EU Follows US Steps, Signs 'Free Trade' Agreement With Korea That's All About IP Protectionism
from the that-bill-isn't-what-it-says-it-is dept
It always seems amusing to us when various trade officials include stronger copyright and patent laws in so-called "free trade agreements." By their very nature, copyrights and patents are monopolies. They're protectionist policies and the very antithesis of true free trade. Yet, for a variety of reasons (i.e., lobbyist demands), it's now becoming quite standard for officials to put stronger protectionist patent and copyright rules into the misnamed "free trade agreements." The gold standard here, of course, was the one that the US and South Korea signed a few years ago, that forced Korea to massively ratchet up its copyright laws, leading to dangerous precedents, including fears that certain advertisements could get you in trouble for copyright infringement. Of course, the US-SK FTA was also the basis for ACTA, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the EU has now signed a similar "free trade agreement" with South Korea, and EU officials are hyping up how it involves stricter patent and copyright requirements. They also note how they followed the lead of ACTA in keeping all the details entirely secret from the public (though you can probably assume that industry representatives were able to read it) until it was already signed. The new transparency at work.
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: europe, free trade, intellectual property, south korea
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
For the rest of us (ie. those who live in reality), this is a good thing. IP employs a very large segment of the Western world. It is the job of government to protect the industry and output of its people.
They are doing their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if the output of Hollywood in recent years is anything to go by, it can die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that's why economies are crumbling everywhere. Instead of powering industry, governments would rather protect virtual goods that do nothing to boost the economy (they just move money around, they don't create money).
Look at the old economic powers. Their industry is in shambles. Everything moved to China (or somesuch "third-world" country), which, ironically, has become much stronger that the "old powers", to the point of squeezing the balls of half of the world (economically speaking). All that based on industrial output alone (powered by abusive work laws and an oppressive regime, but still).
But we feel all cool that we just made it much easier for foreign countries who do not respect "our" IP at all to screw us even harder, while we strangle the very thing we are trying to protect. Very smart. We'll go far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your fantasies of a world where IP laws are actually enforceable are never going to be realised. The world will eventually pull back from these foolish laws as reality bites. In fact the more extreme the laws get the quicker will be their demise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lawyer Talk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Call to arms, we need to start thinking on how to:
- Reduce liability in IP law.
- Change those laws.
- Produce a draft of legislation we want.
The way it is today lobbyists are making the draft laws and handing it to legislators and they don't bother to read it or think about it, it is time to show them what the other side think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me guess? Because of the freetards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why don't we officially hand the government over to the RIAA and MPAA? It's not like they aren't calling the shots already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who does "IP" employ?
I believe you are incredibly confused. IP employs no one. Some people use IP as a business model, but that's very different.
It is the job of government to protect the industry and output of its people.
No, it's not actually. I mean, seriously, this is Adam Smith stuff. Governments that seek to protect rather than enable are governments that fail their own citizenry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will kill more people than all the terrorists combined.
If you're too poor to afford a patented drug, and were waiting for a generic copy, tough. You have to pay more and wait a few years for treatment, until tests can be re-done. This will kill a lot of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you look at the best 30 years, the economies that have developed the farthest are the economies with the weakest IP rules. Nice economics experiment. IP is the last gasp of a has-been power that has lost the capitalist spirit and has been relying on government sponsored monopolies to protect outdated business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]