Slashdot Mirror

.are the IIPA member associations themselves. BSA? The Bullshit Association? Lobbying UK Govt to keep its lock-in in proprietary formats? RIAA? Need I say more?

Assholes

There are PDFs with the report of each country:

Canada: http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2011/2011SPEC301CANADA.pdf

Taken from: http://www.iipa.com/2011_SPEC301_TOC.htm

Do not forget to read the Priority Recommendations Section.

There are PDFs with the report of each country:

Canada: http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2011/2011SPEC301CANADA.pdf

Taken from: http://www.iipa.com/2011_SPEC301_TOC.htm

Do not forget to read the Priority Recommendations Section.

Nope, it's not

I completely agree with what you are saying, but as always, wanted to see the report with my own eyes. If you read the report it mentions a Special 301 process. This is actually compiled by the IIPA (International Intellectual Property Alliance - http://www.iipa.com/aboutiipa.html) whose member include "the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)". I suppose enough money buys you reports such as these with the presidential seal on them.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'

You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies. For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed to forcing the world to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'

You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies. For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed to forcing the world to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.

As an American, I feel it's quite certain that USA politicians are against transparency; a lot of their funding comes from the people that want it passed. However, trying to reach that conclusion from the article is moronic.

I agree that the article itself is short on details, but luckily we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims that paint a pretty damning picture that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give them any benefit of the doubt on the secret speculative ACTA treaty, especially since they are making every effort to keep it out of the public eye.

If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.

Yeah, just like everything else we know about ACTA - it is ALL speculation and no "official" information. However we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims that paint a pretty damning picture that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give them any benefit of the doubt on the secret speculative ACTA treaty, especially since they are making every effort to keep it out of the public eye.

http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301INDONESIA.pdf

It's interesting that Russia and Germany are on the Special 301 list (start at http://www.iipa.com/special301.html and browse to the table on page 4).

Canada and Russia are on the priority list.
Greece, Israel, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain & Turkey are on the actual watch list and Switzerland gets a special mention.

How long until America is deemed as irrelavant to the western capitalist world as the Roman Empire was to it's neighbours?

The article summary (and the Guardian articles) mis-state that countries are being cited "because they encourage the use of open source software." In fact, in reading IIPA's Special 301 recommendations for Indonesia and Brasil, those countries are being cited because they are trying to require by law the use of open source (in government usage). That's very different from simply encouraging FOSS use as the summary suggests.

What would one expect the position of an intellectual property trade organization to be regarding countries that are trying to outlaw the use of commercial intellectual property?

Further, as indicated in the linked briefs, the issue of open source treatment is only a small one in the context of much larger intellectual property issues. To suggest that countries would be put on a watchlist simply "because they encourage the use of open source software" is to ignore the many other and weightier intellectual property concerns that have nothing to do with open source software. (Just because we're an open source community doesn't mean everything is an open source issue.)

There's nothing significant here.

The article summary (and the Guardian articles) mis-state that countries are being cited "because they encourage the use of open source software." In fact, in reading IIPA's Special 301 recommendations for Indonesia and Brasil, those countries are being cited because they are trying to require by law the use of open source (in government usage). That's very different from simply encouraging FOSS use as the summary suggests.

What would one expect the position of an intellectual property trade organization to be regarding countries that are trying to outlaw the use of commercial intellectual property?

Further, as indicated in the linked briefs, the issue of open source treatment is only a small one in the context of much larger intellectual property issues. To suggest that countries would be put on a watchlist simply "because they encourage the use of open source software" is to ignore the many other and weightier intellectual property concerns that have nothing to do with open source software. (Just because we're an open source community doesn't mean everything is an open source issue.)

There's nothing significant here.

.

IIPAs seven member associations are: the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

BSA Members

Adobe Altium Apple Autodesk AVG Bentley Systems CA Cadence Design Systems Cisco Systems CNC Software - Mastercam Corel Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation Dell Embarcadero HP IBM Intel Intuit Kaspersky McAfee Microsoft Mindjet Minitab PTC Quark Quest Rockwell Automation Rosetta Stone SAP Siemens PLM Software, Inc. Stone Bond Technologies Sybase Symantec Synopsys The MathWorks

Why in the world would the IIPA try to outlaw FOSS?

Even better, ServerSpy reveals that the IIPA website is hosted by ConcentricHosts, who at least at one stage ran Linux servers. Maybe they still do, but unfortunately the only reference I could find is ancient and a lot could have changed in 11 years.

Read their report on Indonesia for example.

They start off by condemning the amount of piracy that happens in Indonesia. That part is probably accurate and fair.

