Slashdot Log In
WIPO Creating New IP Rights Over Web Content
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 18, 2007 01:56 PM
from the get-the-rights-right dept.
from the get-the-rights-right dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The WIPO is currently engaged in negotiating a new treaty on digital IP rights, but they're having trouble agreeing on the particulars. Though the world of YouTube and podcasts seems like a place that 'requires' laws, the WIPO seems confused about what to do about it. From the article: 'The proliferation of low cost video cameras and editing software, higher bandwidth cable, satellite and Internet connections, are creating a highly diverse and dynamic environment for creating, distributing, redistributing and remixing information. To this exciting world the UN's specialized agency for intellectual property wants to impose a new legal regime. The problem is, no one here has a clue what the legal regime should look like.' The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it. This would be in addition to any rights normally afforded the distributors. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Real information rights!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only IP right that is real would be the right to copy. The right to copy and use ideas, information, and invention that comes our way freely without fraud or coercion. This right is just like the right to free religion, the right to free speech, or the right to choose our employers rather than to be slaves.
There are also dutys, like the duty to call copyrights and patents what they are: a fraud, a lie, and not a property right. Like the duty to call "piracy" what it is: the boarding of a ship and murdering people and not copying. Like the duty to call them controls rather than incentive or protection. Like the duty to bypass and defy people who try to control our liberties via controlling the information we have or via telling us how we must use it.
Finally, there are other things that are just human nature, like sharing music and information and ideas freely with the world around us.
Lets just face it, the WIPO are WhImPO's and are against free markets and property rights, not for them.
Re:Real information rights!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason is not any hate of foreign countries or trade, but rather that it's a code word for giving more power and money to the ultra rich and powerful by restricting the freedoms and rights (including property rights) of the working class (which includes the middle class).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just "like" the right to free speech, it is the right of free speech.
Little, if any, "speech" is original anyway, its just people copying the ideas of other people. Thus restrictions on certain kinds of copying are de facto restrictions on the freedom of expression.
Whether you agree that such restrictions are v
Posession is 9/10s of the law. (Score:2, Flamebait)
They can stop making the product. If there is enough demand for the product, someone else will step up.
Let the invisible hand take care of this.
Of course, since the USA doesn't actually create anything of value to the rest of the world....save food and media...it's understandable why the government wants to protect the economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, where was the CPU in your computer made?
Re: (Score:2)
If these companies can't figure out a way to protect their 'intellectual property', then tough titty for them!
Oh great, so you think the solution is ultra-hardcore DRM designed to lock up media forever, rather than a liberal copyright system which returns the work to the public domain after a limited period of time? Because that's what the "invisible hand" would come up with if there were no copyright laws.
That's exactly the opposite of the direcftion things should be going in. Be careful what you wish for.
Re:Real information rights!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Arrogance like this just gets me so angry ...
Hypocrite, IP "rights" are the only bogus assertion around here.
... on importing slaves, and then if someone "stole" those slaves by freeing them, then I would say tough shit, that's the punishment you get for imposing false property rights.
Why don't you just way, "well it's OK for the King to choose what people are allowed to say as long as it makes sense and has a rational and moral component". And the appropiate response would be. FU, pull your head out and use the God given brain you were given to take things to their "rational" conclusion.
Parent
Re:Real information rights!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you look at the world without the modern day legal blinders on, yes, you do have a basic natural right to do exactly that. The only thing taking that right away from you is modern legal rules that were designed to give an artificial legal and financial protection the inventor of said invention, idea, etc.
If people were driven to invent for the betterment of the human race rather than their personal financial gain, these artificial restrictions on a basic human right wouldn't exist.
You are making an assertion that it is moral to withhold a lifesaving cure for those who can't afford it. I find that disturbing. There is very little morality in modern IP laws. It's all about profit. I guess it could be moral to you if you are a Ferengi... But back to your "cure" example. It is simply amazing how much government funded (that means TAXPAYER funded) research ends up with privately patented drugs. This is the case with MOST government funded research by the way, such as with NASA, DOD, DOE, etc.
Parent
Re:Real information rights!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Except IP rights were originally not created as an innovation incentive, they were originally a intended to enrich the friends of the crown in exchange for their support (salt monopolies, stationers guild, etc); ie, an alternative taxation system.
Those monopolies were scaled back, but through propaganda campaigns (claiming how 'necessary' they were for 'innovation', or how 'authors' needed to be 'protected') the monopolists managed to at least partially retain their priviliges.
Creative people are driven to invent for the betterment of the human race. Merchants, on the other hand, tend to be driven to find ways to evade competition. Avoiding competition is what the whole IP is, and always has been, about.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No. Most of the money spent by pharmaceuticals goes to marketing, administration and inefficient production. Not even 20% of the revenue goes to R&D.
The actual choice is between MegaChemCorp spending $1 billion developing a drug while wasting $4 billion, and you paying the $5 billion for all of it, or you paying only the $1 billion for the actual drug development, and fewer golf camps and pharmaceutical dinners for health-care execs.
"Pr
Re: (Score:2)
Based on your say so? Hmm.
