IIPA's Section 301 Filing Shows It's Really Not At All Interested In Reducing Copyright Infringement
from the incredible dept
We've covered some of the better comments to the USTR over the Special 301 report, such as the submission from the CCIA. But, of course, there were some ridiculous submissions as well -- and at the top of the list has to be the submission from the IIPA -- the International Intellectual Property Alliance, a trade association/lobbying group of trade associations/lobbying groups (including the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ESA and NMPA) that proudly highlights how it has filed comments for the Special 301 report since such things began in 1988. But what's stunning is what the report effectively admits. Even though it claims to want to focus on ways to cut down on copyright infringement, the details show it wants the exact opposite. That's because in reports on a variety of countries, the IIPA seems to suggest that policies encouraging or mandating the use of open source software is somehow a bad thing.But if your goal is to actually reduce infringement, then wouldn't you want to encourage the use of legal software? And by encouraging the use of open source software, you are making it that much less likely that infringement will be a problem, since the software will be cheaper. Basically, the IIPA is flat out admitting that it's not actually interested in reduced copyright infringement. It's abusing the USTR's Special 301 process to set up protectionist policies for the companies and organizations it represents -- and trying to use that process to deny efforts to actually reduce infringement.
This is really incredible when you think about it. Even though the USTR 301 report is supposed to be about figuring out ways to reduce infringement in countries around the world, the IIPA is trying to shoehorn open source software into the mix, claiming that it's somehow worse than infringing. While many of the IIPA's complaints have to do with mandates for open source software, it even goes after Indonesia, which is just recommending gov't agencies consider open source software -- and here, the IIPA basically exposes its agenda even further:
It encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations. As such, it fails to build respect for intellectual property rights...Yes, you read that right. The IIPA is claiming that telling people to consider open source technologies -- which are not at all "anti-intellectual property rights" -- "fails to build respect for intellectual property rights" and doesn't properly value intellectual creations. In other words, in the eyes of the IIPA, properly licensed software that happens to be under an open source license is worse than infringing because of its price.
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: copyright, open source, special 301, ustr
Companies: iipa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh...
"It encourages a mindset that does not give due consideration to the value to intellectual creations. As such, it fails to build respect for intellectual property rights..."
It's an incredible insight into the mindset of these organizations and lobbyist groups, and it's actually been on display for all to see, even right here on Tech Dirt. Think about it. When we here people decry the practice of infringing downloading of music, including here, there are two things you hear people say:
1. Pirating/Infringing is illegal. You should pay for music!
2. Pirating/Infringing is illegal. You shouldn't download infringing music!
Maybe I'm the only one that missed it, but despite the similarities, those two statements are very, VERY different. The first doesn't want you to stop what you're doing, it just wants you to start handing over money for it. The second is actually far more on point. What you're doing is illegal, so you should stop.
The quote above highlights how these content industries ascribe to option #1. It isn't about doing something wrong, it isn't about doing something illegal, it's just about collecting more money. This is why they think open source or FREE! options are so dangerous: if there's a free alternative, and it becomes more widely used, they go away entirely. It's no longer about getting more at that point.
It's about surviving....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
Those damned hippies cheated us out of our monopoly! Free is unfair competition. *twirls moustache and looks pensive*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
That is why ASCAP's site has a whole Anti CC section. Doing the scare tactics thing they and RIAA do so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOSS
Nor do I use Photoshop. Why in the world pay that much for a program that GIMP does just as well at? Best of all, GIMP doesn't phone home either.
So let me wander over there, adjust muh parrot, polish muh eye patch and feed muh pegleg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything Must Have a Price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything Must Have a Price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything Must Have a Price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech, free beer..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is that about right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Company A produces and sells a proprietary software product and, perhaps, associated support services.
Country B legislates that its government procurements must eschew proprietary software.
Company A is thus locked out of being able to submit a responsive bid to the government procurement officials in Country B.
If I was the President of Company A you are darn right I would be upset, not because I would be competing with Open-Source in a free and open competition, but because I could not even submit a proposal to the cognizant government agency for my product.
This is not about proprietary vs. open source, but about precluding one with a proprietary product from even participating in a government procurement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention that this isn't the argument that IIPA is making - IIPA is saying that open source undermines copyright and/or patents, not that looking more towards open source alternatives might be unfairly skewing the market, because they know that this isn't what's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In your example, company A is not locked out of submitting a bid. They can easily support an open standard archive system, but they choose not to, and therefore it their choice that has precluded them from competition.
In your example, "Country B legislates that its government procurements must eschew proprietary software." Where did that come from? You can't be serious.
So, it is a "free and open competition" if you want to compete. The customer (gov in this case) wants a product that meets their needs, the company (A in this case) is free to bid if they so choose. It is not about "precluding one with a proprietary product from even participating in a government procurement" ... that is nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except, that isn't what's happening here and you're just another freaking, lying copyright shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a government wants to have access to the source code in order to preserve its investment then it is no business of a supplier company to tell them they can't have it. The customer is always right - if you aren't prepared to supply on their term then you don't get the contract.
