More Content Industry Protectionism Masquerading As Free Trade
from the that's-not-free-trade dept
Last month, when people started noticing how odd it was that the new US "free trade" agreement with South Korea included an awful lot of stuff about intellectual property that was the opposite of "free trade," some suggested that this would start to become the norm in all US free trade agreements. Indeed, a new article is noting that the latest free trade agreement between the US and Australia include many changes to copyright law that will increase criminalization of copyright violations in Australia. Once again, this is the opposite of free trade. It's about content monopolization and protecting the obsolete business models of American content companies. The fact that this is hidden in a "free trade" agreement makes a mockery of the concept of free trade. As people in the article note, while this agreement was talked about as a way of "harmonizing" the IP laws of both countries, it was really all about Australia adopting stricter laws and shrinking fair use defenses (making them even worse than in the US). That's not harmonization.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Leapfrog..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harmonization depends on perspective...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harmonization depends on perspective...
Necessary? Why? Protectionist policies shrink markets and slow innovation. Free trade agreements are supposed to be about *removing* protectionist policies. The whole reason for them is based on the recognition of the disadvantages of protectionist policies.
If this doesn't happen, the companies will lose profits because customers will be able to by copycat products in non-IP protected countries just as easily as in the US.
That makes no sense. The purpose of free trade agreements aren't to "protect profits." They're to expand markets. Protecting profits shrinks markets by removing competition and slowing innovation. However, free markets open up *new* possibilities for profits by putting in place incentives for innovation and growth.
However, based on your reasoning above, we should allow monopolies in anything. Only one automobile producer should be allowed, since competition would allow for "copycat" products that would cause Ford to "lose profits." That doesn't make much sense, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Harmonization depends on perspective...
Necessary for the company to protect their profits (via the use of government force). But yes, this is bad for the general consumer.
That makes no sense. The purpose of free trade agreements aren't to "protect profits." They're to expand markets.
I judge people by what the do, not who they say they are. I judge laws the same way. These laws are *called* "free trade" laws, but what they really are are ways for companies to extend their influence into foreign markets.
Protecting profits shrinks markets by removing competition and slowing innovation.
This is true, but these things only affect the new guy entering the market and consumers. Established companies can use threat of government force to protect their profits. Protecting profits in priority number one for these guys.
However, free markets open up *new* possibilities for profits by putting in place incentives for innovation and growth.
Agreed. While customers and innovators would benefit, established companies won't. This is why they buy politicians to pass laws like this. Of course they need to dress it up as "free trade" to make it palatable.
However, based on your reasoning above, we should allow monopolies in anything. Only one automobile producer should be allowed, since competition would allow for "copycat" products that would cause Ford to "lose profits." That doesn't make much sense, does it?
I was only giving the perspective of the companies who've paid money to have these laws passed. If it's possible for another company in another country to make a duplicate product, then the company will lose profit, though consumers will benefit.
So who it makes sense for depends on your perspective - are you head of a government enforced monopoly or are you the consumer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yarg.
The trouble is that your incredibly intelligent president will make it difficult for our incredibly competent pm to get stuff we want from you guys if we don't make ridiculously disgusting laws for petty crimes. We should just be buying things elsewhere if our laws are incompatible with you (read **AA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Content Industry Protectionism Masquerading A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
design
[ link to this | view in chronology ]