It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
I support the UN's objective and hope to see it pass.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Often enough, however, laws with problematic features get passed
When that happens, it is up to the courts to step in, which they are usually quite happy to do when invited.
So far, that's been working out pretty well.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Has it? No complaints about the government then?