15 ms·

I'm not opposed to this. I'm opposed to the West imposing its IP regime on the world. I'm supportive of Western copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secre

by blagie 5y ago

I'm not opposed to this. I'm opposed to the West imposing its IP regime on the world. I'm supportive of Western copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets in the US and Western Europe. However, the concept of IP ownership -- let alone specifics of how its structured -- are a cultural and human construct. Other countries should be free to figure out other ways of doing this. Very little of this existed prior to around 1700. It's a relatively recent construct too (although there are some historical parallels). I'm not at all convinced we'll make much progress as society if we impose our values on everyone, and expect everyone to behave the same way. There are fundamentals and externalities -- the war on Ukraine is wrong, and we should intervene. However, on something like having IP law, let alone breaking it up into copyrights/patents/trademarks, let alone stating durations and contexts of all of those, this just seems like overreach. I feel like this is one of those places where corporate lobbyists managed to change people's values in a way which is quite unfortunate. People learn about IP theft in elementary school, it gets integrated into UN human rights documents, and something which is really culturally-dependent is viewed as universal. It wasn't viewed this way when I was a child. Even little things make a big difference. We've gone from "copyright infringement" to words like stealing and theft. They're fundamentally different concepts which were intentionally mixed up. If I steal from you, you no longer have what I've stolen. If I copy your software, you still have it; I might just have deprived you of profits (if I had otherwise bought the software). I'm not arguing against the IP regime in the US/EU, or for breaking IP laws. I'm just arguing we shouldn't force our IP regime on everyone else.

