piracy
an RJ on city FM89 posed a very interesting question today.she asked whther piracy of movies/music etc is a good thing.from a selfish point of view its been a blessing for me.ive gotten to buy so many dvds and cds its hard to imagine i wouldve been able to do if piracy hadnt existed.downloading and burning music has also been one of my favorite pastimes.however in all honesty i do feel guilty.cos im contributing to a rip off.rip off of hard working talented artists.but then if piracy is eliminated, entertainment, so little that it is will become very expensive in Pakistan.i fervently desire for good cinemas in lahore.huge sprawling cineplex's showing the latest movies having good popcorn nd the likes.but tht cant happen until piracy is tackled.i mean we can go back to the stage of movie rentals.i dont know as a consumer im very happy.but at the end of the day its cruel denying artists what they so richly deserve.
posted by Jerry shah at 4:52 PM
10 Comments:
(this is a bit long but it again destroys the whole idea of any good that is not inherently evil.)
The impact of TRIPS on developing countries
By Erich Habian
It is important to have a detailed knowledge of the theoretical background of intellectual property rights to understand the consequences of certain regulations on the parties concerned. This chapter deals with the actual impacts of TRIPS on developing countries, their economies, their people and their future.
“Under strong pressure by the industrialized countries, a specific agreement on the availability and enforcement of such rights [IPRs] became part of the Final Act of the Round: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights” (Correa 2000: 1).
As Correa (2000: 1) points out, developing countries have been forced to agree to TRIPS. The term ‘developing country’ is not clearly defined by the WTO. Basically, member-countries themselves declare their status as a developing country, of course, under observation by the other members. According to the WTO, the developing country status grants those nations certain transitional periods for the implementation of the agreements (WTO 2001d). Messner (1997: 46) states that developing countries are granted a transitional period of five years for the integration of TRIPS into their legal systems. If these countries had no protection of product patents in certain technological areas before they signed TRIPS, they are granted an additional five year period. Least developed countries have a transitional period of 11 years, until 2006. The Council for TRIPS may extend these periods.
Many developing countries have had or have to change their IPRs regime quite radically to fulfil the TRIPS Agreement’s requirements. A UN report suggests that negative short- to medium term effects may occur, e.g. increased product prices and more difficult access to technologies. Nevertheless, the authors believe in long-term benefits, e.g. the protection of domestic inventions and the augmentation of innovative spirit. Governments in developing countries have had and have to find a balance between the need to protect intellectual property and the requirement to diffuse certain technologies in order to increase welfare (UN 1997: 7). Moreover, domestic output of developing countries and employment of producers of counterfeit goods will decrease. Employment, wages and tax receipts will shrink and governments of these countries will have to invest largely in administrative resources to enforce changed legislation (UN 1997: 16).
Developed countries reasoned that the increased worldwide protection of IPRs would stimulate technology and investment flows. The present situation looks quite different. As Correa (2000: 23) points out, developing countries suffer from welfare losses and developed countries could boost their exports. Furthermore, despite all confirmations, some developing countries which signed the TRIPS Agreement and fulfilled the WTO requirements still are confronted with unilateral retaliation measures. The most prominent example of such illegitimate measures is the United States’ threat of imposing sanctions under Section 301 of its Trade Act, which requires “retroactive application” (Correa 2000: 10) of standards.
It is a fact that valuable knowledge is primarily in the hands of enterprises in the developed countries and developing countries have to import this know-how. The UN states that stronger protection of IPRs will inevitably lead to increased royalty payments for licensees of technical knowledge and higher prices due to the monopoly-like position of the foreign title holder. In the case of pharmaceuticals (see subsection 3.3) such a development can be a matter of life and death for millions of people (UN 1997: 15).
Equally, developing countries are concerned that a strengthened, worldwide IPRs system may lead to anti-competitive tendencies with negative effects on welfare in these countries. Transnational corporations may abuse their monopoly-power, gained through their intellectual property, or the transfer of technology may be restricted (Messner 1997: 58).
