Google Pushes Back Against US Copyright Treaty 233
Hugh Pickens writes "Internet companies led by Google joined groups representing Web users to challenge the Bush administration's bid to toughen international enforcement against copyright pirates. The companies said the US courts and Congress are still working out the correct balance between protecting copyrights and the free exchange of information on the Web and a treaty could be counterproductive. 'There's this assumption that what is good for Disney is what's good for America, but that's an oversimplification,' said Jonathan Band, an intellectual property lawyer representing libraries and high-tech companies. 'There's also what's good for Yahoo and Google.' The US, Japan, Canada and other nations said last year that they would begin negotiations on an agreement aimed at cracking down on counterfeiting of such goods as watches and pharmaceuticals, and the piracy of copyrighted materials, such as software and music recordings. A leaked draft of the deal showed that the treaty could force Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders."
WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
"There's this assumption that what is good for Disney is what's good for America, but that's an oversimplification," said Jonathan Band, an intellectual property lawyer representing libraries and high-tech companies. "There's also what's good for Yahoo and Google."
What about what's good for PEOPLE????!!!!
This treaty is being done behind closed doors... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all the information I need.
They know it won't get passed if it's done publicly.
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind the quote was brief and may have been taken out of context. He may have just been talking about the motivation of the pro-buisiness lobbyists.
Re:Disney, Google and Yahoo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disney, Google and Yahoo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that supposed to imply that what's good for the economy is good for Ameria? Where does that leave its citizens?
He may have been talking about international copyright violations. International in relation to american copyrights. So presumably, americans would not be included in that because they're not international, they're nationals falling under national copyright.
His interests wouldn't be in copyrights held by people or groups in other countries enforcing their copyrights on american pirates. It's something that would of course be a part of any treaty, but the quote is blurby, maybe he adresses it more later on but it didn't make it into the article.
Anyway, I think the point of his statment was about how american companies enforce their copyrights overseas and was looking at it from a buisness standpoint. American citizens weren't mentioned because that wasn't what he was talking about maybe?
Re:WTF?! (Score:2, Insightful)
What about what's good for PEOPLE????!!!!
Their statement...
but that's an oversimplification
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had modpoints, you'd get +1 Funny from me.
If Democracy actually gave power to the people, it would have been abolished a long time ago.
Re:WTF?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Disney, Google and Yahoo? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, its supposed to imply that there are powerful interests supporting the side of less draconian copyright laws offsetting those supporting more draconian laws; its speaking, with a very thin covering of "common interest", to narrowly self-interested politicians that only look to where powerful interests are in the language they understand.
If you aren't that kind of politician, they were talking past you, not to you.
Vote with your wallets... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You submit a couple hundred grand in financing to your representative, then you'll have a voice too.
Re:WTF?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Already way off balance (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct balance would cut copyrights back to 14 years, require disclosure of source code to receive copyright on software, ban business method patents, and ban the use of technologies that prevent a work from entering the public domain. The government is going the opposite direction it should if it's interesting in establishing a proper balance.
Re:Many countries have happily ignored... (Score:4, Insightful)
To play MAFIAA's advocate, America is more and more producing ideas rather than tangible goods. If we want to maintain our trade surplus* we need to protect the value of what we produce. Of course, I don't agree with HOW we're doing it, but I can at least see the reasoning. Imagine if piracy actually hurt the producers, this would be an issue.
*by which I mean prevent further increase to the trade deficit.
Re:Vote with your wallets... (Score:3, Insightful)
The proble mis when they have the right to affect your rights even if you don't use their products. Like the iPod searching border guards we're all afraid ACTA might create.
Re:One of the few bright spots of DMCA... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, if you define "bright" as "not completely black, but still 99% without any light"
The safe-harbor provisions are still stacked 100% in favour of big-media, and against ISPs and websites (to say nothing of the American people, whom (according to the constitution) copyright is *supposed* to benefit.)
I think you meant, required to benefit. That's why it's in the Constitution. That's why all such laws are completely and irrevocably unConstitutional.
... can any lawyers out there enlighten us as to how the Constitution can be overridden in the case of treaties with other countries?
Treaties now
Re:WTF?! (Score:2, Insightful)
If Democracy actually gave power to the people, it would have been abolished a long time ago.
