US Lobbyist: If Canada Just Implemented US-Style Copyright Law, US Would Drop 'Buy American' Provisions

from the uh...-what? dept

We've seen the ridiculous pressure that lobbyists and diplomats have been putting on Canada to put in place significantly more draconian copyright law, without any evidence that it's needed and even though it's opposed by the vast majority of Canadian citizens. However, now things are just getting bizarre. A totally separate issue involving Canadian and US trade is that Canada is (reasonably) upset by various "buy American" provisions that are being pushed by various local governments despite the fact that anyone with any economic knowledge at all recognizes that "Buy American" provisions do more harm to American interests. This is an important issue, and there are lots of ways to address it. But it's flat-out ridiculous to believe that the "answer" to the Buy American issue is for Canadians to capitulate to American interests in implementing much more draconian copyright law. And yet, that's exactly what an American lobbyist just told a Canadian Parliamentary gathering recently.

Scotty Greenwood, an American lobbyist with a history of serious conflicts of interest in her dual role as a lobbyist and as an executive director of the Canadian-American Business Council, spoke at the gathering and offered what she believed is a simple solution: Canadian politicians "could solve Buy America tomorrow," if they just agreed to capitulate on copyright, even though the two issues have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Luckily, Canadian copyright expert Howard Knopf was on hand to ask Greenwood how that could possibly make any sense at all. Apparently, the only answer he got was that Canada should implement the copyright law demanded by American lobbyists because it's "in Canada's best interest." Uh huh.

Of course, it's pure fantasy to claim that by implementing draconian copyright law in Canada that most people want, the "Buy American" issue will go away. In most cases, Buy American is not being pushed by the federal government, but by more local politicians who have a more populist position (i.e., protecting the jobs of local workers). They couldn't care any less about copyright in Canada. But, it does show just how low the copyright lobby has stooped to push more draconian copyright laws in Canada, when they're now trying to tie it to a totally different trade issue.

Filed Under: buy american, canada, copyright, scotty greenwood, trade policy

Why Obama Should Change US Trade Policy On Intellectual Property

from the doing-more-harm-than-good dept

For years, we've had serious problems with the way the US government has viewed intellectual property when it comes to trade agreements. In many ways, it's been the exact opposite of its stated plan. We see, time and time, again where a supposed "free trade agreement" is actually about forcing other countries to add protectionist policies more draconian than the US. That's not free trade at all, and just as tariffs and other trade barriers harm the very industries they're supposed to protect, the US's trade policy concerning intellectual property has done great harm to US intellectual property industries. Unfortunately, you rarely see that discussed anywhere.

That's why it's good to see Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, writing up an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News explaining to President-elect Obama why US trade policy concerning IP needs to change. First, he worries about the widespread reports that Obama has chosen Xavier Becerra to be the new US Trade Representative. In the past, the US Trade Rep has basically acted as a representative of Hollywood at times, and Becerra may be no different... as he's literally the Congressional rep for California's 31st district... which (you guessed it) covers Hollywood. Uh oh. That would be like making a Congressional rep from Detroit in charge of automotive policy in the US. They're less likely to have the nation's overall best interests in mind.

Black then outlines three reasons why the US's insistence on pushing draconian IP laws through trade agreements is a bad idea:

• It's alienating many of our allies who feel they're being forced to put in place excessively draconian IP laws they don't need or want.
• It takes away from America's ability to spread our culture internationally. Black notes how bootleg products in Eastern Europe helped contribute to the fall of communism there. By greatly restricting how American content can be used, we actually aid repressive regimes.
• Finally, and most importantly, these restrictions actually harm the US economy. Black specifically notes how excessive IP legislation that does not allow for fair use (which is what the US is pushing in most countries) actually harms American internet companies, allowing them to get sued for copyright infringement on things that should be fair use. He could actually go much further in how it harms our economy, but at least it's a start.

Unfortunately, given the current expected choice for USTR, the initial reaction is that this is going to be more of the same.

Filed Under: intellectual property, obama, trade policy, us trade representative, xavier becerra