simonh 5y ago
That seems counter to the notion of cultural appropriation being wrong. If other cultures should be allowed to duplicate any of our cultural or economic artefacts wholesale if they choose, doesn't that work the other way around? I know, that's happened a lot in the past, but aren't we moving towards recognising that was wrong and figuring out more respectful forms of cultural and commercial interchange?
- satao 5y ago
  Are you implying it doesn't happen right now? I'm brazilian, and over here there's cases of american and european scientists patenting drugs using components from herbs that are traditional to our native people... Then they patent it and we can't use our own plants in our industry because it's been patented.
  - simonh 5y ago
    >Are you implying it doesn't happen right now? No.
  - secondcoming 5y ago
    Do they patent the plant, or do they patent the processing of the plant to make drugs?
  - Siira 5y ago
    The glaring question here is why your native industries don’t patent your native herbs if it’s profitable.
- stavros 5y ago
  > If other cultures should be allowed to duplicate any of our cultural or economic artefacts wholesale if they choose, doesn't that work the other way around? It does. In my opinion, cultural appropriation shouldn't be a thing. It's a big deal in the US, but Greeks, Turks and Slavs have copied each other's language, food, songs, and mannerisms for centuries and we're better off for it. It's remixing.
- blagie 5y ago
  I think that's confusing a few pieces. First, cultural appropriation is a white, progressive concept. It's not something generally considered /wrong/. If I wear Indian clothing in India, Arab clothing in the Middle East, or similar, that's usually viewed well in those cultures. I think part of this is why one is doing this -- there's a big difference between wearing a mockery of an Cherokee outfit for Halloween with complete ignorance of Cherokee culture, and with trying to culturally adapt out of respect for a culture. A second, much bigger piece, though, is cultural; the Western concept of identity, and the signalling mechanisms behind it, are just that: Western concepts. That doesn't mean other cultures don't have analogous concepts, but they're different in sometimes subtle and sometimes significant ways. Second, violating a patent doesn't involve duplicating cultural or economic artefacts. If you've ever written a large program, you've probably stepped on dozens of software patents, without even knowing it. Third, there's a difference between the general concept, and the specific mechanisms. There is nothing fundamental about inventions being protected for 20 years from the date of invention, or any of the other specifics of those mechanisms. Fourth, a lot of this is fundamental to other forms of interchange and human interaction. If I sanction a nation from using Word, SolidWorks, Adobe CS, etc., one piece are the specific economic artefacts. The second piece is the ability to interact with all of the creative content those economic artefacts are required for. Most of these have intentionally locked-down and proprietary formats, sometimes with DRM. I feel less bad about cutting someone out of being able to use a tool I built, and more bad about cutting someone out from being able to interact with any content created with that tool. I feel especially bad about cutting people out from content they created themselves. If a country has piles of videos they created in Adobe CS which they suddenly can't use any more, that feels like overreach. Finally, it's worth acknowledging a lot of the lead in IP came from a history of imperialism. Britain has cultural artefacts from around the world in its museums, and much of Western wealth comes from accumulated interest on plunder from around the world. It's not quite clear what a fair outcome is here. I do feel countries should be able to make their own IP regimes.
cloutchaser 5y ago
No one is forcing anything. Any country can do whatever it wants in it's legal system. If you want to become an economic island like this, it's unlikely anyone will force anything on you. What matters is whether then you want to trade with the countries who's IP you are using. At that point it becomes extremely unfair to the country that developed the IP. If China steals industry secrets that took billions to develop, and then sells those same products for cheaper (because they get the IP for free) in the west, is that fair? I don't like your rhetoric of the west using force. There is no force or legal requirement if you don't engage with the west. But of course everyone wants to engage with the west, but at that point you have to come to a mutually agreed trade and legal pact. This is normal. This is also voluntary on the part of both countries.
- blagie 5y ago
  I think this has a pretty limited view of history. If you think no one is forcing anything, I'd encourage you to look at how Commodore Perry opened Japan with gunships, the Opium War which did much the same to China, the East India Company, and similar incidents. Countries which wanted to stay closed to Western-style trade didn't do very well. The tools have gotten more nuanced, but they're still at play. There are quite a few books on the ways the West subverts democratic structures in Africa in order to be able to extract natural resources. China is now getting in on this game too. We still use militaries to protect Western trade interests, especially around key shipping lanes like the Panama and Suez canals.
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    Well I was speaking in a modern context. But if you want to speak about it in a historical context, I would ask you explain what you mean by the "west" and the west forcing their values. And I would note you are speaking to someone who's country's been invaded by mongols, ottomans, and russians within the last 1000 years. They all seemed to want to "force" their values on the people living here. Is this a western thing?
    - bilbo0s 5y ago
lkrubner 5y ago
"if we impose our values on everyone" When a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to something, presumably because it sees some benefit in it. It is entering into a kind of contract, from which there are presumably multiple benefits to all participants. Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It is being freely chosen by the governments that participate.
- blagie 5y ago
  If a country signs a treaty while a US gunship is sitting in it's port, it sees a clear benefit of not having a "regime change" or a war. If a Nigerian politician signs a treaty while receiving bribes or election support from a Western or Chinese oil company, that doesn't mean "a country" sees a benefit. If a country signs a treaty at a risk of being ostracized by the world, it's taking the lesser of two evils. And if you take a child bride from a war zone, it's a free exchange, with both sides seeing benefit. However, that doesn't mean it's fair or non-coercive. Power imbalances can allow for pretty nasty, unfair deals. I have a comment elsewhere in this thread with examples, both modern and going back 200 years.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Of course, "the western IP regime" didn't become ubiquitous because of these kinds of coercive practices even if some of them have happened historically. They happened because both sides saw a benefit. Of course, even absent malicious coercion, power imbalances can remain, but invoking "fairness" implies some objective (or otherwise agreeable) standard which patently doesn't exist. Just say you wish Russia (or whomever) had more negotiating power if that's what you mean. The closest we can get to an objective standard is: each side can freely (i.e., absent malicious coercion) choose for themselves.
- sschueller 5y ago
  Really? Every time I want to open a bank account in Switzerland I am asked if I am an American citizen. I am not asked if I am a citizen of another country or any other specific place. I am only asked if I am an American citizen. Are you asked if you are Swiss citizen when you open a bank account in America? Per FATCA treaty you should be but that isn't happening because the mighty power the US holds over anyone dealing with USD. If a US bank doesn't share its Swiss tax cheats nothing happens. If a Swiss bank hides them they get taken to the cleaners and can loose to do business with USD which is a death blow for any bank.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
IP is a method for sharing knowledge instead of withholding it. You're whole statement hasn't suggested any better approach and is flawed in it's core. That aside, this article isn't about IP either...
greggsy 5y ago
> Very little of this existed prior to around 1700. It's a relatively recent construct too A lot has happened in the past 300 years…
whiddershins 5y ago