North-South asymmetries
As Correa (2000: 5) points out the TRIPS Agreement’s prime objective was not the battle against counterfeiting and piracy but “technological protectionism”. Developed countries are regarded as innovators and suppliers of products whereas developing countries serve as markets. Especially in the US strong industrial lobbies such as the pharmaceutical, software, and returns on R&D (Correa 2000: 4).
According to The Economist, the US pharmaceutical industry claims to lose $500 million a year in India due to the country’s bad IPRs protection. On the other hand, in 1998, the United States received royalty payments of $36 billion. In view of this, stronger patent protection is mainly in the interest of the industrialised countries (“The right to good ideas”: 26). Correa (2000: 5) argues that TRIPS is tailor-made for developed countries but disregards essential differences between capabilities of countries in the North and those of the South (see Figure 1). In 1990 only 4% of world R&D expenditures came from developing countries which makes clear who will benefit most from strengthened IPRs regimes (Correa 2000: 5).
The question is why developing countries finally agreed to TRIPS. According to Messner (1997: 31-32), two factors have influenced this decision:
• The United States’ threat of bilateral initiatives.
• Developing countries saw some advantages in tariff reductions of agricultural products, textiles and other products of their concern through WTO Agreements but under the ‘single package’ system they had to agree to all negotiated points including TRIPS (Messner 1997: 31-32).
Correa concludes that “the adoption of the TRIPS Agreement represented a major victory for industrialized countries” (Correa 2000: 21).
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
This form of investment would be the greatest benefit for developing countries, since they could catch up with their technological development. Correa (2000: 45) draws our attention to the fact that developed nations described stronger IPRs regimes in developing countries as the basis for an increase in FDI, but there is no evidence that there is a positive correlation without additional measures.
As Oh (2001) points out, the TRIPS requirement that patent protection has to be ensured even if a product is just imported and not locally produced will hamper more FDI in developing countries. As a consequence, countries can be supplied with finished products which are protected but produced elsewhere. Developing countries, in particular, will not unconditionally benefit from foreign direct investment or transfer of technology (Oh 2001).
The pharmaceutical industry and TRIPS
As Oh (2001) points out, infectious diseases which are, from a scientific point of view, treatable, account for 14 million deaths each year, most of them in developing countries. A number of factors worsen the situation in these countries, e.g. poverty and lacking access to health services. Efficient and affordable medicines could cut down this death toll if people had access to such drugs. 25 million people out of the 36 million who are infected with HIV worldwide live in sub-Saharan Africa and the enormous share of infected people of the whole population has a dramatic impact on life expectancy in this region. Again, affordable medicines could help. In developed countries live-saving drugs have raised life expectancy of HIV infected people dramatically but this treatment is unaffordable for people in developing countries, where 95% of people who have AIDS are from (Oh 2001). As The Economist points out a conflict between the South African government and multinational corporations arose over the government’s plan to loosen IPRs’ restrictions in order to reduce the price for AIDS medication needed for the 5 million infected people in the country (“The right to good ideas”: 25).
According to Oh (2001), the high prices of medicines are the result of patents, which give their holders the right to restrict competition and therefore sell a certain drug in a monopolistic environment. TRIPS requires many developing countries to enforce their patent protection, which will restrain innovation and information flows. Moreover, prices of medicines will continue to rise, making access more difficult and damage local pharmaceutical industries. Production of generic equivalents to expensive, branded drugs will be limited because of the 20-year patent protection for pharmaceutical products and processes. In pre-TRIPS times many developing countries, including India, did not grant product patents but process patents for pharmaceuticals, enabling domestic researchers to develop similar products through a process called reverse engineering. The implementation of TRIPS put an end to this practice and fears are growing that through the timely shift of product and process application or minor changes of the ingredients of drugs, protection for medicines may be extended to illegitimately long periods (Oh 2001).
