WIPO Broadcast Treaty: Expansive Free Speech Limitations Proposed by U.N.

When the devil finished, Johnny said: "Well you're pretty good ol' son.
"But if you'll sit down in that chair, right there, and let me show you how its done."

Fire on the moun, run boys, run.
The devil's in the house of the risin' sun.
Chicken in the bread pin, pickin' out dough.
"Granny, does your dog bite?"
"No, child, no."

The devil bowed his head because he knew that he'd been beat.
He laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny's feet.
Johnny said: "Devil just come on back if you ever want to try again.
"I told you once, you son of a bitch, I'm the best that's ever been.

I dont understand how this could come to pass. Nobody would respect it and that surely is how a law comes to power... people respect it for being what it is.

Am I wrong? This law seems like total BS. If we dont respect it then what? is ATSNN and ATS in general in trouble?

Is it time to get an out of country server? piratebay.org??

OK Guys, I don't get along very well with my DVD player, let alone anything sophisticated (which may explain my taste in women, but I digress). Let's see if I understand this treaty correctly.

If I create information of any kind, and distribute in in virtually any way, the owners of any medium through which my information passes become the exclusive controllers of the signal they have generated for me, right?

So hypothetically, if I send information from my AOL account to someone elses, AOL was the "webcaster" so they have the exclusive right to reproduce or prohibit the reproduction of that content right?

Which means that hypothetically, if I IM a friend and say my employer is (insert "colorful metaphors" here) then AOL has every right to forward that to my boss?

OR on the flip side of that, if I send an email to tip off a news station about some given event, my email service has the right to deny the news station use of that tip, either by not delivering it or by informing them that they will be penalized under the law if they publish the information I have sent them without paying an a fee to the "webcaster"?


Consider the nature of the internet. When I do research on google, my requests are going through my local phone company to AOL, through AOL over more phone lines to Google which accesses potentially THOUSANDS of computers to find what I'm looking for, then through more phone lines to the specific computer I'm accessing information from, which in some cases is inturn making yet another connection through its own network to the specific computer where the info I want is stored.

So, IF this law were REALLY enforced, then to make a post on ATS using information from the Census Bureau's webpage, I'd have to get the Government, Google, AOL, and quite possibly several other networks and even phone companies to sign off on my post???

And if you think that's bad, here is food for though: You could never cite a source you intended to refute ever again.
Suppose I'm watching live news coverage on my TIVO, and right before my very eyes, the president is shot. I rewind and record.
Later they're saying he was shot from a book depository, but I'm pretty sure I see a flash from a storm drain.

I take my recording to Agent Mulder, he takes it to the Lone Gunmen, they stare at Scully's cleavage, then they enhance the film.

Clear as day you can see Dick Cheney, shotgun in hand, hiding in that storm drain with an "oh god, not again" look on his face... you even notice a quail perched on the back of the limo now that you look closer.

But I've got a choice to make: I can go public and go to jail for it (which means they dont even have to disappear me after they find a way to coverup my discovery- I'll get shivved on my own) or I can keep my mouth shut.

I've GOT to be reading this wrong. We're talking about making it perfectly legal for the guys who own the wires and the airwaves to steal or censor my (mildly) intellectual property!

I guess we're all gonna have to learn how to use the dewey decimal system and rediscover the lost art of written correspondence, because if this were ever actually enacted and enforced, we'd be done for.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the BBC is reporting that user-generated content has reached critical mass and is radically changing the media.
All of your media moguls are belong to bloggers

That's just dandy isn't it? The Main Stream Media is going to have 6 billion unpaid journalists/pundits and total control over everything they generate.

Phase II: (which has already been previewed in recent years, and now I understand why) The old guard of the media- TV- will start buying up ISPs and Websites.

Imagine a world where television news owned the wikis and the message boards.
We generate their content, they pick and choose it as they see fit, use it without paying us, and censor us if we don't agree. Recently I've seen very large protests organized in about a week's time over MySpace... that's a powerful tool. Or... it WAS a powerful tool, if this thing says what I think it says and goes through.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by thermopolis
How can anyone on this site be suprised that the "tolerance" bunch want to stop free speech. They have been doing it with political correctness for years. The moderators on this site have done the same.

The current US Administration is part of the "tolerance bunch" now?

