LAPD Body Cam Footage Can't Be FOIA'ed; Used In Court Cases Only

Update On Ten-Year Campaign To Give Copyright Industry Another Monopoly: WIPO's Broadcasting Treaty

from the too-much-is-never-enough dept

Fri, Dec 19th 2014 7:39pm — Glyn Moody

Say what you will about the copyright industry, but it certainly doesn't give up. No matter how many times a bad idea is fought off, sooner or later, it comes back again. The best example of this is probably WIPO's Broadcasting Treaty, which Techdirt has been covereing for a decade: in 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2013. This campaign to give broadcasters yet more monopoly rights -- as if they didn't have enough already -- is still underway, and the EFF provides us with a timely update on the current state of play:

The latest draft of the treaty also attempts to control post-fixation uses of broadcast signals -- in other words, to provide broadcasters with rights to control uses of content that has been recorded from a broadcast.

Here's why that would be awful from many viewpoints: Since these post-fixation rules would apply regardless of whether the content was in the public domain or whether a "fair use" argument applies, it could impact the work of journalists, archivists, and creators who could otherwise legally gain access to source content through broadcasts.
And that's not all: The draft also includes worrisome protections that would prohibit DRM on broadcasts from being circumvented, which could outlaw the use of open source video software such as VLC and MythTV to watch or time-shift televisions broadcasts, and would restrict future technological innovation. These provisions would effectively nullify the effect of any exceptions and limitations to the exclusive rights of broadcasters that the treaty may end up adopting.
As this shows, while pushing for new bad ideas, the copyright industry is always happy to re-use some of its old bad ideas -- even more reason to fight the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty yet again.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: broadcast treaty, broadcasters, broadcasting treaty, monopolies, wipo

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2014 @ 8:06pm

The copyright industry is like a disease. It's contagious, and it won't stop until it consumes the whole body, and even then it won't stop. No exaggeration, it must dissolve, or we won't have a future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 Dec 2014 @ 8:39pm

Since these post-fixation rules would apply regardless of whether the content was in the public domain or whether a "fair use" argument applies, it could impact the work of journalists, archivists, and creators who could otherwise legally gain access to source content through broadcasts.

Otherwise known as the 'Fair Use? Public Domain? What are those?' clauses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2014 @ 12:06am

Re:
IU was going to go with, "Down with what people want!" clause, personally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2014 @ 3:25am

Re: Re:
That works too, but given the rules would essentially eliminate fair use of broadcast works, and lock up even public domain pieces, they seem to go well beyond just what the public would want(or wouldn't in this case), straight into 'Let's just get rid of these annoying rights you've got there shall we?' territory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2014 @ 5:42am

Re:
It's Entitlement Disease. It affects those involved in patents and trademarks, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 20 Dec 2014 @ 5:53am

This is actually OK.
by the time the treaty is finally passed, the legacy broadcast industry will have reached 0.00% relevancy and market share.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2014 @ 6:01am

We actually need an experiment to be done , with fake money in a controlled environment using all the copyright laws and acts the industry is trying to push ,a group of people and a 1-6 month period , have them live within the guidelines of the corporate-right industry and not waver, lets see how it works out .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2014 @ 7:23am

Re:
The problem in this case is not the viewers, but rather the creators, who will be exposed to take-downs because they are using the same public domain, or CC licensed material as the broadcasters. The broadcasters will not be careful to make sure that matching content actually came from their broadcast, they will just assume that any match is infringing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tamara, 20 Dec 2014 @ 8:38am

viewers is not problem
at all your post is very useful
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2014 @ 12:42pm

lets just face it, there isn't another industry that is as self-centered, selfish and egoistic as the entertainment industries! they want to control everything, including what is absolutely fuck all to do with them, just because there is a chance, probably a certainty that they can make money off it! after a music album, a movie, a game, a book whatever has been produced and been available to the public for purchase, there should be no claims to anything after 5 years. the ridiculous thing of 'life + 70 years is ludicrous! everyone knows it, including the industries and they also know that had they not 'encouraged' certain politicians at the end of their careers, they would never have achieved any change to so outrageous a term!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2014 @ 6:44pm

What purpose would the rules proposed by this treaty serve other than to prohibit copying where "the content [is] in the public domain [or where a] 'fair use' argument applies"? Other uses are already covered by copyright, so all this treaty would add is to render currently legal forms of use illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fuck it..., 21 Dec 2014 @ 12:04am

Cut the cord six years ago...
I dropped cable six years ago. I had a decent package that cost quite a bit and I just got sick of the ads. There were ads between the shows, ads overlaid on the shows, and ads integrated into the shows themselves. Hell, there were even entire channels of nothing but ads (lots of them)... I used to mute the TV for as many of them as I could; I even became good at it. I reached a point in which I would become angry if friends *didn't* mute their ads!

