Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Where the intangible meets the insubstantial: IP, international law and enforcement
Posts
It's funny how everyone loves to quote that bit of the US Constitution to prove that IP law exists only for society's purposes, but when I mentioned that IP protections are listed in the Declaration of Human Rights, I was called out on "appealing to authority".
Yeah, history would have taken a great many unfavourable turns if the weak had no way to fight back agianst the strong.
He lives on as cheezburger grease in our hearts.
China--a very distant second in the world by military spending--can't really hope to compare to the astronomic military might of the United States, a country with less than a fourth of the population but between 4 and 5 times the military spending. That being said, I'm actually looking more forward to whether or not we'll accept the fact that Chinese films are widely pirated and distributed, against domestic Chinese licenses, throughout the United States by movie viewers over the internet.
Whatever options we're apparently willing to level against the Chinese--sanctions, military intervention--so it's going to be okay when the Chinese resort to measures to stop every single pirated copy of Red Cliff or 1911, or at least try? We're hardly happy with Chinese civilian and military invasions into American networks as it is, can you imagine the sort of measures they're going to have to resort with to try and stop pirated films? After the very real likelihood that American authorities would give up, their arms already filled with dealing with Americans violating American IPs?
That's assuming that's more desirable than, say, the PLA Marine Corps (or someone else) running around the country in vans, busting down doors and seizing computers.
The fact that a knock-on effect is a moderate level of IP infringement doesn't outweigh the desired ability for the US to flout international governance.
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
and you, individually, are even more irrelevant to the strength of the bureaucracy you seek to divert to your interests than the weak state, so.
Can a nation declare itself (or some citizen therein) the sole holder of copyright for any work that passes through its borders? If not, why?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we got booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
hey, now. He doesn't want to send in cruise missiles, he just wants militarily supported sanctions. He doesn't want to blow the kids up, he just wants them to slowly starve to death.
Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
basically the fact that there are privileged upper class people who consider IP to be more valuable than human life is kind of abhorrent to me
especially because outside of like, North Korea, most of the poorest nations on earth suck almost directly because of the history of western powers fucking their shit
Whether you think it is "real work" or not, it requires time, money and effort to develop these drugs.
I don't even know what bring anti-capitalism means in this context. It seems to me that you are opposed to the new world order based on meritocracy (to a greater or lesser extent) and would endorse anything which breaks this down, presumably in the hope that what emerges is feudalism? I don't really see how that is possible.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I, uh, suppose I could try.
It also requires time, money and effort at tracking down old tribal remedies from the Amazon region and then claiming IP rights for something that has been in use for thousands of years and then requesting the WTO to force these tribal people from not using the medicine because, surprise, surprise, the American companies now claim IP over it.
You are not understanding the majority of the issue here. Answer me this: "Why should anyone respect IP rights when American companies, especially Pharmaceutical companies, when they go around claiming tribal remedies as their own or even the use of medicinal herbs and roots as their own?"
And you still haven't answered my other point. If an American Pharmaceutical company is charging people in Africa and India $200 for one pill why is that any fair to them to try to gain profit on people's death? Do you agree with this line of thinking or do you think that providing similar medicine that costs less is tantamount to a nuclear attack and killing all of the people just to get your illegal share of the profits?
I think perverse is exactly the right world, because it is a literal perversion of the natural order, where the strong prevail, without some stronger overarching body (like a government) monopolizing force.
I think that is the right answer. I also think that we ought to rejigger these institutions to better deal with these modern concerns.
@ronya - could you elaborate? I don't follow this post.
I agree with much if this, but the answer to your final question is what I see as most important. A nation is sovreign, but sovreigns dealing with each other without the benefit of an overarching world government that exerts a monopoly on force can only exert their laws to the extent of their strength (military, diplomatic, economic or otherwise). The weak country is free to act as it sees fit, of course, but only to the point where an angered neighbor does not stop them from doing so.
Have you read this thread? I thought I was pretty clear in saying that direct, unsanctioned force was a very unlikely outcome, and I'm not sure how I would feel about its use. I want to focus more on economic sanctions, which are more realistic.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
This is why gorillas are the dominant primate in the world today, because strength is all that matters.
I guess this means humans are perverse in that the weaker species works together to become dominant over the stronger.
You are going to need to provide some sources to back up your claims of wide spread repackaging of tribal remedies, as opposed to the synthesis of new drugs based in part on the active ingredients in plants.