The point here is there is either free speech or not. The danger has alwasy been levels of acceptable speech. Anything less that "all" speech isn't free speech it is someones opinion. After watering down free speech to controlled speech, the next step to government controled speech through a "content" law like this is easy.

I'm sorry if this is a weird question. But what does CERN think about this? After all, they (and ARPANET) created the Web as simply a communications system to during a disaster in the old days. Knowing that the Internet has grown more and more as a communicative device for people wouldn't CERN have voiced their concerns about this new bill being pitched by the U.N.?

Does CERN, or the creators of the Internet care about the restriction of broadcast content, let alone how it intertwines into everyone's life around the world? Have they made their feelings known to Kofi Annan about this?

Since the internet is the creation of the groups above, don't its creators have patents? Did they sell the patents? Or wouldn't they have say in any decisions made about the Internet?





[edit on 6-5-2006 by ceci2006]

I would love to read Alex Jones point of view about this "crap" which is a crap that soon is goona cover us all. I've got to point out something i saw here from one member:

I support the UN's objective and hope to see it pass.

Well Willbert if it was sarcastic then my apologies otherwise this comment falls under sheep categorie and sheep have only one place to go; To the Slaughter House







[edit on 6-5-2006 by Telos]

Been busy lately and I have not had the time to review this in great depth (or read the entire thread) but my initial impression is that this is simply a trial balloon.

Like most intellectual property legislation this is an industry initiated effort. In all negotiations you ask for the moon and end up with much less. This has not even made it into an advanced stage, it's a draft proposal for discussion purposes.

I've also found reports that opposition is growing:

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Talks Off To Slow Start As Opponents Grow

A highly unpopular proposal by the United States to include webcasting in the treaty ended up as a “non-mandatory appendix” to the treaty.

Treaty Opposition Grows

A group of non-governmental organisations has issued updated recommendations on the proposal, and raises “serious reservations.” The NGOs include the Consumer Project on Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Information for Libraries, International Music Managers Forum, IP Justice, Open Knowledge Forum, and Public Knowledge.

The group also suggests changing the text to explicitly exclude transmissions over computer networks.

The Civil Society Coalition, with some of the same NGO members, raised significant concerns about the creation of a new layer of untested rights. The groups said the draft treaty “does not effectively address protection against signal piracy but grants broad exclusive rights to transmitters regardless of their actual needs.”

US Tech Industry Joins Opposition

Fairly new to the debate and deadset against the current draft is the US telecommunications industry, which plans to recommend several changes to the text. “As currently drafted, the treaty would have a profound chilling effect on the free flow of information over the Internet,” the US Telecom Association said in a statement.

Also coming out against the current draft is Intel Corporation, which circulated a statement calling for the abandonment of the treaty and declaring that it would grant “new legal rights to control uses of content that they broadcast – rights that are separate from and in addition to any existing copyright rights in the content.”

A wide-ranging group of NGOs from Chile issued a statement raising concerns about the treaty and about the insufficient exceptions and limitations. The Chilean government has been a leader in the push for exceptions and limitations. European Digital Rights, which represents 21 privacy and civil rights organizations, also issued a statement of concern about exceptions and limitations.

The International Federation of Journalists has issued a statement raising concerns about the inclusion of webcasting, which is says is still evolving and unregulated.

The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) offered a statement on the relationship between the proposed treaty and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s recently adopted convention on cultural diversity.

A broadcasting industry source commented that now that the treaty may be moving toward a full negotiation, a number of new opponents have arrived late on the scene out of “a fear of the unknown.”

And the most recent news is that internet webcasting is off the table for now:

WIPO To Proceed On Broadcasting Treaty Talks Without Webcasting

Negotiators at the World Intellectual Property Organization today scheduled another meeting on a proposed broadcasters’ rights treaty before deciding whether to recommend a full negotiation. They also took the significant step of putting an unpopular proposal to include webcasting in the treaty on a separate, later negotiating track.

A key sticking point during the week was whether or how to include transmissions of broadcast over the Internet. The United States, whose webcasting proposal had been included as an annex to the draft treaty, fought to include webcasting, but this was put off to another committee meeting to be held in 2007. A European Union proposal to include simulcasting (which are simultaneous transmissions of broadcasts over the Internet), was also in the annex and also was put off with webcasting.

The United States accepted the bifurcation with the condition that if no diplomatic conference is recommended in September on traditional broadcasting, webcasting would be back in for future talks. This was not formally accepted by the full meeting, but could end up being the case, participants said.

