Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
I think it's more accurate to say that the US developed because of their disregard for intellectual property. But that was a long time ago, when the US was a developing nation.
There are fundamental differences between that and our discussions on copyright. Both India today and the US of the past depended upon intellectual property from foreign nations. In most cases, that intellectual property was created because of copyrights and patents in the more developed nations. The second big difference is that pirating the latest entertainment does little to promote social or economic development. Pirating medicines and books that form the foundations for education does promote social and economic development.
For what it's worth, I do support compulsory licensing in these cases. A functional health care system, education system, etc. is necessary to promote development in developing nations. We, the rich (relatively speaking) should be willing to bear some of the burden because the cost will be too high if we don't.
|
Thank you for your post. I agree there are many differences, but there are also many similarities and common themes.
Generally speaking it is not in the interests of the undeveloped nations, like, as you say, the United States then and India now, to respect foreign intellectual property laws. It is a simple matter of self-interest. I think we will be able to watch this principle in action as China develops intellectual property of its own which it wishes to protect. For purposes of our discussion of copyright law I see little difference between the position of a developing nation then and now.
And whilst Entertainment seems frivolous compared to medicine, failure to respect foreign copyrights in entertainment can in fact aid developing economies simply by preventing the outflow of funds which would otherwise flow out of the country. This is quite apart from any benefits in the development of local industries, for example, a local publishing industry publishing cheap books by foreign authors. Once again, I see little difference between the position then and now.
That the so-called pirate century referred to in the article took place a long time ago does not make it as an excuse. Let's simply be honest and accept that countries and their politicians usually act in accordance with their own self-interest. It was not in the interests of the US to respect copyright then but it is now.
And finally, I think it is simplistic to say that the "intellectual property" pirated was developed because of copyright and patent law. Whilst they no doubt played some role, innovation was not unknown before the existence of either.
Personally, I think it is long overdue for intellectual property laws to be fundamentally reviewed. I don't think they should be abandoned, but I do think they need to get the balance correct. At the moment they do not.