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."

32 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Democracy by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    309 million people in the US

    compared to

    "without effective intellectual property protection":
    4 300 million people in the other countries around the world

    If USA is the country that promotes democracy, doesn't this thing kind of say that the rest of the world does not want US IP and patent laws dictated to the them, and that US should respect it? Just like real democracy.

    It looks like ~87% of people in the world doesn't like or want ACTA. Why does US push it to other countries, and why is it done with so secret methods?

    While my country also does have good copyright laws, I don't want US to dictate us.

    1. Re:Democracy by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are assuming that those 309 million approve, which is not the case.

    2. Re:Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If USA is the country that promotes democracy, doesn't this thing kind of say that the rest of the world does not want US IP and patent laws dictated to the them, and that US should respect it? Just like real democracy.

      No, for the US, "IP" is the new Colonialism.

      The old forms of Colonialism don't work any more, so the USA is trying to make sure the rest of the world is beholden to them.

      There are times, when I can't help but conclude that the US is, in fact, rather quite evil and insidious. They only promote democracy if the resulting government will play by their rules. If a democracy decided to tell the US to fuck off, the US would start trying to cause a "regime change".

      I don't blame individual Americans for this -- but, US foreign policy sucks. It's largely about protecting American corporate and oil interests.

    3. Re:Democracy by pleappleappleap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Manifest destiny might imply that *everyone* lives in the U.S., but they don't know it yet.

    4. Re:Democracy by charlesr44403 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea that the USA is a republic rather than a democracy is a recent manipulation of language. It is a representative democracy with the legal form of a republic. That was a settled fact until maybe 15 years ago, when the "not a democracy" slogan started to spread.

    5. Re:Democracy by electrosoccertux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used to not approve, until I actually looked at how other countries have it.

      A lot of businesses choose to operate in the US BECAUSE we have the best IP protection around.
      Not saying it's PERFECT and there are definitely problems (patent thicket no doubt), but it's still the safest for businesses. Many European countries, for example, have what basically amounts to a stronger copyright law. For those aware of the details of IP protection, this is obviously not enough.

      There are other benefits to being in the US, but businesses are simply risk minimizers about these things. If you're operating in China you run a very large risk of one of your workers handing the design documents over to his neighbor, who can undercut your price because he didn't foot any of the R&D cost.

      Besides, it would behoove us to protect our country's post-industrial/manufacturing industry. If you can't enforce who takes your products and who doesn't (because most of the capital cost is for a "digital" product (thinking design documents here in a PDF)), then you can't afford to produce those things. If you develop a kick-butt iPod competitor in China, you'll never gain any traction in the market because you won't have the resources or political clout to keep someone who got a hold of your design documents from producing the thing you just designed.

      Grass is always greener, but rest assured the other guys have their share of weeds, too.

    6. Re:Democracy by DJLuc1d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A true democracy does not have to equal a direct democracy, but this is all semantics. The fact of the matter is we live in a place where our votes produce the people who will be voting for us. That is a democracy in spirit.

    7. Re:Democracy by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are assuming that those 309 million approve, which is not the case.

      But the people paying for the campaigns and perks for our congressmen DO want it. So a few thousands lobbyists are paying a lot of money to a few congressmen, to get their version of "fair" shoved down the throats of 6.5 billion people. Welcome to America.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Democracy by tuxgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You've hit the nail on the head
      We here in the US are now completely buttfucked by the greedy corporations that have bought all our elected officials.

      Obama has become nothing more than a trained monkey on a chain.
      Pity, I liked the guy too and hoped he would be different.

      We traded a bunch of whacked out right wing conservative asshats for a bunch of whacked out left wing asshats. All of which still serving the corporations that bought them as whores.

      American used to represent freedom. Now were hogtied under corporate dictatorship

      Would someone out there please invade us and liberate us from the terrorists now in control. Pretty please ...

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    9. Re:Democracy by tirefire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A lot of businesses choose to operate in the US BECAUSE we have the best IP protection around.

      Best IP protection for businesses, maybe. But that's only because it's the strongest. If the US reduced the term on copyright to something sane, like 10-20 years, and stopped issuing patents on genes and mathematics, it would still have IP protection more than strong enough for businesses to stay and thrive here. And we the people would get our rights back!

  2. lucky them! by godrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ground breaking news, 4.3 billion people with IP laws the US don't like.