One day I looked at my bill and thought about how much I hated all those ads. Why was I paying $100+ monthly to watch marketing that screamed at me? This was also about the time that HDTV broadcasts had become reasonable so I said 'fuck it' and cancelled service. Ironically, it wasn't that hard but the Comcast operator was an absolute bitch to me during the call. I bought an antenna and never looked back.

Of course, it wasn't long before OTA HDTV began to suck just as much as cable so I slowly transitioned away from that to Netflix and a handful of websites like Hulu and such. I've been so much happier.

But I do have principles (sort of) and I don't value copyright the way that these jerks do. I don't *need* their programming. I don't have to steal it either because I just don't give a crap about it. I have a thousand unfinished projects to keep me busy and a rich circle of real-life family and friends who I'd rather spend my time with.

At some point, after enough people wake up and say, "Fuck it!" the copyright maximalists will have nothing but a bunch of worthless laws on the books. Those laws cannot easily harm you if you (1) don't care about their content and (2) don't pirate it. Just remove yourself from the equation altogether. The only way to win is to not play the game.

They're gambling that you cannot do that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2014 @ 1:31am

Re: Cut the cord six years ago...
Those laws cannot easily harm you if you (1) don't care about their content and (2) don't pirate it.

Unfortunately, the existing laws can harm you, and any extensions will only increase the potential for harm. Just search this site for instances where the DMCA has been accidentally, or possibly deliberately used to take down content with a false claim. Remember that the cases you read about are only the tip of the Iceberg, as many people do not know how to challenge a false notice, and cannot afford to fight such notices. This proposal will only increase the number of false take-downs, and increase the numbers being used by the maximalists in their attempt to kill the Internet, by turning it into a one way delivery channel.
If the maximalists get their way, the only 'content' available to the public will be that which they control, eliminating much that is currently self published. Unless they are are totally blind, the MPAA and RIAA are well aware that what will kill them is not piracy but rather self publishing via sites that simply provide a service, like YouTube. This is why they hate the Internet, and Google, because it allows people to get content that is out with their control, and from which they do not gain the majority of the profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2014 @ 2:03am

Re: Re: Cut the cord six years ago...
If enough people cut the cord, stop purchasing DVDs and quit going to the movies then the content producers would go broke.

Sure, the false take-downs will likely increase some however, without funding their business model won't be sustainable. Right now the numbers of cord-cutters represent little more than an annoyance to them. But as more people continue to ditch cable and satellite, the content producers will be forced to raise prices; naturally driving away even more customers so the cycle can repeat again.

As their revenue dwindles, there will be nothing left to beat John Doe over the head with...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2014 @ 9:58am

Don't buy their shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
reencryption-tv, 21 Dec 2014 @ 5:06pm

ReEncryption-TV
Before Aereo, DRM was based on Entry Strategy for Encryption-Decryption Scheme.

After Aereo, DRM will be based on Exit Strategy for Encryption-Decryption-ReEncryption Scheme.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 22 Dec 2014 @ 7:52am

Re: Cut the cord six years ago...
"Those laws cannot easily harm you if you (1) don't care about their content and (2) don't pirate it."

If that were true, then I wouldn't care one bit about them. But it's not true at all.Those laws harm us all, whether we watch the content or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 23 Dec 2014 @ 2:42am

Re:
The problem is, they own the narrative, and that is that copyright is property.

What we need to do is counter that argument with the truth. As occasional contributor Derek Khanna pointed out in a recent article, copyright is, Constitutionally speaking, a TEMPORARY MONOPOLY. The copyright industry has attached property rights to their monopolies in order to extend the terms to the point where "temporary" = "infinity." We need to keep pushing this line till everyone understands it. Then they'll stop supporting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]