IP was a major innovation. This is the stance Abraham Lincoln took, and I think there is an argument that much of the technological progress we have seen is helped by IP law. The fact that we sat on our hands while China stole our IP for two decades is a contributing factor to why Russia felt emboldened to attack the Ukraine.
- vlozko 5y ago
  I’m going to be that guy. It’s not “the Ukraine”, it’s just “Ukraine”. There’s a significant historical reason why this matters.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Would you care to expand? I've recently dropped the "the", because I understand some people object to it. Is this because "The Ukraine" referred to a geographical region, while "Ukraine" is the name of a country?
    - nkurz 5y ago
      Mostly that. The theory is that using the definite article implies Ukraine is part of some larger region, which is a highly charged political statement. This Wikipedia article has more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#English_definite_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#English_defini....
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        Ah, thanks. Interesting to compare "The Argentine", the abandoning of which usage the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina explains as a mere fashion change.
- 8358373583 5y ago
  I disagree. I don't think giving people a coercive monopoly on doing things similar to them helps innovation. I think it's one of the main barriers to innovation. It prevents iterative improvements and encourages resources to be spent on preventing others from competing instead of making a better next generation product.
pcdoodle 5y ago
- dang 5y ago
  Hey, could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately, unfortunately, and it's not what this site is for. Also, you've been doing it for a long time - that's a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22999487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22999487 (April 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20472906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20472906 (July 2019) If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
albertopv 5y ago
Tons of italian companies have to sue chinese ones because they copy italian products design, down to screws, and sell them on italian market at half the price. Wanna talk about parmesan, a wanna be Parmigiano Reggiano? So italian companies have higher costs also to pay lawyers to sue? No thanks. You don't like IP? Fine, do something else, maybe better, but stealing remains stealing, whatever you call it.
- marssaxman 5y ago
  > but stealing remains stealing, whatever you call it. Well, that is the question, isn't it? You consider mimicry to be a form of theft; others disagree.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- schleck8 5y ago
  Spot on. Trying to argue piracy is some form of liberalism is nonsense.
jdrc 5y ago
I don't disagree, the IP framework should be minimal, but you'll find the most staunch supporters are outside the US. If anything, the internet culture normalized piracy. It's ridiculous that in 2022 we re limiting what people can do with recipes, cheeses, bag designs, rounded corners, and cheap drugs. It doesnt have to be all-or-nothing, but IP has grown too much.
- coding123 5y ago
  We really don't limit that stuff if you want to use it for home use. No one from KRAFT is going to come after you for trying to make KRAFT AMERICAN SINGLES at home to save money. They are going to come after you if you try to sell them to MAKE money or tell others how to make it.
vanderZwan 5y ago
For an interesting real-world case of ignoring IP laws, one might look at the history of Philips and its light bulbs: - The Netherlands didn't have patent laws in the decades that Edison was introducing his lamps - Philips bought up the machines of competitors that Edison drove out of business through his patent monopoly and started producing lamps en masse in the Netherlands - more than a few researches of said former competitors joined Philips' R&D crew, presumably partially out of spite, partially because it was the only place where they could continue their research - this combination of experts and not giving a damn about patents resulted in really quick innovation at Philips' factories, meaning their light bulbs soon were both better and cheaper than anyone else's (of course, this only lasted until the light bulb manufacturers formed a cartel to introduce manufactured obsolescence). - eventually the Netherlands caved in to international pressure to introduce patent laws. By then Philips was so huge that they started abusing it for patent trolling of their own.
- rob74 5y ago
  About this "manufactured obsolescence of light bulbs" conspiracy theory which gets repeated over and over again: it's not that simple. Light bulbs have a spectacularly bad efficiency already, but the early light bulbs with their extremely long life were even worse. To quote Wikipedia, for a given light bulb, "A 5% reduction in voltage will double the life of the bulb, but reduce its light output by about 16%". So it's a tradeoff: if you make the filament thick enough, you'll have a light bulb which lasts for decades, but shines very dimly while consuming a lot of electricity. To improve efficiency, you can make the filament thinner, but then it'll burn out faster.
  - vanderZwan 5y ago
    Funny how that is always used as a counter-argument when nobody gave a shit about light-bulb efficiency until three decades ago. Like, I'm sure it's technically true. I highly doubt this was in any way a motivation back in the day, especially since light bulbs, as inefficient as they are, were still much better than the candles and gaslight that preceded them. There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a well-documented conspiracy. The things the Phoebus Cartel did falls squarely into the latter, including the planned obsolescence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
"Very little of this existed prior to around 1700." That's because books were hand-made items, the industrial revolution hadn't begun, and there was no concept of IP. >If I copy your software, you still have it; I might just have deprived you of profits Well, yes. Ease of copying is a non-issue, because the real cost is in creation. Of course it's analogous to theft, because someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket. And I make that point as someone who has seen multiple developers quit one particular space (music software) because piracy made it impossible for them to earn a living. Pretending this is about what you want is simply narcissistic selfishness. There are two parties in these transactions, sometimes they're small independent developers and not giant corporates, and piracy has very real effects on their livelihood.
- hhjinks 5y ago
  > someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket If I pirate something, how do I _very literally_ take money out of the pocket of the creator?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    This is a fine example of the abuse of the word "literally". People excuse the abuse, saying that it also means something like "emphatically"; but in this case, it's clear why this abuse results in errors. As far as "theft" is concerned: software, including recorded music and films, has zero marginal cost of production. The software industries therefore have the potential to generate extreme profits, unrelated to the risks and costs of development. Intellectual Property laws are needed to protect these extreme profits. Incidentally, I'm not aware that the term "Intellectual Property" was in use before about 1985. Copyright infringement, in particular, wasn't a crime before about that date; enforcement was by civil suit, and if you didn't make any money from infringement, then the court's award couldn't be greater than zero.
    - blihp 5y ago
      While the 'Intellectual Property' terminology probably did start in the 1980's alongside personal computers, the concerns about wide scale infringement definitely existed prior to that via Xerox (i.e. copy) machines (paper), audio tape/cassettes (sound) and VCRs (video) which made widespread consumer duplication trivial. This was all a thing before 1980, it just exploded as the technology reached the masses in the 80's. Copyright infringement was most definitely a thing before then and damages could be awarded even if you had no income from it. See statutory damages. Really the only thing that changed with computers was the ability to make perfect copies, thanks to the data being digital. Prior to that, the problem was somewhat mitigated by the analog nature of it and that by the time you got to the 3rd or 4th generation copy the quality had significantly degraded.
secondcoming 5y ago
> However, the concept of IP ownership -- let alone specifics of how its structured -- are a cultural and human construct. Isn't everything a human construct? What does that even mean?
- sethrin 5y ago