  3. Where is the evidence? by drDugan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Where is the evidence? by kubitus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    2. Re:Where is the evidence? by Bralkein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Well that's because it's not about helping the countries in question, it's about helping the US. The US produces a lot of IP, so from a US perspective good IP laws are those which result in a lot of money being paid to US companies. It's fair enough if you ask me, since the US government is just looking out for its own interests, which I guess is pretty much what it's supposed to do. On the other hand, the governments of other countries might be doing their job best if they tell the US to go to hell.

    3. Re:Where is the evidence? by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's plenty of historical evidence that copyright laws of the kind created by the Statute of Anne and the copyright clause of the US Constitution aided both the economy and (more importantly, I think) the exchange of ideas within their jurisdictions. The UK experienced a veritable boom in publishing after Anne (the dawn of the modern novel and journalism as we know it). Both statutes were author-friendly (rather than publisher-friendly), and didn't significantly restrict the development of the public domain as copyrights expired fairly promptly. It's only with the imposition of absurdly long copyright terms (even just Berne-plus, let alone DMCA and ACTA level) that we've seen the diminishing economic returns, and ballooning restrictions on public freedom. Worse, copyright law as we know it today is much like Prohibition: it's turned too many people into casual criminals, to the point that they question the very real, demonstrable value of copyright altogether.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Where is the evidence? by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      I wouldn't say that is obvious at all. It is assumed that those industries need strong copyright protections to thrive and I'd agree that is true if they wish to maintain their current business models, but there is nothing to say that those industries couldn't still be profitable without strong copyright protection and new business models.

      For example, reduce copyright to shorter amount of time (say 10 years). Disney could no longer rely on their backlog to stay profitable (re-releasing every old move over and over), instead they'd have to innovate and create new content and services.

      Freeing musicians to legally sample older works more readily without jumping through licensing hoops would also have some interesting implications on the music industry. People could build off others' ideas more quickly without fear of repercussions. Yes there would probably be a ton of remade garbage, but it wouldn't be a select group of people remaking the garbage like the current pop music scene. Thought Britney Spear's remake of "the beat goes on" sucked? (it did).. well then you are free to try and do it better.

      Personally I want to see creativity pushed to its limits, where people have to continually innovate. Rather we have a culture where you can have one good idea then sit on your laurels and profit off it.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  4. hidden assumption by spazdor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "without effective intellectual property protection" != "Bad IP laws"

    Just sayin'.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  5. IP Limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Luckily the IP limit is right around 4.3 billion. Just wait until IPv6. Wait, I think I misunderstood...

  6. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A large group of countries consisting of ~4.3 billion people have released a report saying at least 300 million people are living under draconian IP laws.

  7. Does this include... by Cowclops · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this study include the 300 million in the US living with bad IP laws? Over restrictive is just as bad as not restrictive enough. The fact that a big company can get a $2 million dollar judgment against somebody for non-commercially (and possibly inadvertently) sharing mere tens of song tracks on a file sharing service MIGHT be a sign that our own system is just as screwed up as the systems with no copyright protection at all.

    We are not trending towards a happy medium, at least not if Disney and the RIAA have anything to say about it.

  8. Re:there is a map which shows the reason by kubitus · · Score: 5, Interesting
  9. You know.... by CapnStank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, there's a point where you have to step back and realize that you're a minority (by a long shot) and when you are on your own little unique land its *typically* not everyone else that's wrong.

  10. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    inadequate intellectual property laws

    What trully is inadequate is thinking that "intellectual" entities can be "property"... That's the source of all problems... Period.

  11. Reality Check by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you've got an economy built solely on Intellectual Property ownership, you're fuckin' DOOMED in the near future!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  12. yes by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    some of those countries have no respect for the patented gene sequences found in species in their countries by western scientists

    ip law is a way of saying that every thought and utterance is not the common good of mankind but is a monopoly that must be respected, and everyone must contribute cash because you were the first to register something many others probably thought of as well, or in a slightly different form. ip law is a farce. it reards distributors and entrenched corporate powers, definitely at the expense of artists and inventors (NOT in support of them). it overly legalizes and bureaucratizes with hefty intrusions into basic freedoms a byzantine scheme to compartmentalize a process which has been free for the vast majority of humankind's existence: the exchange of simple information

    and its not even enforceable. no warchest in all the first world nations can adequately shore up the artificial patronage system ip law defenders imagine. nevermind that ip law doesn't even make economic sense, because with all that intrusive controlling, less is earned than simply letting information go wherever its wanted, and profitting off of ancillary revenue streams created by letting it all hang out instead

    ip law is an absurd joke, and is not to be respected. it is your moral duty to ignore it or actively undermine or destroy it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. US vs the world? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So in essence what the lobbyists are forcing the US government to claim is that the entire world is horribly wrong while only the US legal system, which they bought with their own hard-earned money, along with other jurisdictions which were bought out, are the only instances which may be seen as somewhat decent remotely fair.

