Intellectual Property Rights in China – business leads the way
Filed under:-mini-posts, economy, media, technology | Tags:China, IPR
Add comments
In mid-September the China Internet Video Anti-Piracy Alliance, a group comprising both big Chinese internet portals and foreign rights-owners, including the Motion Picture Association of America, announced a broad legal attack. It said that it had begun collecting evidence against more than 1,000 suspected violators of intellectual property and would start filing lawsuits, with the first target being 503 videos found on Youku, an increasingly popular website, that the alliance claims are pirated. Youku has counter-sued for defamation.
The legal assault constitutes an attempt to separate Chinese companies that produce their own content or pay Western ones for imported material, and then charge users from those that often lift it. The division is not entirely clean. Sohu, a leading member of the new alliance, produces its own games and entertainment gossip, which are the mainstays of its business. But it also permits its users to upload files, which can include pirated material. Still, lines are being drawn, even if they are a bit blurry.
The alliance’s first suit involves material used by Youku that belongs only to other Chinese companies. The damages sought are relatively small: 50m-100m yuan ($7.3m-14.6m). But the stakes are vastly higher. In addition to compensation, the alliance wants the court to stop websites using intellectual property without permission. That, in turn, could create a clear legal precedent for blocking unlicensed downloads.
(I find Youku’s legal counter-attack amusing. Does it really think it is acting legally, or is a claim of defamation just a publicity stunt and/or shot in the dark?)
China needs to do more to protect IPR than it does now. If it wants to become a first-world country, it would benefit from producing more profitable technology of its own. If Chinese companies/individuals continue to feel that the risk of being punished for ripping each other’s ideas off is lower than the potential rewards, they will have less reason to sink large sums of money into innovation and let someone else do the hard work.
There is also a risk that if China is not seen to be protecting other countries’ technology seriously, in the future those other countries may not enforce Chinese rights when they come under attack. However, Chinese companies are increasingly seeking patents to cover their work. As Dominique Guellec (OECD) said to the Economist, countries that create intellectual property eventually enforce it as well.
Business is leading the way – the government needs to keep up.
There are currently 1 comments highlighted: 52793.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I don’t know about this. One of the primary reasons that the Chinese internet, despite censorship and all, is so much more vibrant than that in other countries, is the lack of IP enforcement. IP enforcement in this area, to the extent that MPAA wants, does not promote, but instead stifles creative expression and derivative works. In fact, sites and some unique technologies like all those streaming TV programs that have developed over the years in China wouldn’t even exist if IP was strictly enforced all this time.
IP is desperately in need of a refresh. The cost of realizing IP (i.e. creating art) is ever lower with advancing technology and lowered barrier to entry. It is then perfectly natural that less protection should be needed than one used to receive. Then add to that the inherent low cost of labor in China. I believe those are the main trends and reasons why the old IP model is breaking down or has never taken hold in China. I hope China critically examines the basis for IP in this new age and doesn’t just copy yet another outdated mode of thinking.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Nimrod
I’m not sure what criteria you use to judge that the Chinese internet is more “vibrant” than in other countries. But clearly things like online discussions aren’t reliant on people being able to download music and films for free.
Copyright law could do with an overhaul, and I didn’t agree with the prosecution of downloaders (though that seems to have stopped now). However, allowing some websites to distribute stuff for free whilst others play by the rules and try to sell it is not the way to do it. The way forward is having things easily accessible for reasonable cost, with things entering the public domain earlier. You need to have money coming in somewhere – totally free sources aren’t good for business, unless they cause people to buy things later. That sometimes happens with things like anime, but if you’ve got a mp3 download of a song you’re not then going to pay for that on CD if you have an ipod or something similar.
If the Chinese government honestly felt the law needed to be changed, fine. Change the rules, make the case for the revisions and deal with any domestic/international reaction. But don’t have a nonsense where you don’t enforce/properly enforce laws because you may not agree with them, depsite the fact you originally brought them in.
More importantly, IPR is not just about free music and cheap DVDs. It goes much, much further than that. What do you think those patents being filed by Chinese companies are in relation to? IPR can be commercial, not just artistic.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:36 am
“Business is leading the way – the government needs to keep up.”
Did you hit the nail on the head? 🙂 IPR is directly proportional to capitalism. Capitalism drives property laws. Its primarily the Chinese corporations demanding IPR protection that is going to make it happen just as how it happened in every other developed countries.
Trying to look at it from morality or some other obscure perspectives are only going to be cloudy in my mind. The Europeans went bananas copying Chinese porcelain, silk, etc… China had no patent treaties with the Europeans.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Having, until this recession came along and basically fucked my life up, been someone who worked in intellectual property, I’m more than a bit sceptical about all of this. Nimrod is quite right to point out that the current model of re-imbursing the cost of creation via copyright used in the west is broken. This is not to say that copyright should be done away with as a result, there are many other ways in which authors could be compensated and innovation encouraged – my favourite being the restructuring of the internet so that information becomes a paid-for utility, although I’m afraid it may already be too late for this.
Patents, design rights, and trademarks have also been alluded to – however China is already making good progress with this in comparison to other nations at its level of development, and government seems to recognise the importance of legal certainty in this area. Yes, it is ridiculously easy to get a patent in China (hence those high numbers of patents granted so see thrown around as ‘proof’ of high innovation in China), but the US is far from perfect in this regard either. Yes, Chinese businessmen have managed to totally avoid injunctions passed against them by Chinese courts in cases against foreign companies by appealing to nationalism, but once again, China may be an outlier in this regard, but not by much.
Essentially, if you are a film producer, book author, painter, computer games company, musician or any other form of artist China is a bad place. If you are in industry and creating jobs in China and you want to enforce a registered right, China is getting better and better.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The problem with IP is that they want to enforce them into countries which can’t afford it. Let’s say if they are trying to sell a $20 dvd here to the US to China, this will cost 130 rmb which is out of reach of an average Chinese consumer. So chances are that they won’t buy the legal copy rather they will pirate it anyways. The companies who enforces IP should adopt to local market conditions otherwise they are fighting a losing battle.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
It is true that companies should adapt to local market conditions in order to maximise profit within that market. However, the companies which refuse to sell at a cheap enough price in China may well be doing so in an effort to avoid parallel imports (AKA ‘grey imports’) affecting more developed markets. As such their decision makes market sense – or at least used to, whether it still does when even 80-90% of the IP professionals I know regularly use downloading services like emule is a different question.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
pug_ster, do you have any evidence that they are selling at 130 RMB?
Besides this isn’t about DVDs, it’s about online content. Some websites host stuff legitimately and charge people (which would be a lot less than the price of a DVD anywhere), some host it illegally for free.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Foarp,
I think Western Countries’ problem to enforce companies to sell grey imports. One of the biggest problem with grey imports is college textbooks. I know that many poor college students somehow got hands of international versions of these textbooks which cost at least 50% of the domestic versions. These countries should crack down on the companies who sells them, not on the consumers themselves.
Raj,
pug_ster, do you have any evidence that they are selling at 130 RMB?
I never said that you can sell it for 130 rmb. Read my original statement. Besides, I recall that when I went to Carrefour a few months back, you can buy most Western Movies for less than 25 rmb, and some guy in the street can sell this for 5 rmb for a pirated copy. In this case, more people would buy the legal copy but some people can’t afford 25rmb anyways.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
You talked about DVDs potentially being sold at 130 RMB. Yes, that would be overpriced but that’s not the case in China, so it would suggest that these companies have adapted to the Chinese market.
Some people are on very low incomes, but the article is more about people downloading/hosting content for free. If you can afford a PC and an internet connection to download music or movies (people don’t download large files on to shared computers) you can afford 25 RMB.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“These countries should crack down on the companies who sells them”
You mean eBay? So far eBay has been able to argue successfully that they cannot be expected to check the provenance of the products sold using their services, same with the stuff sold on Amazon, nor should they.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
FOARP,
Exactly, what’s the use of telling China to respect IP rights when Western countries can’t do it themselves?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Dan Harris over at the China Law Blog had some interesting stuff about IPR and the misconceptions that prevails in the West.
To me, this is a lot more balance view about the piracy situation in China and in other countries. Its got real data.
“Intellectual Property Piracy: Perception and Reality in China, the United States, and Elsewhere”
by Aaron Schwabach
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Sand Diego, CA
October 15th, 2009 at 4:10 am
To Dewang:
interesting article. However, it does seem to focus almost entirely on the movie/music aspect of IP, though those are probably the 2 front-of-mind aspects of IP for most people even if they represent a smaller portion of the entire IP spectrum.
He’s been fair-minded in stating the total losses (however nebulously defined and calculated they are, even from the MPAA) while spending considerable time on the per capita comparisons. The per capita numbers are illustrative, but I do wonder if content-creators are more concerned about total dollars lost than they are about per capita losses.
He has an interesting theory about why European countries have seemingly higher piracy rates of US content than CHina (namely, that they speak the language). However, this would discount and ignore all the piracy that occurs with US movies overdubbed into Cantonese/Mandarin or whatever. Admittedly, this doesn’t apply to music.
I think his conclusion paragraphs are very fair. In essence, whatever the scope of the problem is, focusing on this country or that one will merely drive the industry to other safe havens, and there’s no durable solution unless everyone is on board. Sounds similar to the whole global warming debate. However, that doesn’t mean that individual countries shouldn’t be doing what they can, be it China, the US, or whoever.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Hi S.K. Cheung,
I am in agreement with your take on the article.
The over-all thrust of the paper is the fact that China is often singled out by Western politicians and Western media unfairly.
But, human nature is really weird some times. During the height of China’s various dynasties, I’d bet they thought everyone outside China were extra barbaric. That’s pure arrogance. As long as the Western media portray this idea that Chinese have to pirate (cannot invent), Western engineers are not going to be reading Chinese science journals. Guess what? Who stands to progress faster?
In this weird world, I wonder if a “pro-China” person should be happy that Western politicians and Western media are fanning ignorance in the West.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am
pug_ster (11)
Exactly, what’s the use of telling China to respect IP rights when Western countries can’t do it themselves?
Err, because there’s a difference between expecting a website that provides marketplace services as Amazon and ebay do to check every item that is sold (which they can’t) and a website that itself deliberately hosts copyrighted material for free? If you haven’t noticed, websites in places like Europe that allow people to download, songs, movies et al for free have had action successfully taken against them.
dewang (14)
As long as the Western media portray this idea that Chinese have to pirate (cannot invent)
What’s this company you speak of called “Western media”? I haven’t heard of it before.
Because I’m sure you’re not lumping all the media in North America, Europe, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Oceania and elsewhere together implying they all have a single viewpoint that China doesn’t make anything from its own ideas.
Western engineers are not going to be reading Chinese science journals. Guess what? Who stands to progress faster?
“Western engineers” – another company you’ve dealt with?
In any case, the global media could say that China is the rip-off capital of the world 24/7 and people like engineers would still consider ideas/skills that come from China. They’re not stupid, nor are they racist.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Raj,
Err, because there’s a difference between expecting a website that provides marketplace services as Amazon and ebay do to check every item that is sold (which they can’t) and a website that itself deliberately hosts copyrighted material for free? If you haven’t noticed, websites in places like Europe that allow people to download, songs, movies et al for free have had action successfully taken against them.
Yeah, but you can get grey market material from amazon or ebay. There’s plenty of international versions of college textbooks out there.
It is not like Chinese government does nothing about piracy. There’s plenty more.
http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/en/journal-show.asp?id=490
October 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@pugster – The fact that about 80% of counterfeit seizures at the US and EU borders is China-origin shows that there most definitely is a problem with IP in China. But I do agree that focusing on copyright piracy in China only is somewhat silly.
Parallel imports stand aside from actual piracy in that they constitute legally-sold products which have then been exported without the rights holder’s permission, often without the seller’s being aware that what they are doing may be subject to action, that’s why they’re ‘grey’ and not ‘black’!
October 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
pug_ster (16)
Yeah, but you can get grey market material from amazon or ebay.
As I said, it’s harder to police what is sold on sites like that than it is to shut down websites hosting the copyrighted material. Or indeed for the websites to simply not host the material in the first place.
It is not like Chinese government does nothing about piracy.
You mean it does something? Yes, I don’t think anyone’s saying the government does nothing. The question is whether it should it be doing more.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
@FOARP 17
Yet the counterfeit items shipped from China is going to some company in the US or EU. So there’s some US/EU company knowingly brought these counterfeit items. Does the Chinese government condone sending counterfeit items, no.
Besides, only 5% of the containers coming into the US gets inspected. Other than that, these containers go thru an xray machine, which only detect items which shouldn’t be shipped and not counterfeit items. The only time when containers are checked for counterfeit items is when legit companies complained about it.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I’m afraid not. The counterfeit items are smuggled to the west to be sold by criminal gangs on the black market, and there are wide-spread rumours of involvement by corrupt officials. I guess I should add that pretty much everyone is aware of the pattern of behaviour whereby in many (perhaps all) Chinese cities, the only time when you will see the shops which sell counterfeit goods closed for business during the day-time is when the police are going around. Somehow the fake DVD sellers etc. know the exact time of these ‘random’ patrols.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:59 am
FOARP,
Let me ask you this, do you think corrupt officals or gangs care about IP rights?
October 16th, 2009 at 1:58 am
How many local could afford to buy an original piece of DVD with an average income of 1000 per month? The price is between 50 to 120 while the pirated copy is around 4 to 8.
And very weird indeed. Here in Asean, I notice most patrons of the counterfeit goods are American, European and Japanese. They bought not five or ten piece but fifty to hundreds piece of CD and DVD. The sellers treat them like god. Hence human thought and behavior is no different in every country and only stringent law could tell what we can/should or cannot/shouldn’t do. Or DVD is an luxurious product created for the rich?
October 16th, 2009 at 3:56 am
For the sake of language precision, we cannot says western this and that, we must says some western this and that? Let me try to give some elaboration to avoid this confusion in future.