However, then things go from sane to really, really screwy. They start the puzzling paragraph with

Worse yet, instead of focusing attention on piracy and solutions to the problem, the government retained onerous market access barriers, including the requirement to locally manufacture film prints and home videos in Indonesia (which had been suspended throughout 2009) and added new restrictions. For example, in March 2009, the Ministry of Administrative Reform (MenPAN) issued Circular Letter No. 1 of 2009 to all central and provincial government offices including State-owned enterprises, endorsing the use and adoption of open source software within government organizations.

What can one take away from this letter? That the BSA would rather have you pirate Microsoft products than use Linux? That we should use trade embargoes (and given history, probably even military force) to enforce sales of Adobe, Microsoft, and Oracle products?

This is just crazy. It would be one thing but for the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA to sign off on that is pretty darned scary.

It appears to me that the IIPA's own web site is hosted on the Open Source Apache web server. It's a little hard to tell because the Server header has been customised and there may be some sort of hardware loadbalancer in front of the server. Anyway the 404 page and the directory listings certainly look like Apache.

Not wishing to defend these guys too much but on a quick read of one of their reports, they barely mention open source. Here's all the report on Brazil says about FOSS:

"Avoid legislation on the mandatory use of open source software by government agencies and government controlled
companies."

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Anytime I feel bad about the current state of affairs here in America a story shows up with EU, UK, Australia, or Canada doing something that would be worse.

Dont' let that lull you into a false sense of security - The US is the main actor behind most of these laws being passed so you will probably find that it is just the boiling frog method of shafting these laws in. Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via stealth taxes/three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. Countries sign on to this in exchange for "Free Trade" deals. Examples:

New Zealand Reintroduces 3 Strikes:
"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam."... "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".
Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Spain's Proposed Internet Law Sparks Protest:
IIPA report card on Spain. resulting US political clout result: local laws and taxes supporting mafiaa industry.

The sad part is that even though countries that want to be in on these trade "deals" are required to implement draconian anti-internet laws and filters, obliged to extradite civil cases to the US for trial (software piracy in this case), the resulting "Free Trade" agreement rewards generaly do not benefit the countries involved! Which begs the question, who does benefit... perhaps just the politicians who signed off on the deal?

The only way I can see to fight this kind of slide is to create a black list of any group/industry that lobbies any government in support these kinds of anti-democratic process trade deals. If any group supports trade deals that required destroying the internet, then the internet could become one humongous nightmare of bad press blog artices against your industry group. Seems only fair - shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too.

"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.

From IIPA's blessing for NZ on the trade agreement: "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".

Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Cue slashdot posting "Chile/Peru/Brunei/Vietnam introduces 3 Strikes Law" in 3...2....

Resistance is futile.

"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.

From IIPA's blessing for NZ on the trade agreement: "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".

Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Cue slashdot posting "Chile/Peru/Brunei/Vietnam introduces 3 Strikes Law" in 3...2....

Resistance is futile.

"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.

From IIPA's blessing for NZ on the trade agreement: "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".

Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Cue slashdot posting "Chile/Peru/Brunei/Vietnam introduces 3 Strikes Law" in 3...2....

Resistance is futile.

"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.

From IIPA's blessing for NZ on the trade agreement: "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".

Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Cue slashdot posting "Chile/Peru/Brunei/Vietnam introduces 3 Strikes Law" in 3...2....

Resistance is futile.

"IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.

From IIPA's blessing for NZ on the trade agreement: "Specific problems in some of the TPP countries are outlined in the Special 301 reports from 2009 for Chile, Peru, Brunei, and Vietnam".

Where "specific problems" mean: No three strikes laws, no trade deal.

Cue slashdot posting "Chile/Peru/Brunei/Vietnam introduces 3 Strikes Law" in 3...2....

Resistance is futile.

P.S Here is the motivation behind this law, it was a done deal at least by March 4, 2009. From the Lions mouth (under New Zealand): "IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.
So there you go. This is at least part of the entry fee NZ used for this trade agreement. What coercion did IIPA use on Singapore, Chile, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam? Check for yourself if you dare... but don't expect anything pretty.

P.S Here is the motivation behind this law, it was a done deal at least by March 4, 2009. From the Lions mouth (under New Zealand): "IIPA testifies in support of the initiation of negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam." PDF Link.
So there you go. This is at least part of the entry fee NZ used for this trade agreement. What coercion did IIPA use on Singapore, Chile, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam? Check for yourself if you dare... but don't expect anything pretty.

