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. "

Comments

Re:Developing nations

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add a little bit to the "happened elsewhere theme":
AFAIK in the 2nd half of 19th century Germany was widely seen as the rip-off nation building machinery, chemical and pharmaceutical industries on violating patents, only switching to international patent system after they had something to lose.

For general amusement: among my fellow german countrymen it is widely unknown, that the mark "made in germany" (which they hold in a kind of national pride) was originally forced on german goods by the British to mark them as cheap crap (anybody to remember first japanese cars?).

Typefaces and IP

[munro]

Typefaces/fonts are an interesting area. American companies apparently used typefaces (which tradionally all came from European type design houses) without paying any royalties or licences, but are now starting to try to get protection.

http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_14.htm

"The reluctance of Americans to press for typeface copyright may have been influenced by a feeling that typeface plagiarism was good for U.S. high-tech businesses who were inventing new technologies for printing, and plagiarizing types of foreign origin (Europe and England). If the situation becomes reversed, and foreign competition (from Japan, Taiwan, and Korea) threatens to overcome American technological superiority in the laser printer industry, then American firms may do an about-face and seek the protection of typeface copyright to help protect the domestic printer industry. Such a trend may already be seen in the licensing of typeface trademarks by Adobe, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Imagen, and Xerox in the U.S. laser printer industry."

Adam Smith and *Intellectual monopoly*

[NZheretic]

From The Relevance of Adam Smith by Robert L. Hetzel.
With added commentary by yours truly...

MONOPOLY AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES: The principal theme set forth in The Wealth of Nations is that a country most effectively promotes its own wealth by providing a framework of laws that leaves individuals free to pursue the interest they have in their own economic betterment. This self-interest motivates individuals? propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another and thereby leads them to meet the needs of others through voluntary cooperation in the market place:

...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (p. 14)

Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However ...

Smith also argues that the harmony between private goals and larger socially desirable goals promoted by voluntary cooperation between individuals in the market place is interfered with by monopoly and government subsidies. In contrast to competition, monopoly and government subsidies cause individuals to devote either too few or too many resources to particular markets:

....the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on in it, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.

All the different regulations of the mercantile system, necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock. (pp. 594-5)
Every derangement of the natural distribution of stock is necessarily hurtful to the society in which it takes place; whether it be by repelling from a particular trade the stock which would otherwise go to it, or by attracting towards a particular trade that which would not otherwise come to it. (p. 597)

.... sometimes, because of the overiding profit motive, the end consumer can be put at a disadvantage, and the natural model can become unbalanced. This often happens in tha case of several types of monopoly...

Smith describes the actions of monopolists as follows:

The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. (p. 61)

The natural price is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business. (p. 61) Today we would use the word competitive for natural. The effectual demand is the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity. (p. 56) Monopoly, as well as a governmentally subsidized activity, contrasts with a competitive market where a commodity is...sold precisely for what it is worth, or for what it really costs the person who brings it to market. (p. 55)
The Wealth of Nations contains three general kinds of criticism of monopolies. The first is that the higher prices in a monopolized market reduce the welfare of consumers:

If...capital is divided between two different grocers, their competition will tend to make both of them sell cheaper, than if it were in the hands of one only; and if it were divided among twenty, their competition would be just so much the greater, and the chance of their combining together, in order to raise the price, just so much the less. Their competition might perhaps ruin some of themselves; but to take care of this is the business of the parties concerned, and it may safely be trusted to their discretion. It can never hurt either the consumer, or the producer; on the contrary, it must tend to make the retailers both sell cheaper and buy dearer, than if the whole trade was monopolized by one or two persons. (pp. 342-3)
In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interest sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves, so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market. (p. 461)

.... like deals made between vendors to set prices, which RAND "reasonable" licensing systems effectively does.

The second criticism of monopoly is that it engenders inefficient management:

Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse to it for the sake of self-defence. (p. 147)

For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities, a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.

The third criticism of monopoly is that it is inequitable because it increases arbitrarily the inequality in individuals? incomes:

...The policy of Europe occasions a very important inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into them. (pp. 118-19)

And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.

Monopoly has always been a contentious issue in debates on public policy in the United States. It is interesting to examine the way in which the ideas of Smith appear in current debates over monopoly. In general, proponents of government intervention in the market place argue that monopoly is endemic in capitalism and that its elimination requires significant intervention by the government in the market place. An opposing group argues that free markets effectively restrain monopoly power and that it is in fact government intervention in the market place that is chiefly responsible for monopoly. The first group assumes that large size, fewness of firms, and operation over an extensive geographic area automatically imply monopoly power and thus supports its position by citing the existence of industries dominated by a few large firms and the existence of multinational corporations. The opposing group supports its position by trying to show that where monopoly power exists it is made possible by particular governmental actions, e.g., in the United States by marketing orders that fix the price of milk above what it would be otherwise, or FCC regulations restricting the growth of cable TV, thereby preventing competition with the established networks.

The view of the world suggested in The Wealth of Nations is that monopoly power cannot persist without the assistance of government. The specific examples of monopoly that Adam Smith attacked required the police power of the state for their maintenance. These monopolies were of three kinds. One kind of monopoly depended upon the mercantilistic system of laws which England used to monopolize trade with its colonies: Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole engine of the mercantile system. (p. 595) Another kind arose from the monopoly power granted guilds (referred to by Smith as corporations), which allowed them exclusive rights to produce a given commodity:

The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade. To have served an apprenticeship in the town, under a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for obtaining this freedom. The bye-laws of the corporation regulate sometimes the number of apprentices which any master is allowed to have, and almost always the number of years which each apprentice is obliged to serve. The intention of both regulations is to restrain the competition to a much smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into the trade. The limitation of the number of apprentices restrains it directly. A long term of apprenticeship restrains it more indirectly, but as effectually, by increasing the expence of education. (p. 119)
The government of towns corporate was altogether in the hands of traders and artificers; and it was the manifest interest of every particular class of them, to prevent the market from being overstocked, as they commonly express it, with their own particular species of industry; which is in reality to keep it always understocked. (p. 124)

A final kind of monopoly depended upon tariffs and quotas that prevented foreign producers from competing with domestic producers:

The superiority which the industry of the towns has every-where in Europe over that of the country, is not altogether owing to corporations and corporation laws. It is supported by many other regulations. The high duties upon foreign manufactures and upon all goods imported by alien merchants, all tend to the same purpose. Corporation laws enable the inhabitants of towns to raise their prices, without fearing to be under-sold by the free competition of their own countrymen. Those other regulations secure them equally against that of foreigners. (p. 127)

Competitive markets restrain monopoly because the above-average profits associated with the exercise of monopoly power attract new producers who increase output and thereby lower prices:

When by an increase in the effectual demand, the market price of some particular commodity happens to rise a good deal above the natural price, those who employ their stocks in supplying that market are generally careful to conceal this change. If it was commonly known, their great profit would tempt so many new rivals to employ their stocks in the same way, that, the effectual demand being fully supplied, the market price would soon be reduced to the natural price.... Secrets of this kind, however, it must be acknowledged, can seldom be long kept; and the extraordinary profit can last very little longer than they are kept. (p. 60)

The next section is very IMPORTANT.

Monopolists can preserve their favorable position only if the government prevents potential competitors from entering the monopolized activity:

The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship, and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency...They...may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the labour and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate.

Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the regulations of police which give occasion to them. (pp. 61-2)

In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused.
These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols, effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.

Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government. In the following passage Smith refers to the guilds, or corporations, of his day:

An incorporation...makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever. (p. 129)

Smith?s ideas appear in current public debate over monopoly. Advocates of deregulating the transportation and communications industries by eliminating or reducing the power of Federal regulatory agencies argue that these agencies promote monopoly by limiting the entry of new firms and by fixing prices for all producers. Government regulations enforced upon all firms in an industry have the effect of allowing producers to eliminate competition and to raise prices. At the same time, lack of competition reduces incentives for efficient production.

My Solution

[Lonath]

Compulsory licensing of IP at a rate like this:

Take the lowest bulk licensing rate in the G8 (if they don't license, then the lowest rate per pill or copy of the software or whatever minus the expected costs of producing each copy).

Multiply this by the ratio of country Foo's MIN(mean, median) income over the G8's MAX(mean, median) income.

Then the industrialized nations have a reason to increase their income equality and they have a reason to make poorer nations less poor. And, poorer nations have the chance to make things without being overburdoned by the IP laws of the rich nations.

And for those of you keeping score at home, YES this is effectively giving away IP to poorer nations, but so what? The richer nations should be paying for their own IP within their own economies and they should look at any money gotten from poorer nations only as gravy.

The first industrial spy?

[ProfessorPuke]

For a specific example of how America's development was spurred by IP violations, run a websearch on "Francis Cabot Lowell spy".

Tis said that in ~1810 he memorized the schematics to the automated weaving machine to get around the British prohibition on the export of technical schematics.

Whole cities (some bearing his name) in Massachusetts sprung up around this invention, and it lead to a spread of large scale agriculture in the south and west. Previously textile raw materials had to be exported to England for manufacture into garments, then imported back to the US for sale- and enormous impediment for efficiency and growth.

The development of American factories also changed the face of urban demographics- large quantities of the lower classes were pulled into dense cities that were previously enclaves of the wealthy (and their abundant domestic help). Since the best (most nimble & most managable) factory workers were girls, unmarried single women finally got the opportunity to support themselves financially while mantaining their virtue.

The violation of patents lead to progress like this, which had a much greater impact than breaking copyright and reading Dickins on the cheap.

Re:Developing nations (the Mauser)

[JThaddeus]

So the Germans stole from the Brits but the Yanks stole from the Germans. I recall that the Germans invented the Mauser bolt-action rifle mechanism, considered the finest in the world at the that time. After the First World War, the US Springfield arsenal was sued for failing to pay royalties on their wartime production of the 1903 Springfield rifle, the standard US Army rifle for WWI. Of course, this was heard in a US court that was not sympathetic to a German claim.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[mpe]

It is no secret that the U.S. used protective tariffs to protect early manufacturer's (who otherwise could not compete with England). It is also no secret that the U. S. really did not like it when others tried to do the same. Now we are doing it with GATT. Throughout the last century we were not so sublte: Marines were sent throughout this hemesphere to make sure that bananas were grown and local governments were not too concerned about the welafare of the common man at the exoence of U. S. buisness interests.

Hardly past tense, since the US hasn't actually stopped doing this sort of thing. Let alone make even token attempts at rectifying the problems this covert colonialism created.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[mpe]

I think a very pressing issue in the future will be whether future administrations follow Bush's tendency to view the entire planet as the Holy American Empire or not.

Were the presidents before Bush really that different. Except that with no effective opposition Bush feels able to come out and say it.

While we can obliterate training camps and oust dictators,

Very often these turn out to be traning camps which the US people paid for and dictators installed by the US.

we're never going to subject every man who hates us to such abject poverty that he can't buy a box cutter and a plane ticket.

That's probably easier than asking why they should hate you in the first place. Since the answers are probably not what most Americans would want to hear.

I sincerely hope our future President will be some sort of diplomat rather than a caricature of a Texan cowboy.

Actually her or she would probably not have to be too much of a diplomat. They would just need to be radical enough to cease all economic and military aid to all other countries. All too often this ends up keeping undemocratic governments in office. especially where there is an interest for big business involved. Effectivly what would be needed would be a US president who would put the interests of the US people before a few big corporates, before some little country in the easten mediterranian. has no interest in being an emporor and wouldn't be afraid to tell fruit companies "if you want to grow fruit in Nicaragua talk to the Nicaraguan government, don't like their terms, tough" or to tell oil companies "if you want to extract oil in Iran, talk to the Iranian government..."

Developing countries and IP laws

[jcam2]

I'm not sure if developing countries really benefit from not having IP laws in the long run. For example, I know people in Malaysia (a country where almost all software and movies are sold openly by pirates) who tried to produce a home-grown music videotape of songs by local singers.

Guess what happened - pirated immediately copied it, and the original producers ended up with thousands of unsellable tapes! So maybe the US is actually doing these countrys a favour by encouraging them to enforce IP laws.

AND furthermore...

[Thud457]

I just did a quick check on IMDB, and it appears that the case is even stronger that I had thought. Just looking at Walt Disney's credits, it is striking how much of his early work was taken from the public domain. What he does to poor Alice for "Alice in Wonderland" is amazing -- 47 short subjects based around putting somebody else's character in new stories!!! It will take some work, but I bet that it can be proven that half his work from before 1965 is in some way derivative of the public domain!

Talk about slamming the door in the face of the people behind you! What hypocrisy!

Allowing use of IP by developing nations

[Tobias Lobster]

A scheme where the developing nations were allowed to ignore IP and Copyright law while producing goods to be used only in their own internal markets could be introduced with minimal cost to the IP owners.

The G8 countries wouldn't make significant loss, because the developing nations are generally unable to afford the licensed products anyway. Piracy would be no worse, because the pirates already ignore Copyright and IP law.

Re:Broader Theme of Colonialism

[back_pages]

Yes, many previous Presidents were quite different. For most of the 20th century, there was an imminent threat from a nation representing a polar opposite of the principles on which America stood. When the US made an imperialistic move, understandably extending our sphere of influence, there was a global superpower willing to stand up and fight back. This is no more. When the Bush dictates his plans to smaller countries without veto power in the UN or representation in other global venues, he very effectively turns them into quasi-American colonies. They are ruled from Washington without representation. They must submit their sovereignty or be mowed over by force.

In the past, this would have been opposed by the nuclear force of the Soviet Union. Today, we live in American hegemony over the world. Some would say that global stability with two superpowers is far easier to achieve than with one, and I think we will see this proven true if the attitude of the Bush administration persists after he is out of office.

You are perfectly right that there is far too much corporate influence on our international politics. This should have the citizens outrage, but it isn't so. Why? Which mass media corporation is going to take the fall for getting the word out that our government has sold the safety of its citizens for the lobbying dollars of some corporations? In a sense, your logic makes the same move that mine has. I say, "Don't fight the symptoms of anti-American hatred, but rather the international policies that spawn such hatred." You say, "Don't fight the international policies, but rather the lobbying corporations that fuel those policies." Part and parcel of the same solution, I hope.

Ultimately, I will be voting for a President who views America's role in the world as the judge rather than the jury. It is unreasonable to deny our role as the executor of force and therefore justice (however it may be defined today), but we cannot afford to also convict whomever we like. Those whom we disenfranchise will be attacking with pipebombs and knives rather than aircraft carriers and warplanes. This nation is probably the most susceptible to covert terrorist attacks as a result of our liberty loving and largely anonymous society. This should necessitate that we use our might in accordance with international approval and remain sensitive to the fact that we have become The Empire to our enemies. Instead, we have policies that change the identity of America while perpetuating and in some sense justifying anti-American rage around the world. We must reflect upon our condition and ask ourselves, "For whom has this been a victory?"

Farm subsidies

[zenyu]

I used to be one of those people who thought those anti-globalization protesters were just treehugging tenderhearts looking for something to do. Mostly because I'm for free trade on principle. But then I realized how our farm subsidies caused starvation in poorer countries by destroying local food production industries. But our attack on those countries industrial sector with IP laws is part of the same picture.

The IMF orders those same third world countries we dump our subsidized food into on good years to stop helping local farmers buy chickens with something as simple as insurance that if the chick they buy doesn't become a 1 year old chicken it will be replaced. Then the free trade negotiators show up and tell them they can get rid of that 33% tariff on the president's widgets if he will just get rid of that tariff that protects his countries maize production and well prevents his family's competitors from coming out with better widgets by making those patent laws stronger, err in line with American standards.

What does it mean when we complain about a 55 year copyright in Taiwan, which hasn't even been around that long, much less democratic in that time? They are in line with international standards, and have trouble policing such an overlong copyright already, much less the kind of permanent monopoly the US wants them to establish on words.

PS As I understand it the farm subsidies are even worse in the EU, esp France, and this is causing problems with Eastern European countries who wouldn't get the subsidies if they joined the EU. This is from the economist which isn't an unbiased source; is it true?

Re:Farm subsidies

[sql*kitten]

I used to be one of those people who thought those anti-globalization protesters were just treehugging tenderhearts looking for something to do. Mostly because I'm for free trade on principle. But then I realized how our farm subsidies caused starvation in poorer countries by destroying local food production industries.

Ironically, by campaigning against agricultural subsidies and for "fair prices" for the developing world, the anti-globalization movement is agitating in favor of more globalization! That would homogenize prices across the market.

Actually, the whole movement is like that. They are anti-profit, but pro-tax. Anti-monopoly, but pro-government. Anti-capitalist, but pro-freedom.

Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things, neither of which are in the interests of the government, which does its best to set them against each other.

As I understand it the farm subsidies are even worse in the EU, esp France, and this is causing problems with Eastern European countries who wouldn't get the subsidies if they joined the EU. This is from the economist which isn't an unbiased source; is it true?

Yup, google for "Common Agricultural Policy". You can get the raw figures from the EU website itself, then do the analysis yourself (compare, say, the CAP to the value of the agricultural sector in one of the aspiring members). I won't post a link, I want you to look for yourself so you know that I'm not biased the other way.

And what is exactly the point here?

[the eric conspiracy]

These developing countries are soveriegn nations, after all. They can adopt any internal IP polices they want, much like the US did in it's past. And the fact is that they do. It's up to these countries to decide what is in their own self-interest,

J.R.R. Tolkien...

[Storm Damage]

...was rather bothered by American bootleggers, too. But unlike Charles Dickens, he didn't go on a big U.S. tour to lobby for stronger international copyright protection. He and his publisher issued a higher-quality print of his novels, sold them for a reasonable price (a bit higher than the bootlegs, but not much), and made an appeal to his fanbase to boycott the unauthorized version.

The result was, he made a lot of money, and the unauthorized version didn't sell very well.

Neat, huh?

Re:Developing nations

[FyRE666]

Another way of putting that is that the US gives food and medicine to starving nations.

Are you actually objecting to that policy?

I was hoping someone would try this argument. Yes I do object when the pharmaceutical companies use war, famine and death as an excuse to push up their stock prices. The drugs and other garbage these companies "dump" are of absolutely no use to the people in the countries they're sending it to.

A guy called Mark Thomas here in the UK presents a programme where he tries to uncover government corruption, corporate corruption etc each week (he also has a pretty wicked sense of humour, whire really makes the show). One of these shows dealt with this issue. Here are a few quotes that you might find interesting...

During the civil war in Bosnia so much unwanted drugs were dumped that the government were forced to pay $34 million to build an incinerator just to dispose of them. One charity we spoke to, Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, said that they had to spend £100,000 in the town of Mostar alone disposing of these drugs in lime filled buckets.
[...]
Since then, the situation has not improved. We spoke to a woman who was involved in sorting out drugs in Albania in 1999. She told us of a hospital in Tirana which had received tonnes of drugs, shown below.

[picture of tonnes of drugs]

However in sorting them out she found some nitrous oxide canisters which had an expiry date of 1989 or 1990 - ten years before they reached Albania. She also discovered sadly that of all the tonnes of drugs donated, only a small proportion could actually be termed useful, shown below.

[picture of about 150 small bottles]

There were also other companies sending sex aids, diet pills and other completely useless crap to starving nations simply to make money while leaving the huge cleanup job to those with nothing. Nice, huh?

Whoops, sorry!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about that, it was truly inadvertent. Here's two more to make up for it:

• The Sword in the Stone - stolen!
• Treasure Island - stolen!

Ok, well stolen is a bit harsh. There's nothing wrong with taking something as a starting point. It's just that their stance on their IP is incredibly hypocritical. And I'm sure that there's plenty of sources that Disney does pay royalties on.


(I'll have to remember the duplicate list item ploy for future debates!)

Yet another view

[Steve525]

This is a long rant, late in the game, but here goes...

(In my mind) the ideal solution would be to let any nation violate other nation's technology IP, as long as any immediate fruits of that IP remain in that nation. So, if a nation wants to steal IP to make a drug or food to save its own people, fine. If they want to make technology for their own use, fine. If they want to use steal MS word, it might be fine under some circumstances. However, if the software or technology is used to create products that are exported, the nation receiving the products is justified by levying a tax to make up for the stolen IP. The point is to allow the poor nations to be able to afford products. However, it is not unreasonable for the richer nations to protect their economies. (It is simply unreasonable for the richer nations to rape the poorer ones).

You'll note that this conflicts with of free trade. Free trade is a great thing, but it does not actually exist unless all the nations involved level the playing field. (I. e., similar incomes and employee treatment, similar IP rules, similar environmental rules, etc). If the playing field isn't level, then what you call free trade isn't free trade at all. It's free trade of one product (the piece actually sold) without free trade of whatever went into making this product. So, let's just throw away any illusions of free trade between rich and poor nations, and say that the goal should be maximum benefit in trade for all countries. Or, at least, maximum benefit for the poorer nations without adversely affecting the richer ones.

Just one comment about entertainment, (books, movies, etc). I don't think we should care about what happens within a poor nation. Most of the people in such a nation have no money anyway, so if entertainment can't be stolen, they'll just go without.

There are problems with this idea. For one thing, creating import taxes that are fair (and divvying them up to the right people) may be difficult. The idea is to compensate the companies that created the IP. The idea is not to protect companies against cheaper imports. Of course, the biggest issue may be the black market. If you are selling products within a poor nation cheaply, there's a lot of incentive to try to get them to a rich nation, illegally. I'm not going to suggest I know any solutions for these issues, I am just suggesting what I think is a reasonably ethical starting point.

One last comment to the people who think that pharmaceutical companies won't invest in research for drugs which would mostly help third world nations. You are absolutely right, but unfortunately there's not much that can be done about it. The reality is that what you are asking is the company to spend millions of dollars to simply help someone else. Where I come from we call this charity. Don't get me wrong, charity is a great thing, but please recognize what you are asking for. The most we can hope for is that companies will create drugs that will help them, and, as a side benefit, can be used by poor countries.

Re:Developing nations

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

I actually have a label from a wallet I got that says Made ni Taiwan. I thought it was funny because of the stereotype about Taiwanese goods being crap. Ironically, I think the label Made in the USA is a bigger indicator of crap. Just look at our "motorcycles" compared to what the Japanese make. :-( We are still using farm equipment technology from the WW2 era in those things. Of course, most of the components for them is made overseas, only final assembly takes place here.

Disney in China is doing the same.

[taweili]

In China, Disney's DVD is sold in department stores and music stores for merely US$3, slightly higher than the pirated version of $1.5 dollars.

I think Disney fully regonizes it can't play the Chinese government as it has been with US government. It goes down to play head-to-head with the pirating industry.

Be a bit more cynical

[0x0d0a]

The whole "free enterprise" and whatnot that's supposed to encourage entrepreneurship is nothing more than national propoganda.

the US govt can't see why the rest of the World...takes offense at this

You really think that the US govt can't see? It's the normal US citizenry that can't see, because they get fed piles upon piles of propoganda.

Let's take a look: ::IRAQ::

Gov't line: We need to bomb them to protect the freedoms of the Kuwaiti people

Reality: we have big oil ties with the whole area, and any one country becoming dominant enough to be able to set oil prices or do anything but lie their passively while we import their national resources at dirt-cheap prices would be an economic unpleasantness. Much better to keep them afraid (at least for fifty years, until their oil runs out, at which point we couldn't care less what happens, just like we don't care what happens in places like Africa). ::PANAMA (oldie but goodie)::

Gov't line: We need to suppress rebels and ensure stability, so we're moving in troops.

Reality: We want to build a canal at some really awful terms for Panama. Panama doesn't bite. We fund rebel groups, stir up a bit of unrest, move in troops to "maintain Western Hemisphere stability", and build the canal in the middle of their country, letting Panama know that they can have it back in a hundred years. Quite profitable for us. ::VIETNAM::

Government line: we want to protect democratic rights in Vietnam, so we're helping fund a fair government

Reality: we want a lapdog government on the borders of communist nations to stop the spread of communism. ::BOMBING AFGHANISTAN::

Government line: We're bombing terrorist camps, protecting the human rights of women and others who the Taliban is suppressing.

Reality: There's no big signs on people saying "I am a terrorist." There are a shitload of warlords and private groups and villages. Basically, any faction that doesn't buy into the lapdog government that we're in the process of setting up is portrayed on CNN as a "terrorist group" that we're bombing. Of course, this kills lots of women and children and people that have never had the slightest to do with bombing things in the United States, but we can make up for it by finding the occasional poster person in Afghanistan who is now "freed from the bonds of the veil" and can partake of Western products. ::ISRAEL/PALESTINE::

Government line: we're "facilitating the peace process" because we're concerned about the parties involved. Palestine keeps breaking the peace agreements.

Reality: We didn't care in the least about Israel back in the Six Day War, when Israel was about to get invaded by five or so armies. Why? Because we were convinced that Israel was about to get toasted, and we don't really have any interest in pulling anyone's feet out of the fire. After Israel pulled off the most stunning military feat in the last century and won, we decided that Israel was the person to buddy up to. Both Palestine and Israel have regularly violated the rights of each other's people, and both hate each other's guts -- Palestine is no worse here than Israel -- but because Israel is currently the top dog, we villify Palestine.

It goes on and on. US World War II propoganda is particularly amusing, if you ever look back at it, because it's so ridiculous. Speaking of which: ::WORLD WAR II:

Government line: we need to go after Germany because they're evil and empire-building (in modern times, there is a perception that we got involved to "save the Jews").

Reality: Most people in the US were entirely uninterested in helping any Jews out, which were pretty much seen as job-taking immigrants. Germany's building an empire...but we didn't care when France was doing the same. No, we just happened to have significantly more economic ties to England and France. ::REVOLUTIONARY WAR::

Modern propoganda spin: Our Founding Fathers were noble idealists who were throwing off the shackles of an unjust government.

Reality: Our Founding Fathers were vandals (sorry, that's just what the Boston Tea Party was) who didn't want to pay taxes to pay for the military protection that they had had from Indians for decades. ::CIVIL WAR::

Modern spin: fought to save the country from slavery

Reality: Slavery not primary issue to the majority of people fighting, Union or Confederacy. Union cared mostly about not allowing any states to leave the United States (which would weaken the states as a whole), and the Confederacy was mostly interested in being able to have much more power at a state level. ::THE ENVIRONMENT::

Government line: the US is the most environmentally conscious of nations, putting out extreme efforts to product emissions-free cars, and using as much clout as it can to require developing nations to be clean.

Reality: The US is quite interested in countries being environmentally conscious -- as long as it isn't us. It's in our interests to drive up their costs and down ours. We've been the single major holdout against international antipollution agreements over the past few years. We *do* care about polution that immediately impacts US citizens (dumping chemicals in rivers that go to reseviours), but as for conservation of international resources...we use so many times our share of energy that it's ridiculous. ::BIOLOGICAL WARFARE (this is reaching into speculation, mind you)::

Government line: We stopped offensive germ warfare efforts about twenty years ago. We focus only on defense now.

Reality: Not sure one way or another, but if you remember, when we were proposing the (very sweet for us economically) "food for oil" trade agreement after we arranged for an international embarge of Iraq, and Iraq was holding out, claiming that they had plenty of food resources, there was a very unusual sudden mass outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease throughout Iraq's cattle. Go figure. ::NUCLEAR WEAPONS::

Government line: The US government wants to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of "rogue states" and terrorists to keep the world safe for everyone.

Reality: The US wants to keep nuclear weapons away from *anyone else*. Our current nuclear weapon reductions are meaningless -- both Russia and us have easily enough to destroy the other, even enough to overwhelm antimissile defenses. We just ignore allies that have nukes. Yet a nuclear weapon is just about the only meaningful resistance a country can put up in case of a US attack -- the US doesn't want any resistance to be possible. We have overwhelming conventional force, and we want things to stay that way. ::MILITARY STRUCTURE::

Government line: "Defense spending". Our military is for "defense".

Reality: And yet, over the last fourty years, almost all our military spending has gone into making our military faster, lighter, and easier to move around the world via ships in battle groups. Why? Not cost effective at all for defense -- we can defend our shores just fine traditional approaches -- but amazingly good at bombardment and intimidation of countries that we aren't getting along with. ::AL QAEDA::

Government line: Al Queda is a bunch of cowards who can't take an honest fight who went after innocent people.

Reality: Assuming bin Laden himself was behind Sept. 11, he's one of the most successful military tacticians in the last hundred years. Think about it. He has a force that is outgunned, and outmanned. The people he's working with, Afghanis, have been used by the US governent as disposable tools against US enemies and then dropped when they were no longer useful (much like the Kurds, the Cuban revolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs). The understandably feel some resentment. Their religion (at least the political side of said religion) has been rather oppressed and attacked by Western culture that seems quite evil to them (loss of emphasis on the family, sexual promiscuity, etc). Most of the eastern countries being exploited for their oil are Islamic, and the US has had quite a hand in dirty work in the region. So what does he do, with no tanks, airplanes, or anything else? He uses our own airplanes against us. Who does he attack? Not the US soldiers, the grunts who are being paid to attack other countries, but against the people who are directly responsible for the decisions that caused so much damage to his country and people -- US politicians (the White House), the overbearing US military (the Pentagon), and the powerful corporations that have been encouraging said oil exploitation (rich suits in the World Trade Center).

The US government is just as guilty as the Soviets, the Chinese, and anyone else in putting out bogus propoganda. It's more successful because people are happy and rich. If you think that people that bought into Soviet or North Korean propoganda must have been incredibly stupid ...well, look no further than right here at home.

Now, that doesn't mean that US propoganda is *bad* for us. US citizens enjoy an extremely high standard of living, rights (even in other countries) to ignore local laws that are simply unheard of (Clinton can get a vandal off in Singapore from being punished for his crimes, but if Taiwan tried to get someone off for copyright infringement, I doubt they'd have any success). Most of this comes, counter to said propoganda, not from "rights" or the long-dead "American self-sufficiency" or anything along those lines. It's because we're happy to use our military power to whack people if it gives us an economic benefit. You get to live the good life because there are people in our government who are willing to do the dirty, unethical work that keeps you enjoying your life.

What let most of our modern economy be built? Roads and fuel. Centralization of manufacturing and specialization came directly from those. Why do we get our oil so much cheaper than people in any other countries? Because we club the crap out of anyone that opposes us exporting their oil at dirt-cheap prices. We happily put tariffs up against countries importing, but use every last bit of our clout to prevent countries from taxing US imports. And it's been enormously successful over the past two centuries, making us the dominant economic power, and making us extremely successful.

No, I'm not arguing that this should stop. I'd just like to see that people be aware of what we're doing, and make a conscious decision to do what they're doing. Being the bully on the block can be pretty pleasant, but something feels vaguely wrong about being the bully on the block and thinking that you're the saint.

Re:Developing nations

[monkeydo]

Ha ha. If it weren't for the leftists in our own country the US could be a net exporter of oil. We deal with OPEC and the other crap in the Middle East because most of our alies would be crippled without ME oil. We also happen to be friends with Israel which happens to be the only democracy amid a sea of monarchies and facist dictatorships. Although you could be right. Maybe we're on the wrong side. WWIII starting in the Med would probably take out most of the EU and not have any effect on the US leaving up to pick up the pieces and complete our imperialistic goals of world domination. You might just be on to something!

Did you ever think for a secoind that the US acts like the world's policeman because that's what most of the world wants? What did you pansy asses do about Ethiopia, Aparthied, or ethnic cleansing in Africa. For that matter, what are you doing about the genocide occuring today on your own continent. What was that? Nothing?
Your definition of the "rest of the world" likely revoles around the UN. That would be the same UN where Syria is the head of the Security Council and Libya is head of the Humanitarian Council. The same UN that won't allow Israel to have a seat or a vote. Don't make me laugh.

For the US to go completly isolationist would actually benefit us to your detriment, sadly it is our recognition that even though we are geographically isolated and protected from most of the world we must be active participants in the global arena that pisses you whiners off so much.

Another way to look at it

[enjo13]

America in the 19th century was able to do this because they had very little in the way of dependency on foreign nations. The British cried bloody murder while Americans pirated books... but they where powerless to do anything about it. America didn't ask for a loan, protection, or anything else..

At the end of the day, America is not going to invade another country over music piracy. They may decide not to trade with them, but those countries are free to make their own laws. Where this gets sticky is when those countries want to borrow American money and particpate in the American economy, but don't want to play by American rules. They can simply do what America did, and play by their own rules but accept the economic repurcussions of it. They might just end up in the same spot America is 100 years down the road.

Re:terrorism

[3Bees]

That's the real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, not their tactics, not their strategy, but their choice of target.

The terrain might have some impact on this classification as well. It is difficult to target civilian populations successfully when you are fighting over political control of those civilian populations. That is, a war of rebellion will tend not to target it's own members (even in the case, as in the US Revolution when only 1/3 of the populace could have been considered supporters of the cause).

Otherwise, the firebombing of Tokyo in WWII could properly be labeled as a terrorist act. (Hmmm....was the US the first to use Nukes in a terrorist attack at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Interesting flip of the mind-switch...)