As to why IP should be respected, I think that, like all property rights, exclusive use is the real value, and infringements effectively take that value from the right holders. This discourages people to create, causes creators to restrict access (I.e., drm), and contributes to a climate where ideas (one of the most important exports in the modern world) ceas to be of value. Why even try to develop the third world if you know they are just going to force you to compete against yourself? Sure, if they actually develop, maybe you find a market, but it is certainly at least a short term discouraging factor.
The nobility of someone's claim to your property does not entitle them to it. Does your family feel compelled to give their fine woven cloth and rugs to the beggar freezing to death on their door step?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
There are obviously many forms of strength. I am not saying that third world countries shouldn't be able to steal US IP because Obama can beat their leaders in an arm wrestling competition. Is there any measure of strength that puts a poor third world nation ahead of the US though?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Here is a link to browse through:
http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=nexus\
You can find more articles from google if you so wished.
If ideas are so important that they need to be IP protected I think you'd need to stop using numbers, which are a Indian product, the zero which is an Arabic system and other things which aren't American because frankly then it doesn't become yours to begin with. Is American paying for the usage of numbers?
If you have no sense of humanity that you'd ask that sort of question then you are nothing but ignorant. Humanity is what is the cornerstone to being at least elite and you sir have none of that.
you are making a mistake that is common of hastily-proposed solutions to collective-action problems: to 'solve' the problem by invoking a group identity of people who you assume have, internally, no collective action problems. This is rather like solving the problem of flight by assuming away gravity.
you have three layers of CA problems here. The first one is the domestic problem: how do you propose to pay for all that military adventurism? You, yourself, are not enthusiastic to volunteer. This is the point that many other posters were driving at. You now invoke the domestic interest to justify the state acting on your behalf. But you are wrongly assuming that your interest is the domestic interest - the interest of many of your fellow citizens is to minimize the blood and treasure spent to defend wealth owned by a select few.
The second one is the national problem: you've drawn a circle around "strong nations" and assumed that just because they have a common interest now, under a carefully engineered international trade system where everything major is conducted through multilateral negotiation, that they will continue to have unambiguously common interests in a world where countries regularly conduct unilateral armed attacks on each other. Everything we know of the nation-state since Westphalia was a thing suggests that this is flatly wrong. Strong countries that see something to be gained from fighting with weak countries will find other strong countries contesting with them for the privilege. Strong countries that are on the edge of becoming weak countries will obviously fear being nudged over, and will act pre-emptively to prevent this. Weak countries will try to unify into strong countries. All of these things are fluid, and more problematically, the process of trying to hammer out the borders of nation-states is extremely bloody.
The third one is the international problem: you keep invoking a hypothetical global hegemon, that can act to enforce global rules. There is no such thing. The UN has no independent army. The ICJ needs countries to opt in. The WTO's sharpest tooth is a suspension of MFN privileges. The IMF can only stop lending to you. This isn't 1860 and you cannot have the Royal Navy park a battleship off a coast until they cough up, simply because there is no navy that has managed to escape the first two problems. What you have are weak treaties enforced largely by consensus - a Nash equilibrium where everyone agrees to penalize defectors at their own expense. If too many major players leave, then the agreement is pointless: see Nations, League Of. But this is sustainable only if the costs of punishing defectors is not very large, which correspondingly limits the applicability and extent of sanctions.
That just gives an error message. I will be amazed if you can show that pharma just takes leaves off plants, crumbles them up and patents them. I don't even think that is possible. Aspirin is not just taking some willow bark and licking it. A ton of work went into creating what we use today.
We don't have indefinite patents or copyrights, so I don't know what you think this proves, but it does not.
So I take it your noble family is living very modestly because it has given all of its excess possessions to those in need, and you took no credit because they were entitled to those things by their need? I won't even say that's very charitable of you, because it isn't charitable to give someone something they have a right to.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
From what I've gathered his philosophy is "might makes right." He only believe the laws should be followed when there's significant force to back it up. That's why he was fine with the US going after poor countries yet was hesitant to go after China or India.
Here it is. Just remove the slash at the end.
http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=nexus
Charity or the giving of it is never discussed. Your amusements with my family or my lineage and what we do are none of your concern so knock it off.
And if the cost-benifit analysis fails for trade sanctions, then it's certainly going to fail for military action.