Oh don't worry. THEY will lobby/bribe 3 strikes laws into existence pretty much everywhere.

Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intelectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. As one small example of many, check out their recent "report" on Spain. Witness the resulting political clout and of course, the result they were after with local laws against P2P. Spain is the 8th largest economy in the world - not so easy to boss around if unwilling to cooperate. UK, France appear to be more than happy to bend over for IIPA without any fight - at least Spain managed to keep judicial process in the loop, for now at least.
All of it does not bode well for tiny countries like NZ that do not stand much chance against combined international coercion from the "IIPA Club".

Oh don't worry. THEY will lobby/bribe 3 strikes laws into existence pretty much everywhere.

Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intelectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. As one small example of many, check out their recent "report" on Spain. Witness the resulting political clout and of course, the result they were after with local laws against P2P. Spain is the 8th largest economy in the world - not so easy to boss around if unwilling to cooperate. UK, France appear to be more than happy to bend over for IIPA without any fight - at least Spain managed to keep judicial process in the loop, for now at least.
All of it does not bode well for tiny countries like NZ that do not stand much chance against combined international coercion from the "IIPA Club".

Oh don't worry. THEY will lobby/bribe 3 strikes laws into existence pretty much everywhere.

Know your enemy. "THEY" are the International Intelectual Property Alliance (IIPA), and they have the full political clout of the US government behind them - working to subvert democratic process in just about every country in the world via three strikes/no presumption of innocence for the sheeple. As one small example of many, check out their recent "report" on Spain. Witness the resulting political clout and of course, the result they were after with local laws against P2P. Spain is the 8th largest economy in the world - not so easy to boss around if unwilling to cooperate. UK, France appear to be more than happy to bend over for IIPA without any fight - at least Spain managed to keep judicial process in the loop, for now at least.
All of it does not bode well for tiny countries like NZ that do not stand much chance against combined international coercion from the "IIPA Club".

Now, the US simply doesn't ask for these laws to be put in place, they shoe horn, back door and in some cases force it.

Well said! Here is a recent example of US "coercing" of Spain into adopting IIPA's world view (i.e. police the internet for the US) - basically not inviting the worlds eighth largest economy to the world crisis summit(s), unless they bent over for IIPA. Same old same old, but at least more Americans at least appear to be becoming aware of why this kind of extremely arrogant foreign policy makes them so unpopular around the world.

Here you go. No doubt a native speaker could improve it, and maybe someone with a bit of time can find Spanish versions of the links I haven't replaced.

España ha vuelto a mostrarse mucho más sabia que Francia o el Reino Unido en cuanto a rendirse ante las presiones de los lobbys internacionales. Me explico: el gobierno español, como cualquier gobierno, ha sido sujeto a presiones políticas intensas. No hay premios para adivinar quién ha hecho el mayor esfuerzo para cambiar el sistema democrático aquí en España y por todo el mundo: sí, como siempre, EEUU. La demostración: aquí está el informe 301 anual del IIP de EEUU, que menciona España con China, Rusia, y varios otros países como los peores infractores por no ceder a las exigencias de propiedad intelectual de los "autores" estadounidenses. El resumen del informe 301: Metas de EEUU aquí y en otras partes del mundo:

Las prioridades principales de la Administración este año siguen ser tratar debilidades en protección de y de hacer respetar los derechos de propiedad intelectual [DPI]... Aunque el Informe Especial 301 de este año muestra progreso positivo en muchos países, problemas endémicos de falsificación y piratería han continuado... lo que indica la necesidad de regímenes más fuertes de [protegir] y hacer repetar los DPI en esos países.

Cómo crees que "ayudan" a países como España a implementar regímenes más fuertes de DPI? Por el proceso democrático y escuchar la voluntad de la gente? (Chantaje, extorsiones y corrupción son palabras más adecuadas). Ay, pero se me olvidé, aquí en EEUU llamamos al proceso "difundir la democracia", qué tonto soy.

Lo que tenemos es un país extremadamente poderoso que corre por este pequeño planeta con un palo político excepcionalmente grande, pegando hasta que se someta cualquier país que se atreva a escuchar la voluntad de su gente con respeto a su idea de lo que es hacer respetar la propiedad intelectual (o cualquier otra idea). No me creas así de fácil: intenta leer el "Informe Especial 2009 de la Alianza Internacional de Propiedad Intelectual (IIPA)" [inglés] sobre España. El resumen ejecutivo para los perezosos [o los que no leen el inglés]:

