Cynical "Intellectual Property" Rights

The theory is that IP (Intellectual Property) rights laws are there to protect people, the people who create things and need to be rewarded.

But the way the IP industry defenders treat people and government who don't sign up as customers for expensive products they don't need puts the lie to this claim. The IP industry isn't about protecting "creators". It is about lining the pockets of big corporations, mainly big US corporations.

Here's a bit from a Guardian newspaper article that should make this point very, very clear:

... an influential lobby group is asking the US government to basically consider open source as the equivalent of piracy - or even worse.

What?

It turns out that the International Intellectual Property Alliance, an umbrella group for organisations including the MPAA and RIAA, has requested with the US Trade Representative to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil and India for its "Special 301 watchlist" because they use open source software.

What's Special 301? It's a report that examines the "adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights" around the planet - effectively the list of countries that the US government considers enemies of capitalism. It often gets wheeled out as a form of trading pressure - often around pharmaceuticals and counterfeited goods - to try and force governments to change their behaviours.

Now, even could argue that it's no surprise that the USTR - which is intended to encourage free market capitalism - wouldn't like free software, but really it's not quite so straightforward.

I know open source has a tendency to be linked to socialist ideals, but I also think it's an example of the free market in action. When companies can't compete with huge, crushing competitors, they route around it and find another way to reduce costs and compete. Most FOSS isn't state-owned: it just takes price elasticity to its logical conclusion and uses free as a stick to beat its competitors with (would you ever accuse Google, which gives its main product away for free, of being anti-capitalist?).

Still, in countries where the government has legislated the adoption of FOSS, the position makes some sense because it hurts businesses like Microsoft. But that's not the end of it.

No, the really interesting thing that Guadamuz found was that governments don't even need to pass legislation. Even a recommendation can be enough.

Example: last year the Indonesian government sent around a circular to all government departments and state-owned businesses, pushing them towards open source. This, says the IIPA, "encourages government agencies to use "FOSS" (Free Open Source Software) with a view toward implementation by the end of 2011, which the Circular states will result in the use of legitimate open source and FOSS software and a reduction in overall costs of software".

Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, the British government has said it will boost the use of open source software.

But the IIPA suggested that Indonesia deserves Special 301 status because encouraging (not forcing) such takeup "weakens the software industry" and "fails to build respect for intellectual property rights".

Microsoft doesn't care about "rights". It is a thugish monopolist that wants to extort as much money from its long suffering "customers" as possible. The recording industry isn't concerned about the rights of musicians and performers, it is concerned about maximizing the value to corporate owned "rights" to copyright material that was generally stolen from the creators by complex contracts that the artists didn't understand and didn't have any viable choice about. If you want to be a "star" you sell your soul to the industry and the RIAA makes sure that everybody pays their pound of flesh to the rapacious industry. This copyright stuff is a cruel joke pulled on the public. There is no real benefit having all these "rights" that only rich people get to enjoy the fruits of. I worked in an industry that required me to sign away all rights to my ideas as a condition of employment. I had a choice: be unemployed or let the company own my thoughts on and off the job.