I'm personally of the opinion that the US is engaged in quasi-military actions (drone strikes) in countries like Pakistan because they are reticent to provide access to resources such as oil. This is the kind of thing that can feasibly pass a cost-benifit analysis.
And if the cost-benifit analysis fails for trade sanctions, then it's certainly going to fail for military action.
I'm personally of the opinion that the US is engaged in quasi-military actions (drone strikes) in countries like Pakistan because they are reticent to provide access to resources such as oil. This is the kind of thing that can feasibly pass a cost-benifit analysis.
I think that I agree, although I remain convinced that there is something fundamentally wrong with how we have chosen to order the world re: enforcement of grievances against other nations including weaker nations. I do not see why, for example, we cannot effectively tell Chad that it will receive no foreign aid or access to the IMF unless it increases IP enforcement efforts or allows the WIPO to do so on its behalf within its borders.
This is a whole other issue from the line in the sand that we have driven re: nation building.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Have some sympathy for the citizens living in these countries. Why should their lives be made worse so some asshole big pharma company can pressure the US government into doing its dirty work and ultimately harm its profit margins? IMF shouldn't be a big stick against weaker countries.
Nation building? America's horrible at that.
you do. the IMF and World Bank famously condition a lot of aid on improved property rights enforcement. this is already the status quo. it is merely that the status quo is not as rigorous as you would like, but that is due to constraints I mentioned above: the enforcement has to be minimally costly to member states or the system collapses. And Chad's major export partners actually like having Chadian exports to buy.
Okay, that's consistent. So then the question is: should a strong nation attempt to punish a weaker one for a slight as trivial as copyright violations? And, consequently, by what metrics should we judge inernational policies?
I feel like "makes money for select citizens and corporations" is pretty low on the priority list.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we got booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Fair enough. It's just not very satisfying.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
This is exactly what you would expect from a system designed to force everyone to keep the system generating mutual gains from trade operational.
It's as if you had a police force where, every time a crime occurred, the sheriff had to go ask for posse of unpaid volunteers to risk their lives apprehending the criminal. You would have to have a rather flexible notion of 'crime' to make this sustainable.
Neither is dying of preventable disease because American companies don't want to play ball.
Guess which one people care more about?
I may well be wrong, but how valuable of a trade partner can one of these very poor African nations be? Especially in a world where the governments don't even really control their natural resources?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Are you just trolling/being snarky or are you actually making an argument. As has been said several times, "playing ball" becomes impossible when pirates are undercutting your severely discounted prices by selling your own product for almost nothing.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
The reason why those pirates are successful in those countries is because their customers are poor people dying from preventable diseases.
nations trade heavily with their neighbours. the neighbours of poor nations are often themselves poor. Chad's biggest trade partner is Cameroon.
I don't see this as a "wealth to the few" scenario. IP creation is a major industry in the US, and IP is one of our main exports. We are a nation of idea men increasingly, and so IP rights are very important to our nation, in my view.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Maybe Interpol isn't 'strong' enough in your view, whatever that means, but it certainly does exist and certainly does arrest people (i believe it was Interpol that ultimately arrested the Pirate Bay guys).
...This is a really racist & jingoistic statement, eh? Claiming that the brown people over there don't make any new IP, and since they have no ideas themselves, well of course they just steal ours.
African nations like Mozambique make their own drugs after analyzing proprietary drugs sold by western profiteers because they feel that they they are being price gouged / held hostage, and that the medicine required to stop the HIV epidemic should not be a protected-for-profit enterprise - that it is not 'stealing' something to see what the ingredients are and then make a similar product. I have a feeling that if, say, 15% of Colorado was infected with an incurable disease, and the IP holders of the mitigation treatment were based in New Guinea, there would be no outcry over the abuse of IP laws when American labs simply duplicate the treatment rather than having a state enter into ridiculously unfair / unreasonable financial debt to a foreign body.
it's also ridiculous to claim that America is 'at the mercy' of places like Zambia or South Africa because they are making knock-off drugs and American pharmaceutical companies aren't making the absolute maximum amount of profit that they could be.
But they don't.
Who do you think owns the most IP's in the country?
Lets be simplistic here for the sake if a thought experiment. Why not make demands of the whole bloc of poor countries in the region and embargo them all until the group complies? Unless the region is a relevant trade partner for the first works, this seems like a way to fix the incentives, no?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I think it would be fantastic if you could quote from that article the specific issues you are concerned about.
Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.