Another crucial point Oh (2001) makes is the fact that R&D done by multinational corporations is mainly concerned with diseases which predominantly appear in industrialised countries, e.g. “impotence, obesity and baldness” (Oh 2001). The pharmaceutical industry is hardly interested in developing new and more efficient drugs for dangerous diseases like malaria or tuberculosis, plagues of the so-called Third World countries. Oh (2001) concludes that the TRIPS Agreement represents a threat to the socioeconomic development of some of the member-nations and she questions the “legitimacy of patents on life-saving drugs” (Oh 2001).
Another crucial point Oh (2001) makes is the fact that R&D done by multinational corporations is mainly concerned with diseases which predominantly appear in industrialised countries, e.g. “impotence, obesity and baldness” (Oh 2001). The pharmaceutical industry is hardly interested in developing new and more efficient drugs for dangerous diseases like malaria or tuberculosis, plagues of the so-called Third World countries. Oh (2001) concludes that the TRIPS Agreement represents a threat to the socioeconomic development of some of the member-nations and she questions the “legitimacy of patents on life-saving drugs” (Oh 2001).
On the 4th of October 2001 a number of delegations from developing countries stated their concern about the impact of TRIPS on public health in their nations in a declaration circulated among WTO members. They emphasize that public health is a matter of each single nation and sovereignty in this field must be ensured. The delegations criticise the high prices of many medicines which are not affordable for most people in their countries and they notice that this situation may lead to social and political unrest. Moreover, they claim that not enough research is done on diseases, which primarily hits the population of developing countries. In respect of these problems they request that TRIPS is interpreted more flexibly, especially in the area of compulsory licenses. Furthermore, they demand an extension of the transitional period by five years (WTO 2001e).
Biopiracy
Watal (1999) makes the point that so-called Third World countries heavily rely on domestic agricultural production, which makes IPRs like patents and plant breeders’ rights an important issue. Plant breeders’ rights are applied in the case of the development of new plant varieties through conventional methods and they are a kind of sui generis protection which does not include re-using of the seed and further research on the basis of the developed variety. Three criteria have to be fulfilled in order to obtain a 15-20 year protection: the variety has to be distinct, uniform and must keep its characteristics upon reproduction (Watal 1999).
As mentioned above, most developing countries are dependent on exports of their agricultural products and therefore biopiracy is a dangerous threat to farmers in these countries. Put simply, biopiracy describes the situation where someone, either an individual or a corporation, gains a patent on a plant variety already in use by someone else. The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) points out that in most cases the victims of such action will be farmers in developing countries and the perpetrators mostly are companies in industrialised nations. As a consequence, the title holder may prevent importation of the product in question or demand royalty payments. TRIPS Article 27.3(b) makes the patent protection of plants and micro-organisms possible and forms the basis for biopiracy worldwide (RAFI 2001d).
As The Economist points out many developing countries have very rich natural and genetic resources, which could be extremely valuable in the development of new medicines and crops. Obviously, local residents do not have the financial resources to apply for a patent in the US, which costs $20,000. On the contrary, companies in developed countries do not have this barrier and minor changes to a plant enable them to obtain a patent. Local residents who may have used a particular herb for generations come away empty-handed while the title holder earns millions of dollars with a “new” patented plant. Some countries, like Brazil, demand appropriate changes of TRIPS, e.g. the requirement for applicants to reveal the origin of a plant and whether native users are integrated in the commercial plans (“The right to good ideas”: 30). See also the case study in section 4.1.
Terminator crops
According to RAFI (2001b), Terminator or Traitor seeds are genetically modified to be sterile and not usable for replanting. As a consequence, farmers using these seeds would be forced to purchase new grain every sowing season. This makes quite clear how dangerous Terminator technology is, primarily for the 1.4 billion people worldwide who heavily rely on farm-saved seed and who could not afford to buy new seed every year. Moreover, this technology could be used to develop plants which may be dependent on chemical treatment in order to become fertile or healthy giving Gene Giants the power to control agriculture and thus food supply worldwide. Multinational Biotech Companies are well aware of the commercial possibilities of this technology and a number of Terminator patents have been filed so far. Syngenta, the result of a merger between AstraZeneca and Novartis, has at least six patents protecting Terminator technology including a patent for the creation of plants with destabilised immune systems (RAFI 2001b).
RAFI points out that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) cooperates publicly with Delta & Pine Land (D&PL), a Gene Giant which, in contrast to other corporations in this business, declared that its objective was the commercial application of Terminator technology. Furthermore, these two organisations already co-own three patents in this field and the USDA agreed to license the technology in question to its partner. The conditions the USDA set up under which D&PL may exploit the patents are all but a bad joke, e.g. D&PL is not allowed to apply the technology to “heirloom varieties of garden flowers and vegetables” (RAFI 2001a). Although Terminator technology is regarded unethical worldwide, the US ignores experts’ warnings and is actively involved in the further development of a technology aimed at exploiting the poorest of the poor (RAFI 2001a). The patentability of Terminator technology not only legitimates but even fosters further research in this field, which one day will lead to the commercial application and unimaginable consequences for millions of people on earth.
Conclusion
To summarise the situation, developing countries are in a serious situation if they try to comply with the obligations imposed on them by the TRIPS Agreement. I see the urgent need for a reform of TRIPS although in some cases a different interpretation of the regulations would be sufficient in order not to discriminate against developing countries, their economies and their people.
11:41 AM
very interesting.yeah the pharmaceutical industry is an excellent example of the doble standards/moral bankruptcy of developed nations.i undertsand the need to protect patents and reward innovation.yet matters pertaining to life and death should surely trump profit and patent rights.free trade is all well and good but why should india or any other developing nation not copy technology if the west continues to subsidise its agricultural sector thus denying the millions upon millions of farmers in developing nations to sell their products worldwide at competitive rates.there has to be a balance.theres a need for clarity.if the situation persists then screw the WTO.brazil,india and the rest of the developing nations are needed just as much by the developed nations as we need them. want to enforce patents for viagra and other nonsensiscal drugs,fine.but drugs for life threatening diseases,HIV,TB,Malaria should be made available at cheaper rates.not only is it a humanitrarian gesture itll make alot of business sense.
11:59 AM
I LOVE PIRACY!
i would like u boys and girls to chek out an article : 'WHO IS MORE CORRUPT, GENERALS OR POLITICIANS' by farhatullah babar.
you will find it on www.satribune.com/index.jsp
saba khan
12:55 PM
lol...honestly i have no complaints about piracy...because yes it means easy access to music and movies...but i was given an idea of how painful it is for the artists when a friend who's a member of a now famous duo was telling me tht i should buy his album and when i told him that id already gotten all his music off the net, he went ballistic (of course not forgetting that i was his friend).
he made me swear i would go out and buy three copies of his album, to make up for wat i'd caused him.lol....and send him the covers for proof.
8:35 PM
haha.exactly.i totally agree.its been a blessing for music and movie buffs alike.i guess we can make a highly hypocritical law that prohibits piracy of local products and artists while ignoring hollywood and wetern music artists.they make gazillions as it is.whereas we need to support our budding and upcoming art scene.i doubt though anyone would be interested in pirating lollywood films heheh
3:13 PM
yaar, such a torn one I am about this piracy issue. b/c if you think you are a movie buff, you have yet to meet me. But I mean, I would go watch movies at the theatre for $12 a show, and rent them from blockbuster at $6 a pop, and I hated paying for it, but I would. And I would do it in Pakistan if I had to. Its just a matter of us having the law I guess. And the music question is an especially tricky one, but my favourite favourtie DJs, I would always buy their CD b/c I wanted to support my artists, so its all doable .... accha my mother is yelling, I gotta go. Will comment later.
8:38 PM
Btw, Crash ka master a gaya hai. You must go buy it and watch this movie, immediately.
6:08 AM
ok time for a new post!
3:32 AM
hehe.agreed.am working on it.
11:04 AM
Well done on a nice blog Jarrar Shah. I was looking for information on reproduction art and came across your post this post - not quite what I was looking for related to reproduction art but interesting all the same!
1:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home