Singapore Creates 'IP Steering Committee' Without A Single Representative For The Public's Interest
from the total-failure dept
This keeps happening. Governments forget that the purpose of intellectual property law is to provide the best net value to the public, instead of thinking that it's just to help "industry," on the incorrect assumption that this must benefit the public in the long run. Han alerts us to the news that Singapore has now set up an "IP Steering Committee" to try to turn the city/state into an "intellectual property hub." The steering committee appears to have lots of industry representatives, and government officials who are in charge of representing the industry's interests -- but not a single person representing the interests of the public. That seems like a pretty major oversight, and more or less guarantees that what comes out of this will be abused by companies, rather than a useful and effective system for the benefit of the public.
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: intellectual property, singapore
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You really need to get over the idea that there has to be "someone from the public" on every committee. Guess what? They are all from the public as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, then people need to be more engage just like the other guys are, what is the problem with that?
You don't like oversight is that it?
You don't like that others can voice their opinions in public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The People's Action Party has won every election in Singapore since independence, and has governed with a large majority of Parliament since 1966. In 2011, they won 81 of 87 seats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “elect the people...”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "IP industries" are also part of the public and get to vote - so they too are represented by the government people already.
It is true, as you say, that the public is represented - once but the IP bunch get to be represented twice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Start a patenting race of course so they can have many patents to fight others too.
The problem with that approach is that it ignores completely the harms that monopolies do to markets.
People look at IP and because it has property there they get confused and assume that it must be good thing to protect property, well monopolistic practices will ruin their economies just like it did everywhere else where this crap is strong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it isn't, me thinks you need to read up more on it, no where does it say to provide net value to the public
What are intellectual property rights?
Intellectual property rights are the rights given to persons over the creations of their minds. They usually give the creator an exclusive right over the use of his/her creation for a certain period of time.
Intellectual property rights are customarily divided into two main areas:
(i) Copyright and rights related to copyright.
The rights of authors of literary and artistic works (such as books and other writings, musical compositions, paintings, sculpture, computer programs and films) are protected by copyright, for a minimum period of 50 years after the death of the author.
Also protected through copyright and related (sometimes referred to as “neighbouring”) rights are the rights of performers (e.g. actors, singers and musicians), producers of phonograms (sound recordings) and broadcasting organizations. The main social purpose of protection of copyright and related rights is to encourage and reward creative work.
(ii) Industrial property. back to top
Industrial property can usefully be divided into two main areas:
•One area can be characterized as the protection of distinctive signs, in particular trademarks (which distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings) and geographical indications (which identify a good as originating in a place where a given characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin).
The protection of such distinctive signs aims to stimulate and ensure fair competition and to protect consumers, by enabling them to make informed choices between various goods and services. The protection may last indefinitely, provided the sign in question continues to be distinctive.
•Other types of industrial property are protected primarily to stimulate innovation, design and the creation of technology. In this category fall inventions (protected by patents), industrial designs and trade secrets.
The social purpose is to provide protection for the results of investment in the development of new technology, thus giving the incentive and means to finance research and development activities.
A functioning intellectual property regime should also facilitate the transfer of technology in the form of foreign direct investment, joint ventures and licensing.
The protection is usually given for a finite term (typically 20 years in the case of patents).
While the basic social objectives of intellectual property protection are as outlined above, it should also be noted that the exclusive rights given are generally subject to a number of limitations and exceptions, aimed at fine-tuning the balance that has to be found between the legitimate interests of right holders and of users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry - you are flat out wrong here - you display the classic symptoms of 300 years of brainwashing.
Both the original Statute of Anne and the US constitution clause portray the purpose of copyright and patent as for the "encouragement of learning". Clearly that purpose, translated in to modern economics-speak, is equivalent to providing net value (broadly interpreted - not purely monetary value) to the community as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Congress shall have the Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
they PROMOTE the progress of science and useful arts, how do they do that?? I wonder, oh yes, BY SECURING for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
that means THEY get to profit from thier work, does not have anything to with providing net value to the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From that quote, securing for limited times the exclusive rights to writings and descoveries is only the method, promoting the progress of the science and the useful arts(benefitting the public) is the point of that method.
Also note that "promoting science" refers to copyright, it wasn't intended for things like helping lady gaga profit for her latest album
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public vote them in, and the deal is they get to govern for 3 to 5 years until the public vote again.
What's the point of democratic government if you have to consult groups of residents every time you want to build a motorway, change bank interest rates, or develop an IP policy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What makes you think Singapore is a democratic government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'not a single person representing the interests of the public. That seems like a pretty major oversight.'
not an oversight at all! again, we all know that has been done on purpose and why. any speculation as to where the 'advice' came from and which bodies were 'assisting' in setting this up? did i just hear 'USTR, USA Entertainment Industry representatives? no? i must have a hearing problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean the ideas you raise are so absolutely insane that one would think that no one could ever try and rationally defend them, but I've still seen shills/trolls do that very thing more than once, so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Surprise.. OMG you got a plate....
you are so lucky, all we get are steaming piles of moldy crap, and we get to like it or else...
Yes, Maam, May I please have another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
Thus, I am not sure why you are harping about public representation with regards to Singapore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam Smith Was Right
That is precisely what will be happening in the Singapore IP steering committee. Really, grown up pollies should know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as I can't disagree with the whole "PAP being in charge" thing, I think the citizens aren't going to be so easily cowed. The Odex scenario was one case study that few people are willing to take kindly to RIAA-style tactics of enforcing IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]