Posted on 10/21/2003 1:18:53 PM PDT by HAL9000
International treaty will force 34 democracies to change copyright, IP laws
DVD backups forbidden, P2P file sharers to become felons
A REPORT from civil liberties organisation IP Justice claims today that a proposed treaty that will affect the 34 democracies in the Western world will mean wide-ranging changes to domestic laws including intellectual property rights.
The organisation said that a draft chapter in the FTTA treaty greatly expands criminal procedures and penalties against IP infringements in North America and the west.
A clause of the treaty will mean that non commercial infringers of peer to peer files will be sent to prison. The IP Justice report says that unless "the second clause to article 4.1 is deleted from the FTAA treaty, Internet music swapping will be a felony throughout the Western Hemisphere in 2005".
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).
The draft treaty, says IP Justice, also has new conditions for fair use and personal use which, the organisation claims, will stop consumers from backing up their media collections.
The treaty will also make democracies change their copyright laws to force the term to extend to 70 years after an author dies. This extends the US copyright scheme to the 33 other democracies.
The US Constitution, says IP Justice, forbids companies to copyright facts and scientific data, but this will be overridden by the treaty.
Internet domain names will be decied by ICANN, which IP Justice describes as a "private and unaccountable organisation... ill equipped to determine the limits of freedom of expression rights or the scope of intellectual property rights".
According to Robin Gross, the organisation's executive director, "The FTAA Treaty's IP chapter reads like a 'wish list' for RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft lobbyists".
The treaty is due to go into effect by December 2005. The white paper on IP is here. µ
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However it is not the working and middle classes that draft widely unpopular legislation like the DMCA and USA PATRIOT Act. It is also not a coincidence that there are no working class members of Congress and only a handful fit in the middle class.
Ownership of corporations was radically different then, as I mentioned earlier.
Corporations are even less responsible to their owners and the public than they were then. Enron wouldn't have happened back then because the owners would have been much more liable to the government for fraud than they are now. The owners back then would have gone to prison.
What on earth does this mean?
When you own stock, you aren't responsible for what the company does. Capitalism is built on a model that the owners have to be held accountable for what their company does. The distribution of who is to blame for a corporate f$%^ up is why we have corporate scandals now. They wouldn't happen much if the stockholders could be held liable for their company's actions.
Only on paper. You have no right to ask that the government legislate outside the US Constitution. That is exactly what many of these "agents of the retirees, et al" do. The DMCA restricts the publication of certain forms of research into DRM systems. It was supported by most IP interests. What does the first amendment, which was passed after Article I, Section 8 say? "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech." That means the first amendment modifed Article I, Section 8 to prohibit copyright laws which abridge the freedom of speech. What happened? Your "agents of the retirees, widows and orhans that own our corporations today" pushed for a law that violates the US Constitution.
And that is why commercial lobbying should be prohibited. Labor unions, companies and their representatives should not be allowed to participate in politics. Period. Expel labor and capital and never let them get involved with the workings of the state. Our government can only make ethical choices when all forms of corporate entities representing an economic interest or faction are barred from "discussing their needs" with it.
I'm all in favor of criminalizing the passing of unconstitutional laws. Why don't we follow a 3 strikes policy with our Congress? 3 laws and you get 10 years in the slammer.
However it is not the working and middle classes that draft widely unpopular legislation like the DMCA and USA PATRIOT Act. You are misusing the notion of class. If a child from a working-class familty graduates from Yale and then Harvard Business School, becomes a presidenf of a company when he or she 35 years of age and elected to Congress at 38 --- is that middle class or not? Technically, judging by that person's pay, the answer is in the negative. But this is not an elite in the sense that this position in society was not inherited.
That is why I objected to your language: it is the same language that is used by socialists and other provocatures.
You have no right to ask Everyone has the right to ask. THat is what corporations, as any other group of people, do.
that the government legislate outside the US Constitution. When asking, one does not even have to be knowlegeable enough to see what is within and what is proscribed by the Constitution. That is the role of our elected officials --- to deny requests contradicting the Constitution; and of the courts --- to decide what law is.
No need for such blanket accusations: if you found something to be unconstitutional, bring the matter to court.
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.