Comments on: The New [Inter]National Authority on Copyright

By: Danny

Danny — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:21:21 +0000

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.

By: elizabethshelby

elizabethshelby — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:59:03 +0000

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.

By: ams799

ams799 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:23:58 +0000

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.