US's Global IP Cops Bemoan Anti-IP Activists For Making Their Lives More Difficult
from the just-as-bad-as-pirates,-apparently dept
One of our readers, Virginia, alerted us to a report concerning a gathering of US IP Attaches (basically, the US gov't's international copyright cops that we send around the world to try to enforce draconian IP policy), in which they spend most of the time complaining about how countries around the world don't agree with the US's view on intellectual property and are quick to ignore it when possible. In fact, those countries often don't even want to invite their US counterparts to meetings because they're "too aggressively pro-IP."Of course, rather than take this as a sign that maybe their views are too aggressively pro-IP, they instead want to blame anyone who is pointing out the dangers of being so aggressively pro-IP. The article quotes US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, saying that US IP cops can't just focus on pirates and counterfeiters, but need to start worrying about those of us crazy enough to point out the dangers and downsides of aggressively pro-IP policies:
"[There is a] second threat [from] a growing movement of anti-IP activists drawn from universities, foundations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), ideologically driven interest groups, and even governments."You see, we're not a part of the debate and the conversation -- perhaps showing how their strong belief in stronger IP is dangerous -- but we're a "threat" that needs to be dealt with. Nice to know that the US's worldwide IP enforcers have such open minds.
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
Filed Under: ip, ip attache, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IP Freely
They're not allowed to have open minds, as somebody already owns the IP on that concept and won't license it out. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Freely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Their Job
Of course you are a part of the debate. But the job of an IP Attache is not to engage in debate about whether intellectual property laws are a good idea or not, their job is to enforce intellectual property laws and relevant international treaties regarding intellectual property. Their pointing out that anti-IP advocates make their job more difficult by undermining the enforcement of valid legal protection is simply a statement of fact.
It has absolutely nothing to do with having or not having an open mind. Their views on the subject are irrelevant. It's their job to be aggressively pro-IP. If they aren't aggressive in their advocacy for enforcement of the law, they should be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Their Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Their Job
Yes, Mike also quoted Donohue, who is U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, not part of the Department of Commerce, but Mike also said "Nice to know that the US's worldwide IP enforcers have such open minds." The IP "enforcers" (are they going around knee-capping pirates?) are the IP Attaches, not Donohue. And it's not their job to have an open mind about enforcing the law.
Would you support a cop having an open mind about doing his job enforcing the law based on what he thinks about the law?
I don't believe I misunderstood or misinterpreted. I can only go by what Mike wrote. If it's wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me.
(And on a further note, the IP Attache program was created by the Bush administration, so things may change under the new president.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
The quoting of Donohue was not an "also" or a side-comment on Mike's part...the side comments were those on the IP enforcers...he brought them up ONLY to introduce the backstory to Tom Donohue's comment - which is the REAL point and purpose of this article.
Mike addresses Tom Donohue's statement directly...you are only arguing about the IRRELEVANT point that cops shouldn't have open minds...the point is irrelevant because Mike isn't even talking about IP cops...since when is Donohue an IP cop?!?!? He's involved in IP, but he is most definitely NOT an IP cop...from the sense that he doesn't go out and police IP...he only makes IP POLICY. That is a HUGE distinction. He ISN'T the IP attache...if you read the article, he is only referred to from the context that he spoke on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
I'm honestly not trying to misinterpret anyone. Please re-read Mike's post. He's making several points: one is about IP Attaches' being "too aggressively pro-IP" and instead of reconsidering their position, blaming anti-IP advocates. He then uses Donohue's quote to reinforce that argument an concludes with the comment about IP enforcers (IP Attaches) and open minds.
Donohue may or may need to have an open mind, but it's not the job of the IP attaches to do so; they're hired to enforce the law. Donohue is not part of the government, essentially he's a lobbyist: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents business interests in D.C. He doesn't even really "make IP policy", though I'm sure he lobbies for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relativistic Laws
But if you push for a law that would protect the public's right fairly use so-called intellectual property or to roll-back the law to a prior more reasonable version, you are a criminal?
Since when it is it considered criminal to advocate your position in a democracy? Orwell's 1984 has come true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Relativistic Laws
But if pirating intellectual property can't be called "stealing" here (and any time I've used the word to describe music piracy a small army of commenters will be here to point out that it can't be "stealing", it's only "infringement"), how can a content creator or publisher who seek to protect their intellectual property rights be "stealing" from the "public domain"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
If I'm "flaming" then the threshhold for flames has been greatly lowered.
I was merely making the minor point that Steve R. said that IP laws (or "aggrandizing" IP laws) is "stealing" from the public domain. Since most posters around here are vocal that on one side, copyright infringement can't be "stealing" (and please, I perfectly well understand the argument, I simply disagree that it is a correct argument and it's not worth it to rehash yet again), then it's not right to call IP laws "stealing" from the public.