So the September meeting will be to determine if a diplomatic conference for full negotiation is warranted on the treaty minus the webcasting. The webcasting stuff is put off to 2007.

By all means, let's keep an eye out for that.

As to SO's musings about backing a cause, I think ATS is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, bring this matter to people's attention. If they want to act on it they're free to do so.
.

What? So this happens and eventually the Governments can lie legally without being questioned? Therefore shaping the thoughts and opinions of every man and woman on earth?
Even if they spoke the truth.. The fact we no longer had the right to question for answers.. Everyone stop posting on ATS and join the rat race, worship what 1 person says and never question..
hmm ok, id rather be dead.. someone give me a knife

so is the issue dead for the moment? i think its more worrying that the US is pushing it more then anything else.

Originally posted by thermopolis

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by thermopolis
How can anyone on this site be suprised that the "tolerance" bunch want to stop free speech. They have been doing it with political correctness for years. The moderators on this site have done the same.

The current US Administration is part of the "tolerance bunch" now?

The point here is there is either free speech or not. The danger has alwasy been levels of acceptable speech. Anything less that "all" speech isn't free speech it is someones opinion. After watering down free speech to controlled speech, the next step to government controled speech through a "content" law like this is easy.

Oh I agree, though I still think that certain speech should still remain illigal like calls to commit atrocities and violent crimes. I was just surprised that you would lump in the current admistration into the "Tolerance Bunch," as you so aptly put it.

well the courts found
that the news is not
obligated to tell the truth !
[ I believe 3 reporters sued fox
for lying and they lost the case,
the judge said[ paraphrasing]
there was nothing in the law that
obligated fox into telling the truth !....omg ]

I see mass manipulation
to shut up the people.

this my friends is just a stepping stone
[ the hegelian dialectic in motion ]

set up laws to protect the
guilty from accusations
by those who will be affected by whatever
is coming down the pike in the future.

you suffer a loss, you have a complaint, but
you are powerless to do anything about it,
due to the way the LAW is set up.

such a deal !

The Paper Chase

"People who enjoy eating sausage and obeying the law should not watch either being made." -- Otto von Bismarck

These sorts of things crop up all the time when treaties and various forms of legislation are drawn up. Usually, provisions which are obviously problematic are eliminated long before they are ever passed and become binding.

Often enough, however, laws with problematic features get passed, as in the case of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

When that happens, it is up to the courts to step in, which they are usually quite happy to do when invited. Provisions of law found to be unconstitutional or otherwise inconsistent with other laws can be struck down, and frequently are.

Thus while I am concerned about the potential ramifications of this particular treaty (and the UN treaty process in general, but that's another story), I'm reasonably satisfied that onerous, draconian or impractical laws will ultimately be rejected.

I vote for representatives to handle these matters, which allows me to spend my time on other things. If I have problems with their work, I'll let them know, and if I'm not happy with their performance overall, I'll vote for someone else.

So far, that's been working out pretty well.

Originally posted by MajicIf I have problems with their work, I'll let them know, and if I'm not happy with their performance overall, I'll vote for someone else.

Ahh, such idealism, there's nothing wrong with that in the abstract sense, as long as it doesn't lead to unrealistic assumptions of the world, in this case politics and law. The problem arises from this:

Often enough, however, laws with problematic features get passed

Yes, often enough they DO get passed and people don't know it. That's a huge problem. Of course nothing so blatantly troublesome is going to be passed, yet slowly, but surely, little nibblets seem to be taken from our cookie of freedom. This is a long-term process that the average voter will not notice, considering they are 'spending time on other things.' I realize how cynical this seems, but I am idealistic that a change will occur eventually.

When that happens, it is up to the courts to step in, which they are usually quite happy to do when invited.

Like the Supreme Court? They are elected by politicians, and usually the same politicians that want such laws passed.

So far, that's been working out pretty well.

Has it? No complaints about the government then?

[edit on 6-5-2006 by Jamuhn]

It's A Wonderful Life

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Has it? No complaints about the government then?

Hardly!

I have no shortage of complaints about my government and governments in general. But there's no shortage of worse alternatives, and plenty of other things to complain about in life, too.

Ironically, I'm not expressing idealism, but pragmatism.

On matters of government, "perfect" isn't attainable -- or even desirable.

"Good enough" is just that, and good enough for me.