Australia Realizes That Including Intellectual Property In Trade Agreements Makes No Sense
from the but-what-about-acta dept
Michael Geist notes that the Australian Government's Productivity Commission (which is apparently an independent research and advisory arm) is suggesting that the government no longer agree to include intellectual property issues in trade agreements -- and specifically focuses on the lack of evidence that such intellectual property agreements benefit Australia economically. It suggests that such agreements should only be allowed "after an economic assessment of the impacts, including on consumers, in Australia and partner countries." In other words, it looks like at least some in Australia are realizing that "faith-based" intellectual property policy-making is a bad idea. In fact, the report notes that most of these agreements appear to benefit a few US companies, but do little to help Australia.The Commission is not convinced, however, that the approach adopted by Australia in relation to IP in trade agreements has always been in the best interests of either Australia or (most of) its trading partners. Among other things, there does not appear to have been any economic analysis of the specific provisions in AUSFTA undertaken prior to the finalisation of negotiations, nor incorporated in the government’s supporting documentation to the parliament. As noted above, the AUSFTA changes to copyright imposed net costs on Australia, and extending these changes to other countries would be expected to impose net costs on them, principally to the benefit of third parties.What third parties? That's obvious:
"most of the benefits to IP rights holders from measures to promote adherence to existing rules in partner countries can be expected to accrue to third parties, such as rights holders in the United States."Of course, Australia is one of the countries involved in ACTA -- which has no such economic analysis. Any chance at all that the Australian government actually listens to the Productivity Commission and requires an economic analysis first? I wouldn't bet on it.
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: australia, free trade, intellectual property, trade agreements
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would also be nice to know how you conflate "recommending removal of a foreign country's copyright infringement law from international trade agreements" with "defending stealing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
The AC might have been spouting ignorance about other matters, for example there are a number of people who believe that a Queenslander (aka Assange) "stole" a bunch of embarrassing documents and could be confusing him with the rest of the Australian population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
It was anything BUT a paradise, and at no time did the britts 'realise' their mistake.
And it was not until the early 1950's when we started to gain a large number of british immigrants, especially for the Snowy river scheme, and there was also alot of immigration after WW2.
Yes, it IS an island paradise today, but it was not 200 hundred years ago, if you were a guard or a convict.
200 years ago it was a HELL hole, and no one wanted to come here.. they had to be forced to come here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
Here is an Australian term you should be aware of Mr AC.
"Ya, gotta be fucking jocking mate!!!"
If you are so aware of Australia, and its history, maybe you should state what range of crimes those people were convicted of when they were sent out here ?
Religious nutters, ?? I wonder if you know what percentage of US citizens believe in the literal word of the bible ?
You know, creation, and evolution and so on.. then check out how many Aussies, are "religious nutters"..
Yes, Australians, will usually go to church maybe 3 times in their life (if they are unlucky) that is when they are cristened, when they get married, and when they die.
You need to buy a clue...
which is apparently an independent research and advisory arm
it cannot be independent and "an arm" at the same time, so apparently its not what you state.
Is it ONLY and advisory committee, they have no power to make decision, and can only offer advice, the government is in no way required to follow that advice. And that advice in no way reflects the opinion of the government.
so they have no teeth, they can only advise, and their advise is often ignored, if it is not what the government deside to do.
Its only one input in a series of inputs before a desision is formed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To
I believe that the AC was referring to the US being religious nutters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And of course you did not have to deport criminals, you just went to africa, and stole a heap of slaves.
A habbit even you're Jefferson could not kick, he did not even free his slaves when he died.. They were SOLD to pay his debts,, old Thommas was not that good with money .
And yes I can understand the US being religiou nutters.
Not that I see what really that has to do with much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jebus, what is so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"what's that Skip ?" "ti,,ti,, ti... ti....ti".
"what skippy ?, there is a boat in the harbour, they are dynamite fishing in the park ?". "there are five of them?"..
"quick skippy, to go the station, get on the radio and call Dad"..
"Skippy, can you do my homework for me?"
"Ti titi...ti" "do it myself !!!!!!"
typical crimes for deportion to Australia, theft, common items were a loaf of bread, some fruit, public disturbance, drunkedness, loose morals.
All things that today you would expect no charged to even be laid.
we do not have a great history with our Australian natives, but we did not do what the settlers did to the American natives, not to mention importing MANY people for slavery.
We never has slavery here, tough laws, and unjust laws, but no endemic slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Australia didn't realize anything. A government Commission suggested that it might not be the best idea. They certainly don't speak for the government, they are just a resource for the government, who can decide to ignore them.
The headline suggests a major shift in Australian policy. It is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
having said that, the correct information is that the productivity commission is "the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues" (quote taken directly from their website) which makes it part of the government and thus does, in fact, speak for the government on issues. that is not to say that it sets rules or has any oversight towards enforcement and yes the "the government" can choose to ignore its findings much in the same way the current administrative branch can ignore findings from FCC reports. ignoring these reports does not make either entity any less a part of the government.
with that in mind, one could make the arguement that the headline is misleading, but realistically only if you choose to ignore any of the rest of the article and make assumptions about it without actually reading and putting things in context.
of course thats all just my personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps "One Australia Advisory Board Things that..." might be more appropriate.
The post is more or less an attempt to create the appearance of wide support where there is none. At some point in the future, this post will be linked from another story with the "Australia has already realizes that", when it isn't true. It is entirely misleading, but the TD sheeple will fall for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it is an Independent research and advisory body..
Independent and advisory are the key factors to deal with here, what that means is that they are INDEPEND of the Government (therefore not answerable to them) and the only have an ADVISORY capacity.
They do not have to follow government policy, ie they are independent, and they cannot dictate policy, ie they are advisory.
More to the point, they are token, its advice the government gets as an input to its decision making.
And the other poster is right, in the future, Mike, and TC will use this as an example of something it is not..
Its just a product of Mikes spin tactics..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are starting to realize how important "sharing" really is.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/12/the-mesh-the-future-of-business-is-sharing-book-revie w.php
That article is listing dozens of business based on sharing something, were ownership takes second place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, we didn't fight a war of independence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]