Comments on: A FTA Copyright Disaster Coming?

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:58:52 +0000

Fair Use. Korea. Fair Use. Korea

Does not compute. Does not compute.

Korea’s idea of “fair use” is epitomized by universities that provide “course packs” containing photocopies of entire books and articles and university copy centers that will make bound counterfeit photocopies of any book you bring them from the library.

They’ve been allowed to get away with this bullshit for so long they now believe it’s their inalienable right (no doubt with a 5,000 year pedigree) to do so in perpetuity - sort of like adverse possession of real property.

The US shouldn’t give them an FTA that is really a species of managed trade pursuant to which Korea will “Promise anything to get what you want right now, then don’t keep the promise. You’ll be rewarded later for your breach by more goodies, which you will obtain at the cost of another, yet-to-be-broken promise.” But it should drop the hammer under existing law and agreements for all Korea’s past and continuing violations as a prelude to negotiating a genuine free trade agreement, with hair trigger punitive measures built in to deter Korea Inc from practicing business as usual.

By: R. Elgin

R. Elgin — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:26:32 +0000

“Gordseller”, Doctorow quoted from another online essay that was so much ideological tripe and Doctorow’s title: “US makes Korea eliminate fair use” is unduly sensationalist since the U.S. was not and is not interfering in fair usage in South Korea (to my knowledge). The original essay (vanished?) clearly had an anti-US bent to it, not that I care but it smelled of ideology rather than being the result of well reasoned thought. Should I point out how certain anonymous Korean netizens have been actively seeking to make trouble or have you been hiding from the mad cow protests?

I really think that Doctorow was so busy that he really did not give his source material a good read and neither did you. The guys at Boingboing *sometimes* sound like they are looking for a good ideological rant rather than rationally examining a topic or event, thus I always read their blog with a measure of judgment reserved.

The source document has since disappeared as well, just like so much nameless net-driven anti-FTA agitation.

By: gordsellar

gordsellar — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:51:43 +0000

The difference would eventually be introduction of a copyright regime like the one Canada is apparently getting now, where big companies get to sue you on false IP violation charges, and you, as the little guy who cannot afford litigation, are screwed. Where P2P will be illegal for legitimate uses, as well as illegitimate ones, and where American-length copyright extensions (now so long that “Public Domain” means “stuff so old nobody remembers when it came out”) will apply here.

Sure, the copyright violations in Korea are sizeable and copyright law should be enforced here. But why the hell should Koreans give up Fair Use? Why should Koreans accept ridiculous levels of DRM on their media? Why should they give up what is, right now, a relatively free culture. (Read the book Free Culture here for free, and you’ll see that, as Lawrence Lessig argues, copyright laws have profound implications for culture and society in general. Korea’s under-enforcement might be problematic, but so is America’s over-enforcement and over-litigatory approach to resolving copyright, because even Fair Use is open to judgment, and litigation is expensive.)

And by the way, the creative accounting problem is more in how they account for losses. If you download an MP3 that’s worth 99 cents according to iTunes, why is it worth $50,000 when you’re sued over it? And why should that kind of insanity be exported to other countries? (As it apparently is being exported to Canada.) The RIAA claims losses when their profits are actually going up year by year. The losses are of (unrealistically) projected sales.

By the way, the snipe at BoingBoing is uncalled-for. Cory Doctorow is talking about a serious IP issue about which he knows a hell of a lot more than I’d imagine anyone visiting this site. The guy worked for the EFF for years on end. Complaining that Cory Doctorow isn’t talking about North Korea is a nonsequitur. He’d probably agree that DPRK is a mess and people need to look at that, but he’s not talking about that: he’s talking about IP laws.

Good grief, man, are all discussions of South Korea illegitimate unless they shallowly praise America and bring up North Korean human rights issues? That’s the most irrational dismissal I’ve seen of this discussion, ever.

By: Zonath

Zonath — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:11:29 +0000

I guess Hillary Clinton’s against this trade deal, as well, calling it ‘unfair’ to Americans…:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.....n_korea_dc

By: Zonath

Zonath — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:45:19 +0000

Of course I do realize this… I was merely pointing out that South Korea has signed several treaties concerning intellectual property protections, and that failure to abide by the terms of those treaties (such as turning a blind eye to blatant infringement) opens it up to the possibility of Bad Stuff like trade sanctions. If South Korea isn’t at least adopting and enforcing the minimum standards laid out in the terms of its international treaties, then it’s pretty likely that sooner or later someone’s going to call them on it and push for penalties. In short, the US pushing for this stuff in an FTA is pretty much just asking South Korea to start living up to obligations it already has by virtue of the treaties it’s signed.

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:07:22 +0000

Zonath,

Not really, actually. International responsibility has very little precedent over national sovereignty. Simply put, international laws and domestic laws are independent from one another and regardless of whether a country signs a treaty, it remains sovereign to adopt it’s own legislation. In other words, what goes on within the borders of a country is ruled by domestic law, not international law. So, you can see, Korea is not obligated to do anything…although it would be advised to (hence what you’ve referred to as the ’soft’ approach).

By: Zonath

Zonath — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:53:43 +0000

It’s a cute little diatribe, to be sure… But isn’t Korea already obligated to do all the things in the FTA concerning copyright under treaties it’s already signed? (The Berne Convention, the TRIPs agreement, etc…) Seems like this is definitely the ’soft’ approach, considering the alternative of trade sanctions.

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:48:21 +0000

“And for every successful movie that makes money there are probably ten flops that lose. ”

Well, that is most certainly not due to pirating. That’s bound to happen when you’ve got an industry that’s built on nepotism instead of artistic merit as it should be. Name me an actor and I’ll tell you who they are related to.

By: snow

snow — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:57:04 +0000

And for every successful movie that makes money there are probably ten flops that lose. Same in the music biz, though producing an album generally costs less than making a movie, I would expect. Most movies and musical artists are money losers for the companies. That’s why many music groups are dropped by their labels after an album or two. If they fail to profit, the company cuts them loose. Same in the movie biz. The studios back alot of movies, but many are busts, and a big flop can lose alot of money.

By: snow

snow — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:52:24 +0000

Someguy, that is true that there’s always been rumors of creative accounting in Hollywood, but when it comes to overall company finances, not individual pictures, the company can’t cook the books so easily. They have to file a 10K form every year with the SEC and are audited by an outside agency. In this way, they are just like any other large public company. They may be creative in what they tell creditors (including directors and others who take ‘points’ in a movie) but for the official books of the overall company, they can’t do that nearly so easily.