La piratería por Internet en España sigue empeorando, tanto que muchas de las industrias de copyright creen que España tiene el peor problema de piratería por Internet per capita en Europa y una de las tasas de conjunto de piratería por Internet en el mundo. Los altos niveles de piratería se agravan por las políticas del gobierno español de: (1) "despenalizar" la distribución P2P de archivos (reflejado en la Circular de 2006 de la Fiscalía General) y (2) fallar en establecer los requisitos mínimos a nivel de la UE en cuanto a las responsabilidades de los proveedores de servicios de Internet según el Directivo de E-Commercio para que los dueños de derechos tengan las herramientas necesarias para hacer respetar sus derechos en Internet. Por resultado, la policía ha dejado de tomar acciones en Internet por las incertezas legales, y la Fiscalía ha pedido que sobresean casos criminales actuales contra webs ilegales de portales y vínculos. Es i

They still are, generally (Rounding three years in Madrid quite soon) - Lately a judge decided that P2P sites are okay for private sharing. However, the government tries to slip in above kind of Internet law ruling for quite some time now, it is not the first time and sure it will be not the last time.

I agree, the Spanish and its current government are really good when it comes to the internet (Also living in Madrid 7 years or so). Spain has once again demonstrated itself far more wise than France, UK when it comes to bowing to international lobbying pressure. Let me explain: The Spanish government, like all the worlds governments, has been under intense lobbying pressure ("presiones políticas"). You get no points for guessing who has been working the hardest to change the democratic system here in Spain and around the world: Yes that's right, good old US of A. Proof: Here is last years US annual IIP 301 report lumping Spain along side China, Rusia, and many others as the worst offenders for not bowing to intellectual property demands of the United States "authors". Summary of 301 report: Aims of the US here and elsewhere in the world:

The Administration's top priorities this year continue to be addressing weak IPR protection and enforcement... Although this year's Special 301 Report shows positive progress in many countries, rampant counterfeiting and piracy problems have continued... indicating a need for stronger IPR regimes and enforcement in those countries.

How do you think they are "helping" countries like Spain implement stronger IPR regimes? Through democratic process and listening to the will of the people? (blackmailing, extorting and corrupting are more applicable words). Oh I forgot, here in the US we call the process "spreading democracy", silly me.

What we have got is a extremely powerful country running around this little planet with an exceptionally big political stick, beating any country into submission that dares listen to the will of its people over their idea of Intellectual property enforcement (and anything else). Don't believe me: try reading the "INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE (IIPA) 2009 SPECIAL REPORT" on Spain. (their title, not mine sorry - I guess they want to shout the message). First line summary for the lazy:

Executive Summary: Internet piracy in Spain continues to worsen, such that many of the copyright industries believe that Spain has the worst per capita Internet piracy problem in Europe and one of the worst overall Internet piracy rates in the world. Exacerbating the high piracy levels are the Spanish government’s policies of: (1) “decriminalizing” P2P file-sharing (as reflected in the 2006 Circular issued by the Attorney General) and (2) failing to establish the minimum EU-level requirements regarding liability for Internet service providers under the E-Commerce Directive so that rights holders have the necessary tools to enforce their rights on the Internet. As a result, the police have ceased taking Internet enforcement actions given the legal uncertainties, and the Attorney General has requested dismissal of current criminal cases against illegal portal and link sites. Importantly, negotiations between rights holders and the Internet service provider (ISP) community to find ways to prevent infringing content from being distributed over the ISPs’ services and/or networks finally

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is a private sector coalition formed in 1984 to represent the U.S. copyright-based industries in bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve international protection of copyrighted materials.

We [the US] don't have to play their game either. Trade is a 2-way negotiation. We don't have to accept all their imports if we don't like their IP treatment.

True in principle, of course. As a sovereign nation, the US is perfectly free to start trade wars with whomever it wants.

But a good rule of thumb for statesmen, is to show restraint in starting wars that you cannot possibly win.

In trade wars, size is all that matters. If a big county and a small one start imposing trade sanctions on each other, both countries are hurt, but the smaller one is hurt more. If there is a big enough difference in size between the two sides, the strategy can actually work. US trade sanctions on Cuba hurt Cuba a lot, but have no significant impact on the US economy. Therefore, the US has been able to keep up the sanctions for about half a century. (But it should of course be noted that this strategy has failed to achieve the primary goal of unseating Castro, even after all that time.)

But in the case of the US vs. Cuba, the US economy is about 300 times as large as the Cuban one in terms of GDP.

