As Thiru reports, WIPO has published a draft text for the proposed broadcast treaty. This treaty, if adopted, is going to establish a new layer of monopoly powers. Working somewhat like copyright, these monopoly powers would be given to a broadcasting institution merely for broadcasting something.

Weirdly, there is the idea of a "webcasting right": A monopoly that would be given to someone for spreading content on the web.  

Richard Stallman has aptly described (.pdf, see p. 6) these powers as "skunk odor powers":

So what kind of power is it?  I think it is like the power of skunk odor: it sticks 
to whatever it touches, and once it's on you, you practically can't get it off.  So 
how about "skunk odor power"?

Well, what would this power look like? Would I be given a sort of copyright on Richard's quote above, just for redistributing it here? As I said: Weird. 

Though this "webcasting right" is only a voluntary opt-in, its adoption by a few major players (EU, US, Japan) would in practice make it mandatory for everyone. 

Now Thiru tells me that WIPO has published two texts: One "Draft Basic Proposal" and one "Working Paper". The first one is the "Winners" paper, where the things go that the WIPO Secretariat wants in the treaty. The second is the "graveyard" paper, where all the ideas go that don't suit the Secretariat (or those most effectively lobbying them).

There seems to be little logic behind the decision about which idea was put into which paper - unless one would assume that anything the US wants goes in. Proposals by Brazil and Chile, concerning the protection of competition and the public domain, didn't make the winners paper.

The first panel of the afternoon - "New political paradigms" - was a rather visionary affair. Predictably, it has the conservative minority steaming.

Declan McCullagh of Politech, whose presentation this morning centered exclusively on the US (how Hollywood has bought the Democrats), was rattled by the suggestion of Tunisian professor Mohamed Ben Ahmed, who said that the system of intellectual monopoly powers should focus on people, not on shareholders.

Declan countered this outrageous argument by mentioning that (in this order) a) half of the US population are shareholders, and b), that shareholders are people too.

Until that time, Declan had made on me the impression of an intelligent person. But this creative use of logic does not further his ratings with me. If there are some people who are shareholders, and unless animals or plants take to buying shares, that means all shareholders are people.

Easy, right? It's the second step which Declan doesn't get. The fact that all shareholders are people does not mean that all people are shareholders. You'd think it's not too hard a concept to grasp.

Good thing there were some more refreshing opinions. Tom Faunce of the Australian National University made a truly visionary suggestion.

Why not save tons of money by downsizing UN organisations, and merging some of them? Why not put together WTO and WHO, and sell the WHO building? Why not fusion WIPO and the Human Rights Council. How's that for saving money?

Tom consistently (and inspiringly) refused to use the term "intellectual property", saying "intellectual monopoly powers" (IMPs) instead. The panel he was speaking on was chaired by WIPO's Anthony Taubman, who dared to take a peek into a brigher future:

"I am looking forward to working for WIMPO."

Now there's a name I like. Forgive me that my entries are increasingly swaying off topic. I'm tired. Luckily, now there's a coffee break.