The International Federation for the Phonographic Industry, an organization with an antiquated name at the very least, has announced that it will file suit against Yahoo! China for copyright infringement under a new law that came into effect in China this weekend. The Federation says that around 90% of all music sold in China is pirated and Yahoo! China includes links to unaffiliated sites selling pirated music. The whole thing leaves a terrible taste in my mouth.
When Yahoo! handed over information on a number of dissidents and reporters to the Chinese government, it said it was just following local laws. Those individuals faced serious consequences. If international pressure is able to change Chinese law, those are the laws that should have been changed – not laws seeking to enforce a false scarcity over an ephemeral product like digital music.
When Google lost its appeal in a French court last week and was ruled guilty for including search results for counterfeit Louis Vuitton hand bags, most international observers thought it indicated an unrealistic and anti-American sentiment in France. For some reason intellectual property infringement in music is taken far more seriously. I hope people will think about the international politics at issue in the Yahoo! China case as well.
Specifically, it indicates a serious misplacement of priorities by US influence wielders. Trying to change 90% of any practice seems like tilting at windmills to me, so I have a hard time believing that pressuring China to stop persecuting electronic dissidents isn’t happening because it’s unrealistic. I think we all know why there aren’t serious resources invested in such a campaign – but I don’t know how much profit there was to be made in challenging apartheid South Africa, either.
Estimating damages from such practices in the developing world seems unrealistic, as it’s hard to imagine that most pirated goods would be bought at full market value if pirated alternatives were unavailable. Having read about highly militarized raids on the producers of pirated movies in the developing world, tying this case into larger questions of IP law like drug patents (lobbyists tie them together) and thinking about that number – 90% – really makes me think that some other business model other than scarcity has got to emerge around fluid commodities like digital music. For a good read on these topics, I recommend Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy.
Of all the laws to change in China, what a shame this is the one that international influence worked its power on. What will Yahoo! Music do? They weren’t willing to challenge Chinese law on human rights, will they do so when it comes to search results and listings? If it makes sense for Yahoo! to change their practices in China, does it make sense for Google to change its practices in France? What does this mean for search?
Marshall,
Ever heard of human rights in Guantanamao?
Always the same, trying to say everything in China is wrong, and all other countries are wrong if they don’t follow the US view of democracy.
What does it mean for search – hopefully a broadening out of players and no US domination in what shoudl become a commodity industry.
Remeber George has access to every email and every phonecall you make.
I completely agree with you, Marshall. This is ridiculous. The US government seems to care more about its entertainment industry’s profits than anything else. Threatening Russia’s seat in the WTO is another example of this ridiculous, obsessive, irrational, crazy behaviour. If the entertainment industries in other English-speaking nations develope, Hollywood and the RIAA will lose their sway and people won’t care if someone’s going to sue you if share a certain song, they’ll just avoid those songs. Even artists are becoming wise and taking matters into their own hands. These guys (RIAA, MPAA) are digging their own graves. I’m afraid the only way they’re going to learn their lesson and get it is this way… the hard way.
My friend Derek has bookmarked this post on digg: Yahoo China Sued Under Brand New Copyright Law
@ tino: You’ve got that right. All of this is only going to lead to the US losing its place as the king-pin in many industries including music and movies.
i guess the question is, what can U.S. citizens do to pressure corporations and politicians to stop supporting horrible regimes with horrible laws?
think Reagan and Saddam. Think Reagan and his support for apartheid South Africa, vetoing an embargo bill against South Africa (which was overruled by Congress), among other dastardly doings.
Before everyone goes off on a tangent into politics. This is a business case first and foremost..a law was passed in china and it is being used to protect ip. More of this needs to happen. There is close to zero enforcement by the govt to prevent ip theft and piracy, so little by little laws need to be enforced so this changes.
getreal: You’re right,in some sense, this is a business case. You’re also right that little is done to enforce ip-protections (until someone sues, at least.) But, in my opinion, you are completely wrong in thinking that the govt -should- enforce the now-artificial scarcity of distribution. Media companies used to be able to inflate the price of entertainment because the manufacturing and distribution of records/tapes/cds/etc.. was a (somewhat) expensive process. It was as scarce as they wanted it to be. Now, with the ubiquitous network and computers, those costs are effectivly nil.
Media companies are just that: media companies… they make their money by manufacturing and distributing media (cds/dvds.) The actual generation of IP/Entertainment is a small, and generally unprofitable part of their business. They try to prop up the old business by using their vast reserves of cash to buy laws to postpone the creation of more relevant methods of doing business (by other people, not under their control.)
It is not in the interest of the public, and thus the govt, to enforce such a wasteful thing as artificial scarcity.
分享是互联网的精髓。
I predicted this would happen
Nice post! But by the way, the logo you put up isn’t for Yahoo! China, instead it’s for Yahoo! Hong Kong.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
What is EFF?
EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people — lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries — working to protect your digital rights. Visit their site, comment on thier blog, use their icons on your blog, click on the “Call Congress now-Stop the Surveilaance Bills!” icon to send a letter to your representatives. Read “Bloggers Rights”. The site covers up to the minute court cases on privacy, intellectual property, fair use & DRM, file sharing, bloggers rights, international laws and e-voting.
In reference to the july 3 post of “Digital Music the Future” I suggest visiting Kembrew@kembrew.com Professor Kembrew McLeod is considered an expert in the field of intellectual property and his book, “Freedom of Expression® Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity”, deals with copyright and music sampling. And yes he did register “Freedon of Expression®” to prove a point for the book.
Visit me when you can, Sue
Our product line covers:
Cordless phone batteries, toys batteries, digital camera batteries, Mp3 batteries, Mp4 batteries, electric shaver batteries, DVD batteries, consumer batteries, rapid charge batteries, solar power batteries etc.
Also covers battery charger, battery chargers, chargers, ultra rapid chargers, charger, ultra rapid charger
I think China will become a capitalist country just like the Czech Republic did. Through a silent revolution