International copyright
p2pnet.net News View:- “Well, I listened to the nearly two hours of generally dull testimony for today’s Senate hearing on intellectual property (Notice of Subcommitee Hearing: Piracy of Intellectual Property),” writes Ernest Miller on Corante.
“I suffered so that you didn’t have to.”
"The hearing was chaired by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who heads the Intellectual Property Subcommitee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also attended most of the hearing.
"The focus of the meeting was on international copyright infringement, particularly in China and Russia. Flash! There is lots of infringement in these two countries and something must be done about it, such as keeping Russia out of the WTO. And we’re really going to get upset with China pretty darn soon. Any minute now, in fact. Just you wait, we’ll do something major to China, you’ll see."
Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Senate Judiciary IP Subcommitee Hearing On Int’l Copyright Infringement
By Ernest Miller – Corante
Sen. Hatch provided an opening statement, noting the shocking news of the availability of Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith on the sidewalks of Asia already. He also seemed to cite the monetary losses due to software infringement of the BSA uncritically. Not well known for favoring criminal infringement, The Economist found serious flaws in the BSA’s numbers (The Economist Rails on Flawed BSA Piracy Study).
The speaker’s statements are now available:
- Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights: Testimony of Marybeth Peters
- Stephen Pinkos, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office: Testimony of Stephen Pinkos
- James Mendenhall, General Counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (Acting): Testimony of James Mendenhall
- Eric Smith, president, International Intellectual Property Alliance: Testimony of Eric Smith
- Robert Holleyman, CEO, Business Software Alliance: Testimony of Robert Holleyman
As I suspected the testimony of the person who is supposed to be neutral in these battles and represent the interests of the people was the most partisan of all. Marybeth Peters once again proved she is not fit to be Register of Copyrights. For example, whenever harmonization is an issue, she always pushes to ratchet up the protections of copyright law:
Also, although we ask foreign governments to extend all the rights they afford under their law to their domestic right holders in sound recordings to American right holders as well, many countries point out that the scope of such rights under U.S. law is narrower than theirs, depriving their right holders of the reciprocal protections in the United States. I know that these are controversial subjects, but if we are going to take a frank look at how to solve the problems of international piracy, we need to look at our own deficiencies as well.
She wasn’t the only one, however. Sen. Hatch insisted several times that TRIPS was a floor for intellectual property protection, not a ceiling. The ratchet moves ever upward.
Peters is quite suspicious of those whose views on copyright differ from hers, one might almost say paranoid:
In recent years, some like-minded countries have worked together to present arguments on the international level that seek to weaken existing international standards of copyright protection. Couched in terms of encouraging development or cultural diversity, these arguments are premised on the notion that copyright protection is antithetical to the interests of developing countries. What we are facing is an attempted backlash against the TRIPS agreement and our other successes. While we need to continue to work hard for short-term progress on enforcement in individual countries, we must also keep a close eye on these attempts to undermine established international standards of copyright protection.
And, hey, let’s not forget to bring in the spectre of terrorism:
And, although the information is sketchy at best, there have been a series of rumored ties between pirating operations and terrorist organizations.
Sketchy, rumored … but it sure makes a good soundbite, one which Sen. Hatch will pick up on later in the testimony, almost begging Peters to add more to this “rumored” tie.
Pinkos was even more clear about the ties to terrorism:
Unfortunately, the economic benefits of capitalizing on intellectual property rights (IPR) have captured the attention of pirates, organized crime, and terrorists. The global criminal nature of IP piracy has effects in other areas as well. As former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft reported: “In addition to threatening our economic and personal well being, intellectual property crime is a lucrative venture for organized criminal enterprises. And as law enforcement has moved to cut off the traditional means of fund-raising by terrorists, the immense profit margins from intellectual property crimes risk becoming a potential source for terrorist financing.”
Perhaps he should share some of the evidence they must have on this issue with Peters, so she doesn’t have to rely solely on rumors. Another person he could share this evidence with would be Eric Smith who also made the connection to terrorism: “Because piracy is so lucrative and in many of these countries enforcement is weak or governments are not strong enough to combat these syndicates effectively, they have taken over the business of piracy, as but another part of their illegal activities including the financing of terrorism.”
Peters continued with her suspicions of those who disagree with her on copyright. Certain unnamed commentators critical of US copyright law are undermining enforcement of copyright abroad; they’re “prone to hyperbole,” their arguments are imprecise and lack clarity. Unlike the precisely wrong and confusing statements from the Copyright Office (Ganging Up on the Copyright Office).
What is problematic is that some American commentators who are prone to hyperbole about what they see as an imbalance in the U.S. Copyright Act are providing arguments and rationalizations that foreign governments use to defend their failure to address this type of organized crime. The confusion wrought by the imprecision and lack of clarity in these commentators’ statements is not helpful to our achieving the goal for which there is no credible opposition: dramatic reduction in organized piracy of U.S. copyrighted works abroad.