  Many people have a concept of human rights, which we contrast rights which are considered to be legal creations (legal rights). Frequently people are considered to have a natural right to life, whereas the right to vote or own a business would be mere legal creations. Jefferson, among others, distinguishes copyright as a social construct[0], which different societies may feel free to respect or not, in consideration only of their own benefit. As pertains to the current topic, Russia by this act is disregarding their treaty obligations, but not necessarily violating anyone's human rights by doing so. [0] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0322 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0...
thaway2839 5y ago
You can choose not to have "Western values" imposed on you. Don't use the products whose creators' values you don't agree with. It's even easier in software with its widespread and thriving open source ecosystem. Yet you don't seem to promote that. Instead, you seem to promote the idea that people who want stuff should be able to impose THEIR values on the creators of that stuff.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  If a creator doesn't want their creation used by people who they don't agree with, dont make or share the thing. It's really that simple. What we have instead is creators appropriating the legal system to enforce their wishes. It doesn't take a genius to see the negative ramifications of that level of overreach.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    If I don't want my car used by people who (have values including the right to ~steal~ use others' cars) I don't agree with, should I not have a car?
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      I don't conflate personal property with intellectual property so this reasoning falls flat for me and doesn't appear to be contradictory. I can see how it would appear contradictory to people who do see personal and intellectual property as the same thing. I challenge these people to examine the experiences that led them to make this choice and which experiences would have led them to choosing differently.
      - Terretta 5y ago
        > I challenge these people to examine the experiences that led them to make this choice If you make a coffee table out of wood from a sustainable forest, does it belong to you? What causes it to become personal property? If you make a coffee table out of code from a second life engine, does it belong to you? What causes it to not be personal property? What if the coffee table you make in VR is made from "wood" tokenized on a blockchain that cost money to generate the electrons for? Your examination concludes that things made from your invention and/or labor rendered in atoms are property, but from your invention and/or labor rendered in electrons are not? Or one form of labor has a right to earn a living, the other does not? Until we achieve a post-scarcity world -- where life-time is included in scarcity -- that thinking seems both wishful and facile.
grumple 5y ago
You're sort of building this up as the idea of the US forcing its norms and laws on others, but that isn't what this is. The merits of protecting IP exist whether or not they are prevalent in any country. When participating in a global economy, other participants expect fair dealing. What do you think will happen now with Russia? We'll assume they are going to try to steal our tech. Instead of trading with them, we won't do business with them at all whenever possible. We learned this the hard way with China. And their internal incentives to create IP also disappear - who would want to spend time building an app in Russia when the guy next door is now allowed to steal it and sell it as its own? Nobody. You're going to see much more draconian DRM. User experience will suffer. Less tech will be created. People will avoid doing business with Russia (and we already see that happening, and it was already true to an extent before they started murdering Ukrainians). And Russia's economy will continue to fail.
- jiveturkey 5y ago
  > What do you think will happen now with Russia? We'll outsource all our manufacturing to them, and freely participate in technology transfer along the way, because we want access to the market? /s
refurb 5y ago
I mean these were and are free to choose how to deal with IP. The point is many entered treaties to respect and recognize foreign IP. And you know why? Because they eventually become technologically sophisticated enough that they want their IP recognized and respected. You act like this was imposed by the West when it entered into voluntarily.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  IP has nothing to do with technical sophistication. I believe IP is directly led to culture and greed as people want to maximize profits rather than help society and promote ideas.
TravelPiglet 5y ago
Guessing Russia is not taking a stand against IP or copyright at all. Just making it legal for them to steal from non-Russian owners. Don’t think they will remove copyright for Russian creators.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  By definition it cannot be theft. Because of sanctions, the Russians wouldn't be allowed to pay for Western software anyways, so there is no difference to the bottom line. Whereas if they pirate Russian software or software they can buy, there is an impact to the bottom line. As a result it can be seen as a logically consistent position.
  - electrondood 5y ago
    If I'm banned from a store, it's still theft if I take goods from that store without paying.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Because the store can't sell those goods. In this case the store can still sell the goods, and there is no lost revenue. There is not a single analogy to theft.
    - postalrat 5y ago
      In this case the store doesn't exist due to sanctions. So if you take goods from a store that doesn't exist is it stealing?
    - akomtu 5y ago
      Software isnt taken, it's replicated like photographs.
tomc1985 5y ago
> I'm not arguing against the IP regime in the US/EU, or for breaking IP laws Maybe you should be. Personally I am of the stance that IP rights are inherently unenforceable once a work is released to the public, especially in the digital realm where information copies itself freely. Knowledge and art should be freely given and received and IP laws are directly opposed to this. There are other ways to monetize almost all forms of IP if that is the desired outcome.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  If it’s possible to prevent some action entirely by technical means, then there is no need for law against it. The prohibition against murder is also “unenforceable” in the sense that there will never be any murder.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Very little of this existed prior to around 1700. It's a relatively recent construct too (although there are some historical parallels). You could say that about a lot of things. It's pretty irrelevant to the question of if something should be thing or not. But that fact should serve as a caution to people wanting radically change it (e.g. abolishment): most of us only have direct experience with the problems created by the solution, but not the problems the solution solved. > I'm not at all convinced we'll make much progress as society if we impose our values on everyone, and expect everyone to behave the same way. But likewise, we shouldn't compromise our values either. I'm not denying that "corporate lobbyists" have a had a pernicious effect on IP law, but my understanding is that most of this "imposition" has been in the context of the quid-pro-quo of trade deals. It's totally legitimate for a country with a Western-style IP system to decide it doesn't want to give some trading partner favorable trade terms if that partner refuses to recognize IP.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > most of us only have direct experience with the problems created by the solution, but not the problems the solution solved. The US copyrights regime was mostly imposed on my country in 1994. What do you mean we have no experience with the problems it solves? (Any honest discussion at that time would at a minimum bring shorter terms.)
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > What do you mean we have no experience with the problems it solves? Some people want to just abolish IP (e.g. patents and copyright) because they've read some articles about abuse by patent trolls or copyright terms that are too long. They're not thinking about (say) the author who spent a large amount of effort writing a successful book, just to have to continue working a regular job, while all the profits go into the pocket of some corporation(s) that are under no obligation to pay the author because copyright doesn't exist so they have no special rights. Or the books that never exist because the author never writes a second book, because it's too difficult and stressful to juggle writing with a job, and they can't live off the proceeds of their previous work. Legal rights give power to the little guys. Take away those rights, and it'll mainly be the big guys who benefit.