Governments have ALWAYS insisted on their own terms and conditions when they procure stuff (in the past they never used to procure COTS anyway precisely because they didn't have source access. FOSS is ideal - it combines source access with the robustness of COTS. If you aren't prepared to supply it then you have NO business to tell the goverment and the supplier who IS prepared to deal that way that they can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Country B legislates that its government procurements must eschew proprietary software.
Company A is thus locked out of being able to submit a responsive bid to the government procurement officials in Country B.
If I was the President of Company A you are darn right I would be upset, not because I would be competing with Open-Source in a free and open competition, but because I could not even submit a proposal to the cognizant government agency for my product.
Tough. I used to work for a company that sold stuff to the US/UK/Australian governments. Governments write "invitations to tender" they put on conditions. Sometimes your product meets them, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the conditions were inserted at the behest of a competitor.
On one occasion we were given a spec. (for a piece of equipment that would live in an office environment) that said it must be either mil. spec. (ie suitable to put in a fighter plane) or COTS (where COTS was defined in such a way that a certain competitor's product just qualified and ours didn't.
If you make proprietary s/w you can always release the source to the government if you want the contract enough. The rules don't specifically exclude you - just the standard terms and conditions that you choose to impose.
If the governement asks for bananas then don't whinge if you have decided to sell apples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I have seen COTS with source code mandates. I have seen equipment design with tech transfer of know how and show how in order to establish dual sourcing. I have seen small business set-asides that locked out original manufacturers. I have seen mandates for in-country manufacture and incredibly ridiculous off-set requirements (ever try and sell a military system upon the condition that if you win you will be required to establish in country a cat fish farm?), government demands for a full TDP and full tech transfer to segments of the government can themselves compete directly with the private sector developer (e.g., BLU-117)...the permutations are limited only by the imagination of procuring agencies who somehow think companies are stupid enough to give them something for nothing.
Government "contracting" is a world unto itself, and any resemblance between government contracts and contract law are purely coincidental and certainly not intentional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A strawman right there
Country B legislates that government procurements must use open formats.
Micros~1 could have made their Office read/write ODF but they refused to play along and released their own "open" format which is as helpful as having two standards for railrod tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A strawman right there
No, that's too generous. It's more like having two standards about which side to the road you drive on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not legislation aainst proprietry software, just asking them to think about alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course you could!
The only problem is if your product does not meet the requirements of the agency, namely being open source. Open source does not necessarily mean non-commercial, remember.
There is nothing in the world stopping Company A from producing an open source product and submitting a proposal for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The real "fact" is closed-source is still permitted and you're obviously a shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Claiming that situation would be a flipping of the facts in this case is untrue. If you aren't a shill, then just exactly is your reason for telling such a lie? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you aren't a shill. Maybe you just like to lie for no reason. But I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If OS was not permitted to participate that would be equally as unfair. In the US any federal procurement attempting to try this (whether proprietary excluded or OS escluded) would immediately find itself on the losing end of a bid protest...and justifiably so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Typically, whomever desires a new widget will somehow publish a request for quote, to which interested parties respond. If you are not interested, then I see no benefit to whining about being left behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How would this be unfair at all? I'm not seeing it. The customer is simply saying that they prefer a certain type of licensing arrangement. Why is the customer obligated to take a kind of licensing arrangement that they find unappealing? *That's* unfair, as well as anti-capitalism and anti-free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Open Source? Then You're a Pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use Open Source? Then You're a Pirate!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7910110.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in other words, charity is wrong. If I want to build a piece of software and donate it to the masses that's charity and hence wrong. I must fund an "official" charitable organization that will probably end up secretly wasting most of the money on "administrative costs" (IE: the brand new top of the line BMW of the owner of the organization).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hell yeah it's wrong!
Don't you know anything about capitalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Michael: Well, that is a perfectly good mini tree, Kevin. And we are going to sell that to charity. That's what Christmas is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising
They even coined a phrase for it ....
Felony Interference With a business Plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising
that's horrible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USE FOSS!
The IIPA and everyone under them are a bunch of Hypocritical Mafia SNOBS that FEAR competition whenever they feel unappreciated or beat.
Unfortunately, the US government is already terminally stupid, has a knee-jerk reaction to unfounded allegations on everything, and is slowly becoming more undemocratic every year.
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.iipa.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know this is old, but is worthy
its like if the restaurant industry are trying to ban the act of making homemade foods, this sums it all up: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100223/0032548261.shtml (and funnily enough, was posted a day after this post)
So much for the “lost sale” argument right there. Would Coca Cola call me a thief for buying a Pepsi instead of a Coca Cola? Somehow they want to treat “simply not buying” the same as piracy. It doesn't matter if you obtain a pirated version or not obtain it at all.
So effectively, their real enemy is not receiving funds, regardless if this is illegal or not.
When I was a kid, I've seen videos using proprietary crippleware screencasting programs like filmora and avs4you (the latter should be called “avsf*ckyou”). They show up as advertising at the top of the search result when searching “free screen recording program”. Many of them have nagware and other monetization schemes that are the past equivalent to modern day in-game microtransactions.
I can imagine if those software vendors were part of the BSA/IIPA, they might as well complain if google placed OBS at the top of the search result over their software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]