It would have been nice if Peters could give some actual example of prominent, respected commentators on copyright law who provide rationalizations for commercial infringement by organized criminal gangs. I bet she has the list right there, in her pocket. Some reporter should ask.
See also, FurdLog, Judiciary Cmte Hearing in IP Piracy Today (updated).
Not all of her arguments made it into her written testimony, however. Unfortunately, I’m not a fast enough typist to get a transcript, but Peters also brought the INDUCE Act into the fray. Responding to Sen. Hatch, Peters referred to the Grokster case, saying that if it came out the “wrong” way (presumably a decision that protected free speech and innovation), Sen. Hatch and Leahy would have to take up the effort to pass the INDUCE Act again. Indeed, it was necessary to pass something like that, she argued, because it is hard to lecture other nations on copyright infringement when our current copyright laws are so weak. So, yet another reason to pass the INDUCE Act: we need to convince other countries that we’re tough on copyright infringement. I’m sure that China will be duly impressed, as their innovators get yet another step up on American inventors.
Near the end of the testimony, Sen. Hatch followed up on this point, asking the speakers what laws could be passed domestically to help them. He also echoed Peters’ sentiments regarding Grokster as well, decrying the terrible consequences if the US Supreme Court decided the case wrongly … children would be led down the “primrose path” which leads to all sorts of bad things. Because, once you have the idea that copyright infringement is okay, it “permeates” the culture and then all sorts of bad things will happen, apparently. And Sen. Hatch was quite clear that the Supreme Court would be guilty for corrupting America’s youth if it decided wrongly.
Pinkos provided an interesting history lesson in his testimony:
The U.S. has long been concerned about IP protection dating back to the founding of our country. For example, Gilbert Stuart’s Athenaeum portrait of George Washington was replicated without authorization by a Philadelphia merchant, who was later sued for copyright infringement.
Yeah, we were so concerned with international copyright back then. If Pinkos wants to cite George Washington’s portrait, I’ll cite founding father Benjamin Franklin (Dickens’s 1842 Reading Tour: Launching the Copyright Question in Tempestuous Seas):
The first American “pirate” was probably Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), who was, among other things, a Philadelphia printer who re-published the works of British authors in the eighteenth century without seeking their permission or offering remuneration.
I wonder why Pinkos didn’t use that anecdote?
Overseas copyright infringement is a serious problem. However, it is not a problem that will get better through the demagogery of “threats to our national security” and condemning critics for confusing the issue and undermining enforcement. And, indeed, isn’t this really about the enforcement? Do we really need to ratchet up copyright protections even further? As for the INDUCE Act, puhleeze.
===============
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
May 26th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
That language and so called linkage was inevitable. “Fighting” terrorism seems to be a pretty handy catch-all for the US fed these days. Don’t like it? Link it to terrorism…
May 27th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
The whole “war on terrorism” is pure BS, the U$A have become worst than nazi Germany (30 millions people have died of AIDS while it could have been prevented, just like the 25 millions of africans with AIDS).
- If you download thing from the net, you’re a “terrorist” you’re terrorizing the billionaires of the record/movie/software industries
– If you’re a small 3rd world country and want to build a plant to make anti-AIDS treatments without paying heaps of money for patents you’re also a “terrorist” (Bill Clinton – the guy who last bombed Europe… – has bombed a plant in Sudan as one of his last crime)
- If you are against the capitalist system you’re also a “terrorist”, they want a monopoly on everything.
But the truth is that the real and only terrorists in this world are the billionaires like the Bu$h family or Bill Gate$ and also the religions, the catholic chuch/vatican is a terrorist organisation.
What we need is to raise the level of civilization and reach anarchy.
May 27th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
-The whole “war on terrorism” is pure BS,
I agree wholeheartedly. However, the fact that Africans have AIDS should not be blamed on the Police States of America (P.S.A.) unless it is proven that Americans held down the Africans and injected the virus into their bodies.
-If you download thing from the net, you’re a “terrorist”
That is how those who control the government operate, they take something that does not suit their way of thinking, create an enemy, invoke fear in the sheeple, and then get the sheeple go go along with a new oppresive law so that the controllers can use the new law to persecute the ones that do not do as they wish.
- If you are against the capitalist system you’re also a “terrorist”
If you want everybody to have the right to compete fairly in a capitalistic society, you will become an even worse terrorist. Those who control the world’s resources only want “capitalism” for themselve. They use bad laws and other ways and means to shut others our
- But the truth is that the real and only terrorists in this world are the billionaires like the Bu$h family or Bill Gate$ and also the religions
I agree wholeheartedly, the Bible presents the runaway, out of control cartels and the governments they inluence as the “Beast” while at the same time depicting the organized religons as the “False Prophet.” I refuse to cartel-produced items as much as possible. I also do not attend any church that has the official blessing of the government ie “tax-exempt” churches. I will only attend home fellowships. I encourage others to do the same. In many home congregations, you will get to learn about what the Bible really says, and it is NOT what we were led to believe by the state-blessed churches and their faulty traditions!
- What we need is to raise the level of civilization and reach anarchy.
