Slashdot Mirror
Russia Claims IP Rights In Manufacture of AK-47
Daniel Dvorkin writes "In the latest example of over-the-top intellectual property demands, Russia wants licensing fees for the production of AK-47s. According to first deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov, the unlicensed production of Kalashnikovs (which have been around in very nearly their current form for 60 years) in ex-Soviet Bloc countries is 'intellectual piracy.' A giant but declining power starts demanding royalties on commonly used methods and materials that are widely understood, well known, and by any reasonable standard have long been in the public domain — does this sound familiar?" Wikipedia notes that the Izhevsk Machine Tool Factory in Russia obtained a patent on the manufacture of the AK-47 in 1999.
Many countries make an AK-47-based assault rifle. That's because, for an assault rifle, it's important that it's reliable in the crappiest imaginable conditions, and in the hands of the laziest of the fighters.
The best AK-47 variant is produced in Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62
http://www.ak-47.us/Finland.php
This weapon (RK-62) is widely considered to be the best assault rifle in general.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Actually, Izhevsk Machine Tool Factory (IZHevsky MASHinostroitelny zavod in Russian) IS Izhmash. It is still alive and well.
I know this because my parents live in Izhevsk and work at Izhevsk Mechanical Factory (Izhevsky Mechanichesky Zavod) which makes hunting and sport rifles.
Ah, but that's been fixed with new, gas-piston uppers from companies such as Bushmaster and H&K that don't defecate where they eat. Yay for open source guns!
What a crock of shit.
a merica/contact-information-for-50-politicians-who- take-campaign-money-from-the-riaa-264638.php)
o f_the_United_States. Once the senate (and the senators who chair select commitees) have a simlar racial makeup and you will have a valid point but until then it still amounts to public relations theory.
The current western version of democracy is just public relations theory. It is about making the public think they have some say in who rules their country without actually giving them too much. The problem is that we are given such a small selection of people to choose who will rule us from (2 in the US) that it does not actualy count as a democracy according to the strict (original) definition.
The other problem is that once a particular person / party has been elected they are very hard to remove from power even if they make some very unpopular decisions. A better description of the current system in the US or UK (or Russia for that matter) would be an elected dictatorship. Some countries in Europe do slightly better by allowing proportional representation rather than "first past the post" but these still probably would not count as a democracy in the orignal sense.
One problem with current democracy is that you need huge amounts of money to get elected, this rules out most people. This may also explain why both of the frontrunner democratic candidates (Barrack and Hillary) have taken money from the RIAA even though a great deal of the american population (I have not said majority of the US population so lets not get into semantics) voted them the worst company in the US.
(The source for this is here: http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-
Anyone who has read this far might find it interesting too look at the definition of Democracy with respect to constitutional republics as defined on the wikipedia page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Please also note that I am not trying to argue that one is superior to the other, I am just trying to suggest that democracy is often overrated when used in the modern context of the word.
I also take issue with you implying that western democracies are impartial with regard to race or sexual orientation. Until the US elect a black gay man as president or the US senate is made up of the same balance as the general population I think this is a hard case to make. Wikipedia also has a good page on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_
In many ways the US is moving away from impartiality in politics with regard to sexual orientation as religion becomes higher on the list of criteria people consider when choosing how to cast their vote.
In my view the primary western value in recent years has been profit, and Russians have certainly embraced this with open arms. That is what the whole IP issue with regard to AK's is all about. They want money for people using what is a Russian state design (and a damn good one). The man who invented and designed the original AK was at the time of its design, a serving Russian military officer. If wanting to get money for what you or your employees invent is not a western value then where does the current US stance on copyright come from?
I dont read
I suggest you brush up on your firearm facts before you try to rent an AK at the range. The AK-47 is 7.62x39. 7.62x54R is a full sized, rimmed rifle round chambered in the likes of heavy war rifles like the Mosin-Nagant, Dragunov, some variants of Mauser rifle, and so forth. Not only is a x54R ludicrously overpowered for the AK's operating mechanism, the case of the x54R is longer than a complete 7.62x39 cartridge. The two calibers aren't even close in terms of powder charge, bullet mass, or ballistics. The only thing 'similar' about them is that both will fit bullets down a 7.62mm bore and both are used by Russians.
It is of note that 7.62x51 NATO will not chamber and fire in an AK (x39) or any x54R chambered firearm - The former because the NATO round is way too long to even remotely safely chamber, and the latter because the NATO round is shorter and not rimmed and will swim around in the x54R chamber, probably rupturing the case on ignition if the firing pin reaches the primer at all.
Long rant made short: Don't try to sound smart on topics about which you know nothing. Check your facts; Hollywood isn't a source.
Close on your full auto front. Yes, I have fired an AK but I do not own one. I owned an AR-15 at one point. Both examples were semi-auto.
.308 and the action from a BAR can be used to build a .22. It's all a matter of modification, but with an off-the-shelf AK it'd obviously never happen.
Yes, the operating principle behind the AK can be used for much heavier ammunition just as the principle behind the Stoner rifles can be used for
Also, it is possible to get a legal fully automatic AK in the United States, but it's tricky and very expensive. Since the end of prohibition and the Gun Control Act, various types of firearm including full auto have been restricted but not outlawed. To wit, it's a matter of submitting a form to the ATF to register the gun and paying a 200 dollar tax stamp which is applied to the transfer of the full auto firearm in question. Back in the '30's, 200 dollars was a lot of money so this law effectively outlawed full auto firearms (as well as short barreled rifles and shotguns, and so forth) to all but the wealthy elite. Well, inflation caught up with the law and eventually it became feasible for the average joe to buy a machine gun again, so in the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act a little rider was added that outlaws the civilian transfer of any firearm not registered in the way detailed above before May 19, 1986. This froze the entire market for machine guns in the United States - what was here then is all that will ever be here now, forever. Repealing the law is, obviously, unlikely. The net effect of all of this is that all civilian ownable full auto guns are limited in supply, extremely expensive, and require jumping through hoops to get. And there are several examples of AK-47's out there, if you feel like shelling out an upwards of 10,000 dollars for one plus the tax stamp.
Also, if you are a class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer (essentially, a firearm manufacturer) it is perfectly legal for you to build or 'rig' an AK or any gun into full auto, however the gun will be owned by your corporation or company and not you personally, and it'll go with the business if the business ever folds. And the ATF frowns very strongly on people who try to gain SOT status without running a legitimate business just to play with machine guns in their spare time.