I fail to see how this is a flame. I'm not talking about Steve R., I'm addressing the language he's using it his argument. How is this "out of context"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
It's a massive difference, and I have no idea why people such as yourself have such a hard time grasping it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
I fully grasp the concept. But I think you're talking about two different things:
One is the idea of whether intellectual property protected by copyright can be "stolen" (most here think not because it's not tangible; I disagree for reasons I've explained before)
The other is whether it is wise in the digital era to enforce copyright and other IP laws (or whether they are necessary at all).
I know that most here don't object to copyright infringement because the object to "overriding IP protections" in general (though I know that Mike has been consistent in not necessarily supporting, encouraging, or approving of unauthorized copying). But they are really two different (though related) things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
> property protected by copyright can be
> "stolen" (most here think not because it's
> not tangible; I disagree for reasons I've
> explained before)
Actually, the reason most here think not is because court after court has ruled that it's not stealing; that theft and infringement are two wholly different things under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
The reason why it is stealing from teh public domain, is because they are actively removing an item from the public domain. If I go into a music store and take a CD, it is stealing because I am actively removing a tangible good. Piracy is infringement because it is getting something for free, but in the form of a copy of the original. The owner of the original item is still in possession of said item.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
That presupposes that the right of "ownership" of created content lies with the public all along, which is not necessarily true. IP laws are protection of the content creator's rights in the content he/she creates, balanced against the general public good in the use of that content. That the pubic welfare has an interest in created content is different than saying they have a right in that content.
You can certainly argue that the balance has been tilted too far toward the content creator and against the public good, and I'd likely agree with you. But if it's incorrect to call copying "stealing" then it's equally wrong to call IP laws "stealing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
Perhaps because when that happens the public domain DOES NOT HAVE the good. So, yes, it does seem like stealing because there is a real loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
Here is what the Wikipedia article states "This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or pejoratively as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, effectively 'froze' the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterwards (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that or if the copyright gets extended again.". By using a legislative "trick" that delays the content from entering the public domain, the content industry has effectively "stolen" the content from the public.
Let's reverse the situation. If the copyright law was changed so that material would enter the public domain after only five years, you would hear the content producers howl about how their so-called property was being stolen!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I um, agree with Mr. Donahue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I um, agree with Mr. Donahue
That way, I can make sure that the money I spend on entertainment each week doesn't make it into the pockets of such a short-sighted, closed-minded fool, when there's so many more innovative talents to support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I um, agree with Mr. Donahue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I um, agree with Mr. Donahue
When you add in the way that IP laws are abused to the detriment of the smaller companies and entrepreneurs I am all for the destruction of most, if not all, IP based laws, especially those relating to software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I um, agree with Mr. Donahue
I am also a programmer at the moment.
When you add in the way that IP laws are abused to the detriment of the smaller companies and entrepreneurs I am all for the destruction of most, if not all, IP based laws, especially those relating to software.
Perfectly said. I agree 100%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think a copy should have an opinion when it comes to upholding the law and arresting drug users... but if the chief of police was quoted as saying he felt people supporting laws relaxing medical weed laws were a "threat"... then yes, I have a problem with that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
"Would you support a cop having an open mind about doing his job enforcing the law based on what he thinks about the law?"
Absolutely! This is their duty in a truly just society. What if a law was passed which stated that all guys named LostSailor should be castrated? I would hope that any sensible person would disobey that law.
If the Nazis had used their humanity to make decisions rather than blindly follow in lockstep every order given them...imagine how different history would have turned out.
If you believe that orders are to be followed without question...maybe you *should* be castrated.
...don't get excited; I'm just kidding...
...although you *are* a poo-poo head.
Take that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
But your Nazi analogy fails on many levels. It would work if you said that the U.S. Department of Commerce decided that IP Attaches should shoot anti-IP advocates on sight. That would be an immoral law that no one in good conscience should follow.
"poo-poo head"? Now that's advanced thread degeneration!
Gotta run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
Not quite. Enforcing IP laws is a bit different than genocide. Comparisons to Nazis is way off. I know people can get emotional about this issue, but let's have some perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Their Job
I was not equating what the Nazis did to what an IP enforcement officer does, I was comparing the two, and answering your question with that comparison.
Think about what I said.
It is too easy to dismiss a conceptual argument by resorting to straw-man equivalents. I didn't equate, and your insistence that I did is disingenuous.
Tet d'merde!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Relativistic Laws
"Piracy is infringement because it is getting something for free, but in the form of a copy of the original. The owner of the original item is still in possession of said item."