Abolished by whom? We've gotten to the place we're at today, not because a bunch of evil overlords forced us into it, but because the vast majority of citizens would rather watch TV than pay attention to what their government is doing.
Had "they" tried to abolish democracy a hundred years ago there would have been a revolution. Today there would just be a bunch of bitching on the blogs... and /. of course.
--
I'm a glass half full kind of guy
Re:Three Strikes, you're out (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why do we have these ideas that corporations must be treated in some discriminatory fashion?"
Corporations can not be put in prison.
Corporations can not die.
Re:Many countries have happily ignored... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point was that patents benefit rich, developed countries. Ignoring patents and copyright benefits poor countries (who, by the way, rarely have unions, pensions, or all that other first-world stuff you mentioned).
The World Bank and IMF have made up a fairy tale that the developed countries of the world became rich thanks to free trade and patents, which is crap. They became rich thanks to trade barriers, tariffs and turning a blind eye.
Re:This treaty is being done behind closed doors.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can pass their little secret treaties, but how long and how seriously do they think people who are not privy to these secret meetings will honor these treaties?
If our rights as common people are being so openly snubbed, then this means the end of the copyright, because no one is going to respect it.
This is already happening, but I am surprised these copyright idiots don't see that what they are doing, these secret meetings and taking into consideration only "powerful" interests is destroying what they want to accomplish. They forget that without people getting on board of this train it is going nowhere fast.
Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that is numbers.
Even statisticians say you need more than a few hundred to get a good sample, and I know I certainly don't want to be represented by one random person in my state (they are likely to be as radical as me, but in a different direction).
I agree that in principal it would be better, certainly making it so being conniving was not a benefit, and probably be harder to rig too (we have already figured out how to keep things fair in the lotto for example). But do we really want thousands of representatives?, there would need to be some kind of hierarchy established, with many simply voting, and a few acting as what we have now. Perhaps that could be random too, with the power of a "bad" choice being the one higher-up from my state being able to be over-ruled by the rest of the more reasonable/radical in my direction.
Once you add the test for competency your are skewing things, and everybody is going to have a different idea of what is needed. Some may say reading, writing, 'rythmatic is enough, others will say a strong understanding of US history, and some will say strong understanding of international affairs, and history.
I do thing that modern politicians have shown themselves to not be the responsible elder states-men that the founding fathers envisioned (with the short term "dangerous" representatives being a threat that could only be checked by the long term senators), and term limits are needed, and probably senate terms shorter. I will take populist pandering over corporate/union whoring for contributions any day.
Re:Many countries have happily ignored... (Score:2, Insightful)
The politicians have deliberately forsaken our manufacturing base.
This does not, however, mean we should be enforcing some perverse imaginary property in an attempt to maintain economic dominance.
What we should be doing is abandoning the policies which are killing our manufacturing sector (subsidies, protectionism, bailouts, FTA's) and encouraging a resurgence.
This policy of intellectual property as some kind of export generally depends upon us maintaining a military which is onerously expensive. This is not something which can be perpetually maintained.
Re:Many countries have happily ignored... (Score:3, Insightful)
The politicians have deliberately forsaken our manufacturing base.
This does not, however, mean we should be enforcing some perverse imaginary property in an attempt to maintain economic dominance.
What we should be doing is abandoning the policies which are killing our manufacturing sector (subsidies, protectionism, bailouts, FTA's) and encouraging a resurgence.
This policy of intellectual property as some kind of export generally depends upon us maintaining a military which is onerously expensive. This is not something which can be perpetually maintained.
sorry, "i don't agree" does not equate to flamebait. I have karma to burn so i'll requote it, this time with the bonus active.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Took long enough ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)
People in power SHOULD be rich. Say what you want but rich people are less prone to lobbying and bribery. They also want to protect their possessions, so they are less likely to do something truly stupid.
Yeah, that theory has worked so well in the US......NOT.
This isn't some 3rd world country we are talking about where goverment earn so little that they have to support themselves via bribery. The salaries are good enough to support a family without problem.
You still get gluttony corruption, but that is just as likely to affect rich people because it has little to do with actual need for money and more to do with a want for more.
Re:Voting with your wallets WORKS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I think there are lots of people who would make excellent politicians but they don't want to devote their lives to it. With the system most of us have today (including the US), in order to get enough money to run a campaign you basically have to sell yourself to some corporations. By the time you're elected you're bought and paid for.