    Meanwhile, the world has enjoyed centuries of cultural and scientific progress and an amazing economic progress, all happening without this sort of totalitarian and draconian type of legislation which is profoundly anti-democratic. In fact, humanity saw great progress being achieved whenever someone found a way to facilitate the dissemination of cultural and educational works, whether by inventions such as writing and the printing press. The internet is the modern day's version of the printing press but can only be a modern day's revolution if the freedom to freely access copyrighted works without the copyright owner's authorization is acknowledged, respected and defended, something which these industry idiots are on a mission to undermine.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  14. Canada by DarthVain · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Canada
    Canada will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010. The United States looks forward to the government of Canada’s implementation of its previous commitments, recently reaffirmed in 2010, to improve IPR protection, and is encouraged by the high level of cooperation between the Canadian and United States governments on IPR matters. However, Canada has not completed the legislative reforms in the copyright area that are necessary to deliver on its commitments. The United States urges Canada to enact legislation in the near term to update its copyright laws and address the challenge of Internet piracy. Canada should fully implement the WIPO Internet Treaties, which Canada signed in 1997. Canada’s weak enforcement of intellectual property rights is also of concern, and the United States continues to encourage Canada to improve its IPR enforcement system to provide for deterrent sentences and stronger enforcement powers. In particular, border enforcement continues to be weak. The United States encourages Canada to provide its border officials with the authority to seize suspected infringing materials without the need for a court order. The United States will continue to follow Canada’s progress toward implementing an adequate and effective IPR protection and enforcement regime, including its progress on actions to address Internet piracy and improve border enforcement."

    Ya. We'll get right on top of that.

    Though I am pretty sure our Conservative government has bigger problems than your stupid IP laws.

  15. In other news. by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the report, approximately 4.3 billion people live in countries without effective intellectual property

    In other news approx 2 billion people sighed that they have to live with insane copyright law dictated by a cartoon mouse and a few industrial, and wish they were living in democraty, where voting would matter, and the voice of the people (demos) would be heard. Sadly they will have to put up with the facist(*) geronto-ploutocraty they live in...



    (*) (Fascist as the classic definition of "industry in collusion with authoritative governement")

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  16. In Other News by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    80% of the world lives on less that $10 a day, 50% live on less than $2.50 a day
    2.5 Billion people don't have access to good sanitation, and nearly a billion use unsafe drinking water. But let's make sure they have good IP laws, yes? Something about 'eating cake' comes to mind while reading this article.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  17. Are you sure? by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Are you sure of that? I remember a time when one got a lot of entertainment from radio and television where the only way we paid was from buying the items they advertised in the programs.

    The greatest enemy the media industry faces today is their own greed. They have forgotten the main principle of the capitalist market economy: "KEEP THE CUSTOMER SATISFIED". They have replaced it with one they borrowed from the socialist world: "ACCORDING TO OUR PLANS, WE SHOULD GET THIS MUCH PROFIT"

    The very simple fact is that the market has rejected business plans that say people should pay $0.99 for a song, or $17 for a CD, or $15 for a DVD.

    Entertainment should be cheaper, much cheaper. I would be dead in a short while without oxygen, or water, or food. But I can subsist much longer without entertainment. With no pressing need, I'm not willing to pay too much for it.

    Bring me the $0.10 song, the $1.00 CD or the $1.50 DVD and I'll readily buy them. At higher prices, I will not buy *anything* from the media industry.

  18. In other news by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All residents of the US are living with bad IP laws.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  19. Moderation problems by Geof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank you for pointing that out. Though marked -1 Troll, sopssa's posts there appear to me to be his opinions (right or wrong), honestly held and reasonably expressed: not attempts to incite trouble.

    Even though this is off topic, I think it is worth mentioning. If not here, where? Moderation affects all Slashdot discussions. If too many mods forget how and why the system works, it can break down. It works reasonably well (unlike most mainstream news sites I have seen) because it focuses on the quality of discussion, not whether one agrees or disagrees. Modding down is meant as a last resort to weed out posts that harm reasoned discourse. It is not supposed to be used merely to express disagreement. It's too late to do much good, but as I seldom spend all my mod points I used some there.