January 2009...
Catch 22 works for me (Score:3, Insightful)
So who's the broadcaster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come on... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just US (Score:1, Insightful)
The summary is a bit misleading. Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.
You're missing the whole point... (Score:5, Insightful)
It helps distract from the fact that the people of our country have no say of their own...
Understanding the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the whole point... (Score:5, Insightful)
greed... (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's the scam (Score:5, Insightful)
Ka-ching!
What I want to know.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people I know agree that copyright is messed up, and this proposal just makes the situation even more complicated.
From TFA: "rights have to be of limited duration". So, why is it that as a nation, we have not had any noticeable impact on the situation in our country? Do we really want to have copyright limited to a fixed duration again? Do we really want to have more freedom in obtaining, sharing, distributing content and ideas? Then why isn't that happening on a larger scale?
Things such as the GPL, Creative Commons type of licensing, etc. seem like a step in the right direction, but clearly even they have limitations. Why can't the public seem to get amendments that seem to work more in its favor (instead of in the favor of organizations, companies, etc.) on the table and then signed into law? Reasons other than capitalism, I mean...
SixD
Re:Come on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the scam (Score:3, Insightful)
People who know more about this than I, is this accurate?
Re:Not just US (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the US is pushing for this new IP concept, but it's through WIPO, so it's not intended solely for the US.
Of course they are doing it this way. WIPO isn't accountable to the USA people in the same way the USA government is supposed to be, so it's a lot easier to ram it through WIPO so that it's legally binding for the USA than to make things happen in the USA first.
This is just a way of circumventing democracy.
Re:Our country... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe if we translate the Consitution (and all political material) into Spanish we wont have this problem in the future. Reading it in the original English is such a faux pas, anyways.
But seriously - how many students in America's high schools (or even colleges) do you think have actually read and understood the Constitution? In Southern California, we happily graduate anyone who can't read/write English from our high schools. In twenty years (probably less) this problem will be significantly worse.
It seems that the only freedom anyone knows about these days is the freedom of speech...as long as your speech doesn't offend anyone, of course.
Back door to perpetual copyrights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if simply increasing the turnout would help. If 80% of the people voted, but continued to blindly vote along party lines without bothering to educate themselves about the candidates, I don't think the result would be significantly different. Conversely, if the turnout stayed at 30%, but those who voted were better informed, I think we'd see real change.
What I'd like to see is ballots that don't list any party affiliations, just names. You could still vote a "party ticket" if you wanted to, but you'd have to do at least enough research into your party to know their candidates' names.
As a musician, my response is... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I wrote, performed and recorded the material, then *I alone* (or in partnership with other musicians who contributed to these works) get to decide how the material is to be licensed. If I release something under a creative commons license (as I have), then it is free (as in "speech") for others to use, *PERIOD*.
While I might be willing to sign over rights to my creative works to a publisher so that my works can be distributed, there's no way I would be willing to sign a contract that assigns the rights to my creative works to the broadcaster.
You illustrate why its stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our country... (Score:3, Insightful)
Newspaper
TV/Radio
Internet
Now rules have come along lately and changed ownership rules for the first two, and lo-and-behold net neutrality could stand to threaten the third.
Its kinda like the education system in this country - if all kids know are facts and not how to engage in logic, reason and critical thinking, what chance do they have? They'll just believe whatever their preferred party tells them and assume that the other party is wrong without listening to the other side and thinking about why they say that - is there some valid reasons or are they just batshitinsane?
For us geeks, did you know you can subscribe to RSS feeds [washingtonpost.com] for your elected officials to see what votes they have made lately?
Re:Here's the scam (Score:3, Insightful)