RSS
The Return Of The Broadcast Treaty
from the zombie-that-never-dies dept
Not this again. For the better part of a decade, broadcasters have made efforts to create a "broadcast treaty" which would grant broadcasters extra special rights above and beyond copyright. Under such a rule, a broadcaster who put on public domain material could then claim a "broadcast right" to the content and lock it up. It doesn't make any sense, and thankfully, every time it's been introduced it's ended up not getting approval. Honestly, I'd thought this was one issue that had finally died... but I should never underestimate those who seek greater intellectual property rights. Apparently, folks at WIPO are once again trying for a Broadcast Treaty. Thankfully, opposition is already organizing:
The advocates of a broadcasting treaty have not shown that there is an problem in the area of piracy that cannot be addressed by existing laws on copyright or theft of service. The treaty is in essence an attempt by corporate broadcasting entities to change outcomes of licensing negotiations, by giving the broadcasters a right that they would otherwise have to acquire by contract, in return for something they would give the copyright holders.
[....]
In its most aggressive formulations in terms of rights of casting entities, the treaty would provide up to 50 years or even perpetual exclusive rights in content for which the broadcaster did not create and does not own the copyright. This creates a thicket of permissions that makes it much more difficult to redistribute and reuse content.
25 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Chris Dodd Rewrites Hollywood's History To Pretend That It Came About Because Of IP Laws
- Singapore Creates 'IP Steering Committee' Without A Single Representative For The Public's Interest
- Ridiculous White House Report Pretends Getting Copyrights, Patents & Trademarks Means You Benefit From Them
- Where TPP Goes Beyond ACTA -- And How It Shows Us The Future Of IP Enforcement
- IP Above All Else: WIPO Defies UN Sanctions To Give Computers To North Korea
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Every solution that the entertainment industry comes up with for the symptom that is "piracy" is more extreme laws and more extreme enforcement. These "solutions" will never eradicate "piracy" or make "pirates" want to pay money for over-priced digital commodities.
So-called "piracy" is the consumer and the Market telling the entertainment industry that their business models are not working. The fact that "piracy" thrives long after the death of Napster (and its zombie rebirth as an RIAA-sanctioned suck-fest of a "service") and multitudes of lawsuits against Catholic schoolgirls and dead people and threats of lost internet connections indicates that more and harsher laws and enforcement are not incentive enough to make Joe Twelve-Pack forgo his high fructose corn syrupy combo pack at McDonalds or his $5 Starbucks mocha frappucalories in order to spend too much on digital downloads that makes some music middleman and his lawyer happy in their pants.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Police State
In any case, government-granted monopoly privileges are a bad thing, regardless of the morality, from an economic viewpoint. It's the economy, stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That's what I fear from Google's book project:
Never underestimate greed.
"...I should never underestimate those who seek greater intellectual property rights."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
Google is doing what?
Are you saying that I can not freely use an item in the public domain simply because Google has scanned it?
Oh - I see, you mean after this stupid "treaty" is agreed to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
Um. No. That's not what Google is doing. At all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
i can solve "piracy"
The answer?
The president's book of nuclear codes..after all if every american city is a smoldering radioactive wasteland with bits and pieces of (law-abiding) citizens everywhere then no-one can pirate anything ever again!
The alternative of course (that hollywood has already begun to test out) is to make content of such appallingly low quality that no-one wants to "pirate" it even if you threw a box and label printer at them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
which leads me to
the "wasting your bandwidth" law...wherein anyone downloading anything thats basically a rehash of something released last year (or a gritty reboot) gets 15years hard labor cleaning out the cage they keep Glenn Beck inbetween shows.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Content Rip off.
Thanks,
JB
==
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Everything you learned about intellectual property is wrong
But also, interestingly, it does not increase creativity. Mostly it moves creativity into defending and obtaining patents and copyrights and away from pleasing the consumer.
See Michele Boldrin at econtalk.org on the topic
link.
Think about defeating intellectual property in general rather than this or that bad idea stemming from it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What about Beethoven?
Wow, what license to steal!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Something where you would otherwise in no way be able to claim copyrights.
Not stuff that already is under a license
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If this goes through, I'd love to see a bunch of independent broadcasters, etc, start broadcasting EVERYTHING they can find (why not old shows by THE OTHER broadcasting companies?) and then license it freely to the entire world! :D
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright laws need major revamp
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That's what I fear from Google's book project:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright laws need major revamp
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well a Viacom owned station broadcasted a journalistic story about the Anonymous vs. Scientology fight. Then sent out DMCA Takedown Notices & Copyright Infringement Complaints to anyone who posted the video on their Youtube Accounts. They bitched about anyone who posted the video the time lapse video & the Anonymous Version. Since the broadcasted the video during a News story, they fought for their own imposed rights to any version of the video.
Their claim to copyright affected a few people, including the guy who originally shot, edited & uploaded the original time lapse cloud video. He had to fight with Youtube & Viacom over his rights to his own original work, which he published with a Creative Commons Copyright.
It finally got sorted out, but even without it being legal, they still fought for their imposed rights to the original work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment