Hilary Rosen from RIAA will write Iraq's Copyrights?

sould writes "The Register is reporting that Hilary Rosen is to assist in writing Iraq's Intellectual Property laws. Can't have those Iraqi's pirating Eminem now can we?"

Comments

I just gave a speech on evil ways of the RIAA

[phaetonic]

Did you know that there is a 2% surcharge on all CD recorders sold that goes directly to the RIAA, and a 2% hidden tax associated with the AHRA that is collected by the RIAA to give to artists, yet only roughly 36% of that 2% goes to the artist. www.boycott-riaa.com

Re:More important issues!

[enjo13]

That's a large part of the point for the RIAA. While Iraq is busy rebuilding it's infrastructure they can effectively impose their brand of IP law on these people with very little in the way of actual resistance.

To your average Iraqi, who CARES if they have no concept of fair use.. after all they have no running water, much less a CD burner.

This is not without precedent. In the wake of WWII our media conglomerates also imposed similiar types of oppressive IP law in France and West Germany which basically shut down their film makers..

Constrasting sharply with this...

[Cutriss]

Bush lauded the work being done to restore basic services and order in Iraq after Saddam's ouster, but warned "the building of a new Iraq will take time." He said the United States will help Iraqis create a democratic society.

"America has no intention of imposing our form of government or our culture," he said. "Yet we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government and all citizens have their rights protected."

My emphasis added. That's what Bush said in a speech in Michigan on Monday to Iraqi-Americans. Guess we're tossing that one out the window...

Cultural Imperialism

[seven89]

This news proves, in a weird way, that the recent war was about imposing "our" will (the will of a few well-connected insiders, actually) on Iraq, not on bringing it democracy.

I'm reminded of the lyrics of on old Phil Ochs tune (and may the ghost of Phil forgive me if my quoting violates any of his rights):

We'll ram through the streets of the cities we wreck
And we'll find you a leader that you can elect.
(Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck!)
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world.

Re:IP and Islam?

[TheSync]

Of course, when Christian Law dominated the West, it was called the "Dark Ages," but be that as it may, this is an interesting analysis...

A'isha (RA) narrated: That Buraira came (to 'A'isha) and said, "I have made a contract of emancipation with my masters for nine ounces (of gold) to be paid in yearly instalments. Therefore, I seek your help." 'A'isha said, "If your masters agree, I will pay them the sum at once and free you on condition that your Wala' (loyalty) will be for me." Buraira went to her masters, but they refused that offer. She (came back) and said, "I presented to them the offer but they refused, unless the Wala' (loyalty) was for them." A'isha (RA) mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah (saw) so he said, "Do (it)" so she did. The Prophet (SAW) then got up and gave a speech to people, where he glorified and praised Allah, and said, " What about some people who impose conditions which are not present in the Book of Allah? So, any condition which is not present in the Book of Allah is invalid. Allah's ordinance is more deserving, and Allah's condition is more firm. Verily, the Wala is for the liberator." The wording (mantooq) of the hadith indicates that the condition which contradicts what is in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger should not be adhered to. As long as the conditions of protecting intellectual property make the use of the sold asset restricted to one sort of benefit to the exclusion of another, then they are invalid conditions and contrary to what is in the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). This is because it contradicts the requirement of the shar'i contract of selling, which enables the purchaser to freely dispose of and benefit from the asset in any legitimate manner such as selling, trade, gift etc. The conditions which prohibit the Halaal are invalid due to his (saw) saying: "The Muslims are bound by their conditions except a condition which forbids the Halaal or permits a Haraam." Therefore, it is not allowed in the Shar'a to protect publishing rights, copyrights and patents. Rather they are permissible rights. Thus, the thinker, scholar or inventor of a program owns his knowledge as long as his knowledge is with him and he has not taught it to others. However, once the knowledge went out to others through teaching, selling etc then the knowledge is no more his property. This is because it went out from his ownership when he sold it. So he does not possess the right to prevent others from freely disposing of it after its ownership has transferred to them through a shari'a means such as selling or other means.

Re:+1 Funny

[nagora]

More seriously, WTF is up with worrying about IP laws in a country that collectively doesn't have running water?

The reasons for that would fill a book. Specifically, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" 2nd ed. I don't think it's available in the US as the author has won a prize as the most censored author in America but I'm sure Amazon.co.uk will sell you it. Remember to get the 2nd edition.

The short answer: Iraq is to be a "free trade zone" for the purpose of destabilising the region's economies. If it was as simple as that, of course, it wouldn't work since free trade would eat Iraq alive and spit out the ground down bones but this FTZ will be bankrolled by the US via the World Bank (51% owned by the US Treasury Dept.) so that it won't go the way of Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Chile etc. It's all very complicated and boils down to a return to 19th century economics and all the great benefits they gave people (rich people, that is). Think "Robber Barons Take On The World": there are literally trillions of dollars at stake here.

That's why the religious parties in Iraq are not being invited to run the country despite having the majority of the population's support: they would throw the "liberators" out and tell them where to stick their free trade. And, wouldn't you? If I locked you in a room with Saddam Hussain for 25 years how grateful would you be when I let you out? Now replace me with Donald Rumsfeld and you with the Iraqi people; can you see why they are annoyed even after they've been freed?

TWW

Greg Palast

[senrik]

Greg Palast has an interesting record regarding Investigative journalism. Unfortunately, because he actually does investigation, he is not quoted in the US.

He was the first to talk about the Ballot issues within florida in the 2000 election, but when he tried to get it on the air in the US, (I believe it was with CBS), the editors there told him that his facts did not check out. When asked who they contacted to fact check, the editorial staff replied that they contacted Jeb Bush's office.

I'm not one to believe what someone tells me is true, but, looking at the facts, and putting it all together leads to a certain way of thinking.

1. Most of the government offices in Iraq were either bombed or looted. The only one not bombed or looted? the Oil ministry (thanks to US military guards. Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/119505_oil2 8.html )

2. The US will install a government loyal to itself, IE a Secular Democracy. This at the same time that the shrub is tearing away the separation between church and state here.

3. People that oppose the bushes have a tendancy to get sued Source: http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printab le?client.id=utne_web_specials&story.id=10452 or even killed. source: http://www.lovearth.net/fortunateson.htm)