andrey_utkin 5y ago
This is not about IP regime. It's about not doing what they agreed for when they signed these contracts which are now terminated.
hedgewitch 5y ago
> If I steal from you, you no longer have what I've stolen. If I copy your software, you still have it; I might just have deprived you of profits (if I had otherwise bought the software). Okay, so what is your suggestion here? Make it legal to make the copies? You know that that will only make more companies implement more aggressive DRM, right? Because, if you can't legally stop people from copying your software, you have to stop those who copy it from being able to run it. This is also why cloud applications with web interfaces are on the rise. They don't have to worry about piracy because it's literally impossible unless people break into their servers, which I'm sure no one is going to argue isn't a crime.
- Siira 5y ago
  > more aggressive DRM Without legal teeth, they can’t do that with offline consumables. They haven’t been able to even with their current draconian laws. The client needs to consume the information, and so is in an inherently advantageous position to copy. > cloud applications Exactly. And these are popular even with their legal shenanigans. These laws have never helped the consumers at all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
siruncledrew 5y ago
I think that the value of IP protection makes sense for health & safety, and also for small/growing businesses that don't want to be shut-out from bad actors. Where it gets worse is when it gets enforced by some giant behemoth as just another tool to maintain dominance and essentially forbid competition. It's just extracting money for the sake of having more money. For example, Lay's (owned by PepsiCo) forbidding farmers in India from growing the same potatoes that Lay's uses for chips because PepsiCo owns a patent on the seeds. There's basically no other rationale behind doing stuff like this besides "but my money!". Like, the rest of the world should just cave to a $227B US conglomerate on everything they want? At that point, IP isn't even about up keeping freedom or justice or whatever, it's just another way to enforce a colonialism-esque class hierarchy via capitalism.
zelon88 5y ago
So a business in America should have to pay thousands of dollars for a Windows Server license despite our society being the one who makes windows and russia just gets to steal it? Then we have to compete with russia using technology they stole from us? Why don't we all just keep our technology to ourselves. Or does that not suit russia because russia can only steal everyone else's technology?
zelon88 5y ago
"Russian culture isn't conducive to innovation. So russia shouldn't be forced to respect intellectual property. If it weren't for stolen IP russia would have no IP." Great argument, Putin.
throwaway894345 5y ago
I'm not super fond of the notion of IP, and I have lots of criticisms of "the western IP regime"; however, it's incorrect to frame this as "imposing western IP regime" in any sense that implies that "imposing one's regime" is immoral. In other words, this is just a trade agreement, and all parties have the right to impose their conditions. Trade only ensues if both parties are content with the conditions. Arguing that one party's conditions are "imposing" while the other's aren't is nonsensical. Your suggestion that the west should be required to trade with countries which don't respect western IP policies is actually an imposition insofar as it imposes on western nations' freedoms of association, but allowing countries to determine their own trade provisions isn't an imposition. I'll hazard an analogy: if I refuse to debate certain people on the Internet who don't adhere to my rhetorical standards, am I "imposing my regime on everyone else" (and thus I should be required to debate everyone who wants to debate me)? EDIT: significantly revised to (hopefully) improve clarity.
- qsort 5y ago
  I completely agree with this, and I'm an abolitionist. We either abolish IP for everyone, or recognizing each other's IPs is the bare minimum for a trade agreement.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    Trade agreements usually begin with far more tangible and fundamental agreements to allow physical goods, stop tariffs, and allow for health/safety standards and inspections. IP agreements are far more complex and are usually negotiated on top/after the initial agreement.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  > Arguing that one party's conditions are "imposing" while the other's aren't is nonsensical. You think modern trade agreements can't be coercive?
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30592404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30592404
pkulak 5y ago
The point is that I pay hundreds of dollars for JetBrains and Russian citizens return the favor for stuff that I write. That's what we've agreed on as two countries. Agreements aren't a new construct.
uncomputation 5y ago
I have an issue with the suffocating IP regime (videos being copyright stricken for simple use of works, DRM, rent seeking, patent trolls, etc). And if non-Western countries want to construct or use their own notions of intellectual “property,” then so be it, if it is their own software and their own creations. But Russia is specifically saying you can pirate software from countries supporting sanctions i.e. Western software made under Western ideas of IP and an expectation of profit for their work. If Russia wants to allow pirating Russian software, then I don’t see the issue. But to buck another country’s legal framework is a step over the line. If Russia wants to use Western software (Photoshop, Microsoft Word, cloud providers), they need to respect the Western terms of use. Take the .cat domain for Catalan. It is Catalonia’s right to make the terms of use of that domain such that the user must support Catalan translations. If you don’t want to agree by these terms, it is not your right then, to say “well that’s a Western idea of cultural integrity and I don’t agree with that and I’m gonna use the domain anyways.” It’s their domain, their software, not yours.
shoulderfake 5y ago
lend000 5y ago
If I were king of the US for a day, I think the lowest hanging fruit would be cutting virtually all IP durations in half and eliminating submarine patents. I might even go further for copyrights, and eliminating many types of software patents. It would help businesses, it would help consumers, it would help most content producers -- the only group that wouldn't benefit are lawyers.
yeahsure8 5y ago
Leverage in negotiations is not the same as force. It’s easy to look beyond the months of negotiations that precede trade agreements when not involved. Or buy into certain narratives crafted to pressure US negotiators, that the US is “forcing itself” on nations. But elected officials from other nations signed on the dotted line after, ostensibly, long debate.
muyuu 5y ago
> "However, the concept of IP ownership -- let alone specifics of how its structured -- are a cultural and human construct." This "X is a social construct" meme has degenerated from meaning "it could have been designed/evolved differently" to "it doesn't matter, because it is relative so it might as well not be" - it's a terrible meme. There is a very big difference between claiming something is very wrong AND it follows an arbitrary decree or custom that was unjust, and claiming that whatever is socially constructed is also wrong. Pretty much every aspect of social life is a social construct. Justice is a social construct. Not killing each other over the slightest disagreement is a social construct. Pretty much every boundary, every aspect and definition that gives people meaning is a social construct. The case for somehow breaking up IP laws regionally, I don't think it's a very good one because it would effectively cut out entire regions from many developments. But "it's just a social construct" - that just doesn't make any case either way. BTW having separate, insular knowledge is what the current situation evolved from. Mutual certification and validation - say Rospatent being integrated into the Madrid System ( https://rospatent.gov.ru/en/activities/international_cooperation/madrid https://rospatent.gov.ru/en/activities/international_coopera... ) - is just a way to remove insularity and reduce costs for smaller IP owners without big pockets behind. What Russia is doing here is basically reneging accords, not some valiant pro-IP-freedom effort. This is a bit like US prints pirating the hell out of every British (+Empire) author after US independence. Just getting away with it, not some Libertarian movement.
mrtweetyhack 5y ago
anothernewdude 5y ago
I think long term this will probably have a negative effect on the fight against encroaching IP laws. It's like having the KKK join your cause.