Some define the West or the Western world as the countries of Western Europe and its descendant countries who share similar traditions, values, and religions, and have embraced political ideologies based on liberal democracy, personal liberty, human rights, and gender equality. I add in a little, the common character is that most of this country are comparatively more progressive in term of economy and living standard, partially due to colonization and slavery activity in the past, and the uphold of capitalism creed at present to continue robbing the poor to enrich the already rich. In the past, they bring along church and law to any country they take possession of and today, they will impose their values on us in the name of fighting terrorism and promote of democracy spirit. They always think that they are the savior and were given the task to shape the world order.
Any country and human that fall under my definition is deemed as West and Western. If you are not one, then we are not referring to you, hence you don’t need to squeeze yourself in.
October 16th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I don’t know how much a DVD costs in China. But since the Chinese economy is a capitalist one, then it seems reasonable that such items be priced at a level that the market will bear. It would seem foolish for a distributor to price something in China solely based on the USD-yuan exchange rate. However, if the market price is one that allows goods to be moved, yet is beyond the means of a large segment of Chinese population, rather than complain that it’s priced too high, isn’t it simply a reflection of the wealth disparity in CHina? Enough people can afford that price to make a business case for selling at that price, yet that very price puts in out of reach of the masses. Sounds like the problem doesn’t lie with the distributor. The other thing is that it’s not a right to own a DVD. If you want that privilege, in a capitalist system, you pay for it. So yes, that creates a market for cheap knock-offs….but I’m not sure how that’s supposed to make it right, ok, or justifiable.
To #23:
interesting. Of course, you’re assuming that everybody must and will subscribe to your definition. That may or may not be such a great assumption. The other misplaced assumption is that everyone with your aforementioned “shared heritage” (my word, not yours) must always think, react, emote, and rationalize, in identical fashion. Some people complain that people view CHinese in a monolithic way; yet some of those same people use exactly such a prism to view other parts of the world. But I congratulate you for putting it out there, and removing all doubt, as it were.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Hi Raj, #15,
I simply forgot to put quotes around them like I have always been doing on FM. I think you and I know each other well enough here to not get into that technicality.
The real substance is what I found on Dan Harri’s China Law Blog with respect to how China is unfairly targetted by the “West” with respect to piracy.
In my comment #3, I thought I threw a bone.
But, hey, why not take a serious stab at my comment #12? If after spoon fed facts, you choose to ignore them, and if you continue to critize the Chinese government unfairly about piracy, then what do we call that? 🙂
October 16th, 2009 at 6:28 am
To Dewang:
Mr. Schwabach’s paper sounds like a thesis or something of that sort. So he starts with a premise, and goes about identifying things that support his premise. And he does it well, as I already stipulated earlier. But we don’t know what he found yet discarded as being unsupportive of his premise. So to suggest that his “facts” are incontrovertible seems to be stretching things some. I don’t interpret his conclusion as saying that criticizing China’s piracy efforts is unfair; only that such criticism should be tempered by what he suggests to be the reality of piracy in other countries. Though as I noted with the “global warming” analogy, whatever work other countries need to do doesn’t change what CHina needs to do.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Hi S.K. Cheung,
Fair enough, but you are not going to ask me to defend his “facts” yet, right? You or Raj should find some credible data to show Schwabach’s “thesis” is flawed.
“only that such criticism should be tempered by what he suggests to be the reality of piracy in other countries. ”
That’s actually being fair and I think many “pro-China” people will find crticism that way very acceptable. If you are to write this article, how might you write it differently than from Raj?
October 16th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Hi Dewang,
that’s a good one. Since it’s his thesis, I’d expect that he’s defended it already, or will soon have to. So you’re off the hook 🙂 But I did want to point out that his was not a scientific experiment, where he lets the results of testing determine the conclusion; he had his premise and conclusion when he started, and found the “facts” that allowed him to get from A to B. But find them he did, and you’re right that I should challenge his “facts” only if I had ones of my own. Suffice it to say a counterpoint thesis is not in my future.
That said, I don’t have to interpret the facts he’s offered in the same way he has. Which is why I go back to the global warming analogy. Yes, China has a piracy problem. Yes, many other countries have a piracy problem. Yes, per capita numbers show China’s problem in a better light (just as per capita carbon emissions does as well), but I don’t think content-creators (nor mother earth) worry so much about per capita as they do the grand total. Yes, many countries have a problem to fix. And you bet your life-savers that includes China.
When you say “this article”, I’m assuming you mean Raj’s blog post. He covers the “China has a piracy problem” and “China needs to fix it” aspects. He doesn’t suggest that China is alone with this problem as the last bastion of piracy in the world. So I wouldn’t think it should ruffle any feathers. Or the feathers that get ruffled belong to those who would rather suggest that CHina doesn’t have a problem, which certainly isn’t what Mr. Schwabach said with his facts or his conclusions.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hi S.K. Cheung,
Actually, in science, we start out with a hypothesis and then go on to prove or disprove it. So I thought he did a great job at that. Is there anything in the MPAA data you dispute?
Also, total $$$ lost due to piracy in the U.S. is way bigger than China’s. China ranks 6th or something like that on that chart compared to other countries.
I am OK with Raj saying China has a piracy problem. He however does not say how much bigger a problem it is in the U.S. and other countries ahead of China on this problem. By selectively omitting this information, he is doing what Mr. Schwabach is saying – unfairly singling out China like the “Western” media/politicians.
To me, if you have goodwill, you try to be constructive in your criticism.
You said:
“only that such criticism should be tempered by what he suggests to be the reality of piracy in other countries. ”
I think this post failed that.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
FOARP Says:
@pugster – The fact that about 80% of counterfeit seizures at the US and EU borders is China-origin shows that there most definitely is a problem with IP in China. But I do agree that focusing on copyright piracy in China only is somewhat silly.
+++++
That may be simply a reflection of the global division of labor, i.e. manufacturing of the physical goods (including the physical DVD if we’re talking about music/movies/software) happens in China (because it’s cheap to do it there), so we can only really say that more counterfeit in this visible/tangible form takes place in China.
There are other forms of counterfeit, especially in Russia and Eastern Europe.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:28 am
To Dewang:
“He however does not say how much bigger a problem it is in the U.S. and other countries ahead of China on this problem.” — I suppose Raj could’ve snuck in a phrase like “oh btw, China is not alone in this piracy problem”. However, we’re on a blog on China. The comparos are only relevant if Raj was trying to compare China’s problem to those in other countries, which IMO was not his point. His point was that CHina has a problem…which is certainly not refuted by anything in the essay you linked. I agree that context would be important, but Raj wasn’t talking context, he was simply identifying a problem.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:05 am
SKC,
I like you way you put it in #24. Perhaps stereotyping is our manner to resolve the limit of time and language capacity? We presume everyone do comprehend the context base on engagement in the past? No?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Hi S.K. Cheung,
I think in the grand scheme of things, context is necessity. Let’s suppose China is the only country on this planet with a piracy problem. Well, that’s an entirely different ball game. If China is the country with the lowest piracy problem, that’s totally relevant too.
This is not a blog to bash China while selectively ignoring the reality of this world.
China is a member of this world, so what the “norm” is and what other countries do in fact matters. This is why you hear frequently those on the “pro-China” side saying democracy and human rights campaigners have double-standards.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:12 am
To Rhan:
I don’t think stereotyping is ever a good default position. I’ve been around this blog for quite some time, but I wouldn’t presume others to know “the context” of my previous positions. If you don’t make your perspective clear each time you make a point, you’re inviting people to assume things. You know what people say about “assume”.
To Dewang:
this goes back to the common fallacy that others have used. “see, Americans have done this and that, so it’s okay for China yada yada”. I suppose that’s context. It would also be context when little Billy says “I’m not eating my vegetables until little Johnny over there eats his”.
Yes, context is important. But even with context, does China have a piracy problem? If you think the answer is no, then i agree that Raj was overly harsh. But if the answer is yes, then I truly don’t see the problem.
But if context is the new threshold, then I would expect you to be right there to raise objections whenever someone complains about this “western media” thing without enumerating the issues that beset the Chinese version thereof.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Hi S.K. Cheung,
For the record, I agree piracy is a problem in China. And I don’t think saying since Americans or Canadians did this or that, then that makes it alright for China to do something similar.
I think this idea of “two wrongs doesn’t make a right” has been tossed around FM way too often without understanding the other side. I’d say, every FM reader understand this concept.
My point is simply this. If in as “modern” and “democratic” a country as U.S. where $$$ lost to piracy is 2x-3x that of China (as a country TOTAL), and even more ridiculous when you look at it from per capita perspective, and despite the business climate and media to want to curb piracy in the U.S., the problem still persists. What is it that the U.S. cannot do with its “modernity” and “democraticness” to address this problem such that you think the Chinese government can do even better, despite it already is fairing better than the U.S.?
This is why I think context is a necessity.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:03 am
To Dewang:
I’m not sure how the “modern-ness” of a country should inherently help its fight against piracy. Ubiquitous broadband access in the US (part of its plenty-modern status) makes P2P sharing and access nearly as ubiquitous, which contributes to (rather than curbs) piracy. In fact, i think that paper even mentions that China’s lack of broadband access in many parts of the country acts as a bit of a rate-limiter in terms of its internet piracy potential. One could speculate that a more modern China would be more ripe at least for some forms of piracy, not less.
I’m also not sure how a democracy in and of itself helps a country to curb piracy. It means there are laws, and those laws can be enforced, but it also means the accused have rights, and there is a certain burden that the state must meet to obtain relief. Those might be trifling details that China doesn’t always concern herself with at this time. That’s not to say that’s a good thing. But what’s good enough for dealing with political dissidents ought to be good enough for dealing with IP pirates.
You’ve also disproportionately focused on the paper, which itself disproportionately focuses on movies and music to the exclusion of many other arenas of IP. So while the monetary totals are higher in the US for movies and music, the paper is silent on just about every other IP subject.
So to me, regardless of a country’s “modern-ness” or “democratic-ness”, it needs to address the problem. Rather than asking why a modern and democratic country like the US does so poorly with some aspects of piracy, you could instead ask why a country with a top-down state-control system like CHina, which tries to dictate so much in so many areas, has as big a problem as she has in movie/music piracy, among other forms. That type of context might be equally necessary.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:08 am
S.K. Cheung Says:
To Dewang:
I’m not sure how the “modern-ness” of a country should inherently help its fight against piracy. Ubiquitous broadband access in the US (part of its plenty-modern status) makes P2P sharing and access nearly as ubiquitous, which contributes to (rather than curbs) piracy. In fact, i think that paper even mentions that China’s lack of broadband access in many parts of the country acts as a bit of a rate-limiter in terms of its internet piracy potential. One could speculate that a more modern China would be more ripe at least for some forms of piracy, not less.
+++++
I’m almost sure that China has the most internet users of any country now (300+ million sounds like the number), and DSL-level broadband access in Asian cities, China included, is more ubiquitous than in most American cities. As I said, P2P is very common in China, whether for watching movies, gaming, or counterfeiting.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:09 am
“Let me ask you this, do you think corrupt officals or gangs care about IP rights?”
Obviously not, but the degree to which they may succeed depends on the efforts taken to prevent them.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:24 am
There are really two main angles to look at IP – as 1.) a regime to protect and incentive innovation; 2.) a regime to ensure “fair trade” as negotiated between countries (in the case of China – West trade, as defined by the WTO regime).
Under 1., IP protection is not a “normative” right. IP protection is a legal framework created to incentivize innovation. As such, it is a policy regime that gives and takes (IP gives incentives to innovators but also extracts monopoly tolls on all of society). Thus, even in the pro-IP U.S., IP protection is not extended to all subject matter. Natural phenomenon, abstract ideas, laws of nature are not patentable. Certain surgical procedures are patentable but not enforceable against doctors. IP rights also don’t last forever. Patent rights for example only last 20 years from date of filing. The point is that IP protection is a policy decision. A nation may, looking at the innovation landscape – which depends on the developmental state of a nation’s economy – decide to give wide swath, or narrow swath as the case may be – to IP incentives. It’s every country’s sovereign decision how much or how little IP protection to enforce – just like how high an interest it wants to set – or how much tax it wants to collect – or how much financial regulations it wants to enforce. The ultimate goal is to create some social good. Sometimes more is better, sometimes less is better. Even in the West, this is not about “basic rights” such as “freedom of speech” or “democracy.” It’s only about incentivizing an innovations economy. Just because the West has developed a super strong IP regime the last 3 decades does not mean this is the final solution. The answer depends on the innovation landscape. It’s silly to assign moral imperatives to “IP rights” as they are some sort of god-given rights.
Under 2, IP protection is a tit-for-that negotiated by treaty between nations. IP is important only as one of many factors (other factors include market access, money valuation, legal /contract protection, etc., etc.) that can impact trade. Even under this context, it’s also silly to view IP under moral imperatives. Yes – certain nations have certain advantages, others have other advantages. And in the course of trade, each nation will try to maximize its advantage. If China is seen to ignore IP rights, it is doing so only because its relative strength vis-a-vis developed nations can be maximized by ignoring western-styled IP rights – at least at this time. As it develops more, it may be the case that China’s relative strength may be maximized by upholding IP rights. Some nations which scream for IP rights now may reverse its position in the future – depending again on how IP affects the trade dynamics between the parties at that time.
View IP issues in China (or any other place) under these lens. Things will make more sense. View IP issues as good vs. bad – as advanced vs. neanderthalistic – as developed vs. undeveloped – will only muddle the issues.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:26 am
@Dewang – Roughly 80% of all border counterfeit seizures for both the US and the EU come from the PRC. Whilst I am inclined to say that this means no more or less than the equivalent statement about seizures of opiates and cocaine do with respect to Afghanistan and Colombia, it does justify advocating special efforts to stamp out counterfeiting in China. I got the counterfeit seizures figures from a speech given by the head of TAXUD at a conference I went to last year, you can read the post I wrote on it here:
http://foarp.blogspot.com/2008/04/eipin-windsor-counterfeiting-and-china.html
I myself am not happy that so much time is given at such conferences to pointing out China’s unfortunate record in this regard without anyone explaining the efforts that China has taken to combat counterfeiting. I am also not happy that various industry-backed lobbying groups manage to monopolise the debate within the corridors of power, some of whom make quite dubious claims as to the risks that counterfeiting creates:
http://foarp.blogspot.com/2008/04/eipin-windsor-counterfeit-scare.html
October 17th, 2009 at 8:31 am
@Allen – It is one thing for a country to label IP rights ‘Western’ and say that it will take a different view, it is quite another for a country to sign various treaties committing it to minimum standards of protection for IP and then not properly follow through.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:36 am
To Allen,
thanks for that framework. So if I understand correctly, a country may have one set of parameters for dealing with the IP of national stakeholders, and a different set of parameters for dealing with the IP of international stakeholders. What happens when a company A in country A is accused of infringing on the IP rights of foreign company B?
October 17th, 2009 at 8:48 am
@SKC – The answer is no, they cannot treat foreign rights-holders and local rights-holders differently. China is subject to the terms of the Berne convention covering copyright, under this treaty foreign authors are given the same treatment as nationals. Patents and trademarks are registered rights, granting of a patent or trademarks should confer the same rights, regardless of who receives the right.
If, therefore, you apply for and are granted a Chinese patent or trademark, you are as entitled to enforce it as a Chinese national is. If you create an artistic work overseas, you are entitled to the same level of protection of that work as you would be if you were a Chinese national and had created the work in China.
Of course the argument can be made that IP rights as a whole can be ignored by undeveloped countries, since such nations have much bigger fish to fry, and that developing nations should only render as much protection as they can afford. However, China has committed itself through signing TRIPS as part of its entry into the WTO to minimum standards of protection of the various classes of IP. It is therefore wrong to say that China need only enforce IP to the degree that its government sees fit.
I guess I should also add that Allen’s analysis draws heavily on the common law tradition of IP rights being granted for entirely economic reasons, instead of the mainland European concept of droit d’auteur, wherein authors are considered to have certain natural and inalienable rights to their works. The existence of such rights as a basic human concept may be evidenced by the natural dislike most people have for the false passing-off of another’s work as your own, or for obviously derivative works. This, of course, does not make it a basic human right (which Allen has also on occasion argued to be a ‘western’ concept) but it is wrong to say that morality has no part in it.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:49 am
@FOARP #41,
Agreed. I can certainly agree to see things as a “treaty” issue. In the end, China should fulfill its obligations. Or renegotiate. And of course, China certainly has a right to interpret treaties (within bounds) that maximizes its interests.
@SKC #42,
I am not saying China should have different set of laws for national vs. international stakeholders. In fact, under various IP treaties, that is explicitly forbidden. All I am saying that IP per se is a domestic policy issue. However, the nature of IP protection in a country may be negotiated as part of treaties since it is important for trade. In the case of China, it may be that enforcing IP at this time is not in its domestic interest. However, it may be worth the cost because trade with foreign countries is worth more to China than giving up some soveiengty over IP regime. I want to emphasize however that even under international treaty, China still has plenty of leeway how much enforcement to give (I’ll leave at that, lest we get into how toying slightly with various legal doctrines lead to dramatically different IP protections).
As for your question “what happens when a company A in country A is accused of infringing on the IP rights of foreign company B?” the answer is the same as the case when company A is foreign and company A is domestic.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:25 am
This analysis is flawed. When talking about where the money is lost you completely miss the point of how the money is lost. If money is lost in the US due to counterfeit goods, where did these goods come from? The evidence strongly suggest that the majority of these goods come from China.
For comparison, I could easily post lists showing the earnings from the sales of illegal narcotics and note that neither Colombia or Afghanistan were in the top ten.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Hi FOARP, Allen
Interesting data from TAXUD. Facts are facts.
And thx for educating us futher on this IP subject.
I should also add, applying and having obtained a patent in one country does not mean that patent is offered protection in another country. There are treaties governing international applications, but this is a common misunderstanding.
the China Law blog also has an article relating to this topic:
“Piracy In China. T’Ain’t No Big Thing.”
http://www.chinalawblog.com/2009/10/piracy_in_china_taint_no_big_t.html
Hi S.K. Cheung, #36
Regarding your last paragraph: So, again, I agree, China needs to continue to work towards stamping out piracy. Remember, we were debating why context matter, and from what you said, China’s local conditions need to be look at just as U.S. local conditions need to be looked at.
Aside from music and movies, what other IP are you talking about? Isn’t Raj’s article about movies and videos?
Also, are you proposing the Chinese government use “brutal” ways to crack down on piracy for the benefit of Hollywood? You can’t be against “brutal” ways in one instance and for it in another. 🙂
Hi Nimrod, #37
Good point.
Allen has said it – looking it from a morality or good vs. evil perspective is silly. I think I’ve said it too. I saw this same thing said on the China Law blog. I read an article by Shaun Rein where he said the same.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
To Dewang:
“Also, are you proposing the Chinese government use “brutal” ways to crack down on piracy for the benefit of Hollywood? You can’t be against “brutal” ways in one instance and for it in another.” — I’m asking, in the context of how CHina conducts herself in some arenas, why such “efficiency” isn’t as evident in others. Of course, if/when China becomes more democratic, and the burden of proof actually becomes somewhat burdensome (sorta like the US and elsewhere), it may become more difficult. I am of course against “brutal ways”, but found it notable that China is for it in some instances and not so much in others.
We are discussing context. But while you’re discussing China’s handling of the IP piracy issue in the context of how other countries do it, I’m referring to how China handles her IP piracy issue in the context of how she chooses to handle her other issues.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
@dewang #46,
Yes – obtaining patent protection in one country does not confer IP protection in another country. You have to get patent protection in another country separately – under its laws. The Europeans have a framework that streamline the process of obtaining patent rights in member countries, but each country still grants (or rejects as the case may be) patent rights independently, on a nation by nation basis.
However, when we talk about IP rights like copyright, China has signed treaties which requires it to respect works of foreigners. Since copyrighted work need not be applied for – if you have it in another country that have signed the Berne convention, you should have it automatically (for a fixed time only again) in another.
Trademark is a separate issue – having one in one country does not guarantee you have it in another country. You usually have to reapply / reassert your right in a foreign country – justifying that you need to mark to uniquely identify your business, etc. in the context of the foreign country.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Hi FOARP, #45,
I recommend reading the paper I found on the China Law blog, where I provided link in my comment #12:
“It seems that if any countries are systematically looting U.S. intellectual property rights in movies, they are to be found not in Asia but in the European Union.”
October 18th, 2009 at 1:49 am
@dewang #29, @S.K. Cheung #36 #47
Dewang, did you thoroughly read this “study”? I did. You wrote in #29,
Dewang, he did a horrible job. His MPAA numbers are correct, but only a small part of the picture/scope as he later admits. When you look at overall MPA numbers, the numbers change dramatically
First of all, Schwabach is not a scientist; he is a law professor at a Tier 4 law school.
He wastes much time in his study with his polemics on Sinophobia and Latinophobia. He cites numerous headlines as proof of Business Week’s China-scare policy. Why not quotes? Oh, he left those for the footnotes; the quotes often paint a different picture than the headlines. He criticizes BW:
BW was talking about economic national security, all IP theft (not just Shrek), and lost jobs. This in an interview with the Justice Dept.’s David Israelite.
He says “The upcoming 2008 presidential election has brought on a wave of China-bashing from presidential candidates.” Then he cites one example.
He states, “Even in reports of piracy within the U.S., the identification of IP piracy with the Other continues.” As proof, he then cites GrayZone, a private anti-piracy firm, for attacking Latinos unfairly. And Lou Dobbs and an article in the North County Times in San Diego. That’s all, Lou, GrayZone and a SD newspaper.
Finally he gets to the first set of MPA/MPAA numbers. He prefaces this with,
In other words, American movies.
He goes on and on with statistics on the MPA/MPAA numbers, showing that China’s numbers are dramatically smaller than the US, especially per capita. He is creating a great misimpression here. Finally, he admits, “Video piracy is indeed a serious problem in China, but piracy of U.S. movies is only a tiny part of it.”
Oops, time to roll out the second set of numbers from the MPA. Not quite yet. He continues to beat the MPAA numbers to death, bringing out a per capita analysis. This, in spite of admitting “but piracy of U.S. movies is only a tiny part of it “.
Finally on page 17, we are told that there is another set of numbers, which constitute “Total consumer spending lost to movie piracy, per capita”. USA is #1 at $2.724 billion and, lo and behold, China is at #2 with $2.689. Amazing.
He then goes over music piracy, which I will not cover here.
Schwabach ignores some categories which dwarf music and movie piracy, in importance and dollars. He ignores BSA’s numbers on software piracy of $53 billion (BSA’s methodology makes me think the numbers are a bit less) and industrial espionage/piracy, for which I have no specific numbers. Not to mention military secrets.
Dewang, Schwabach’s “study” is less than capable, not rigorous and hardly a QED. His “study” is very specious. If I did not know better, I would say he is trying to procure legal clients in China. Maybe? Maybe not? Who knows? I consider him a charlatan and a shyster.
Piracy is a global problem. As China gets wealthier (based on US patterns), I would imagine that China’s problem will worsen.
####
SK, quite interesting points in both #36 and #47. I concur. Especially about the unequal application of brutality in China.
SK, speaking of industrial espionage/piracy, I saw this mentioned in the China Times yesterday and looked this up at the Detroit Free Press and Computerworld.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:32 am
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/15/china-piracy-counterfeiting-leadership-managing-infringement.html
Saw this on Forbes magazine and I think this is pretty dead on. I think that many companies going to business in China and only care about profits and beating up on the counterfeiters. I think many western companies have to convince customers to pay a little more to buy their products rather than the cheap knockoffs, therefore establishing a brand in China that will be more rewarding in the future.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:54 am
@Dewang – As noted above, comparison between countries on revenue lost within each country is not a logical way of measuring the cause of the loss. The fact that the average British person consumes more dollars-worth of heroin than the average Afghan doesn’t mean that heroin isn’t a problem in Afghanistan if Afghanistan is the source of 80% of the world’s heroin. Likewise, the fact that more revenue is lost in movie sales in the west than in China does not mean that China does not have a problem if Chinese counterfeiters are the source of the fake DVDs. TAXUD’s figures suggest that this may well be true, but if you want to have some first-hand evidence as to the origin of the majority of fake DVDs sold on British streets, I suggest you walk down Whitechapel rd. in the east end of London and look at the faces of the DVD touts there. Schwabach’s analysis, therefore, is deeply flawed.
As noted above, industry lobbyists have made some pretty outlandish claims as to the effect of piracy, but this has been part of their effort to encourage governments to give anti-counterfeiting enforcement a higher priority. Accusing them of ‘Sinophobia’, however, is way out of line – it doesn’t serve their employer’s interests at all (and remember, these people are paid to say these things) to encourage enforcement in China if China is not the source of their problem.
I repeat – Schwabach’s analysis is flawed, nor is this surprising given that he is a professor at a tier-4 law school with no IP centre or reputation in that area who specialises in immigration law who has never worked in IP and has no real background in it. His experience of China seems limited to having given a talk in Chongqing once.
@Pug_ster – That Forbes article was nice as far as it went – basically saying that foreign companies need to be inventive. It would be nice if Forbes could take the time to have their own reporters go over the story though, rather than relying on someone to produce what is basically soft advertising for his company.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:50 am
To Jerry and FOARP:
you guys clearly read the paper far more carefully than I did. Thanks for the details. And Jerry, thanks for pointing out that it isn’t a scientific paper. It struck me when I read it that it didn’t have the requisite scientific bonafides.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Hi FOARP, Jerry,
I am not pushing this idea that China doesn’t have a piracy problem. It’d be pretty moronic of me if I claim that you guys are saying there is no piracy problem in the U.S. and U.K..
“Likewise, the fact that more revenue is lost in movie sales in the west than in China does not mean that China does not have a problem if Chinese counterfeiters are the source of the fake DVDs.”
Are you saying that U.K. and U.S. citizens pirating DVD’s, and that’s largely due to Chinese counterfeiters? Have you heard of Napster, eDonkey, or even as individuals, gotten copies of CD’s or DVD’s from friends and family? Of the 80% you cited from TAXUD, can you share with us what the dollar amount they add up to? Wow, and U.K. and U.S. have no custom officials to check their ports? Ask if one of your NetFlix friends rip DVD’s and share them.
Dan Harris and his firm practices law and serves many Western clients who do business in China. He has paid credence to Mr. Schwabach’s paper, because presumably it jives with what he sees at the ground level.
Jerry – on your criticism about the paper:
“He says “The upcoming 2008 presidential election has brought on a wave of China-bashing from presidential candidates.” Then he cites one example.”
You know full well Obama and Clinton and other candidates did their share of China-bashing during the 2008 election.
“That’s all, Lou, GrayZone and a SD newspaper.”
In case you don’t know, those of us who watched CNN in the U.S. knows that Lou Dobb is sinophobic. Day in and out when he has a chance to bash China, he does so. I don’t know about GrayZone or SD.
“Finally on page 17, we are told that there is another set of numbers, which constitute “Total consumer spending lost to movie piracy, per capita”. USA is #1 at $2.724 billion and, lo and behold, China is at #2 with $2.689. Amazing.”
Don’t forget – the point of his paper is that China is unfairly targetted by western politicians and media. Did you miss this main point of his paper?
“Schwabach ignores some categories which dwarf music and movie piracy, in importance and dollars. He ignores BSA’s numbers on software piracy of $53 billion (BSA’s methodology makes me think the numbers are a bit less) and industrial espionage/piracy, for which I have no specific numbers. Not to mention military secrets.”
Are you going to provide facts which backs up what you are trying to insinuate?
October 18th, 2009 at 7:58 am
To Dewang:
“Wow, and U.K. and U.S. have no custom officials to check their ports?” — obviously you know the answer to that. And obviously you know that they can’t possibly check every shipping container. But when you see a Chinese dubbed DVD of Batman being sold at a market, do you think that originated from just down the street, or from CHina? I don’t think FOARP is talking about Chinese-Americans doing the pirating; I think he’s talking about pirated stuff being sold in the US which was sourced from China.
We all know about Lou Dobbs’ enthusiasms. But it is just one guy.
“Don’t forget – the point of his paper is that China is unfairly targetted by western politicians and media.” — if China is #2 on the list by the metric Jerry quoted, then targeting China is unfair? How so? Of course they should target themselves as well, but it would seem that China would be right up there in the pecking order for being targeted, in this regard.
“Schwabach ignores some categories which dwarf music and movie piracy” — tough to dispute this, since all he talks about are movies and music.
“He ignores BSA’s numbers on software piracy of $53 billion” — I’m sure Jerry will give you the link to the Business Software Alliance global report. China’s #2 on that list as well in terms of total dollar amount, but gets kudos for showing improvement.
“industrial espionage/piracy, for which I have no specific numbers. Not to mention military secrets” — you’re asking for facts where Jerry’s acknowledged already that he doesn’t have any in these arenas.
I don’t think Jerry’s trying to insinuate anything. The paper’s okay, and it’s Schwabach’s baby, but let’s not take it as the be all and end all. It’s essentially the Thomas Jefferson Law School version of an op-ed piece, where one guy gives his researched opinion.
October 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am
@S.K. Cheung #53 #55
“It struck me when I read it that it didn’t have the requisite scientific bonafides.” (#53)
Nor the proper, requisite academic bona fides.
I downloaded this study 2 or 3 days ago. I perused it initially, re-read it several times, researched some points, contemplated, reflected, annotated the PDF and wrote my post Sunday. It seemed specious and suspect from the git-go. I just wanted to adequately examine the study before responding.
####
“We all know about Lou Dobbs’ enthusiasms. But it is just one guy.” (#55)
I know that Lou Dobbs is a wacko, one with a large viewership. His wackiness makes him lots of money. I rarely watch CNN. I had no idea he was also a Sinophobe. Not surprising to learn that Dobbs is a Sinophobe. And Schwabach made no mention of his Sinophobia in his study (Sinophobia is an interesting combination of Latin and Greek).
Schwabach made one mention of Dobbs, in the following footnote; no mentions were made in the main body of the study. It was in the context of anti-Latino, as was GrayZone and the North County Times (SD).
There is no mention of Dobb’s Sinophobia by Schwabach in the study. There are no citations to back up his assertion that Dobbs is making a career of “Latino-bashing and Mexico-bashing”. And Dobbs, as you say, is just one guy. It surprises me not, but I would like citations. It would increase Schwabach’s credibility, which I believe is questionable, at best.
“It’s essentially the Thomas Jefferson Law School version of an op-ed piece, where one guy gives his researched opinion.” (#55)
I would amend that to “lazily-researched opinion.” There is a huge difference between Schwabach’s op-ed and a Bill Moyers op-ed. Moyers’s op-eds and reports are much better researched, more credible and more reserved. All op-eds are not alike.
BTW, Schwabach is lucky that I do not hold him to Chomsky’s standards. 😀 😉 😛
October 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@dewang #54
I never said that. My criticism is directed at Schwabach’s “study”.
I have no idea who Dan Harris is; this is the first time I heard of him. I have no idea how cursorily or thoroughly he read Schwabach’s “study”. The word “presumably” can lead to lots of problems.
“You know full well Obama and Clinton and other candidates did their share of China-bashing during the 2008 election.”
Nice shooting from the hip, dewang. Talk about making assumptions and insinuations.
I actually know no such thing. Schwabach makes one mention of a Hillary speech in August 2007 on page 3 (2 footnotes, #5 and #7, citing a UK TimesOnLine op-ed). And one other footnote on Chelsea Clinton (#6). Please tell me how that justifies Schwabach’s assertion, “The upcoming 2008 presidential election has brought on a wave of China-bashing from presidential candidates.” And your assertion that OB, Hill and the other candidates “did their share of China-bashing during the 2008 election.” Sounds like a QEND to me (quod erat NON demonstrandum).
As I responded to SK in #56:
Then you write, dewang:
If that was his point, Schwabach failed miserably. That is my point.
In his attack on “American Media”, he constantly cites Business Week headlines as Sinophobia. He did cite one WSJ article, which was positive. And a BW headline on Russian piracy and another on British piracy.
I am underwhelmed. It seems that Business Week has become the only American media outlet. Won’t the guys at McClatchy, NY Times, WaPo, Miami Herald, Seattle Times, Boston Herald, Time Magazine, Newsweek, LA Times, San Jose Mercury News, New Yorker, NBC, CBS, ABC, Field and Stream, Forbes, Fortune, Barron’s, Harvard Business Review, Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly et al be surprised. Perhaps this helps explain why Condé Nast dropped Gourmet Magazine. And I like Ruth Reichl’s stylish magazine. 😉 😛
My verdict: QEND, again!
Whoa, pardner! You are shooting from the hip again! ::LOL:: 😀 Touchy, touchy!!
Several comments and questions. Is it ok for you to make innuendos, insinuations and assumptions, and then tell me I can’t? ::LMAO:: And just what insinuations am I making?
I honestly state that I have no numbers for piracy of industrial trade secrets and military secrets. If that is insinuation, please feel free to say that I am insinuating. IMHO, industrial espionage/piracy and piracy of military secrets are more important than the theft of Shrek 3 dvds and Springsteen CDs. I just don’t have a handle on the numbers.
Here is the link to BSA-IDC’s study, May 2009 — Sixth Annual BSA-IDC Global Software 2008 Piracy Study. It is a PDF.
Here are some snippets from the Executive Summary:
October 18th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Hi Jerry,
Again, movie piracy is a worse problem in the U.S. both on a country total and a per capita level. In other words, Americans pirate more American movies than Chinese. Ask any average American on the street, and as Mr. Schwabach argued, the American thinks the piracy problem exists disproportionately larger in China than in the U.S.. Why is that?
Regarding Dobbs – we both agreed he is a wacko. You yourself said he has a large audience. Now you know he is sinophobic. So, don’t you see the effects of a sizable American public being sinophobic because of Dobbs? That’s what Mr. Schwabach talks about.
Raj OP wrote about movies in his article. Now you want to include software and other IP. You have no data, except this report from BSA regarding SW.
Regarding the BSA paper, their study involved 3,600 consumers and 2,600 worker responses. From this tiny set of info, they are able to calculate piracy for every country on this planet. I am surprised you didn’t throw up all over your keyboard over this BSA paper being a “scientifically” minded person you claim you are.
So, what is your conclusion about China with respect to this BSA report?
Regarding other forms of IP besides movie and software, then tell me how you got to your “conclusion” if you have no data? You wouldn’t want to consider the effects of what Mr. Schwabach has been talking about working on you (while not fully aware of it)?
“BTW, Schwabach is lucky that I do not hold him to Chomsky’s standards.”
What does that say about you?
But seriously, what do you think about Chomsky’s positions about the U.S. government and the U.S. media? (I realize this is off topic, but I am curious about your views.)
October 18th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
To Dewang:
“the American thinks the piracy problem exists largely in China and not in the U.S.. Why is that?”— that’s a good question. I don’t know the answer. And the Americans would do well to know the scope of the problem at home. And it still doesn’t change the scope of the problem in China. One really can’t say that enough times.
“don’t you see the effects of a sizable American public being sinophobic because of Dobbs?” — this would be true if you assume that his audience tunes into him only because of a shared sinophobia. And you also assume that his sinophobia is his only marketable characteristic. Those are substantial assumptions.
“You have no data, except this report from BSA regarding SW.” — that’s no different than saying you have no data except Schwabach’s paper, and that Schwabach has no data besides MPAA numbers. That can’t be the level of discourse in which you seek to engage.
“being a “scientifically” minded person you claim you are” — sample size goes to confidence intervals of point estimates. Sure, a larger sample is better than a smaller sample. But a small sample size doesn’t make a study unscientific. That’s a lame way to criticize it.
“what is your conclusion about China with respect to this BSA report?” — in total dollars lost, China is number 2 behind the US. We’ve heard this tune before.
“then tell me how you got to your “conclusion” if you have no data?” — i think that would represent Jerry’s opinion. Please don’t try to tell me that you don’t have any of your own.
“You wouldn’t want to consider the effects of what Mr. Schwabach has been talking about working on you” — since Schwabach only speaks of movies and music, his paper would have no effects whatsoever on discussions beyond movies and music, “scientific” or otherwise. To extrapolate his opinions/conclusions onto anything beyond the scope of his paper would truly be an unscientific endeavour.
BTW, Raj’s post linked to an article that is about internet video piracy, not just black market DVD’s. And Raj’s text further speaks of technology, innovation, and patent protection. To construe it as only being about movies and music seems to be an inordinately narrow interpretation of Raj’s intent. Of course, we’ll have to ask Raj.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Lou Dobbs’ program keeps getting mentioned as if he’s some hugely popular and influential person. He’s not. His daily viewers per Nielsen are 941,000 with 390,000 of those being between the ages of 25-54. These are for Monday, July 7th. His broadcast airs once per day. That’s about 0.3% of all Americans so don’t make him out to be Walter Cronkite. Rounded off to the nearest number, that’s 0%.
And who’s #1 in cable news? Some guy named Bill O’Reilly. So how are his ratings? His numbers per his highest rated individual show are 2,301,000 viewers with 419,000 of them being between 25-54. That means his viewers are still less than 1% of all Americans. Since Fox runs his show FOUR TIME PER DAY, if we all up all those shows for total daily viewership, assuming that no one watches his show more than once per day (which gives him higher viewership than he actually has), his total daily numbers are 6,518,000 which is still slightly above 2% of all Americans. Not exactly knocking me over…
While we’re at it, let’s look at the last member of Fox’s star studded triumvirate.
Glenn Beck’s viewers number 336,000 with 113,000 of them being in the 25-54 bracket on his first airing and 221,000 with 78,000 being in the 25-54 bracket on his second airing for a grand daily total of 557,000 total daily viewers. If we rounded off THAT number, it’d be 0% of all Americans. The actual percentage is 0.17%.
Cable news channels, which are no longer news but now have become editorial channels almost exclusively, like to trumpet their cable rankings but their actual numbers are low. There are really only a few stations competing; FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC & HLN. That’s it.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:41 am
@dewang #58, @S.K. Cheung #59, @Steve #60
First of all, IP piracy is common, pandemic, global and universal. I imagine that the “man in the moon”, ETs, the crews of various UFOs and the Martians engage in piracy. 😀 Just to let you know for certain, dewang, this is just my opinion. ::LOL::
“movie piracy is a worse problem in the U.S. both on a country total”
Not really. I wrote earlier in #50, “USA is #1 at $2.724 billion and, lo and behold, China is at #2 with $2.689”. Schwabach’s own statistics.
China’s $2.689 billion is within 1.3% of the US figure of $2.724 billion. To me, that is virtually a tie.
“and a per capita level”.
Maybe? Maybe not.
I was doing some hypothetical thinking on this subject for a while. Schwabach even states on page 13, “And even if only the wealthiest one-tenth of China’s population is considered, the per-capita cost of piracy would be no higher than Germany’s.”
So, I wondered, just how many Chinese have access to DVD players. And I know that Schwabach’s MPA stats on page 18 state a loss per capita in the US of $9.30 and China at $2.07. What if the actual percentage of the Chinese population with access to DVD players is 50%; then the per capita rate would be $4.14. If 25%, the rate would be $8.28. If 20%, the rate would be $10.35; greater than the US. If 10%, the rate would be $20.70. Hmmm. Interesting line of thought.
Again, I have no idea. But it could be possible. In the interest of disclosure, dewang, this is an untested and unproven hypothesis. 😉
“Ask any average American on the street, and as Mr. Schwabach argued, the American thinks the piracy problem exists disproportionately larger in China than in the U.S..” That is an “overly broad” statement. It is truly an amazing, athletic leap to a conclusion. You seem to be implying that all “average American(s) on the street” think what you state. That is a true stretch of the imagination. But fortunately for you, dewang, there are only 3 “average American(s) on the street”. Everyone else is above or below average. I bet that’s a relief to you! 😀
As to why anyone would think that, I, like SK, don’t know. I could speculate that “it sounds good.”, “My mom told me.”, “Hey, it’s not my fault, it’s theirs.” or even, cognitive dissonance. I can’t say for sure.
“Now you know he is sinophobic.”
Here is another amazing, athletic leap to a conclusion and an assumption. Just because you say something is so, there is no requirement for me to believe you or “know”. Especially if you provide no substantiation. Hint: waving your hands and arms is not substantiation.
I was not raised Chinese or communist. I was raised American and Russian Jewish. I am an irascible, free, independent, skeptical, cynical thinker. I probably misstated earlier in #56 when I said, “Not surprising to learn that Dobbs is a Sinophobe.” I should have substituted “hear” for “learn”. My bad. I find it believable that Dobbs could be a Sinophobe, but I don’t know for sure.
“So, don’t you see the effects of a sizable American public being sinophobic because of Dobbs?”
I think Steve handled the size of Dobb’s audience. And SK in wrote in #59.
“this would be true if you assume that his audience tunes into him only because of a shared sinophobia. And you also assume that his sinophobia is his only marketable characteristic. Those are substantial assumptions.”
I might add, how is Dobbs going to make them Sinophobic?
Again, your statement above, dewang, is another amazing, athletic leap to a conclusion(s) or an assumption(s). I concur with SK.
IMHO, it is a beautiful thing in America that Lou Dobbs is allowed to speak freely. And his viewers are allowed to watch for whatever reason. Without the interference from some overbearing despot like Beijing’s Municipal Party Secretary Liu Qi who demanded of the local media conformance with his mandates on the coverage of the National Day celebration. Hint, dewang: this is my opinion.
“Now you want to include software and other IP.”
You might want to refer to the “I was not raised Chinese or communist. …” bit earlier. I think and write as I will, dewang.
“You have no data, except this report from BSA regarding SW.”
You are right. I have no numbers for industrial espionage/piracy and theft of military secrets. And I said it right from the git-go.
Hint, dewang, IMHO means “In My Humble Opinion”!
SK also made remarks on this in #59. I concur.
“From this tiny set of info, they are able to calculate piracy for every country on this planet.”
I think SK answered this well in #59. The miracle of random sampling and confidence intervals.
‘I am surprised you didn’t throw up all over your keyboard over this BSA paper being a “scientifically” minded person you claim you are.’
Hyperbolic, dewang. This is an amazing leap of hyperbole and insult. But it is rather a mediocre, garden-variety insult. Your game needs some work. You might want to study Dick Cavett’s material. He is truly a master.
Furthermore, I am glad to know you have now become the official certifier of all things scientific. As the official keeper, please let me know when to and when not to throw up. 😀
“So, what is your conclusion about China with respect to this BSA report?”
“Unscientifically” speaking, I have only cursorily examined the current report. Cursorily and “unscientifically” speaking, I have concluded nothing. ::ROFL:: It does seem that China has decreased their rate of software piracy 11%, from 90% in 2004 to 80% in 2008. In the same period, the US dropped 5% from 21% to 20%.
I conclude when I decide to conclude. And most of my conclusions are usually temporary stops along the way. Points in time.
“Regarding other forms of IP besides movie and software, then tell me how you got to your “conclusion” if you have no data?”
Another amazing, athletic leap to a conclusion, this time about my conclusion.
Perhaps, I can point you to my IMHO explainer above and again to SK in #59. Borrrrring! Yawwwwn!
“You wouldn’t want to consider the effects of what Mr. Schwabach has been talking about working on you (while not fully aware of it)?”
I have no problem with the movie piracy stats on page 18, other than wondering (see above) about the number of DVD users in China and per capita stats.
As I have said before, Schwabach talks way too much. He then fails, IMHO, to substantiate what he is saying. This is a research paper. His paper is titled, “Intellectual Property Piracy: Perception and Reality in China, the United States, and Elsewhere”. He then relies solely on DVD and music piracy. He should have changed his title.
As SK so ably answered in #59, hypothesis and extrapolation are one thing. Reliance on the untested, unproven hypothesis and extrapolation is quite another. And that would be “unscientific”.
The “Chomsky Standard” is about Avram Noam’s thought process and method. The man is my hero for his rigorous, methodical, detailed approach to linguistics, computer science and political science.
While I don’t agree with him at times, I greatly admire his willingness to take unpopular stands, such as his opposition to the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel. I should say, much to the delight of Norm Finkelstein and the late Edward Said; much to the chagrin of David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz.
Furthermore, Noam is Jewish and reminds so much of my father at times. They are both extremely methodical, hard-working men. And both are so Russian Jewish and first-generation Americans.
Well, dewang, you have won the athletic contest for the day. For athletic leaps to conclusions and assumptions.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
SKC (59)
BTW, Raj’s post linked to an article that is about internet video piracy, not just black market DVD’s. And Raj’s text further speaks of technology, innovation, and patent protection. To construe it as only being about movies and music seems to be an inordinately narrow interpretation of Raj’s intent.
Exactly. DVDs are a tiny part of IPR in China. There is a much bigger issue that is far more interesting and important for China and the rest of the world.
October 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@Raj 62,
BTW, Raj’s post linked to an article that is about internet video piracy, not just black market DVD’s. And Raj’s text further speaks of technology, innovation, and patent protection. To construe it as only being about movies and music seems to be an inordinately narrow interpretation of Raj’s intent.
Exactly. DVDs are a tiny part of IPR in China. There is a much bigger issue that is far more interesting and important for China and the rest of the world.Exactly.
No offense, this is nothing but a some overhyped fear of China. Give us some examples and tell how the Chinese government is involved.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Hi S.K. Cheung,
“the American thinks the piracy problem exists largely in China and not in the U.S.. Why is that?”— that’s a good question. I don’t know the answer. And the Americans would do well to know the scope of the problem at home. And it still doesn’t change the scope of the problem in China. One really can’t say that enough times.
Sure, and I’d say, the scope of the problem is even worse in the U.S., and therefore it matters in how China is criticized.
“that’s a good question”
For those interested in criticizing China, I think its worthwhile for them to also help answer this question. They may choose not, but that’s my opinion.
““don’t you see the effects of a sizable American public being sinophobic because of Dobbs?” — this would be true if you assume that his audience tunes into him only because of a shared sinophobia. And you also assume that his sinophobia is his only marketable characteristic. Those are substantial assumptions.”
What you said is also technically true. But in my opionion, in reality, what Dobbs does is propaganda. FM readers can judge on their own.
“You have no data, except this report from BSA regarding SW.” — that’s no different than saying you have no data except Schwabach’s paper, and that Schwabach has no data besides MPAA numbers. That can’t be the level of discourse in which you seek to engage.
I agree with your logic. Except Schwabach makes a connection to China. Again, I asked, what conclusion is Jerry or are you trying to draw with the BSA report?
Remember, we went down this path because I tried to argue China is UNFAIRLY targetted by western politicians and western media. Not a disagreement whether piracy is a problem in China.
“being a “scientifically” minded person you claim you are” — sample size goes to confidence intervals of point estimates. Sure, a larger sample is better than a smaller sample. But a small sample size doesn’t make a study unscientific. That’s a lame way to criticize it.
I should explained in my previous comment – this was a reaction to Jerry attacking some stats at another thread about Chinese population surveyed showing they were satisfied with the Chinese government. In fact, I seem to recall those numbers were WAY bigger than 2 or 3k.
Why try to be “scientific” there and not here?
“what is your conclusion about China with respect to this BSA report?” — in total dollars lost, China is number 2 behind the US. We’ve heard this tune before.
I went back to page #17 which Jerry referred to. Nothing there shows anything about the $2.689 billion he has talked about. In fact, on page #16:
Total MPA member consumer spending lost to movie piracy (in millions)
USA $2,561
Mexico $954
UK $787
Russia $622
France $604
China $565
“then tell me how you got to your “conclusion” if you have no data?” — i think that would represent Jerry’s opinion. Please don’t try to tell me that you don’t have any of your own.
Ok, I guess I am disappointed – not yours or Jerry’s fault. I’ll keep wondering why he has that opinion. Knowing the likes of Dobbs is out there doesn’t help. But that’s just me. 🙁
“You wouldn’t want to consider the effects of what Mr. Schwabach has been talking about working on you” — since Schwabach only speaks of movies and music, his paper would have no effects whatsoever on discussions beyond movies and music, “scientific” or otherwise. To extrapolate his opinions/conclusions onto anything beyond the scope of his paper would truly be an unscientific endeavour.
That’s fair. And I’d rather stick with this thread – which the article Raj featured is about. We are talking about American movies, just to be clear. His last paragraph seems to have extrapolated a lot.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Hi Steve,
Appreciate the info on Dobbs viewership.
I posed:
“the American thinks the piracy problem exists largely in China and not in the U.S.. Why is that?”
Do you believe that is what you observe for living in the U.S.?
Honestly, with my circle of American friends, this is true.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Hi Jerry,
Well, I’ll say at least I appreciate the amount of meat behind your posts. Nothing much more for me to add on this discussion.
And thx for sharing your thoughts about Chomsky. Why do you suppose he is not well known by the general public in the U.S.?
October 19th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
dewang (25)
If after spoon fed facts, you choose to ignore them, and if you continue to critize the Chinese government unfairly about piracy, then what do we call that?
We call it not being diverted by red-herrings, especially daft red-herrings that cite a single news outlet as proof of general behaviour by an entire country’s media. Complaining about how some media groups talk about IPR in China has little relevance to a discussion on how the Chinese government should reform the law and enforcement of IPR.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hi Raj,
“cite a single news outlet as proof of general behaviour by an entire country’s media”
Wow, after reading the paper, that’s your take?
Again, the reason we had this discussion is because I agree with the paper that China is unfairly targeted on this issue.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
@Dewang – I would like to ask what fair targeting would look like, given that China appears to be the source of the majority of the world’s counterfeit smuggling.
It seems that what you actually want is that people do not make political capital out of this.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Hi FOARP,
I share the same feeling as you, today, “that China appears to be the source of the majority of the world’s counterfeit smuggling.”
I know politicians will make political capital wherever they can, but I would like them to do it fairly.
“what fair targeting would look like”
In the case of American movies, in my mind if there was fairness, then U.S. (and U.K. in which I am guessing too) citizens wouldn’t think piracy as a disproportionate problem unique to China; everyone should believe it is a serious problem for U.S., U.K., China, etc..
With respect to counterfeit goods:
I think your citation of 80% seized counterfeit goods in E.U. borders originate from China is a good fact (I assume, and thinks, that’s reality). If TAXUD would come up with monetary amounts that 80% account for in the grand scheme of things, that’d be nice. If their report could get into who funds the manufacturing, that’d be nice. If it gets into who is smuggling, that’d be nice. Who is consuming? Like drugs, society should target supply, demand, and distribution. China is a cheap source of manufacturing, so I believe that’s a large reason for why a lot is made in China. Not to excuse China, however. My point is that it is more generic than a country problem.
I think your comment #4 was “grounded.”
If the criticism is made with intent to help the world understand the entire problem, then it is “fair.” If it is half truths (about certain country), then it is not only unfair, I actually think there is less motivation to solve the whole problem. For example, if the demand and distribution side is not squashed, it could move to a different country. Then the problem remains.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:25 am
@ Dewang #65: Hi Dewang~
Based on my own experience, I would not say that statement “the American thinks the piracy problem exists largely in China and not in the U.S.. Why is that?” is believed by most Americans. It depends on what you consider piracy. If you’re looking at pirated software, I rarely see it in the States but saw it all the time in China. I nearly had a meltdown when I found a good friend of mine in Shanghai was using a pirated version of XP. I bought the real thing, installed in in their computer and showed them how to automatically update. I saw pirated software all over the place. So for that one, I’d say it is not a problem in the States but a huge problem in China back then. I believe it is considerably less of a problem these days as the government cracked down on a lot of it, especially the OS piracy.
Music piracy? I’d say most Americans I know think it’s a bigger problem in the States than in China. CDs are so cheap in China that music piracy seemed to be lower there. However, those CDs are mostly pirated copies from what I saw, even in legitimate shops and not just on the street. With DVD movies, I’d say that most Americans only know that you can get cheap DVDs in Chinese stores. They know this from friends who’ve been to China and bought them over there so their impression is that it’s a larger problem in China.
In the US, movie piracy is mostly a P2P thing, either BitTorrent or for the amateurs, LimeWire. So I’d guess most Americans who even have an opinion about piracy in China (most have no idea about it) would guess Americans pirate more from the net and Chinese more from hard DVD copies. I’d say the main reason Chinese use hard copies is that 1) pirated DVDs are so much cheaper and more available and 2) not many Chinese have broadband internet to download movies in a reasonable amount of time. Overall, I’d definitely say the overall piracy problem among the consumer is greater in China, based on what I saw.
If you look at clothing, consumer products, copyrighted items, etc. there is much more piracy in China. It’s not even close.
However, I don’t want to paint the Chinese consumer as the bad guy in all of this. Consumer wise, I don’ think Chinese are any different than anyone else. I remember at one Semicon China show in Shanghai, one of the US manufacturers sent a woman to represent them. I barely saw her the entire time; she was so intent on buying fake Rolexes, Louis Vuitton bags, etc. I wasn’t into fake goods but hell, I certainly bought DVDs when I was there. I bought them in a regular store but the DVDs were definitely bogus, since the bottom half of the movie description on the back was never for the movie on the cover. I never saw an non-pirated DVD available for sale.
I don’t think the argument of buying pirated products because of not being able to afford a product is valid. I love to sail but can’t afford a sailboat, therefore I don’t have a sailboat. Some things are just not affordable so we all do without. I also don’t buy the “it costs $20 in the US which converted to RMB would be out of most people’s reach” since the actual price would not be the US equivalent. Overhead is lower and prices reflect local markets. But if the price was 35 RMB for the official movie and that put it out of many people’s price range, so be it. It’s not a human right to be able to afford DVDs.
Music is different. The music companies, when facing much lower costs for CDs compared to traditional vinyl, colluded to keep prices high and customers found they had bought the album, then the analog CD and then the digital CD, basically paying three times for the same music. People got fed up, the industry did not embrace digital music (with the iTunes exception) and lost the opportunity to take advantage of changing technology. Now the cat is out of the bag and the value of music is no longer high enough to justify the prices they are charging. The market for legal digital music is already huge but the tendency towards pirated music is also huge.
I think music and movies get the most publicity but more is being lost in China from IP protection and consumer products. The situation in China is in no way comparable with what I see in the States; it’s much more prolific. Taiwan isn’t as bad as China but still far worse than the States. I didn’t much piracy in Japan.
You live in the Bay Area so your circle of friends is more familiar with China than most other parts of the country, but I have a hard time believing that they don’t believe there is much piracy in the States. I’d bet most of them have BitTorrent on their computers. 😛
October 20th, 2009 at 3:47 am
@dewang #64, @S.K. Cheung #59, @Steve
My bad, in #50. I erred when I wrote Page #17. I did note it correctly in #61, when I wrote:
“So, I wondered, just how many Chinese have access to DVD players. And I know that Schwabach’s MPA stats on page 18 state a loss per capita in the US of $9.30 and China at $2.07. …”
You wrote in #64:
Sorry for the initial error. Your list (above) only shows American movies which have been pirated globally. Below is the second list showing all movies on Page 18 of 23 (page 19 by PDF count). Please note the difference. You should have seen this. That is why I originally asked if you had really read this study. 😉 😛 I don’t think you are very familiar with all the contents of this study. Please allow me to remind you that you are the one who posted this link. BTW, perhaps next time you might do a search, using ctrl-f and searching on “$2.689”. Just a suggestion. 😀
At this point, let me remind you what I pondered above in #61, regarding the Chinese total piracy and per capita piracy. It was in response to a statement you made in #58:
October 20th, 2009 at 4:15 am
I believe 99% Malaysian except the corporate sector use pirated software. The reason is enforcement. However if everyone have to use original software including computer and games, then there is less than 2% of the population that could afford it. Case in reference: PSP and PS3 cost 800 and 1200, one game cost 150 to 200, Netbook and notebook cost 1500 to 3000, the basic software cost around minimum 1500. Meaning to say the common folk has no point to buy desktop, netbook, notebook and console because the software is double and triple the price. Would the business world is that naïve?
I tend to develop the thought that “copyright” is merely a show, a weapon of negotiation and concession for other more pertinent issue when dealing with government in developing country.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:47 am
@dewang #64
You responded in #64 to SK:
“agree with your logic. Except Schwabach makes a connection to China. Again, I asked, what conclusion is Jerry or are you trying to draw with the BSA report?”
Conclusions? None. I am just expanding the picture, pointing out that the BSA study reports on an even larger IP piracy problem globally and in China. Expansion is different than extrapolation, which is educated (at times, at times not) guessing.
Dewang, you wrote:
Really, dewang, you should read these things occasionally. The subject was the Pew survey. I have little quarrel with the size of the random sample for the China survey; actually, SK had some reservations. My issue was that the surveying group, Horizon Market Research, did not randomly sample the whole population of China. They randomly sampled only 42% of the population of China. Pew noted:
To be honest, I wonder just how thorough and how scientific you are, dewang. A scientist looks at all the evidence, not just that which pleases himself/herself.
Maybe I should just drag out Richard Feynman one more time. He is getting so tired of having to repeat himself.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:50 am
To Dewang #64:
“the scope of the problem is even worse in the U.S., and therefore it matters in how China is criticized.” — I’ll settle for China deserving to be criticized for her piracy shortcomings. The how is in the eyes of the beholder. And on that latter aspect, we can each say what we want.
“What you said is also technically true. But in my opionion, in reality, what Dobbs does is propaganda. ” — you are of course entitled to your opinion. I’ll settle for what makes logical sense.
“what conclusion is Jerry or are you trying to draw with the BSA report?” — check out the table near the end. As I already alluded to, in total dollars, US is #1, and CHina is #2. I’ve even mentioned previously that we’ve heard this tune before (ie. same rank order as Schwabach’s own numbers for movies).
“Schwabach makes a connection to China.” — I would hope so, since we’re talking about CHina. And same goes for the BSA report.
“because I tried to argue China is UNFAIRLY targetted by western politicians ” — and when China is #2 even according to Schwabach, I’d say you’re looking pretty hard for unfairness.
“reaction to Jerry attacking some stats at another thread about Chinese population surveyed showing they were satisfied with the Chinese government.” — yes, but on that survey, it was a random sample of 42% of the population, which, if you think about it, isn’t even a random sample. And to compare the sample size of a study/survey looking at population A being posed a question A, with the sample size of a different study looking at a different population and evaluating a different question/hypothesis, then to use the relative sample sizes as somehow showing one study to be superior to another…would leave me speechless.
“Why try to be “scientific” there and not here?” — Jerry and I aren’t being selectively scientific. It would go against my upbringing, and by virtue of how Jerry writes, likely his as well. As I’ve said already, a small sample size doesn’t make a study “unscientific”. It affects the size of the confidence intervals on either side of the point estimate. It’s a limitation of a study, which is not the same as unscientific. If you want unscientific, try comparing the sample size of that survey vs the BSA report, and concluding one study to be superior to another.
“And I’d rather stick with this thread – which the article Raj featured is about.” — you might want to check out Raj #62 to know what his intent was for this thread.
To Rhan #73:
it does seem ridiculous if hardware and software are priced in such a way that only 2% of the population can afford them, as you suggest. I’m not sure how distributors plan to make money if their maximal market penetration is 2%, unless the Malaysian market is ginormous and 2% still represents a huge number of units sold.
That said, it becomes a question of whether computer use is a right or privilege. Though in this day and age, it may be more pertinent to view computer usage as a necessity or a luxury item. It’s probably a privilege and a necessity, so it probably behooves distributors to make it more accessible to the masses, or else give justification to people getting it by hook or crook. However, that latter stance is also a slippery slope. You could probably use similar justification for robbery, or violence against women. So obviously, there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed. The question is where that line should be. 98% of the population using bootlegged hardware and software is probably off-side of that line.
“I tend to develop the thought that “copyright” is merely a show, a weapon of negotiation and concession for other more pertinent issue when dealing with government in developing country.” — you make it sound like “copyright” is a tool that belongs to government. But I don’t think governments have a copyright to very much at all. It’s usually private enterprise who make such things which require such protection. And if you were the owner/creator of such original content/concept/technology, you would probably hold it in higher esteem than just quaint window-dressing.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:53 am
@Rhan: “However if everyone have to use original software including computer and games, then there is less than 2% of the population that could afford it.”
I agree completely. Morally, I don’t agree with piracy, but I wonder how realistic it actually is to expect people not to buy computers because they shouldn’t use pirated stuff. Whether software is overpriced or not is an interesting question to consider – I don’t want to get into that debate, or the one about piracy in general… 😉
Piracy was really rampant when I grew up. In Europe, during the late 80s and early 90s, the C64 and Amiga were really big computers and the game industry was booming (in the US, the situation was different). The industry was just getting to know the problem, and began lobbying the government to beef up the laws. I’m mentioning this because nobody would say that “if Sweden wants to become a first-world country, it really must protect intellectual property rights better.”
My main worry about piracy in China is all the security issues it creates. I always dread having to help friends with Windows issues they have because they’re using pirated versions of the OS (or other programs). And oh, I shouldn’t forget to mention that peddlers of pirated goods are everywhere – I pass two women every day on my way to work, with children in their arms, who want to sell stuff to me. It’s a complex social issue as well.
October 20th, 2009 at 5:09 am
@ Jerry, SKC & Dewang: My comments in #71 were based on my own experiences in China, Taiwan and the States. You all have been going back and forth about studies done by Schwabach, BSA reports, PEW surveys, etc. So I have a question:
If pirated goods are illegal, then how can anyone know what the actual value would be? The manufacturers aren’t saying, the vendors aren’t saying and the buyers aren’t saying. Where do they come up with these numbers? How can anyone know the value of ILLEGAL, off the books transactions? Just wondering…
October 20th, 2009 at 6:08 am
To Steve:
probably one big guess. They’d have to estimate the prevalence of any given form of piracy, which is what those studies are trying to show. Using that percentage, and knowing how many units were sold legally, they would arrive at the number of units pirated. They’d then multiply that number by the retail price of each unit to get a ‘total amount”. The things they’d know for sure are the number sold legally, and the retail price. They’d also be assuming that every unit pirated would have become a unit sold in the absence of piracy, which is a ridiculous assumption.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Hi Steve,
Thx for sharing your views, #71. I messed up my question. Please see my comment #58 (to Jerry about movie piracy) – I really meant to ask if you thought Americans believed movie piracy was disproportionately a problem in China and not the U.S.. I agree with your assessment on what’s reality both on counterfeit DVD and on-line streaming forms comparing China with the U.S..
No disagreement there about piracy. Stealing is stealing. No excuse for it.
Hi Jerry,
You are right, I didn’t read the report thoroughly. But, trust me, I ctrl-f’ed and searched for “2.689.” The figure as turns out were in millions, and the entry was “2,689.” I just verified. Anyways, my fault, still for not reading it fully.
Hi S.K. Cheung, also,
On the fairness question:
Logically, the major component for China’s $2.689 billion would have to be Chinese movies. Let’s assume Americans care deeply about Chinese pirating Chinese movies as much as they care about X-Men and other Hollywood movies (insanely hard to imagine, but let’s assume). For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say, China and U.S. are equals in how bad they are movie pirates.
Based on my personal observation in the U.S., Americans generally believe China has a disproportionately larger movie piracy than the U.S.. What do you think accounts for this phenomenon?
Hi Jerry, again
Regarding your theoretical extrapolation – you need to account for a rising disposable income as China grows 8-10% each year. If Americans is an example of what people become, then it’s probably safe to assume the per capita piracy should be the same, as China catches up to the U.S. per capita GDP some day. Chinese will pirate even more Chinese movies because the Chinese movie industry is increasingly more competitive vs. hollywood. I doubt Hollywood making Chinese language movies any time soon.
Hi Steve, #77
In general, you look at the Total Market for a country. Let’s say for American movies, you look at number of people who can afford and willing to pay for a movie ticket or dvd in China. Let’s say, its 0.5% of the population. You can then come up with some projection on what kind of revenue you can get.
Now, you look your actual revenue from China. The net is roughly the impact of piracy.
This is not exact and if you are BSA or MPA, you exaggerate the heck out of these projections – as FOARP in comment #40 provided further infos for. Remember, its Hollywood optimistically “guessing” how much the Chinese like Dirty Harry, Sex in the City, X-Men, etc..
October 20th, 2009 at 7:22 am
SKC#75
Malaysia GDP per capita is around USD 8,000. Average salary per month for a fresh graduate is around USD 400 to USD 500. Car is a necessity and selling price for the cheapest brand is around USD 14k, more than two years of salary. I cite car is to portray this necessity occupied a big chunk of our income and I believe the same happen in most developing countries. Notebook plus software would cost around a minimum of USD 1k to 2k, and base on this price compare to our income, computer would become a privilege. Unless we don’t need any upgrade for the next 5 years but I think this is not how the E&E and IT business model work. Hence our government and relevant business would from time to time make some announcement on important of license software but enforcement is mainly done on corporate (this explain the slippery slope as distributor income is mainly from corporate), I think China is the same right?
“I don’t think governments have a copyright ” – I seem to have the impression that the bilateral talk between government always touch on this issue but I am not too sure.
“if you were the owner” – If I am the owner, I might look at the big picture and long term. The moment this 3 billion Asian has no problem to adopt the “western” culture including song, movie, gaming and whatever as part of their life, I will make more eventually. Is this not what in “their” mind and did right now?
October 20th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Hi Wukailong, Rhan,
I believe if China can crack down on SW piracy completely, that’d do wonders for China’s domestic SW industry.
Bill Gates was on an interview once – maybe Charlie Rose. He said, “if you can’t stop piracy, you want them to pirate your software.”
My view is businesses in China are largely legit. Pirated SW’s are probably plagued with viruses. Once the Chinese consumers start entering their credit info to shop, they will think deeply about pirated versions of Windows XP, etc..
October 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10378654-261.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
Here’s an interesting article of the losing battle of the Hollywood industry due to piracy and it is only matter of time when the dvd industry will go down just like the days of the cd.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I’ve read through some of the earlier comments. Dewang has alleged that I have unfairly criticised the Chinese government, without saying why. This is strange as the only view I offered on the Chinese government was to say that it needs to keep up with the increasing demands of Chinese business to take action against companies that violate IPR. I’m not sure how that is an unfair comment.
Dewang also complained that I had not set my article in “context” by talking about other countries and piracy. As SKC said, I wasn’t making a comparison between China and other countries. This is a blog about China, not global affairs. If I can’t write an article on how far the Northern Ireland peace process has come (I’m sure that if I linked it to something in China like Tibet I would be accused of being a China-basher/gloating), why do I have to write a mini-essay on the problems in every country other than China before I talk about the state of affairs in China, or make a pointless throw-away comment that China isn’t the only country with a problem? I don’t.
There is nothing that I discussed that China cannot take action over. The first news article that I linked to discussed Chinese and foreign companies working together against other Chinese companies (websites) that break IPR. In such a situation there is no impedient to this other than the law. So what may or may not happen in other countries does not affect the discussion.
pug_ster
Thanks for the interesting article. I think DVDs will survive, at least until movies can be accessed much more easily on demand through the TV (and I mean all the movies, not just the big blockbusters).
Sometimes I think there’s a bit too much hysteria about downloadable content – CDs aren’t dead (I know as I’ve bought many in the past year). I doubt books will die off either. The kindle is a smart toy, but there’s something nice about collecting books and reading them. Also from what I’ve seen the kindle’s screen is smaller than most pages in books.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
@dewang #79, @S.K. Cheung #78, @Steve #77
Dewang, my bad for suggesting the search on “2.689”; it should have been “2.689”. Sorry.
Look, dewang, I am Jewish. My people, Russian Jews, suffered for many centuries from the acts of hatred at the hands of gentile Russians. Lies, Judeophobia, anti-Semitism, murders of Jews, destruction of our farms and property, you name it, they were all commonplace for more generations of my family and fellow Russian Jews than I care to account for. We somehow managed to make it through all of that and the discrimination we found in the US. Thank god my grandfather moved to the US.
I can easily imagine that all of the biases and injustices against Chinese people, now and in the past, bother and hurt you and other Chinese people.
If you would like to talk more about this off-line, please feel free to contact me. At this time, I really don’t want to keep going on about the Sinophobia issue with you online; I prefer offline. I think you already have the email address. I am on the list.
####
Steve,
I have struggled with this for years. Most studies/surveys/polls, if not all, make certain underlying assumptions. These assumptions are necessary to conduct the study. Therein lies the rub and one of the major weaknesses in any study/survey/poll.
The best I can say is that we learn and move on. Furthermore, certainty and clarity are only momentary at best, maybe illusionary, IMHO. And control is a major league illusion. Life is messy. And the real world is very chaotic, complex and unpredictable.
I was at msft long before the BSA started their annual studies. I have always had reservations about BSA methodology. If you remember, I stated in #50:
“He ignores BSA’s numbers on software piracy of $53 billion (BSA’s methodology makes me think the numbers are a bit less)”
Their methodology involves more estimation than I would like; you can see for yourself in their Methodology section. Yes, it is less than perfect. But it may be the most pragmatic and practical way to get an estimate at this point in time. And I know that they subject every study to a post mortem. For instance, in the Methodology section of the 2008 study, they admit to mistakes in 2007 and mention the corrections they made.
All of that said, I take all studies with a grain of salt. And then maybe a few more grains. And that goes for most medical studies, political polls, economic and scientific studies. I always am asking, “What are we missing?”
Life is messy. Life is complex.
BSA, MPA, MPAA, Pew and others provide us with a perspective into an issue. There is a lot of room for error.
October 20th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
To Dewang #79:
“Americans generally believe China has a disproportionately larger movie piracy than the U.S.. What do you think accounts for this phenomenon?” — as Steve has suggested in #71, your personal observation may or may not reflect the actual state of affairs. But if true, as I suggested previously, I have no explanation for that apparent phenomenon.
To Rhan #80:
I guess Malaysian distributors must really have to fleece their corporate clients in order to make money, backed by government willingness to enforce licensing rights. Perhaps government is much less willing to enforce such rights with private consumers. Probably the politically expedient way to go. Not sure what way there is around what is really a social problem. Maybe the distributors need to sell their products at “more affordable” prices in exchange for government exerting some enforcement of licensing rights on private users, plus some controls to restrict the export of “gray market” goods that FOARP has alluded to.
“I seem to have the impression that the bilateral talk between government always touch on this issue but I am not too sure.” — I agree. But my understanding is that government isn’t standing up for their own copyrights; they’re standing up for the copyrights belonging to companies in their country, who are their constituents.
“The moment this 3 billion Asian has no problem to adopt the “western” culture including song, movie, gaming and whatever as part of their life, I will make more eventually.” — I think the willingness to adopt “the culture” already exists; it’s the willingness (and perhaps ability) to pay for the manifestations of that culture that is lagging behind. And it may well make good business sense to settle for less profit per unit sold in exchange for many more units sold, and hence bigger net profits. However, that’s a decision for the copyright holders to make. But the absence of such a change in business model should not be carte blanche for stealing.
To Raj #83:
“I think DVDs will survive, at least until movies can be accessed much more easily on demand through the TV (and I mean all the movies, not just the big blockbusters).” — I don’t know what broadcast TV is like in Britain, but in Canada, broadcast HD is only 720p. So blu-ray still offers advantages that cannot be met by anything on demand.
October 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
@Raj 83,
I never said that CD’s and DVD’s for that matter are dead. It is just that CD sales are on the decline because people can download the songs from the internet instead. Now the DVD sales are following the same trend. The Music industry consolidated as a result of the decline of CD sales and have to make revenue by selling digital version of music online. The movie industry have to adapt also, as they should be selling the digital version of their movies before sites like hulu, torrents eat their sales.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
SKC (85)
When I talked about TVs I was thinking more about the future.
pug_ster (86)
*Sigh*
I didn’t accuse you of saying any of those things. Didn’t you notice that’s what the article says and you summarised it as saying?
October 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Hi Raj,
Yes, I was indeed critical of your criticism for not having context. S.K. Cheung made a defense for you in his comment #34:
“But if context is the new threshold, then I would expect you to be right there to raise objections whenever someone complains about this “western media” thing without enumerating the issues that beset the Chinese version thereof.”
There was some legitimacy to that, and I thought you’d be happy.
Hey, you featured a story about videos. You are contributing (in my view) towards this “unfairness” Jerry, S.K. Cheung and I have been going back and forth dozens of times about.
So, one camp believes there is unfairness towards China on this topic and another don’t. And that’s where we are.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Hi Jerry, S.K. Cheung,
Fair enough. I am tired of this topic too. And thx for your perspectives.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
dewang (88)
Thanks for completely ignoring my comment #83.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
@ pug_ster, Raj, et al: There is a recent development in digital music that for me, means the end of the CD in the not too distant future and that is the use of “lossless compression”.
If you buy a song compressed to an MP3, regardless of bit rate, you lose data from the original .wav file so if you reconstitute the music to .wav, you’ve lost information and audio quality. The newer compressions such as FLAC are lossless, so nothing is lost in compression that can’t be reconstituted in a .wav format. On top of that, the sound quality is comparable to .wav using high end equipment and you are still able to cut out about 1/3 of the file size.
What makes this viable is the enormous increase in hard drive size along with decrease in price for that memory. The current iPod Classic has 160 GB memory for $249. Computers are coming with terabyte drives. Memory is cheap and plentiful. If broadband speeds continue to increase and become more available to more people, the need for CDs will dwindle. Even now, brick and mortar stores carrying CDs are becoming a thing of the past. For the people who choose not to download music and want something in their hand, they’ll always be Amazon.com.
Movies won’t be much further behind. Downloading a Blu-Ray movie might take 1.5 GB which for memory is no problem but current download speeds are still slow for that file size. As those speeds increase so will this method of purchase. However, as upload speeds increase with broadband connections, so will the ease of downloading Blu-Ray movies using programs like BitTorrent.
That’s why I agree with pug_ster’s CNET article. The cat’s already out of the bag and it isn’t going to change in the near future. China’s piracy is still based primarily on hard copies but as their infrastructure develops, they’ll also move towards a more digital world.
The movie industry has already realized that selling movies in theaters isn’t a good long term approach. What they’re doing now is creating a movie going “experience” that includes much plusher seating, call buttons with in seat service, meals with beer and wine, etc. They already realize they can’t compete with home entertainment centers if they only show movies in cheap seats with self serving Coke, popcorn and candy. I was at a Lotto multiplex in Seoul with 36 seats in one of their theaters, all plush Barcalounger style with the electrically raised footrests, tables for food and drink (including wine) and the back row were love seats for couples. It cost more but the food and drink were included and the experience was very enjoyable.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
@Steve,
The problem is that most people can’t tell the difference between an mp3’s lossy compression and a flac file. Even if you had used a flac file, it would be useless because Ipod’s sound quality is not as good compared to a better sounding media players like the new sansa’s.
Blue ray quality movies are not 1.5gb’s rather they are at least 5gb+. So people might have the incentive to buy blue rays because they are 1080p’s and the price of bdr’s (blue ray recordables) are not cheap. Netflix and blockbuster are already coming out with the broadband media players and I think the Movie companies are already missing the boat.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Hi Raj,
Sorry if you thought I ignored your comments. I’ll buy the lollipop next time. Bash me hard on your follow-up if you like – I’ll remain hush.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
@ pug_ster #92: Thanks for the corrections. You can obviously tell I don’t own a Blu-Ray player. Like you, I also think the movie companies are missing the boat. 😛
I wasn’t just talking about iPods or other portable players, even with better earbuds or headphones. I was thinking more about home systems where the sound quality difference is noticeable between MP3 and FLAC so high end stuff. I use a Sony Walkman MP3 player at the gym because I like the very small size and sound quality, but the first thing I did after purchasing was to replace the earbuds with higher quality ones. Even so, there’s not much low end available.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:39 am
Just a few comments on CD, DVD, and new technology.
I have been reading the discussion on CD and DVD technology, and the state and future state of their marketing. Along with a discussion of new and impending replacement technology. I am reminded of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva (plus his goddess girlfriend, Kali), the gods of creation, preservation and destruction. The cycle of life. I am also reminded of black & white CRT TVs, reel-to-reel tape recorders, color CRT TVs, 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, Betamax, VHS, dial-up modems, laserdiscs, CDs, DVDs, cable modems, LED flat panel TVs, just to name a few things I have owned and used. Hell, when I was a kid, we did not have a color TV, cable TV, cellular phones, CD players, GMOs and PCs, just to name a few. My grandfather owned the first transistor radio. I thought it was cool. I remember when monaural sound was the only game in town. Things come and things go.
I am also amused at the forecasts, in pug_ster’s link and in the posts. We humans are amazing inertial, linear, short-sighted beasts. It is no surprise to me that we humans tend to engage in static, inertial, linear analysis and modeling. Well, nature and life tend to choose their own paths, in spite of our best attempts. Put something into play and sure enough, the game is on. And it usually doesn’t follow a straight line and usually involves complex interactions, sometimes way beyond anything we could foresee.
This is precisely why they don’t award the World Series Championship to the NY Yankees every April. Yeah, the Yanks look so overpowering on paper, almost every year. Unfortunately, it does not often work out that way during the regular season and the playoffs. That is why they play the game.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:08 am
Hi Steve,
standard rewritable DVD’s hold about 4.76 GB. But movies on standard DVD typically have slightly more data than that.
By comparison, blu rays hold at least 25 GB.
BTW, i thought the hard-core audiophiles still prefer vinyl.
To Jerry,
ahhhh, betamax. My parents used to have one of those bad boys…they chose poorly and backed the wrong horse, and eventually had to cave and get the VHS. That experience would probably be akin to the poor saps who are the unfortunate owners of HD-DVD machines these days.
I’ve yet to experience LED TV’s…but then I’ve never been one of those early adopter types anyhow.
To Dewang:
I think if someone were to criticize China, that criticism should be legitimate. If someone were to couch their criticism in some type of context, that context should be legitimate. That’s probably as much as one can expect to ask for. To require that others frame their criticisms in the same way you would is going to be a pretty fruitless exercise.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:20 am
@ SKC: Thanks for the specifics on data size for DVDs. Even if Blu-ray movies are 30 GB each, a multi-terabyte drive would be more than enough. Again, it’d be dependent on download speeds rather than memory capacity.
Actually, only audiophiles who don’t really understand music prefer vinyl. What they consider “warm” sound is actually a type of distortion. The music companies rushed out the original CDs in analog format and poor quality, so back then the poor reputation of CDs was deserved. But these days, there is no comparison. Music is recorded digitally and replayed digitally.
My uncle is an electronic engineer because back then electrical engineers worked in power and not electronics. He ran the US Army’s Electronic Warfare Laboratory’s testing arm for decades and was considered one of the most knowledgeable people in the world for his field. He is not only an audiophile, but designed and built his own amplifiers back in the ’60s and ’70s that were superior to what was then available commercially. We had a long discussion about this once and he was adamant that digital music reproduced the actual recorded sound much more accurately than vinyl ever could. Of course he had all kinds of technical reasons for that, none of which I understood, but he sure convinced me. 😛
Some “audiophiles” still prefer tubes over solid state electronics, which is kind of like preferring an icebox over a refrigerator because “the food tastes better”. A ’60 Corvette might look cool, but an ’09 Taurus can go from 0-60 MPH faster than the ‘Vette. Sometimes newer IS better, except when it comes to wives, right? 😉
October 21st, 2009 at 6:54 am
To Steve,
as you can tell, I’m no audiophile. The smaller the file size and the more songs I can cram onto an iPod, the better.
Agree about download speeds being the rate limiter. With my ISP, it’d take the better part of a week to download a blu-ray’s worth of data.
A Stingray sure looks good. But I’d prefer a Z06, or better yet, the ZR1. No way I’d be caught dead in a Taurus, EcoBoost SHO or not. BTW, that’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hi SKC~
I can tell the difference between 128 and 256 kbps on an iPod but beyond that it doesn’t really matter. On my home stereo, FLAC definitely makes a difference. I was talking about this with one of my martial arts brothers who was formerly a sound engineer and he can also tell the difference. His take was that with memory being so cheap, there was no need to conserve. Today’s iPod Classic can ‘cram’ 4000 songs in FLAC which should satisfy even audiophiles, and then they don’t have to duplicate songs in two different compression systems. With the changes in technology, I just don’t see the need for CDs in the relatively near future. Their capacity is only 700 MB which just isn’t that much.
I use cable broadband (Roadrunner) which I’ve had since 1999. Once you get it you can never go back, similar to watching TV in high def. My download speeds are fine but upload speeds leave a lot to be desired.
I’m not a car guy; my only criteria are not hearing road noise, decent suspension, the car starts when I turn the key, sunroof (in LoCal I open it over 300 days a year) and good music system. As far as I’m concerned, a Toyota Camry is as much car as I want though my wife seems to be enamored with something called a Mercedes. I think the Toyota Prius is cool. What I don’t understand is why the government, rather than use mileage ratings, just doesn’t create a weight to horsepower ratio limit to lower petroleum usage.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/business/global/19iht-windows.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Here’s an NY times article about launching of Windows 7 and piracy. No big surprises but pretty much explains the problem of selling software in China.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Hi pug_ster,
Thx for the link. It’s one of the better reports I’ve seen in relation to piracy in China.
This is why the Chinese video game companies have a completely different business model and is working in China.
I’ve mentioned previously, domestic SW like Kingsoft will benefit tremendously if China is able to stamp out software piracy. The secret, in my mind, for corporations like Microsoft, is they want piracy to be clamped down by the government, but they don’t want it to be done too hard. 🙂
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
“The secret, in my mind, for corporations like Microsoft, is they want piracy to be clamped down by the government, but they don’t want it to be done too hard.”
Software is sometimes like religion and wife, the moment we are attached to it, we rather keep it for a long time though we know it suck. Microsoft learned this secret well.
In Malaysia, most of the kids know only Microsoft products because it is FREE. When they move into working life, that’s the only software they know well. Hence if any company that may want to introduce some other software for cost reason, all this “grown up with Microsoft” kind of user will be the first to go against any changes. This is why I said that the few established software companies that cries for clamp down is merely a “show” as long as there is enforcement in corporate.
That said, I think the enforcement on non-corporate is not that easy due to restrain of resources.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hi Rhan,
Ha ha. Good point, and that’s why high schools and universities are battlegrounds for SW/computer companies too.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 am
To Pugster:
interesting article. The market pressures and pricing discrepancies are obvious, which drive people to pirated software. I suppose it’s time for more open source stuff.
To Steve:
anyone who has power to weight ratios on the brain is a car guy at heart.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@ pug_ster #100: Agree with SKC, very good article. Piracy can only be controlled, not eliminated.
@ SKC: Anyone who has power to weight ratios on the brain is a techie at heart. 😛
November 6th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@FOARP #43,
Sorry for the late response (so much to catch up after my recent trip to China).
You wrote:
Of course I am aware of the strain of thought that places morality into IP. But if you truly believe that the just desert for making intellectual discoveries and creations should be property, then you have to explain why only certain subject matters are patentable – and why IP assets like copyright and patents only last for a fixed time. If I own a property like my house, I own it indefinitely. This is not so with IP. The explanation to these limitations (subject matter, time) … can only be found in utilitarian policy – not morality.
As for plagiarism that you brought up – our disgust against it has nothing to do with ownership, but with the expectation of attribution in an academic context.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:49 am
To Allen:
Patents are of fixed duration. But as far as I know, copyrights are good forever.
You own your house indefinitely. But the “idea” of building a structure that can be construed as a house cannot be owned forever. It is a good question of why ownership of ideas is only of finite duration.
Plagiarism, in the broad sense, does involve ownership. But again, it’s not of the words themselves; it’s of certain words in a certain order that conveys a certain idea. Just as you can’t own a musical note, but you can certainly copyright a bunch of specific musical notes played in a certain unique sequence. And besides the academic context, there’s obviously a financial/monetary one.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@SKC #107,
Copyrights do not last forever. You can go look it up.
Real property rights do last indefinitely (even if the physical assets don’t). You may also look that up.
As for passing off another’s work: in academia you are not supposed to pass another’s work as your own. But otherwise there is no limit on what you can do with the idea. For example, once Einstein discovered e=mc^2, everyone can make use of that idea … without asking Einstein for permission. But you should not pretend that you discovered it instead of Einstein. The fact that you are not supposed to lie about who discovered the principle is not because Einstein owns the idea e=mc^2, it’s simply because of the norm we have developed for academic attribution. The concept e=mc^2, once discovered, is free for everyone to use!
November 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am
To Allen,
“Copyrights do not last forever.” — good to know. I’ll have to find out when the Beatles library becomes a freebie.
“Real property rights do last indefinitely” — as stipulated. My point was that you can’t own the “idea” of building a house. Just as, if I buy a CD, I own that CD, but I don’t own the music that is on that CD.
There is no limit to what you can do with (an) idea, after you’re attributed the source, especially if it’s not patentable or you choose not to obtain patent protection. That is certainly true of relativity…though maybe Einstein or his estate should have charged the Manhattan project and every other nuclear nation that came after it. However, many other ideas, be they in science or many other fields, are not free for others to use. Just ask pharmaceutical companies. Or the fact that Motorola used to have the flip phone market all to themselves once upon a time because they had the idea of using the flip mechanism to turn the phone on/off. So clearly, not all concepts/ideas are free, science or otherwise. THough I suppose not all ideas can be protected by patents/copyrights.
That said, I don’t think this thread was concerned with issues of relativity and space/time continuum.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:00 am
@Allen – So long as they are maintained and kept in use, trademarks have no time restriction, and the time-limit of copyright (70 years post-mortem of the author, or in the case of performance rights a maximum of 120 years from recording) are so long as to be practically eternal. I personally am not an advocate of moral rights in intellectual property, but I understand why they exist, and they are recognised by the legal systems of many countries. Patents do not come into this as they are entirely about innovation in science/engineering.
Therefore, for example, since 1988 the UK has recognised the rights of creators of specific types of artistic works the right to object to the way in which those artistic works have been used, although, unlike France and other droit d’auteur countries, these rights are alienable. Once again, this is not to advocate similar changes in other countries, but it is clear that in many countries, IP is not considered to be only an economic issue.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@SKC #109,
OK … I am a little lost with what we are talking about now – so I’ll courteously bow out.
@ FOARP #110,
You clarified: “it is clear that in many countries, IP is not considered to be only an economic issue.” Fair enough. I agree, in some countries, some people have elevated the issue of some type of ownership of intellectual creations to a moral plane. I can understand it, too.
Most people in all cultures and societies believe that people have a right to the fruits of their labor . This is one reason why slavery is so offensive (their labor is rarely compensated in any meaningful way). When you apply this idea to artists, intellectuals, scientists, inventors, it can morph into the idea that these people ought to have some type of ownership right over the intellectual products they achieve. There ought to be “just deserts” for artists, intellectuals, scientists, inventors. In the case of droit d’auteur, some people go further to say that philosophically an artist work is an extension of that artist’s soul…
I don’t buy that. If you are going to talk about your efforts as a medium to radiate your soul to the world, there are so many thing people do on an everyday basis (in the office at work, in the classrooms at the school, traveling at leisure) that can also be considered an extension of their soul. Yet we don’t sensitively jump around protecting all these “assets” that people leave as they travel through life. Besides, most of the major copyrighted items in dispute between China and U.S. today – movies, software – are owned by mega corporations and created by employees of mega corporations who automatically sign over any of their IP rights to their mega employer. Not sure how soulfulness applies in such contexts.
In any case, in every country, people always invoke various “moral aspects” to protecting the special interests of groups of people. It can take the form of job protection services, unemployment services, rent control, even assigning moral rights for intellectuals over their work. But these type of political moral stuff should be left to each country to decide.
In the U.S., IP – copyright, trademark, patents (but not trade secret – which is not IP per se) – are created for their utilitarian purposes. This is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It’s a form of economic management really – not unlike antitrust. Every economic region can define what is excessive market power, what is not. Every economic region should be able to define what IP policy to pursue for its economic development.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to force fit moral rights into IP regimes dispersed through countries with widely different history, culture, traditions…
Going back to technological innovations – I think that’s where the main action will be for IP. Does IP really incentivize technological innovations or not? How can IP be used to incentivize technological innovations? Trademark and copyright – they are important in their own right, but it is the hard IP that will truly determine the wealth, power, and influence of economies in the future.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Hi Allen, #111,
Very enlightening thoughts!
Regarding discovery – even in the U.S. patent law – I think its possible that if another person made the same discovery, that a previous person who have successfully obtained a patent for, and as long as he can prove he’s discovered it on his own, then he has patent protection as well. Is this true?
On morality, I have always wondered insn’t sharing whatever people find with humanity the ultimate moral thing to do rather than let that one individual try to gain “disproportionate” benefit out of it? If a patent system govern a super rich and technologically advance nation and a very very populate underdeveloped nation – will, then the underdeveloped nation will be kept further behind because of this arrangement. Just making fun of the “morality” argument I guess.
I don’t see demonstrations in the streets by the “moral” arguing people to want to give patents to poor countries.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
@dewang #112,
You wrote:
Within the same country, if a person independently makes an invention that turned out to be previously patented, the second inventor cannot get a patent for that same invention.
If however the first inventor did not file for a patent, the second inventor may or may not get a patent, depending on the circumstances. If the invention was publicly disclosed (the first inventor may have marketed the invention, discussed it in an academic journal, sold the invention, etc.), the second inventor cannot get a patent. If however the first inventor kept it as a trade secret, and never shared with the public about the invention, then the second inventor could get a patent.
[Note: in the latter case, even though the second inventor gets a patent, the first inventor may be protected from being sued by the second inventor though. As a trade secret holder (he needs to take precautions to treat the invention as a trade secret), the first inventor may be able to continue to practice his trade secret. The first inventor however would not have any power to exclude others. Only the second inventor, as a patent holder, has that right.]
As for moral rights, you raise a couple of really good points! Many developing countries have argued that patents should not be honored in countries where there are significant policy policy reasons not to do so (this is also law under an important WTO provision called TRIPs). The idea started when many in Africa and India saw prohibitive cost of HIV drugs as a hinderance to the goal of local governments to try to control spread of AIDS. But you can definitely see it as an issue between developed and developing nations in general.
The second issue relates to freedom of idea exchange. Many believe that in the aggregate IP hinders rather than promotes intellectual activities. If you think myopically, you may want to try to monetize your ideas. But when everyone does so, it becomes costly to share ideas. If you however forgo your right to monetize and monopolize your intellectual creations, and others do so too, you may find that you – plus everyone else – become so much the richer for doing so – now that ideas can be freely shared, transmitted, repackaged, etc.
Philosophically, I subscribe more to this second ideal. It’s what we do in blogs anyways. We create and share with each other – without cost. It’s what people in academia do also.
But I understand that if we are to manage the economy, the solution is probably somewhere in the middle. How can people create ideas and make a living in the same time? Does the cost of assigning property rights outweigh the benefits? What are other models? How good is public funding in incentivizing innovation? How broadly can the commons (open source software, wikipedia, etc.) ideas be pushed? What are the cultural factors behind creations of innovations – in both artistic and technical fields? Whatever the solution, we need to keep in mind what our ultimate goal is: it’s to create a public good by stimulating intellectual activities – not to serve the egoistic demands of a few.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
To Allen:
“an artist work is an extension of that artist’s soul…”
“so many thing people do on an everyday basis (in the office at work, in the classrooms at the school, traveling at leisure) that can also be considered an extension of their soul.”
— first off, I wouldn’t imagine creating a spreadsheet (or whatever else people might do at work) is much of an “artistic” endeavour. Second, if you’re doing work on behalf of an employer, and being paid by said employer, then you’ve been remunerated for the expediture of your soul, artistic or otherwise. I suppose you could negotiate with your employer to retain the rights to everything you do at work…good luck with that one. And third, there’s nothing stopping you from requesting protection for any great thoughts you might conjure up in the course of your travels. However, it might also be debatable how sought after those thoughts might be by the public at large. Can you patent something no one wants? Sure, I guess.
“Besides, most of the major copyrighted items in dispute between China and U.S. today – movies, software – are owned by mega corporations and created by employees of mega corporations who automatically sign over any of their IP rights to their mega employer. Not sure how soulfulness applies in such contexts.” — agreed. Which is why I’m not much for the “soul” argument either. But that to me doesn’t diminish ownership rights to intellectual product.
Ultimately, if China wants to say that anything put forth into public becomes the public’s domain, and the creators retain no ownership rights, that’s her choice to make. As you say, each country does what it needs to do. Whether that’s good for business, or innovation, however, is quite another story, I suspect.
To Dewang:
“I have always wondered insn’t sharing whatever people find with humanity the ultimate moral thing to do rather than let that one individual try to gain “disproportionate” benefit out of it” — if that’s what you seek, then you should first do away with all the borders in the world, and consider all people simply to be the people of the world. Then people can consider the betterment not just of their nation’s citizens, but of all the world’s citizens. Thus far, it seems China is no better at that than any other nation. “everyone shares everything” also seems reminiscent of the concept of communism with a small c.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
@SKC #114,
You wrote:
Hehe… beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The amount of effort put in by some into spreadsheet is tantamount to putting their soul into it! And truth to be told, there is art in a well-designed layout of data!
In any case, no matter what people say, we do put a lot of “soul” into our job. That’s why we feel depressed after we get a bad review … or get laid off. It’s not just about money. It’s about our self worth. Also – each of us spend more time at work than any other specific task throughout our life. Spending that much time doing one thing has to affect our “soul” somehow… I don’t know…
November 7th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Hi Allen,
Thx for explaining the “second inventor” idea for me.
“But I understand that if we are to manage the economy, the solution is probably somewhere in the middle.”
Agreed.
Hi S.K. Cheung also,
““everyone shares everything” also seems reminiscent of the concept of communism with a small c.”
There was a lesson in that, and I think this lesson has been learned by the Chinese. With the “West”, I am not so sure yet. 🙂
“. . . you should first do away with all the borders in the world, and consider all people simply to be the people of the world. Then people can consider the betterment not just of their nation’s citizens, but of all the world’s citizens. ”
I dream some day humanity can actually achieve this.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
There is also the separate issue of who is the inventor in the case where one person is the first to start work on an invention but another person independent of the first makes the application first. This then becomes a matter of evidence as to who first properly conceived of the invention, who reduced the invention to practice first, whether one of them at any point set aside his work, etc. etc. and thus becomes an incredibly complicated case in which the main winners are the patent lawyers. I much prefer the ‘first to file’ system which is used in most countries but not in the United States, as it is far simpler and delivers far greater certainty.
The refusal to supply IP on reasonable terms and the abusive of IP to monopolise markets beyond the scope of the what IP should cover is one which many economies have grappled with, the European Union’s competition authorities especially. Whilst in the past pharmaceuticals companies have been relatively immune, cases like the AstraZeneca patent abuse case, and the European Commission’s current investigation into the pharmaceuticals industry as a whole, show that more harsh measures are being used. Fortunately the WTO allows countries where certain pharmaceuticals are beyond the reach of the population to manufacture generics, or have generics manufactured in a third country, so long as the rights holder is compensated and so long as the generics are solely for domestic use and not for export.
And once again Allen, these arguments are all well and good, but they are not really germane to the issue of copyright piracy in China, where China has stood accused of not fulfilling its treaty obligations under TRIPS. The WTO case settled most of this though.
November 9th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
@FOARP #117,
Agreed. IP disputes should be settled through the WTO.
We went into a tangent partly in response to some people framing IP issues as a morality issues.
I responded that IP issue, at its most essence, should be an economics issue – and provided the background law for support.
I agree that we should choose to settle IP disputes between nations through the WTO. But the fact that IP disputes can be settled through the WTO should not mean that each nation should be blind to evaluating how its IP regime is helping (or hurting as the case may be) the country’s development. Yes – IP policy does impact trade, but it can also simultaneously impact the economic growth (including innovations growth) of a nation (it may hinder as well as promote). I prefer to view IP through both lens (as I mentioned in #39).
November 9th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@Allen – My hope is that in the future a better dispute resolution mechanism is adopted. At the moment even if a country is found to have failed to live up to it obligations, all that is done is to grant the complainant country licence to break the rules to the original transgressor’s detriment. A system in which the affected citizens are allowed to sue the government of the other through its national court under a narrow set of economic rights granted under the treaty would be the ideal.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Here is something else
“China orders Microsoft to halt some Windows sales”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/China-orders-Microsoft-to-rb-1144743308.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=