With China, it's an entirely different ball game. The relevant figures from the CIA Factbook are:

• US: population 300 million, purchasing power parity GDP 13,000 billion
• China: population 1,320 million, ppp GDP 10,000 billion

That's a considerable advantage for China in terms of population, and almost parity when it comes to economic strength. Add to this the fact that China's percentage of the world's total GDP is rising, whereas the US percentage is declining, and we can skip directly to the bottom line:

There is no way the US can win a sustained trade war against China.

And it's not just China, of course. There is a long list of countries that the US is trying convince to change its copyright laws to better suit US corporate interests. In fact, as the BBC article US copyright lobby out-of-touch points out, the majority of the world's population lives in countries that are being implicitly threatened with trade sanctions by the US over intellectual property issues.

To those of us living outside the US, these threats are just silly. The US economy accounts for 20% of the world's GDP (ppp adjusted), the rest of the world has 80%. Who do you think will win the trade war "the US vs. the rest", if push comes to shove?

When a British newspaper ran the famous headline "Fog over the channel, continent isolated", the empire was already on the decline, even if nobody had noticed it yet. The US threatening the rest of the world with trade sanctions to uphold its views on intellectual property, smacks of just the same attitude helped hasten the demise of what once was the greatest empire on earth.

By the way, check out www.iipa.com There's links to the 'Special 301' sections, along with graphs of what they think they're losing, and their wish list for correcting it.

Why can't every day be World Intellectual Property Day?!

"we're better off having copyright laws."

You need to calculate the economy over the entire segment. As a segment with monopolistic competition, the revenue extraction is more or less maximized, ie, you pretty much cannot get more total money out of the consumers for the specific product segment.

You may want to be careful about offering arguments like this. The report itself offers figures to show that the intellectual property industry as a whole constituted well over 11% of the US GDP in 2005, that the figure is steadily growing, and that the added value from the IP industry is out of proportion with the size of the industry. Now, you may want to dispute the figures; I'd be happy to see that. But it really doesn't look to me like an argument based on economic benefit is going to be on the side of the general public; it seems to me that the argument has to be based on cultural benefit, general all-purpose morality.

Taken from the IIPA website:
"The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is a private sector coalition formed in 1984 to represent the U.S. copyright-based industries in bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve international protection of copyrighted materials."

To me this is a complete contradiction. The only International thing about them is they are lobbying to force the US agenda on the rest of the world.

That is a bit disengenuous. Russia has signed on with international copyright laws too.

(To save you scanning the link:

Five C.I.S. nations -- the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Belarus -- have now adhered to the Berne Convention. The Russian Federation is the only member of the Geneva Phonograms Convention. Armenia and the Russian Federation have joined the Brussels Satellite Convention

While piracy in general in Korea seems to be on the rise, as of 2003, entertainment software piracy was actually on the decline, at 36% as opposed to 90% in 2000. While that's still pretty obscene, I'm not really sure how that compares to figures in the US. On the other hand, I'm not sure how these numbers were arrived at, or if they have any meaning whatsoever.

Here's the survey I found on Google:
http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2004/2004SPEC301KOREA.pdf

Although it seems pretty bad, if it's such a problem, why haven't the companies pulled out already? That does suggest a strategy for Microsoft, though. Maybe if they rallied a bunch of big-name developers together and threatened jointly, they might have some effect. Microsoft does have a pretty dominant games division, but I wonder just how big those games are in Korea compared to the wares of Blizzard, NC Soft and Nexon.

why is the usa to blame for what australia does?

Instead, try the IIPA, (which the RIAA is a member of), which has requested that the US govt place trade restrictions on certain countries due to copyright infringement issues.

This is, unfortunately, one of those times where the sheer size of the US of A economy can, through the careful applications of trade sanctions, have dramatic effects on the economys of other countries.

Hence, it is not surprising that if trade sanctions are insinuated, countries may well roll over and go after entities that aren't abiding by US (copyright) law (but are abiding by that country's laws), or alter their (copyright) laws to be more closely conforming with US (copyright) law.

Instead, try the IIPA, (which the RIAA is a member of), which has requested that the US govt place trade restrictions on certain countries due to copyright infringement issues.

This is, unfortunately, one of those times where the sheer size of the US of A economy can, through the careful applications of trade sanctions, have dramatic effects on the economys of other countries.

Hence, it is not surprising that if trade sanctions are insinuated, countries may well roll over and go after entities that aren't abiding by US (copyright) law (but are abiding by that country's laws), or alter their (copyright) laws to be more closely conforming with US (copyright) law.

You know what's funnier? Everybody looks at the US university but no one looks also in Europe or Asia; there are also some, and soon many more, univeristy to get good bandwith, and if you take a look an IIPA website, there are other countries that are top of the piracy not USA.