by blagie 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

That seems counter to the notion of cultural appropriation being wrong. If other cultures should be allowed to duplicate any of our cultural or economic artefacts wholesale if they choose, doesn't that work the other way around? I know, that's happened a lot in the past, but aren't we moving towards recognising that was wrong and figuring out more respectful forms of cultural and commercial interchange?

satao 5y ago
Are you implying it doesn't happen right now? I'm brazilian, and over here there's cases of american and european scientists patenting drugs using components from herbs that are traditional to our native people... Then they patent it and we can't use our own plants in our industry because it's been patented.
- simonh 5y ago
  >Are you implying it doesn't happen right now? No.
- secondcoming 5y ago
  Do they patent the plant, or do they patent the processing of the plant to make drugs?
- Siira 5y ago
  The glaring question here is why your native industries don’t patent your native herbs if it’s profitable.
stavros 5y ago
> If other cultures should be allowed to duplicate any of our cultural or economic artefacts wholesale if they choose, doesn't that work the other way around? It does. In my opinion, cultural appropriation shouldn't be a thing. It's a big deal in the US, but Greeks, Turks and Slavs have copied each other's language, food, songs, and mannerisms for centuries and we're better off for it. It's remixing.
blagie 5y ago
I think that's confusing a few pieces. First, cultural appropriation is a white, progressive concept. It's not something generally considered /wrong/. If I wear Indian clothing in India, Arab clothing in the Middle East, or similar, that's usually viewed well in those cultures. I think part of this is why one is doing this -- there's a big difference between wearing a mockery of an Cherokee outfit for Halloween with complete ignorance of Cherokee culture, and with trying to culturally adapt out of respect for a culture. A second, much bigger piece, though, is cultural; the Western concept of identity, and the signalling mechanisms behind it, are just that: Western concepts. That doesn't mean other cultures don't have analogous concepts, but they're different in sometimes subtle and sometimes significant ways. Second, violating a patent doesn't involve duplicating cultural or economic artefacts. If you've ever written a large program, you've probably stepped on dozens of software patents, without even knowing it. Third, there's a difference between the general concept, and the specific mechanisms. There is nothing fundamental about inventions being protected for 20 years from the date of invention, or any of the other specifics of those mechanisms. Fourth, a lot of this is fundamental to other forms of interchange and human interaction. If I sanction a nation from using Word, SolidWorks, Adobe CS, etc., one piece are the specific economic artefacts. The second piece is the ability to interact with all of the creative content those economic artefacts are required for. Most of these have intentionally locked-down and proprietary formats, sometimes with DRM. I feel less bad about cutting someone out of being able to use a tool I built, and more bad about cutting someone out from being able to interact with any content created with that tool. I feel especially bad about cutting people out from content they created themselves. If a country has piles of videos they created in Adobe CS which they suddenly can't use any more, that feels like overreach. Finally, it's worth acknowledging a lot of the lead in IP came from a history of imperialism. Britain has cultural artefacts from around the world in its museums, and much of Western wealth comes from accumulated interest on plunder from around the world. It's not quite clear what a fair outcome is here. I do feel countries should be able to make their own IP regimes.

cloutchaser 5y ago

No one is forcing anything. Any country can do whatever it wants in it's legal system. If you want to become an economic island like this, it's unlikely anyone will force anything on you. What matters is whether then you want to trade with the countries who's IP you are using. At that point it becomes extremely unfair to the country that developed the IP. If China steals industry secrets that took billions to develop, and then sells those same products for cheaper (because they get the IP for free) in the west, is that fair? I don't like your rhetoric of the west using force. There is no force or legal requirement if you don't engage with the west. But of course everyone wants to engage with the west, but at that point you have to come to a mutually agreed trade and legal pact. This is normal. This is also voluntary on the part of both countries.

blagie 5y ago
I think this has a pretty limited view of history. If you think no one is forcing anything, I'd encourage you to look at how Commodore Perry opened Japan with gunships, the Opium War which did much the same to China, the East India Company, and similar incidents. Countries which wanted to stay closed to Western-style trade didn't do very well. The tools have gotten more nuanced, but they're still at play. There are quite a few books on the ways the West subverts democratic structures in Africa in order to be able to extract natural resources. China is now getting in on this game too. We still use militaries to protect Western trade interests, especially around key shipping lanes like the Panama and Suez canals.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  Well I was speaking in a modern context. But if you want to speak about it in a historical context, I would ask you explain what you mean by the "west" and the west forcing their values. And I would note you are speaking to someone who's country's been invaded by mongols, ottomans, and russians within the last 1000 years. They all seemed to want to "force" their values on the people living here. Is this a western thing?
  - bilbo0s 5y ago

lkrubner 5y ago

"if we impose our values on everyone" When a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to something, presumably because it sees some benefit in it. It is entering into a kind of contract, from which there are presumably multiple benefits to all participants. Nothing is being imposed on anyone. It is being freely chosen by the governments that participate.

