The New IP Czar
A link was posted on Delicious announcing President Obama’s recent nomination of Victoria A. Espinel to become the first “Copyright czar,” pending the Senate’s approval. In October 2008, President Bush passed the Enforcement of Intellectual Propery Rights Act (or Pro-IP Act), and Ms. Espinel will be the czar who oversees the execution of this act. While I would like to preface this entire post with the disclaimer that I am not a journalism and/or politics scholar, and am incapable of/not trying to make any sort of political or governmental commentary on this, I do see interesting implications about the filling of this position.
Though “copyright czar” is quite a catchy title (come on, wouldn’t anything “czar” be catchy?), the actual position Espinel will take is the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, or IPEC. According to a September 2008 article on CNET.com, written during the interim time between the Senate’s approval and the Presidents’, the IPEC would:
The IPEC would provide guidance to other federal departments and agencies in their efforts to combat IP infringement. The IPEC would mainly achieve this by chairing an IP enforcement advisory committee, made up of the Office of Management and Budget, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the State Department, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, the Agriculture Department, and the U.S. Copyright Office.
The IPEC cannot control how these agencies investigate or prosecute IP infringement cases–but he or she will guide the development of a “Joint Strategic Plan” the advisory committee is charged to create to combat counterfeiting and infringement. The aim of the strategic plan is to disrupt counterfeiting and IP infringement both in the U.S. and abroad, ensure that enforcement efforts aren’t duplicated by the various agencies, establish a protocol for consulting with private industry, establish international standards for IP enforcement, and help other countries improve their IP enforcement efforts.
The implications for this new level of enforcement and oversight are interesting. Firstly, the IPEC’s job is to enforce IP protections here and abroad. Well, her job is to educate foreign nations on IP protection. Why should the United States feel it is responsible for educating the rest of the world on intellectual property when we ourselves haven’t gotten it figured out? Perhaps it is the West’s efforts to create a global village of [legal] information sharing that will ultimately protect our artist, film, and other entertainment industries in foreign markets. Do you think this is a fair or cynical assumption that the U.S. has taken on the White man’s burden to educate the rest of the world for its own benefit? Or are there other factors at play? I can’t help but think economically speaking, the IPEC’s interest (on behalf of the U.S.) is to protect our markets from being pirated abroad, and less about the need to spread knowledge in good faith. Interestingly, Espinel is well versed in both IP law and foreign/international trade, making her the perfect candidate to fill the job description.
The IPEC’s enforcement advisory committee may seem the yin to Carroll’s yang. His proposed Fair Use Board would “balance the expressive freedoms of authors, distributors, and users of copyrighted works without requiring Congress to reopen the terms of the underlying legislative entitlements” (”Fixing Fair Use” 1143). The enforcement advisory committee seems to combat IP-related infringements, paying direct attention to legislative entitlements. The IPEC’s objectives do not seem to include a thorough review of fair-use, nor does it seem her attention will be focused on educating nations abroad on fair use issues. Rather, it is clear her role is to educate and enforce primarily, if not fully, on IP protection and prevention of infringement for the creator’s (and the nation that creator belongs to) economic benefit.
The question now remains how much power will this czar actually have? And not if, but how much will she affect legislation, here and internationally, on IP issues?
Some Rights Reserved
I think the notion of Americanization of international affairs is something interesting to analyze. According to media critic Herbert Schiller, cultural imperialism is “the sum of the processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced and sometimes even bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominating center of the system.” We see this cultural domination in many forms such as the abundance of McDonalds worldwide, even in the middle of Third World countries. This position of IPEC seems to be another example of cultural imperialism in international affairs. As such a dominating center, the US often plays a major role in media practices across the world. Elizabeth brings up an interesting point with the imperfection of our own copyright law. How can we expect to educate other nations when we ourselves are still uncertain about American copyright law? That’s why it seems probable that it was a economically driven decision to include “abroad” as part of the job description.
Most of the organizations such as the MPAA and the RIAA have had very positive feedback about the establishment of the new position as well as Victoria Espinel herself. Interestingly enough, copyleft groups such as Electronic Frontier Foundation have yet to make statements on the new position. Responses to Espinel’s appointment can be found at this website. http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/09/ip-czar-nominee-espinel-bows-to-boffo.html
I think only time will tell about how legislation will change as a result of this new position.
I saw those responses too and debated including them in my post, but I’m glad you posted them. I think Dan Glickman’s (CEO of the MPAA) said it best and helps answer what motives IPEC has in extending our knowledge abroad:
We commend the administration for appointing such a capable and experienced advocate for the artists and creators who make their living by creating the content that is not only loved by millions of consumers around the world, but that is a significant contributor to the American economy.
The whole issue of the international marketplace is interesting in terms of copyright. Espinel’s responsibility to “disrupt counterfeiting and IP infringement both in the U.S. and abroad,” is most likely born from the implications set forth by the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention basically set copyright standards for the international community (or at least 164 countries or so…don’t know too too much about it). I suppose it makes sense that the IPEC is trying to circulate her efforts abroad considering the ’success’ in the battle against file-sharing/piracy here in the states. It will be interesting to see how Espinel and other U.S. companies go after foreign infringers. Are their any past cases that can shed some light?
The Berne Convention:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html If you want to take a look
In terms of your comment about our White Man’s Burden in educating the world…that just reminded me one of thing about BMI, the performance right’s organization. Considering the foreign marketplace, the U.S. is a HUGGGEEEE supplier of music (and all other forms of entertainment for that matter). Both BMI and ASCAP have a huge economic interest in the foreign community as millions of dollars in royalties flow in from abroad every year. Not that this justifies the IPEC’s new interest in tightening it’s protocol abroad…but i’m just playing a little devil’s advocate.