It doen’t work like that.

Traties thet are good for the great commercial powers of a few countries are usually bad for the many poor countries. Take patents for example. These are controlled by a few countries, that are the ony beneficiaries of the international patent treaties. As a result a pill that costs one cent to make sells for hundreds of time in the drug store of a poor country.

But the small or poor countries that are weak on patents are pressued to sign the treaty so that the kids of politicians of those poor countries can enter USA universities, or so the country can get loans to buy armaments and the latest prestige airliner aircrafts. Then there are the threats of sanctions. Politicians of third world countries are simply are corrupted with offers and threats. Just remember Iraq as an example of what can happens when a small country does not abide. An extreme example, but an example.

Actually, the lobby-buy-legislator practised in the USA is also a world phenomena that also contributes to the buying of overseas politicians.

The problem is that the majority of WIPO members, that represent the poorer countries that represent the vast majority of the world’s population are represented by one of these:

1. Persons that are not remotely qualified to discuss issues related to democary, free speech or philosophical issues. They are mostly unqualified friends of someone in power back home, where cronyism is rampant.

2. Persons who represent politicians who have already been paid off with favors by the wealthy political investors (the international cartels) back home. It’s subtle imperialism in action.

Only shakeups in the poorer countries (as in Bolivia recently) will prevent addtional injustices as exemplified by the copyright and patent laws that favor the rich countries that have already made it.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Rights of Broadcasters

Copyright in communication signals

21. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a broadcaster has a copyright in the communication signals that it broadcasts, consisting of the sole right to do the following in relation to the communication signal or any substantial part thereof:

(a) to fix it,

(b) to reproduce any fixation of it that was made without the broadcaster’s consent,

(c) to authorize another broadcaster to retransmit it to the public simultaneously with its broadcast, and

(d) in the case of a television communication signal, to perform it in a place open to the public on payment of an entrance fee,

and to authorize any act described in paragraph (a), (b) or (d).

Conditions for copyright

(2) Subsection (1) applies only if the broadcaster

(a) at the time of the broadcast, had its headquarters in Canada, in a country that is a WTO Member or in a Rome Convention country; and

(b) broadcasts the communication signal from that country.

Exception

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), if the Minister is of the opinion that a Rome Convention country or a country that is a WTO Member does not grant the right mentioned in paragraph (1)(d), the Minister may, by a statement published in the Canada Gazette, declare that broadcasters that have their headquarters in that country are not entitled to that right.

R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 21; 1994, c. 47, s. 59; 1997, c. 24, s. 14.

Anti-”Piracy” signals:

These types of signals are used to tell electronic and computer devices to not record or display in certain formats any content that has these signals embedded. Most current forms of these signals can now be easily circumvented. The cartels now want the government to mandate the inclusion of circuits that will stop the functioning of devices when these signals are detected. The cartels want this type of circuitry installed in just about every type of camera, audio, or recording device. When this happens, it might not be a bad thing for criminals dissidents, or privacy advocates, because all they have to do is transmit the proper signal and turn off every camera or device that records their actions. Imagine being able to miss a traffic signal and not worry about having been photographed by some machine and being forced to pay some exorbitant fine. The broadcast flag everyone is bitching about may become a good privacy tool.

see http://www.p2pnet/story/8701 “Dangerous Weapons”

Hell yeah!

I say BRING IT ON! There’s no question that the masses will ultimately win out against those who wish to constrain digital freedoms. Hold onto your old computers for when they build hardware that restrains personal use. Go opensource whenever possible. It takes software engineers months and maybe years to work out copy protections and cyberliberatarians only days to circumvent it. We shall overcome…