What we need is are nations ruled by laws (republics) and not nations ruled by people (democracies). True law and order protects and promotes liberty and crushes the tyrannies we have today. The governments of the Police States of America have disobeyed the law and passed laws contrary to the Supreme Law of the Creator as well as the Supreme law of the nation on which it was founded ie the Constitution.
The people in the big cartels and our spineless polititions in government refuse to protect liberties and instead cower and strut behind the massive wealth and forces they command. These are the same people who call those who strike back using innovative
methods , “cowards.”
The people who usurp other peoples’ rights will not come out and fight those they oppress “man to man.” Instead, they send out their forces such as the police, American servicemen, and private security in overwhelming numbers and with the latest equipment in many cases, to do their fighting for them. This includes Saddam Hussein as well as George Bush. I would like to know the names of any enlisted son of a Senator or any other high government official who serves as enlisted personnel overseas in Iraq or Ahfganistan. I believe they are few or none.
Saddam Hussein was a coward and tyrant and deserved to be put out of power, but so does those in power in the Sudan. Where is the P.S.A. protection for those people? It does not exist. The president of the P.S.A. says he was enforcing U.N. mandates against Iraq. So why is he not enforcing U.N. mandates against the genocide of Christians in Sudan? Could it be that these Christians in Sudan do not have oil or any other precious commodities that the cartels want?
It is not freedom, security, or human rights that the P.S.A. is fighting for in Iraq. It is lucretive contracts and other such things that the P.S.A. is sending in American troops to fight for. I am for American troops on the frontlines having armor and teflon to protect
themselves from injuries. However, I am more for these troops being pulled out and brought home so that they can be with their families.
If Halliburten, Betchtel, the Rand Corporation, and other cartels want control of Iraqi oil, let them pay mercenaries to fight the “terrorists.”
Let American service personnel be brought home where they belong.
Don’t force American taxpayers to pay the expenses of occupying a sovereign nation. Why have American military personnel been court martialled for abuses and Saddam Hussein has yet to be tried for the murders of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children? Will some deal be struck with Saddam Hussein so he will quiet the rebellion over there while pirates are continued to be depicted as terrorists?
Will Saddam Hussein be allowed to leave Iraq and live quietly in exile
(after all the atrocities he committed) while average men, women, and children, are persecuted in courts for filesharing or as the cartels prefer to call it, “piracy.” I wonder if those caught selling counterfeit DVD’s of “Revenge of The Sith,” will get the same amount of prison time as someone who has forced himself on a child. I wonder if police who confiscate the property of a family and keep it even after the accused is found not guilty will have to compensate the family for its loss. I question why police who damage the property of those whose houses are raided are not made to pay for the damages if the subject of the raid are not found guilty or even charged. Yet the cartels are extorting thousands of dollars from children for sharing songs with others.
In these united states, each person is guaranteed the right to equal protection under law by the Constitution. Businessess owners can deduct travel expenses to go to a job from their taxes. People who work for these business owners do not have that same right. Why?
If I am defrauded of $4000 (more than 1/5 of my annual income), the FBI will not help me recover the money. Yet, it if I am reported by the cartel to have sold 50 Star Wars CD’s (let’s say the cartels will sell them for $50 each when released, total value of $2500) on Ebay, My house will likely be raided by armed members of the F.B.I.
If I punch another person in the mouth and give him a fat lip, I can be punished by up to a year in jail. If I hit even a police dog in its mouth and cause the same injury, I can be punished by up to 5 (15 in some states) years in prison. So, in the eyes of the government, a dog has more rights than a man (Oh, sorry Mr. government man, I meant “human reouce”). The plain fact is that the government is more protective of corporations and government officials than it is of the average citizen. Police do offer some protection to average people (from street criminals) in order to maintain the illusion of stability.
The government and big corporations wants people to “tolerate” the things that they promote and yet they always talk of “ZERO TOLERANCE” for what they perceive as a threat. It is time for people,
all people around the world to demand that their rights be respected.
May 27th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
about Pinkos history lesson:
The U.S. has long been concerned about IP protection dating back to the founding of our country. For example, Gilbert Stuart’s Athenaeum portrait of George Washington was replicated without authorization by a Philadelphia merchant, who was later sued for copyright infringement.
Big deal. The “founding fathers” were protective of painting copyrights but cared nothing at all about the ownership and the liberty of stolen human beings, the slaves.
So a Philadelphia merchant was guilty of copying while Washington was guilty of having 300 stolen human beings, his slaves who had been deprived of their liberty by Washington himself.
It is sad to think how the “founding fathers” are treated like gods when in fact they were mostly slave traders and owners whod cared nothing about the liberty of the humans they “owned”. So much for lesons in copyright history.
It is an insult to hear someone defend any kind of right, including copyright, using the so alled founding fathers.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 30th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Was it not the great philosopher socrates who was politically murdered in the guise of “law” for “corruting youth”?
These people ARE neofascists and nothing less.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:48 am
The War Against Terrorism – T.W.A.T.
If ever there was an appropriate abbreviation, this has got to be it….