blagie 5y ago
If a country signs a treaty while a US gunship is sitting in it's port, it sees a clear benefit of not having a "regime change" or a war. If a Nigerian politician signs a treaty while receiving bribes or election support from a Western or Chinese oil company, that doesn't mean "a country" sees a benefit. If a country signs a treaty at a risk of being ostracized by the world, it's taking the lesser of two evils. And if you take a child bride from a war zone, it's a free exchange, with both sides seeing benefit. However, that doesn't mean it's fair or non-coercive. Power imbalances can allow for pretty nasty, unfair deals. I have a comment elsewhere in this thread with examples, both modern and going back 200 years.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Of course, "the western IP regime" didn't become ubiquitous because of these kinds of coercive practices even if some of them have happened historically. They happened because both sides saw a benefit. Of course, even absent malicious coercion, power imbalances can remain, but invoking "fairness" implies some objective (or otherwise agreeable) standard which patently doesn't exist. Just say you wish Russia (or whomever) had more negotiating power if that's what you mean. The closest we can get to an objective standard is: each side can freely (i.e., absent malicious coercion) choose for themselves.
sschueller 5y ago
Really? Every time I want to open a bank account in Switzerland I am asked if I am an American citizen. I am not asked if I am a citizen of another country or any other specific place. I am only asked if I am an American citizen. Are you asked if you are Swiss citizen when you open a bank account in America? Per FATCA treaty you should be but that isn't happening because the mighty power the US holds over anyone dealing with USD. If a US bank doesn't share its Swiss tax cheats nothing happens. If a Swiss bank hides them they get taken to the cleaners and can loose to do business with USD which is a death blow for any bank.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

IP is a method for sharing knowledge instead of withholding it. You're whole statement hasn't suggested any better approach and is flawed in it's core. That aside, this article isn't about IP either...

greggsy 5y ago

> Very little of this existed prior to around 1700. It's a relatively recent construct too A lot has happened in the past 300 years…

whiddershins 5y ago

IP was a major innovation. This is the stance Abraham Lincoln took, and I think there is an argument that much of the technological progress we have seen is helped by IP law. The fact that we sat on our hands while China stole our IP for two decades is a contributing factor to why Russia felt emboldened to attack the Ukraine.

vlozko 5y ago
I’m going to be that guy. It’s not “the Ukraine”, it’s just “Ukraine”. There’s a significant historical reason why this matters.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Would you care to expand? I've recently dropped the "the", because I understand some people object to it. Is this because "The Ukraine" referred to a geographical region, while "Ukraine" is the name of a country?
  - nkurz 5y ago
    Mostly that. The theory is that using the definite article implies Ukraine is part of some larger region, which is a highly charged political statement. This Wikipedia article has more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#English_definite_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine#English_defini....
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      Ah, thanks. Interesting to compare "The Argentine", the abandoning of which usage the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina explains as a mere fashion change.
8358373583 5y ago
I disagree. I don't think giving people a coercive monopoly on doing things similar to them helps innovation. I think it's one of the main barriers to innovation. It prevents iterative improvements and encourages resources to be spent on preventing others from competing instead of making a better next generation product.

pcdoodle 5y ago

dang 5y ago
Hey, could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot lately, unfortunately, and it's not what this site is for. Also, you've been doing it for a long time - that's a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22999487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22999487 (April 2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20472906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20472906 (July 2019) If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

albertopv 5y ago

Tons of italian companies have to sue chinese ones because they copy italian products design, down to screws, and sell them on italian market at half the price. Wanna talk about parmesan, a wanna be Parmigiano Reggiano? So italian companies have higher costs also to pay lawyers to sue? No thanks. You don't like IP? Fine, do something else, maybe better, but stealing remains stealing, whatever you call it.

marssaxman 5y ago
> but stealing remains stealing, whatever you call it. Well, that is the question, isn't it? You consider mimicry to be a form of theft; others disagree.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
schleck8 5y ago
Spot on. Trying to argue piracy is some form of liberalism is nonsense.

jdrc 5y ago

I don't disagree, the IP framework should be minimal, but you'll find the most staunch supporters are outside the US. If anything, the internet culture normalized piracy. It's ridiculous that in 2022 we re limiting what people can do with recipes, cheeses, bag designs, rounded corners, and cheap drugs. It doesnt have to be all-or-nothing, but IP has grown too much.

coding123 5y ago
We really don't limit that stuff if you want to use it for home use. No one from KRAFT is going to come after you for trying to make KRAFT AMERICAN SINGLES at home to save money. They are going to come after you if you try to sell them to MAKE money or tell others how to make it.

vanderZwan 5y ago

For an interesting real-world case of ignoring IP laws, one might look at the history of Philips and its light bulbs: - The Netherlands didn't have patent laws in the decades that Edison was introducing his lamps - Philips bought up the machines of competitors that Edison drove out of business through his patent monopoly and started producing lamps en masse in the Netherlands - more than a few researches of said former competitors joined Philips' R&D crew, presumably partially out of spite, partially because it was the only place where they could continue their research - this combination of experts and not giving a damn about patents resulted in really quick innovation at Philips' factories, meaning their light bulbs soon were both better and cheaper than anyone else's (of course, this only lasted until the light bulb manufacturers formed a cartel to introduce manufactured obsolescence). - eventually the Netherlands caved in to international pressure to introduce patent laws. By then Philips was so huge that they started abusing it for patent trolling of their own.

