Kenya's Anti-Counterfeiting Act Challenged As Violating The Right To Health

from the confusing-generics-with-counterfeits dept

As a bunch of countries continue to negotiate ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, in secrecy, Kenya already has its own Anti-Counterfeit Act. Michael Geist points us to the news that that particular law is now being challenged in Kenya for violating peoples "right to health." The issue is worth following, because it will almost certainly become an issue assuming ACTA moves forward. Whenever we discuss ACTA, it's inevitable that someone stops by to say that anti-counterfeiting is really, really important to stop dangerous counterfeit drugs from being sold, potentially harming people. Now, I have no doubt that counterfeit drugs may be a serious problem -- but if that's the problem, we should target a narrow attack on that problem alone, not some wider "anti-counterfeiting" effort.

We've already seen that lobbyist-funded and promoted reports on the "counterfeiting problem" are widely exaggerated, and any real "problem" is much smaller than the numbers that get tossed around. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that counterfeit products quite frequently lead to purchases of the real product in the future (i.e., people aren't "fooled" into buying counterfeits -- they know they're buying counterfeits). But that's with things like luxury goods. What about drugs?

Well, we've already seen that big pharmaceutical companies conveniently like to use anti-counterfeiting laws not to stop dangerous counterfeit drugs, but to destroy legitimate generic drugs. It's not about making sure that drugs and people are safe -- but quite the opposite. It's about limiting competition so that these pharma firms can jack up prices even higher.

And that's the issue in Kenya. About 90% of the drugs in Kenya are generics -- for a very good reason. Those drugs are much cheaper and are helpful in saving many lives. The Kenyan anti-counterfeit law makes counterfeiting a criminal issue, rather than a civil one, and gives the power to police and border officials, who have no way of knowing counterfeit from generic, so often label generic drugs as being counterfeits. There are plenty of good reasons to try to stop counterfeit drugs from hitting the market, but if that's the real problem, any solution should be narrowly focused on that specific problem. Unfortunately, since it's quite often the big pharmaceutical lobbyists who help write and push through these bills, that's not how it works at all.

Filed Under: counterfeiting, drugs, generics, kenya, laws

Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government

from the and-here-we-go-again dept

We had just been noting how Spanish courts seemed to be actually interpreting copyright law in a reasonable way, and slapping down industry attempts to abuse the laws. Of course, that couldn't last. It appears that Spain is now proposing new copyright laws that would bring its existing laws down the well-lobbied path of draconian punishment, increased third party liability and other mindless ideas that have more to do with propping up an old business model than encouraging the creation of new quality content. A bunch of professional content creators in Spain are organizing to protest these new rules, but do they stand a chance against the usual onslaught of industry lobbyists?

Filed Under: copyright, laws, lobbyists, spain

Liberian Laws Are A Secret Due To Copyright; Even The Gov't Doesn't Have Them

from the you-can't-have-them dept

We've seen a few ridiculous cases whereby local governments claim copyright on a law, but it's still stunning to see what's going on in Liberia. Tom sends in the news that no one knows what the law covers in Liberia, because one man, leading a small group of lawyers, claims to hold the copyright on the laws of the country and won't share them unless people (or, rather, the government of Liberia) is willing to pay. Oh, and did we mention that the US government paid for some of this?

The story is a bit convoluted, but apparently, Liberia hasn't really had a full copy of its laws, as they were mixed and matched in "incomplete sets" throughout different libraries. A professor at Cornell had begun a (free) project to compile the country's laws, but after he died, a group of lawyers in Liberia took over the project -- and were given $400,000 by the US Justice Department. The lawyers then "numbered, bound, and indexed" all of the recent laws, and claim that because of that, they now own the copyright on it.

While perhaps copyright law is different in Liberia, most places have rejected "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright. If you didn't create the actual content, you're not supposed to get the copyright. You don't get a copyright just for compiling the work of others without adding anything new. If this lawyer wanted to get paid for the work, he should have negotiated that upfront. Instead, he's holding the country's laws hostage, and asking for $150,000 to $360,000 to turn them over to the government.

What's really amazing is that this guy is currently serving as Liberia's justice minister. The work he did on the laws happened before that, and he claims that he'd give up the laws for free, but that the other lawyers he worked with will not.

Perhaps Liberia should just start from scratch and create all new laws, wiping out the value of these particular locked up laws.

Filed Under: copyright, laws, liberia

Lawyers Write Law, And Then Are The Only Ones To Make Millions Directly Off Of It

from the regulatory-capture-and-rent-seeking dept

It's difficult not to become even more cynical when you read stories like the following one. Sent in by Eric Goldman, it's about a state law in California that was mainly written by two lawyers: Joaquin Avila, a law professor from Seattle, and Robert Rubin, the "legal director" for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. So, here's the interesting thing: since this state law has been put in place (seven years ago), the only lawsuits have been brought by Rubin's committee or Avila and they've made themselves over $4 million with a few more lawsuits pending and a bunch more threatened (again, all from either Avila or Rubin's committee).

What a great deal: write a law, and then be the only lawyers to use the law to make millions.

As for the law itself, it was a law that apparently very few people were asking for -- requiring that state courts carve out specific districts that favor minority groups, so they are not excluded from local elections. Here's how the AP describes it:

The California statute targets commonly used "at-large" elections -- those in which candidates run citywide or across an entire school district. Avila said that method can result in discrimination because whatever group constitutes the majority of voters can dominate the ballot box and block minorities from winning representation. As a remedy, the law empowers state courts to create smaller election districts favoring minority candidates.

Officials in several California communities said they never heard complaints of voter discrimination until the lawyers stepped forward. In one case, the Tulare Local Healthcare District, now known as Tulare Regional Medical Center, was sued even though its five-member governing board is a rainbow of diversity -- two emigres from India, a Hispanic, a black and a white. The lawsuit argues Hispanics, who make up about a third of local voters, have been shortchanged.

Of course, there are many reasons why the exact makeup of a governing board might not match the exact percentage of the population (including the simple fact that most people vote on issues, not the ethnicity of the people they're voting for). But, even if there was a problem it seems highly questionable that the two lawyers who wrote the bill are now profiting tremendously from it and appear to be the only ones who do so.

It's stories like this one that make us so nervous about so much legislation. This is the type of law they create: it maysound good (who's going to argue against diversity?). But, the actual law appears to have been nothing more than a way for these lawyers to go around collecting millions, while disrupting communities and schoolboards, and sending their taxpayer money to these lawyers.

Filed Under: california, joaquin avila, laws, lawyers, monopoly rents, regulatory capture, rent seeking, robert rubin

Oregon Tries Claiming Copyright Over Gov't Materials Again

from the and-again dept

You may recall last year that the state of Oregon tried to claim copyright in preventing others from republishing Oregon laws. Yes, that seems incredibly counterproductive, and eventually the state backed down. However, it looks like Oregon's Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General's Public Record and Public Meeting Manual. Yes. A government official claiming copyright over a document on the public record. Wonderful. Carl Malamud is trying to get the Attorney General to issue an opinion that such things will not be covered by copyright. But, again, can anyone provide any good reason why any government document should be covered by copyright?

Filed Under: copyright, laws, oregon

Congress Moving Forward On 'P2P' Warning Law

from the unintended-consequences,-anyone? dept

Back in May, we wrote about a bill being proposed by Congress, at the urging of the entertainment industry, to force any kind of file sharing app to put certain ridiculous restrictions on the app, such as requiring it to put up a big warning sign every time you use it for sharing files, and requiring the user to "consent" to use the software. Public Knowledge notes that the bill is back in action and going through the markup process, with little in the way of complaints or warnings from the many, many software developers this will impact. Public Knowledge outlines many of the problems with the bill:

1. Legislating Software Design: The bill is aimed at a specific technology and kind of application instead of simple non-tech-focussed consumer protection and disclosure principles. Instead it's aimed at legislating the design and workings of common software. It's the exact kind of thing that has all kinds of unintended and unforeseeable consequences.

2. Over / Under Inclusive Definition: No matter how narrow the definition of "covered file-sharing program" may seem, it's going to include more and less than is intended or desirable. Over inclusive: bill would include basic operating systems like Windows 7 and Mac OS X that enable file sharing; iTunes shares media files as well. Under inclusive: bill would not include applications that simply upload the entirety of a user's hard drive to the web.

3. "Initial Activation" Needs Clarification: The amendment, just like the previous bill, requires the software to notify the user at installation and "initial activation of a file sharing function." The problem remains that there are a number of interpretations of what this means, here are three: A. The first time an application is installed and launched; B. Every time the application is launched; or C. Every time the feature is enabled. Unless the language is made clear, developers not wanting to incur penalties will err on the side of notice, which means the most notifications.

4. Applies to Software Already Written: Software that has already been written and is still being distributed, but not maintained by a developer or manufacturer may fall prey to the provisions of this bill. Unless otherwise exempted, this would require developers to update their older software at great cost, unless they wanted incur penalty of law.

5. Interferes with User and Administrator Choice: This bill would require a fundamental change in how much software operates. Users, especially system administrators, make informed choices about the applications that will meet their needs -- especially those that "just run" without user interaction. In many cases, how an application installs, launches, and operates behind the scenes is part of their decision, and this bill would interfere with how they run their systems.

This bill is bad news, and it's yet another attempt by the entertainment industry to get Congress to start slapping specific restrictions on any software it doesn't like.

Filed Under: file sharing, laws, p2p

Oregon: You Have To Pay Us To Explain The Laws To You

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

While all federal documents in the US are under the public domain, state governments don't always follow that rule, and the state of Oregon has a history of trying to lock up its documents. Last year, there was some attention generated when some people uploaded copies of certain Oregon laws. Yes, it seems positively ridiculous that the state might claim copyright over the laws people are expected to follow. The state claimed that it was just complaining about the fact that the laws were scanned from its own book, with its own notes and page numbers -- and that it wouldn't complain if people had just copied the law. But that's a weak excuse, and the state backed down later.

However, Oregon is back in the news on a similar issue, as Slashdot points us to the news that a professor is challenging the state's attorney general to sue him after he scanned and posted a state-produced guide to using public-records laws. You would think, again, that the state would want such a document spread as widely as possible, as it would better help Oregonians understand the law. But the state claims it needs to sell the book for $25 to cover production costs. That doesn't seem like much of an excuse. The fact that the state needs to produce a guide to understand its own laws seems troubling enough. Then locking them down with a copyright claim just makes it that much worse.

Filed Under: copyright, laws, oregon

The Worst Proposed Internet Legislation In America

from the iAwful dept

NetChoice has put together "iAwful," a site tracking the worst proposed internet legislation, ranked by the seriousness of the threat (both the amount of damage the laws can do, and the liklihood of them passing). Some of the proposed laws on the list you'll recognize, as we've discussed them here. Overall, though, this looks to be a great source if you're worried about politicians passing innovation-destroying laws:

Knee-jerk, overly prescriptive laws can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication before they have a chance to emerge. Too many laws are proposed without considering unintended harm they may cause to thousands of Internet companies and millions of Internet users.

NetChoice is dedicated to fighting these attacks on core Internet principles. Through this site, the Internet Advocates' Watchlist For Ugly Laws (iAWFUL) will track dangerous legislation and mobilize citizens to defeat bills and proposals that threaten the future of ecommerce and online communication. The list will be continually updated to reflect the most immediate dangers, based on regulatory severity and likelihood of passage.

Filed Under: bad laws, iawful, internet, laws, netchoice

Boston Trolley Accident Sadly Shows, Again, That Cell Phone Bans Alone Don't Really Work

from the accountability? dept

The driver of a Boston trolley that caused a crash that injured about 50 people was apparently sending text messages at the time of the accident, despite a transit authority ban on such activity. This latest incident comes after the horrible crash in California last year that killed scores of people, in which the train conductor was said to be texting, and highlights how bans like this, whether covering the drivers of trains or cars, really aren't effective. A reasonably intelligent person driving a trolley or other mass-transit vehicle doesn't need a ban to tell them that texting while driving isn't such a good idea. If they aren't smart enough to figure that out, they're probably just going to ignore the ban anyway, like this driver in Boston, undermining the point of the rule. Again, it goes back to personal responsibility, something that politicians and rulemakers won't be able to conjure up out of legislation, try as they might. This isn't to say that people like trolley drivers should be allowed to text while working -- far from it. But to think that putting a ban into place will, in itself, simply and easily eliminate the problem and make everybody safer is misguided.

Filed Under: boston, driving, laws, texting, trolley

Unintended Consequences: P2P 'Warning' Law Could Impact Browsers, FTP

from the politicians-who-don't-understand-technology dept

We discussed recently how entertainment industry lobbyists have been pushing this story about how P2P software needs to be regulated to prevent gov't data from leaking, incorrectly blaming the software for user error. So, of course, it's no surprise that legislation has been introduced that tries to force any P2P software used for transferring files from one computer to another to include a big warning and require the user to give "informed consent" when installing the software and every time it's used. Yes, every time it's used. This is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. Has it occurred to anyone crafting such a bill that when you pop up such a notice and require "consent" every single time software is used, most people will just ignore it? But, more importantly, as Declan McCullagh points out, the wording of the bill suggests that this "notice and consent" solution would apply to lots and lots of products, including browsers, FTP clients and backup software. Tons of software these days involves transferring files between two computers. This is, of course, symptomatic of legislation being written and introduced by people who don't understand the technology. They think that software to transfer files is limited to things like LimeWire or BitTorrent, not recognizing that it's a core part of the internet itself.

Filed Under: file sharing, laws, p2p