Some people are driven to invent for the betterment of society, some are driven by the desire for profit, some are driven by the desire to do something cool, etc. Always has been, always will be.
While true, people did that before laws that artificially restricted basic human rights. Now it's just about insane huge piles of cash, not simple "profit."
The choices are not between MegaChemCorp spending $1 billion to develop a drug and you paying for it, or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your assertion that you have some "right" to do whatever you want with someone else's ideas, information, or invention is just that - an assertion. It does not flow from any first principle. In other words, what moral or rational basis do you use to argue that if a company spends e.g. $1 billion dollars developing a cure for some disease that you have the "right" to just steal their formula and start cranking out cheap copies?
That's ok - copyright doesn't flow from any first principle either. It's just a
I dunno bout you but, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So there's no ne
You Can't Own Public Domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Better start paying Cesar royalties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately it's all 'we say it's so, and we're backing it up with physical force' - doesn't matter whether it's crazy or not.
Wait, wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, no, regular copyright laws cover it quite well. Specialized laws are not required. Particularly, the US effort to revive a dead treaty which would allow big corporate entities to rope off bits of the public domain simply becaue they used it is not necessary (and, anyway, something the US could not Constitutionally adhere to since it exceeds, quite clearly, the Constitutional power of the US government as regards IP, since it would extend IP rights to someone who is not the creator of work, and that do not arise because of a relationship with the creator.)
Re: (Score:2)
He [The President ]shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
Public Domain (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean the material is no longer public domain?
I can't imagine that would work... since anyone could go back to the original source material and use that.
Or is this just an attempt to put public proceedings (Senate/Congress sessions for example) into private hands?
Re: (Score:2)
How does that work?
Does this mean the material is no longer public domain?
If I was them I'd be more worried that it means loss of "common carrier" status... meaning that if they now own the content they supply (whether public domain or not) then they are now legally liable for any violation it may cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you could get your hands on a copy some other way, cool.
The interesting thing is if this comes about, will Creative Commons and others modify their licenses to prevent broadcast by entities who claim rights in this way? If so, then will the broadcasters go back to the table to give themselves rights to do s
Was Carl Marx right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Marx may have been wrong about a lot of things, but this wasn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you need the cool, smooth Cream of the Marketplace as applied by the Invisible Hand.
*shudder*
It was Proudhon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does *anyone* have to own this stuff? (Score:5, Interesting)
Previously, if I had wanted lame videos of punk skateboarders doing tricks, angsty teenagers venting their mixed-up feelings, middle-age housewives boody-popping, etc. I would have had to spend countless hours trolling the murky depths and dark recesses of the Internet to find them. Thanks to YouTube, I have a single, convenient place to satisfy my disgusting and perverse needs.
Seriously though, can we please stop trying to create artificial scarcity? We don't really need it; TV shows, movies, and music worth paying for are already scarce enough.
Re:Why does *anyone* have to own this stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial distributors are very well aware of this fact; they've been profiting from it for decades.
The reason for introducing this new 'broadcast right' is so that they can continue to do so as they have been in the face of competition.
Sadly, this is not a new development - this activity has been ongoing for some years. See also: http://www.eff.org/IP/broadcastflag/ [eff.org]
Parent
The problem multiplies exponentially.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The Internet has changed the world in many significant ways, but it has not changed basic human morals, and won't. I see nothing wrong with sharing things with others, and any regulatory body that wants to change that will find me looking for, and finding, other ways to do so.
Copyright and IP law as they currently are implemented
Lets say someone in highschool in Chicago makes some wacky video on their pc, and shares it with friends via CD. There is no way to police this sort of content production.
Now, lets say that they share it with several million of their friends via news groups? Still, not much hope of policing this. Okay, so our content creator now shares it with several million of their friends via YouTube. Suddenly, because of the visibility of the WWW, people think that it should be regulated, scrutinized, and by god, lets punish those evil copyright infringers.
Human behavior has not changed. The thing that changed is that now more people can more quickly see what others are doing. This doesn't mean that there is more infringement necessarily, only that more people can see what they think is infringement.
Regulating the viewing mechanism for that content will not stop its production. Result: This is a broken way to try to fix what was not a problem in the first place.
Additionally, by putting the burden on YouTube, MySpace and others, they are creating a sort of conscripted volunteer police force, which in the end will also fail.
The only way to fix these infringements is to make them legally not infringements. For many of the same reasons that we should not be fighting a war on drugs http://www.leap.org/ [leap.org], we shouldn't be fighting a war on copyright infringement. Those who fight copyright infringements (**AAs) are simply building sandcastles on the beach at low tide.
The UN, or any other body does not have enforcement authority, nor will they, UNLESS they decide to change / repeal the overreaching copyright laws that have to date been enacted.
