Slashdot Mirror
The New York Times on Hypocrisy of US IP Policies
jwinterboy writes "
The New York Times has an article (free blah di blah) criticizing the intellectual property framework that the U.S. places on developing countries, given that it was a large pirate of intellectual property during it's own industrialization.
"
When did companies earn the priviledge to own copywrite?
At the point when the artist signs it over to them, in exchange for an advance and/or global distribution and promotion facilities. Or at the point when he signs a "work-for-hire" agreement, and gets a steady paycheck in exchange for a little less pressure.
When the fifes stop tweeting, the drums stop rum-tumming, and all the clenched fists make their collective way out of the air and back into blue-jeaned pockets, small children still need new shoes, and the writers, artists, and musicians who are their moms and dads have to buy them.
At the Commission on Intellectual Copyright website.
You can download the whole thing in PDF format, or browse online.
(btw I submitted a story about this over a month ago)
I this Shoppa is mistaken. Brazil clear-cuts most (approximately 95%) of the forests it cuts down for domestic wood consumption (mostly cooking wood and to farm the land in non-intensive modern farming. They use very little for paper exports.
y _r eport_america/resources.html
Sure, we chopped down a huge amount of US forests for paper, furniture, cooking and ship building purposes. But then we got rich. Then this happened:
<i>Today, the volume of wood in U.S. forests is about 25 percent greater than it was 40 years ago. The United States has about the same amount of land covered by trees today as it did 80 years ago. In Vermont, for example, forest cover has more than doubled - from 37 percent in 1850 to 77 percent forest today. In New Hampshire, forest cover was 50 percent in 1850 compared to 87 percent today.
Each year, there are 1.5 billion tree seedlings planted in the United States - that's more than five new trees for each American, and nearly 2,000 for every bear. Forest planting in the United States currently averages about 2.4 million acres per year. </I>
http://www.timberhunt.com/country_report/countr
Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. --Phillip K. Dick (remove SPAM to email)
The US Revolution was really a terrorist effort. Disproportional warfare was fought by the Americans, the British, and other power powers of the time had strict rules of engagement. Certain things were "allowed" and "unallowed" during warfare. The Americans, outmatched by the British Forces employed distinctly divergent tactics (raids, ambushes etc) that were -- at the time -- considered barbaric, disgraceful and un-honourable.... Terrorism.
As far as I am aware, the American revolutionaries tended to attack military and government targets. Contrast them with modern-day terrorists such as the IRA who focus their attacks primarily on the civilian population. That's the real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, not their tactics, not their strategy, but their choice of target.
Note that the Taliban/al-Queda were freedom fighters while they only attacked Soviet military forces, but exactly the same people using exactly the same techniques became terrorists when they turned their attention to noncombatants.
Copyright was in invented in England so printers would take the risk of publishing new works. (http://www.mead4congress.com/copyright/)
Patents grant a temporary monopoly in return for the publishing of the trade secret of an invention.
IP is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but Congress is therein granted the power to grant temporary monopolies to authors and inventors. The explicit purpose is to advance science and the useful arts, both are accomplished by speeding the publication of new ideas and inventions and getting them into the public domain. Given the existance of the Internet and the level of reverse engineering now possible, it can be argued that such monopolies are no longer necessary.
both are accomplished by speeding the publication of new ideas and inventions and getting them into the public domain
The publication is the benefit to the public. It is a quid pro quo for the benefit toward the inventor: The temporary monopoly.
This inventor benefit spurs innovation in two ways:
1. (Present innovation) The inventor will be willing to assume a greater risk (greater resource expenditures toward innovation) because of the award (temporary monopoly) granted by the patent.
2. (Future Innovation) The inventor may be able to fund future R&D efforts by successful licensing terms obtained because of the temporary monopoly granted.
It can be argued that such monopolies are no longer necessary
Yes it can be argued.
Similar discussions on this topic have not however reached the conclusion that patent protection is not necessary in order to foster innovation:
Klemperer, Paul, "How broad should the scope of patent protection be?," Rand Journal of Economics, 1990, 21.
Gilbert, Richard and Carl Shapiro, "Optimal patent length and breadth," Rand Journal of Economics, 1990, 21 (1), 106-112.
Ayres, Ian and Paul Klemperer, "Limiting patentee's market power without reducing innovation incentives: The perverse benefits of uncertainty and non-injuctive remedies," Michigan Law Review, February 1999, 97 (4).
Ordover, Janusz A., "A patent system for both diffusion and exclusion," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1991, 5 (1), 43-60.
Scotchmer, Suzanne, "Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 1991, 5 (1), 29-41.
The real problems are in steel tarriffs and agricultural subsidies, that a nation that touts free trade (and the EU is just as bad here) resorts to protectionism and barely-disguised mercantilism at the first sign of trouble. Trouble's when you need your principles the most, not the least.
Sigh...
This has been going on for too long in the USA and the reason is simple. Most voters in the US don't give a rats ass. Two recent situations come to mind.
The whole genetically modified foodstuff debacle. The problem is that the US has granted patents on GM strains of common foodstuffs. Then when GM strains pollute natural crops with patented genes, farmers get sued into oblivion. Then, when third world countries turn down "donations" of GM food , US aid officials criticize them. What everyone seemed to miss (unsurprisingly) is that if Zimbabwe accepted the GM maize and then their local crops "somehow" became polluted with patented GM strains, they would soon be in a position where they would have to pay IP lawyers and US corporations to enable their people to eat locally produced food.
The other issue is protectionism. I won't even touch the steel issue. It reeks too badly. Instead, let's consider the current softwood lumber dispute with Canada. (if you say "What dispute?" my point is made) The protectionism in this dispute is almost as rampant as the corruption. The bottom line being that a select group of southern lumber barons profit while average Americans pay $3000 more for new housing. Oh, don't forget the 50,000 Canadians who were put out of work. The fact that the WTO will eventually overturn this does not negate the impact it has on profits, costs and jobs in the short term. If this is how we treat our closest ally, it's no wonder our enemies hate us.
Look at the big picture, people.
Sorry, looking at the big picture is simply too difficult for most Americans. It requires critical thinking and the ability to look at our own behaviour objectively. Point being, as long as Joe Sixpack has a job and Monday Night Football, most Americans just don't care.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.