Could we get this straight please? I don't care what the IP owners *want* to call it, obtaining IP without license is NOT PIRACY. It may be illegal, it may be unethical, it may be infringement...
But to call it piracy is to attempt to use phraseology which is emotionally loaded in order to gain some form of advantage over one's enemies.
A pirate *attacks* his victim, *destroying their home or vessel*, in an attempt to *rob* the victim by way of *violence* to obtain the victims *personal possessions*, with the *intent to later sell those spoils* for some profit.
To call some zit-faced teen in his mom's basement, downloading a shitty, lowrez screen-cap of The Dark Night a pirate, is to basically sully the name of pirates.
The kid is a two-bit skimmer if anything.
Pirates have a long history. Their deeds and M.O. are well known. Please stop using the term "pirate" to describe what amounts to petty theft. Pirates commandeer oil tankers on the high seas and kill the crew, then ransom the $100 million in oil back to the original owners. They don't download movies illegally.
On their off time, they may watch illegally obtained movies, but it's their zit-faced teen nephew who obtains them. AND HE'S NOT A PIRATE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
Tyranny.
We have a small group of people deciding the rules for everyone else, (and enforcing them), whilst hiding behind an illusion that the rules are beneficial for more people than they actually are.
(Note: I'm a musician and composer, so I have some investment in this).
For thousands/millions of years, humanity existed without such things as 'intellectual property' - even civilization precedes it by a long time. So the first thing to understand is that civilization will NOT end if such an invention should disappear - for an invention it is, and a very recent one...
As we all should know - copyright was originally invented to protect the profits of book making factories, to stop people from copying their books so they could recoup the investment of making the factory etc..
It was only later - (with the bearne convention) - that the whole 'compensate the artist as an incentive to create future works' comes into play.
What is happening is that the latter view is basically being corrupted to become a modern day equivalent of the original version of copyright - it now exists to protect the profits of the large corporations that try and control most of the media.
However, it must be understood that all this is actually working AGAINST humanities inherent behaviour, (which we obeyed without problem thousands of years). Because of this, in order for any of the 'intellectual property' law to actually be 'moral', it must compensate humanity for the loss of it's previous 'rights' and behaviour, which is something the original bearne convention tried to do.
These days however, it's become so corrupted again, that it cannot be called 'right' or 'moral' on a grand scale. Yes, on a small scale - dealing with composers/musicians personally/directly - it can be, but that doesn't give these corporations any money...
Neither does copying/distributing the material without their permission, even if it is normal human behaviour...
The fact is, if you want to change human behaviour fully - you need two things, and carrot and a stick.
The problem with most media corporations is that they're so afraid, they've forgotten about the carrot, and are getting the governments to enforce the biggest stick they can.
And they'll LOSE, since HUMANITY always wins, even if it takes a thousand years...
Of course, if they USE humanity and human nature, rather than fighting it, they MIGHT actually WIN - but they don't understand how...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
One teensy correction. Intellectual property is a very old concept, dating back at least two millenia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP
Ha ha ha
There is no such thing.
Now go piss up a rope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not really a threat to IP...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off, I *am* engaging in dialog by posting. I'm not stiffling anyone by disagreeing with Mike. I am allowed to disagree with any given prevailing attitude as much as you are. If merely posting a dissenting entry here is "stiffling" to you, then it is you who don't understand that whole "freedom of speech" thingy. Please read some world news or travel a little bit to understand what it means to suppress dissent.
To kirilian and Moderation and several others:
Second. Ok, if the point of this article is that the policy makers are not open to a debate (as opposed to those at the lower levels who are charged with executing that policy) then Mike, may have a point. However, if you've ever led a large organization you know that it is poisinous for morale if the leader's vision and position is not clear. Personally I think the debates you all are having about IP should take place a bit higher than Mr. Donahue. It's his job to figure out a strategy (if not necessarily to execute it himself) that will further our *commercial* interest abroad and once those interests are defined (in the debate above his level), he is correct in assessing threats to pursuing those interests.
To ChimpBush McHitlerBurton & Keill Randor:
Lastly, I have learned something in this debate (stiffled as it may be). As someone who has a part time job dealing with REAL pirates (yo,ho,ho and here's my human cargo)... Alright: I must concede that there is a whole mess of grey area where we have infringement vs. stealing, denying the creator the origninal vs. skimming profits by copying an original, and the invention of the concept of IP as well as the idea of a "public domain" and people's rights to whatever is in it. etc. So using the word "pirate" for IP issues like this is now struck from my vocabulary. You are correct in saying it is unnecesarily inflamatory. I reserve the right to invoke something as strong as "stealing" in future posts, but I will be more judicious with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next, political assassinations of the leading "Anti-IP activists" around the world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]