Slashdot Mirror
US Says 4.3 Billion People Live With Bad IP Laws
bowser100 writes "The US government has released its annual Special 301 report (PDF) in which it purports to identify those countries with inadequate intellectual property laws. Michael Geist digs into the report, noting the list is so large that it is rendered meaningless. According to the report, approximately 4.3 billion people
live in countries without effective intellectual property protection. Since the report does not include any African countries outside of North Africa, the US is effectively saying that only a small percentage of the world meets its standard for IP protection."
I have yet to see anyone present objective evidence that the existence of copyright, either in its current term/form the US/WIPO/ACTA is pushing, (or at all) helps the economy in the countries in question compared to other systems or models.
Obviously there are significant businesses that thrive now and could only exist with strong copyright protections. Entertainment, media creation, information aggregators and sellers - all require strong copyright to exist. Without these protections they would be hurt, somewhat, and some would go away.
There is incredible interest and energy in people to consume, remix, and to create, even with the existing, extremely long copyright term, and the vast majority of media under strict copyright protections. Would we see dramatic new businesses and opportunities arise if copyright were less stringent or not? Would these new markets and activities be better for economies than the loss of existing industries or not?
What evidence supports the belief that having these companies and these particular industries are what is best for a countries' economy, and for the people whose lives and livelihoods these laws effect? If copyright protections were opt-in for example, but the default were similar to a CC/BY for created content, what new industries would rise up and create value? Would they create more value than would be lost? I don't know of any evidence that can address that question. What if copyright protections were 14 years again, with the ability for owners to pay or re-apply for extensions? That would clear create value in new areas, but would it be better than the current system?
If anyone has pointers to evidence either way, I'd love to see it.
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=99
". . .the US is effectively saying that only a small percentage of the world meets its standard for IP protection."
This a great thing.
In fact, this lack of IP law needs to be expanded to the US.
Copyright was not created back in the days of yore, nor enshrined in the constitution to protect / help the economy.
The express purpose for granting an artist exclusive copy right for a limited period was to encourage the production of more art. (the US constitution is pretty explicit, but so is centuries of common-law before that).
How / why am I having my tax dollar spent on this non-issue. I don't think we have a shortage of art looming, and if we do: I don't see that copyright laws in India are the problem.
Intellectual Property is intellectual theft.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
No, surveys show that most people are pro health care and pro-piracy. The point in general I could see, you just happen to be wrong on this issue. I mean, most people under the age of 35 with an internet connection have pirated themselves. Were it legal, that number would skyrocket.
And the best part: my post defending sopssa has just been modded down. And I'm guessing this one will be too.
I am officially gone from
Yeah it looks like Sopssa has gotten himself his very own troll, that seems to be following him and downmodding whenever he speaks. And how in the hell does one get a "-1 interesting" anyway? That don't even make any sense! He probably pissed off a fanbody, as I had that happen myself a few months back with an Opera fanboy. I actually kinda miss my trollie, it was cute the way he drooled on the carpet and pissed himself if you said anything bad about opera.
Now back on topic, I use one sentence to point out how royally fucked up US copyright laws are. Ready? here goes...Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been wormfood (or a popsicle) for half a century, yet one of his FIRST works, made when planes hand wings of cloth and antibiotics were just a dream, is STILL under copyright. I'm sorry folks, but that is just fucked up.
I have always been a pro constitutionalist, and I think the way copyrights were originally set up was fair, although to be honest for certain items like software I would argue even those numbers were too long with today's global market. But what we have now isn't even sad, it is nothing less than the rape of the Public Domain, which belongs to all of us, for the enrichment of a few.
The copyright is nothing but a contract, it gives you a limited monopoly in return for enriching our public domain. But the contract is broken , and until We, the People, get a seat at the bargaining table again I say copyrights should be treated as the worthless contract that they are. A contract is only fair if there is a "meeting of the minds" but thanks to treasonous bribery we have been sold out by traitors to this country, namely our supposedly public servants in congress. Until we have a say I personally hope the multinationals go DIAF, as I'm tired of watching our public domain be stolen from our kids to stuff a few rich men's pockets.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.