Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

International treaty will force 34 democracies to change copyright, IP laws
The Inquirer ^ | Monday 20 October 2003

Posted on 10/21/2003 1:18:53 PM PDT by HAL9000

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 10/21/2003 1:18:53 PM PDT by HAL9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
The treaty will also prevent people from bypassing technical restrictions on CDs and DVDs, in a way similar to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Idiots. It should read:

The treaty will also prevent people from criminalize bypassing technical restrictions on CDs and DVDs, in a way similar to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

2 posted on 10/21/2003 1:34:05 PM PDT by balrog666 (Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? -Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


3 posted on 10/21/2003 1:36:21 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Government of the people, by the Corporations, for the Corporations...
4 posted on 10/21/2003 1:58:48 PM PDT by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
The Greenie left has been using treaties for years to get things done they can't through the legislative process.

Now we'll hear the MP3 idiots scream because corportations have discovered the same short cut in law.

5 posted on 10/21/2003 2:06:30 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
The US Constitution, says IP Justice, forbids companies to copyright facts and scientific data, but this will be overridden by the treaty.

That's an odd reading of the Constitution. The IP provision within the Constitution says that its purpose is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". By contrast, many things that shouldn't be copyrighted under that standard (paintings, sports broadcasts, etc.) are copyrighted. Somehow.

6 posted on 10/21/2003 3:37:12 PM PDT by inquest ("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: per loin
More socialist, anti-corporate venom? Why don't you move to DU to talk to more like-minded folks?
7 posted on 10/21/2003 3:57:22 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
What's so socialist about not wanting to give corporations more government bennies?
8 posted on 10/21/2003 3:59:21 PM PDT by inquest ("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Article does not say which nations have signed and/or ratified the treaty. It calls it a "proposed treaty."
What nations have signed on?
Has no effect within the USA until signed and ratified by president and senate.
9 posted on 10/21/2003 4:03:57 PM PDT by fqued (The mainstream media wouldn't over-rate anyone, would they?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Firstly, one has to see the implications not only for the corporations but for the individual persons as well, but the poster immediately focused on corporations exclusively.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is no such thing as a benefit to a corporation --- it's merely an abbreviation of speech. Corporations are groups of people --- owners, employees, customers, suppliers and other publics --- and it is to them that the benefits and costs accrue.

At the time of Marx, great many corporations were closely held by a few individuals. He and his followers spoke of them as a synonim for "rich." Whatever he said, the use of the word at least was meaningful: with only a few owners, the benefits accrued to a small number of people.

Today, however, the largest companies are publicly traded and owned literally by millions of people, which includes the retired, the widowed and the orphaned. It is to them that the benefits, and costs, acrrue when we speak of "corporate" gains. Corporate "power" is their power as well.

10 posted on 10/21/2003 4:08:17 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". By contrast, many things that shouldn't be copyrighted under that standard (paintings, sports broadcasts, etc.) are copyrighted. Somehow.

Could you explicate how you deduced that copyrighting paintings and the like is detrimental to the progress of the arts?

11 posted on 10/21/2003 4:13:59 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: inquest
What's so socialist about not wanting to give corporations more government bennies?

You see, you're a dreaded, dirty Communist unless you unconditionally support and applaud all the demands of multi-nationals, monopolies, government sanctioned and protected monopolies, giant corporations, get it?

12 posted on 10/21/2003 4:18:46 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Far out, man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
More socialist, anti-corporate venom? Why don't you move to DU to talk to more like-minded folks?

If you believe the only alternatives are government by Microsoft et al or socialist government, your mind must have been produced by the Dan Rather Show. The founding fathers had a better idea. Study them!

13 posted on 10/21/2003 4:28:55 PM PDT by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: per loin
government by Microsoft et al

And this, too, you've deduced from the Fathers?

14 posted on 10/21/2003 4:41:54 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Learn to ask a coherent question if you want an answer.
15 posted on 10/21/2003 4:51:06 PM PDT by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: per loin
The question was coherent: there is no concept of "government by Microsoft et al" that is related to anything our Founding Fathers ever said.

The point was also clear: your imaginary "government by Microsoft" is a socialist --- Marxist-Leninist, actually -- creed.

What is also clear that you substitute references to reveered sources, such as the works of the Fathers, for the ability to think. You don't have to think well --- that's fine. But then you should suspend judgement.

Instead you promulgate here a purely socialist anti-corporate garbage.

P.S. By the way: corporations have explored and settled America. This happened even before our Founding Fathers. It appears it is you who has a gread deal of studying to do. Whether or not you do that, please take your socialism elsewhere.

16 posted on 10/21/2003 5:02:53 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
The question was coherent: there is no concept of "government by Microsoft et al" that is related to anything our Founding Fathers ever said.

Your worship of the corporation is noted. Your attempt to brand anyone who does not want corporations writing our laws as "socialist" is ridiculous. As for the founding fathers, I believe Thomas jefferson was one :

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-- Thomas Jefferson

I beieve Madison was also a founding father:

As the father of the Constitution, President James Madison, wrote, "There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by... corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

17 posted on 10/21/2003 5:44:43 PM PDT by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
FTAA IP ???

Who do they think they are?
18 posted on 10/21/2003 5:47:23 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (We should all be willing to serve our country, but not our Government !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
"Useful Arts"

Didn't mean "art". Means technology. Charts, not paintings. Mechanical diagrams of a piano, not sheet music.

Founders well aware of distinctions.

19 posted on 10/21/2003 5:49:53 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: per loin
Your worship of the corporation is noted.

I know that you confuse the two, but there is a difference between worship and awareness of something.

In an earlier post, I have already replied to the points you've made: in those times, the banks and the corporations were primarily privately owned, whereas it is the public that owns most of our corporations today. Please read that post if you are interested.

20 posted on 10/21/2003 5:53:24 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson