RSS
Pretty Much Everyone Who's Not A Broadcaster Comes Out Against Broadcast Treaty
from the make-it-go-away dept
Last week, we wrote about the return of the Broadcast Treaty, a ridiculous and unnecessary treaty being debated (for the nth time) at WIPO, which would allow broadcasters to claim rights as middlemen, over things they have no claim to, including public domain works, just for broadcasting them. That story got a lot of attention this past weekend (thank you Slashdot, Reddit and Instapundit, who all mentioned our story). It even got Mythbusters' Adam Savage to weigh in and declare that he hated the idea. He's not alone.
While WIPO and the Broadcast Treaty supporters continue to pretend that there's broad support for such a treaty, reality says otherwise. A rather broad coalition of organizations that would be severely impacted by this have come out against the Broadcast Treaty. You can see the full document below, but among those who signed on are the American Television Alliance, the American Cable Association, Creative Commons, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, CTIA, EFF, Public Knowledge, TiVo, the Library Copyright Alliance and even Time Warner Cable (among many others). Basically, anyone and everyone who is not a broadcaster is against this. So why is it even on the table again?
While WIPO and the Broadcast Treaty supporters continue to pretend that there's broad support for such a treaty, reality says otherwise. A rather broad coalition of organizations that would be severely impacted by this have come out against the Broadcast Treaty. You can see the full document below, but among those who signed on are the American Television Alliance, the American Cable Association, Creative Commons, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, CTIA, EFF, Public Knowledge, TiVo, the Library Copyright Alliance and even Time Warner Cable (among many others). Basically, anyone and everyone who is not a broadcaster is against this. So why is it even on the table again?
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why it's on the table
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why it's on the table
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why it's on the table
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Deliberate Timewasting By WIPO
Timewasting is a well-known management error, also known as being a "side issue specialist".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Disney?
1 - Get broadcast treaty
2 - Broadcast "Steamboat Willie", while it's still in it's copyright / control period (remember: Disney owns TV stations) - so any time before 2023. For added kicks, broadcast at 3:30 in the morning. Get extra 50 years broadcast protection.
3. Wait 49 years, repeat step 2
Bingo! Perpetual "copyright", and you don't have to go crying to / bribing politicians to extend it as you have to at the moment.
(I may have missed something, so let me know if I have.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I dunno, these broadcasters might be on to something.
I am thinking of proposing The Gwiz Midas Treaty, where basically anything I touch becomes mine.
I am not sure, but it's possible that there might be some resistance from everyone who is not me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Let's make it easy
What could be more fair?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's make it easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The property game
*Claims subject to future retroactive term extensions. See your local industry trade group for details.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Because a broadcasters campaign contribution (see bribe) is just as green (or whatever color your country's currency is) as all the others.
Also, we put Joe Biden in the White House.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Because the ones that support it are supporting it with a(insert profain slang for large) of money. But rest assured its not bridery it lobbying (never understood the difference between those two).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
lobbying vs bribery
In most cases, these days, it is simply inefficient bribery. (Inefficient because the bribor spends more money than the bribee gets - money is wasted in the transaction.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disney?
That said, it still a dumb idea. I don't see any particular need add incentives to broadcasters. This is corporate welfare for an industry that doesn't need it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It appears that if the broadcaster has the right to broadcast the material in the first place (through either license or the work being in the public domain), then the broadcaster would then be able to claim copyright on what they broadcast.
If it does work this way, then the MPAA and RIAA should be very much against this treaty.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can also see why TiVo is against this, as it effectively outlaws all recording technologies (if they record "broadcasts" as defined in the treaty).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disney?
They would still sue. You would have to either fold or defend the lawsuit.
Even if you defend, they might still win. They have perpetual copyright. Your copy is, after all, a copy -- even if not recorded from the broadcast.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What this really is about
After all, people with DVR's don't watch advertisements -- a crime of the highest order.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
what this is really about
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This strikes me as somewhat misleading? If ABC broadcasts Jane Eyre, they're not claiming sole rights to Jane Eyre. As the dissenters point out, content is adequately protected already. Broadcasters are saying you can't record ("fix") that particular program or performance and use it for your own purposes, without express permission. And that's where the most serious dangers lie.
Permission presumably includes not only commanding fees for use, but controlling how/when/where you show or mount such video. What's really pernicious is that the Treaty would assign legal liabilities to anyone who "facilitates" such recordings and/or distribution. This would essentially give broadcasters de facto control over the technology of any device which could conceivably be used to record a broadcast -- or play it. We're ultimately talking about both hardware and software. Your fast forward button suddenly won't work when you try to skip the advertising; YouTube will be tamed; your cell phone will be disabled, if you try to record a live concert being filmed for commercial use.
It's safe to say that broadcasters won't be the only ones who would be exceedingly interested in such controls! Broadcasters are after your money, but it's Big Brothers of every ilk who are standing atop the slippery slope of the precedent this Treaty would establish.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment