0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance - a group that brings together several U.S. lobby groups including the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, the ESA, and publisher groups, has just released its Section 301 recommendations, a submission to the U.S. Trade Representative that frequently serves as a blueprint for U.S. commentary on intellectual property protection around the world. The list covers 60 countries, including most of the world's leading economies. The USTR report, which will be released in April, will likely mirror the IIPA recommendations.While the IIPA recommendations have predictably led to negative, overblown press coverage in Canada, a little context is needed. The reality is that the majority of the world's biggest economies face similar criticism, including:Japan is criticized for a wide range of issues including the absence of statutory damages, copyright term extension, stronger TPM protection, narrowing private use exceptions, and the establishment of camcording legislationSweden receives special mention for widespread Internet piracy and being host to thePirateBay.orgNew Zealand is criticized for its copyright reform bill, which, much like Canada's Bill C-60, adopts a more balanced approach to TPMs. For its effort, the government is also incorrectly told that the proposal "fall far short of meeting international minimum standards." Moreover, the bill's time shifting provisions are criticized, despite the fact that the U.S. has far more liberal fair use provisions.Switzerland is criticized for its TPM approach, which apparently does not meet the standard in the EUCD or the DMCA, along with a broad private copying provision and the need for camcording legislation.South Africa is criticized for failing to sign the WIPO Internet treatiesHong Kong is criticized for its approach on TPMs and for proposing new exceptions for educational purposes. It is also urged to extend the term of copyright.South Korea is criticized for its TPM approach, education exceptions, its private copying system, and for failing to extend the term of copyright.Israel is criticized for failing to implement TPM legislation and for considering a fair use provision that mirrors the U.S. approach (the IIPA claims this might be viewed by the public as a "free ticket to copy.")Mexico is criticized for its TPM approach and for the absence of an ISP notice and takedown systemItaly is criticized for doubt about its TPM approach and for failing to establish an ISP notice and takedown systemBrazil is criticized for failing to ratify the WIPO Internet treaties and for granting exceptions to university studentsGreece is criticized for making it difficult to obtain the personal identities of ISP subscribers and for levying a surcharge at movie theatres that are used to support Greek filmsSpain is criticized for failing to place sufficient liability on ISPs for activity on their networksIndia is criticized for its TPM provisions and "overly broad" exceptionsThese are just fourteen examples - there are dozens more countries on the list, including many developing countries, each invariably criticized for not adopting the DMCA, not extending the term of copyright, not throwing enough people in jail, or creating too many exceptions to support education and other societal goals. In fact, the majority of the world's population finds itself on the list, with 23 of the world's 30 most populous countries targeted for criticism (the exceptions are Germany, Ethiopia, Iran, France, the UK, Congo, and Myanmar).The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs.