Re: (Score:2)
What you have said is more or less true, but you unbelievably underestimate the industriousness of humans when they really want something. Trust
Re: (Score:2)
The broadcast treaty part at least has nothing to do with the producers. They can get copyrights now for that. These guys want rights to your work and mine should they broadcast it. (Send it to someone over the net? Say I send you a video of mine with a CC BY-SA license and our ISPs claim you don't have the right to use the video according to the lic
mothballs (Score:5, Funny)
Ill-advised remakes of things that weren't much good in the first place.. you can just smell Hollywood's influence.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't the US be worried about other things? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is the United States wasting what little good will it has around the world with intellectual property rights issues? Why is the destruction of public domain a top priority? I would think that a potentially nuclear Iran, the Iraq war and global terrorism would take up the time of the diplomats. Are government officials being bought off with cash or sexual favors from aspiring actresses? If the air conditioning/ home heating industry lobbied for international regulations that every building in the world would have to be maintained at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius, it would be crazy. I guess public domain now means "Ready to be taken into the possession of a large corporation".
My guess is that government regulators don't understand what's going on. They receive their money/blowjobs from the content industry and do as they are told.
IP is all we produce! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the government has been secretly been taken over by Ferengi disguised as humans. Of course anything that doesn't make a profit is immoral to a Ferengi. But seriously: Paid lobbyists greasing palms. Nothing else needs to be said.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it can compete with the new copyrighted stuff. (One reason at least.)
To me it is one of the reasons they also don't want copyrights to run out, even if they never intend to offer the old works for sale again. They may compete in the market with the new stuff.
all the best,
drew
a place that 'requires' laws (Score:2)
Are people threatening bodily harm? If not, then I can not see a "requirement" for laws at all.
What's wrong with law? (Score:3, Interesting)
UN's specialized agency for intellectual property wants to impose a new legal regime
I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men. If by 'legal regime' the author means a legal structure in which to resolve disputes, I am all for it. After all, disputes will happen and the law should provide a means to deal with them in a civilized and fair manner. By referring to an attempt to codify our values as a regime we indicate that we are no longer willing to participate in this discourse and abdicate any power we might have to influence the outcome in a way beneficial to us. We shouldn't focus on the fact that there will be laws that may limit what we can do when interacting with other people, but should remember that laws have their uses and abuses and we should try to participate in the process. If we don't I guarantee to you that someone will and that their interests will be considered with a weight proportional to the energy and money they invested in the process. As individuals and groups without great political and economic resources we shouldn't turn out backs on the very idea of law, it's all we have.
Re: (Score:2)
I like living in a society ruled by laws as long as the laws are reasonable. Right now the current copyright and IP laws are broken -- they are just not working and the "content industry" keeps trying to "fix" it by passing ever more stringent laws and stronger DRM. Not only is this not working thus far, but is only contributing to the problem. Bad laws undermine the whole system of law and order; just look at Prohibition, the drug war, the 55 mph speed limit in the U.S., and the current copyright wars a
To paraphrase the old saying ... (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what kind of laws you make... (Score:3, Insightful)
People today are able to send incredible amounts of information to each other through ad hoc networks of various kinds, the only way to make any serious impact on that would be to create some sort of totalitarian central sharing system staffed with vast amounts of mpaa/riaa goons and real penalties for end users. Anything else... well, it looks good on paper but what would you do? Throw 60mio people in jail? Even with the rabid sentences in the US, I think it's only about 3%.. 20% would be beyond insane.
Ownership of "public domain" content (Score:2)
FUCK OFF
Did the author even read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
Did the author even read the article, or is his knee twitching after a cursory skim-over?
Anonymous Reader said: The U.S. is also pushing for reviving a 1962 treaty (never ratified) that would give the large cable distributors (like Discovery, Sci-fi, Spike, etc) ownership of even public domain content if they carry it.
The actual article said: One faction in the negotiations wants to revamp provisions in a 1961 treaty (one that the United States and 80 other countries never signed), with new or expanded intellectual property rights for anyone who "broadcasts" third party content.
Yes giving ownership of public domain content would be insane, but from the article I don't see the U.S.A. proposing that (and apparently they didn't like it in 1961 either).
According to http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2007-Janu ary/001971.html [essential.org]
(linked from the article), the U.S.A. is apaprently in favor of the
narrower signal-based treaty that does NOT give exclusive rights to
broadcasters.
Re: (Score:2)
Protection for technological protection measures and exceptions and limitations consistent with international treaties remain critical components for any convention.
So, no, the narrower signal-based treaty doesn't grant exclusive rights to broadcasters, just the right to implement DRM and have it be illegal via this treaty to circumvent said measures. In fact, a copy of the broadcast signal would probably be considered "evidence" that you had deliberately circumvented the DRM. All it takes is one sentence to entirely change the meaning of this document, and clearly it works since you think the Americans have
It's rather odd that anyone sees a need (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the UN, right? (Score:2)
The disconnect between the UN and reality seems wider every day.
Anonymity, we hardly knew ye... (Score:2)
Really, laws regulations and initiatives like this (and this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org]) make it increasingly necessary for the Powers that Be(tm) to think about criminalizing online anonymity altogether, lest the bureaucracy be powerless to enforce their will.
And with so few people who even know they should care about this, who's to stop it? Unless Tor [eff.org] and I2P [i2p.net] get encapsulated within programs that millions of people use (à la Torpark [torrify.com]), well... if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it...
Treaties (Score:2)
What a great way to keep The People out of the process. Also a great way for politicians to deny responsibility. When I become Overlord, expect many more treaties.