It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WIPO Broadcast Treaty: Expansive Free Speech Limitations Proposed by U.N.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:00 AM
I support the UN's objective and hope to see it pass.

I posted elsewhere on ATS as to why if your wondering why I would be for this proposal.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:02 AM
So every time FOX news plays a clip from another news channel and discusses it, they'd be breaking the law?

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The Union For The Public Domain

This group is organizing an effort to fight this proposed threaty.

The WIPO Broadcast Treaty
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is currently considering an international treaty that would extend the power that broadcasters have to control how we use and record images and sounds, including material in the public domain. This treaty will trade off the public's freedom for additional powers that the broadcasters have not demonstrated are necessary for the public good. Our position is that the treaty should be rejected.

Links to information on the draft WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations

This may be the first time in three years (other than supporting international literacy efforts) where I might consider proposals on how ATS can organize its massive potential influence to increase awareness of this issue, and perhaps aid in the rejection of the treaty.


I'm in.

Let's make our voices heard. While we still can.


posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:35 AM
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 major media edits from "we the public" thing "they" think are too violent. Example the 911 tapes of people jumping out of the towers.

This is just the final assault of that battle.

Dial-up PC to PC may be on a comeback............

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:23 AM
To me, this looks like a way to curb bad talk about Bush on the internet, and bad replies to FOX bull# wherever it may pop up. I checked out the website, WIPO's website, and jesus is it #ed up.

Power trippers on a sweet bs role looking simply to control other people in the name of profits with about a hundred great lines to win over the casual read-througher.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a "don't speak out against the government or face persecution" move?

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:27 AM
If they manage to ruin the web, we all will have to find a real occupation for our spare time.

It's not going to be constructive i'd wager.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:37 AM
Oh definitely not, but they think it will be. I think what they fail to realize is that people who don't want to be seen on the internet aren't seen, and that the large and very cooperative corporate service providers that the masses rely on for their internet are not necessary to independent networkers and communication.

I say yea, bring it. I can't wait to push them out on their asses, even if it does take 30 years and some heavy and hopeless pollution seen.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:40 AM
I guess when the internet becomes as crappy as cable TV, I'll guess I'll have to shut off the computer, wipe the eye boogers out, and do something constructive?

Makes me wonder if there is a way to subvert this?
But then, we'd be breaking their laws.

Internet by the highest bidder, corporate websites front and center, everybody else...?

I just don't know what to say, I mean, I like the internet, precisely because it's what it is, untainted by the mainstream media, but now they want my internet too!

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:45 AM
I'd be curious to hear legal expert's opinion on how this would be enforceable in the U.S. or any other individual country. On the surface it appears to violate some basic constitutional principles here in the U.S.

And also, what kind of infrastructure would it require to enforce. Would it require literally every data stream on the Internet to be sniffed?


posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:50 AM
I'd think that they'll just take up a more vigilant stance against "loudmouths" and "troublemakers" and that police might even be becoming involved so that charges may be laid.

We'll find out though I suppose, and go from there. God DAMN George Bush and whoever's behind him and all this corporate BULL#.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 10:07 AM
Sure, I agree with the above poster. Use it as an additional tool against dissidents and refuseniks. But how much traffic would need to be monitored to locate the unknown 'loudmouths' and 'troublemakers'? Or, the technically savvy folks who are better at hiding their tracks?

Another thread that is in the same context;
More Internet Sniffing...

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 10:29 AM
In order to increase awareness, promote the protest, and prevent this measure, we'd need to prepare an explanation of this thing that is very clear and perfectly neutral.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:06 AM

Originally posted by NotClever
I'd be curious to hear legal expert's opinion on how this would be enforceable in the U.S. or any other individual country. On the surface it appears to violate some basic constitutional principles here in the U.S.

They will probably wrap it up "think of the children" and if you are against this then you are a pedophile, just like the Patriot Act and being against it made you un-American. Average citizen Joe and Margette, who use the computer to store recipes and forward spam mail jokes to their friends will be all for it.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:18 AM
Yes, this child porn thing, I saw it in the cards, 'a regulated internet'.

They find the worst possible thing the internet has, rally people to usher in censorship, and bingo, a lame-duck corporate riled internet.

Go after the pedophiles, not the rest of us!
It's just an excuse to bolster their plan, that's it.

Silver lined clouds still contain bad weather.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:25 AM

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:43 AM
This also looks like a handy link.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:58 AM
the UN is the ENEMY of free thinkers

and freedom and peace [ omg , what a joke ]

how convenient for them to make laws

that would prevent people from talking about

what a corrupt organization of legal gangsters it has become.

the opposition to the league of nations

knew what these snakes were capable of.

but the people , LATER got conned into accepting

a "grand idea" of a united nations and bought

the concept , hook line and sinker.

the UN should lose its' charter and get dismantled

but it won't , it'll just get bigger and bigger

until it is the supreme bully on the planet

capable of arresting someone with opinions like mine


I'll pray for protests outside the un ,
I just hope they won't shoot unarmed americans
thinking they are in africa or something.

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:22 PM
And when this law is supposed to be voted by the UN and then applied ??


posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:37 PM
Here's my take on the major issues of this item... anyone feel free to jump in if I've got it wrong some place.

1) This is a method for "protecting" the broadcaster's right in content, either in whole or part.

2) The broadcaster of content (network) has rights equal to the creator.

3) The broadcaster is currently defined in broad terms, and includes Internet media companies.

4) The broadcaster has "downstream" commercialization rights in the content.

5) The U.S. position favors the broadcasters, including Yahoo, Microsoft, Time-Warner, etc.

6) 80% of the big push for this treaty is from the US

Two Big Points for ATS Members if Ratified

1) If a member quotes a Fox News report or interview with Bush (for example), we are likely in violation unless we somehow obtain that material from a source other than the broadcast.

2) AT&T, as a "broadcaster" of content originating on has rights to our content equal to our rights as the creator. They can market the content separately, and even distribute it in a manner that diverts advertising revenue to them. (!)

Debate Continues

The scope of the debate remains intense, but the majority of participants are leaning in a direction that result in those two problems for ATS.

The USPTO has reject numerous official requests for comments and position statements.

The big internet companies and networks are in favor of this treaty.

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. This summary was cobbled together from over 10 analysts' articles on this proposed treaty, and there's no guarantee that anyone has fully come to terms with the current language of the very large document.)

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Willbert
I support the UN's objective and hope to see it pass.

I posted elsewhere on ATS as to why if your wondering why I would be for this proposal.

I saw the post and I still am scratching my head as to why anyone who is not in the business would be for this. (Unless you are a WIPO/MPAA/RIAA marketing shill or just a flamebaiter)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in