Unfortunately, I see us losing most of these battles and having to
refight them in 20 years and get them right.
In the United States where I live (today -- I just visited Budapest
and am thinking of moving there for a bit, any thoughts on that? the
music scene around New York is in a sad state...), there is a
provision in the Constitution that more or less says that all rights
not described in the Constitution revert to the People.
Unfortunately, the United States and much of the rest of the world
seem to have forgotten this idea -- that copyrights, trademarks and
patents were originally explicitly intended as rights granted for a
limited period in order to increase the Public good.
At some point, there's going to have to be a dramatic recapture of our
rights when we sort all this mess out again, assuming we don't go all
1984 forever. For the moment, I think we have to expect things like
the Broadcast Treaty -- not that it absolves us from fighting against
such bad laws, no use in making it easy for 'em.
On 4/14/07, Per Boysen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 14 apr 2007, at 21.04, samba - wrote:
> Public hearing on Broadcast Treaty in DC, May 9
> The US Patent and Trademark Office is holding public hearings on
> May 9 to discuss the US position on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty --
> you can attend and even speak.
> The Broadcast Treaty is a proposal to let broadcasters (and
> "webcasters" -- people who host files and make them available to
> the Internet) claim a copyright to the stuff that they transmit.
> Broadcasters get this special right even if the stuff they're
> sending around is in the public domain, or Creative Commons
> licensed, or not copyrightable (like CSPAN's broadcasts of
> Congress). Fair use doesn't apply to this right.
> What this means is that a handful of corporations are going to be
> able to claim copyrights over billions of works they didn't create
> -- works that they've done nothing to improve, works they've done
> nothing for except electromagnetically modulating them.
> What this means is that these corporations are going to be able to
> trump the rights of actual creators. If you put a Creative Commons
> license on your video that allows your fans to share it, the
> "broadcaster" -- or the person who transmits it over the Web -- can
> override your wishes and tell your fans that they can't.
> This is a proposed UN treaty, and the US position on it keeps
> wavering. The tech sector recently woke up and told the government
> off for selling them out in Geneva, critically wounding the
> Treaty's prospects. With a little help, it could die altogether.
Holy Shit! I could never have imagined that coming up... I know
about, and think it makes sense, when the author "sells" the
copyright of media music especially designed for a certain tv show,
advertisement spot etc, but this new treaty seems just crazy!
Greetings from Sweden
http://tinyurl.com/2kek7h (CC donationware music releases)
http://ax.to ......... extreme NY arts and music calendar
http://ax.to/tr ....... my secret little little...
http://ax.to/radio ... my little radio station (on intermittently)