rob74 5y ago
About this "manufactured obsolescence of light bulbs" conspiracy theory which gets repeated over and over again: it's not that simple. Light bulbs have a spectacularly bad efficiency already, but the early light bulbs with their extremely long life were even worse. To quote Wikipedia, for a given light bulb, "A 5% reduction in voltage will double the life of the bulb, but reduce its light output by about 16%". So it's a tradeoff: if you make the filament thick enough, you'll have a light bulb which lasts for decades, but shines very dimly while consuming a lot of electricity. To improve efficiency, you can make the filament thinner, but then it'll burn out faster.
- vanderZwan 5y ago
  Funny how that is always used as a counter-argument when nobody gave a shit about light-bulb efficiency until three decades ago. Like, I'm sure it's technically true. I highly doubt this was in any way a motivation back in the day, especially since light bulbs, as inefficient as they are, were still much better than the candles and gaslight that preceded them. There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a well-documented conspiracy. The things the Phoebus Cartel did falls squarely into the latter, including the planned obsolescence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

"Very little of this existed prior to around 1700." That's because books were hand-made items, the industrial revolution hadn't begun, and there was no concept of IP. >If I copy your software, you still have it; I might just have deprived you of profits Well, yes. Ease of copying is a non-issue, because the real cost is in creation. Of course it's analogous to theft, because someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket. And I make that point as someone who has seen multiple developers quit one particular space (music software) because piracy made it impossible for them to earn a living. Pretending this is about what you want is simply narcissistic selfishness. There are two parties in these transactions, sometimes they're small independent developers and not giant corporates, and piracy has very real effects on their livelihood.

hhjinks 5y ago
> someone very literally ends up with less money in their pocket If I pirate something, how do I _very literally_ take money out of the pocket of the creator?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  This is a fine example of the abuse of the word "literally". People excuse the abuse, saying that it also means something like "emphatically"; but in this case, it's clear why this abuse results in errors. As far as "theft" is concerned: software, including recorded music and films, has zero marginal cost of production. The software industries therefore have the potential to generate extreme profits, unrelated to the risks and costs of development. Intellectual Property laws are needed to protect these extreme profits. Incidentally, I'm not aware that the term "Intellectual Property" was in use before about 1985. Copyright infringement, in particular, wasn't a crime before about that date; enforcement was by civil suit, and if you didn't make any money from infringement, then the court's award couldn't be greater than zero.
  - blihp 5y ago
    While the 'Intellectual Property' terminology probably did start in the 1980's alongside personal computers, the concerns about wide scale infringement definitely existed prior to that via Xerox (i.e. copy) machines (paper), audio tape/cassettes (sound) and VCRs (video) which made widespread consumer duplication trivial. This was all a thing before 1980, it just exploded as the technology reached the masses in the 80's. Copyright infringement was most definitely a thing before then and damages could be awarded even if you had no income from it. See statutory damages. Really the only thing that changed with computers was the ability to make perfect copies, thanks to the data being digital. Prior to that, the problem was somewhat mitigated by the analog nature of it and that by the time you got to the 3rd or 4th generation copy the quality had significantly degraded.

secondcoming 5y ago

> However, the concept of IP ownership -- let alone specifics of how its structured -- are a cultural and human construct. Isn't everything a human construct? What does that even mean?

sethrin 5y ago
Many people have a concept of human rights, which we contrast rights which are considered to be legal creations (legal rights). Frequently people are considered to have a natural right to life, whereas the right to vote or own a business would be mere legal creations. Jefferson, among others, distinguishes copyright as a social construct[0], which different societies may feel free to respect or not, in consideration only of their own benefit. As pertains to the current topic, Russia by this act is disregarding their treaty obligations, but not necessarily violating anyone's human rights by doing so. [0] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0322 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0...

thaway2839 5y ago

You can choose not to have "Western values" imposed on you. Don't use the products whose creators' values you don't agree with. It's even easier in software with its widespread and thriving open source ecosystem. Yet you don't seem to promote that. Instead, you seem to promote the idea that people who want stuff should be able to impose THEIR values on the creators of that stuff.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
If a creator doesn't want their creation used by people who they don't agree with, dont make or share the thing. It's really that simple. What we have instead is creators appropriating the legal system to enforce their wishes. It doesn't take a genius to see the negative ramifications of that level of overreach.
- OJFord 5y ago
  If I don't want my car used by people who (have values including the right to ~steal~ use others' cars) I don't agree with, should I not have a car?
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    I don't conflate personal property with intellectual property so this reasoning falls flat for me and doesn't appear to be contradictory. I can see how it would appear contradictory to people who do see personal and intellectual property as the same thing. I challenge these people to examine the experiences that led them to make this choice and which experiences would have led them to choosing differently.
    - Terretta 5y ago
      > I challenge these people to examine the experiences that led them to make this choice If you make a coffee table out of wood from a sustainable forest, does it belong to you? What causes it to become personal property? If you make a coffee table out of code from a second life engine, does it belong to you? What causes it to not be personal property? What if the coffee table you make in VR is made from "wood" tokenized on a blockchain that cost money to generate the electrons for? Your examination concludes that things made from your invention and/or labor rendered in atoms are property, but from your invention and/or labor rendered in electrons are not? Or one form of labor has a right to earn a living, the other does not? Until we achieve a post-scarcity world -- where life-time is included in scarcity -- that thinking seems both wishful and facile.

grumple 5y ago

You're sort of building this up as the idea of the US forcing its norms and laws on others, but that isn't what this is. The merits of protecting IP exist whether or not they are prevalent in any country. When participating in a global economy, other participants expect fair dealing. What do you think will happen now with Russia? We'll assume they are going to try to steal our tech. Instead of trading with them, we won't do business with them at all whenever possible. We learned this the hard way with China. And their internal incentives to create IP also disappear - who would want to spend time building an app in Russia when the guy next door is now allowed to steal it and sell it as its own? Nobody. You're going to see much more draconian DRM. User experience will suffer. Less tech will be created. People will avoid doing business with Russia (and we already see that happening, and it was already true to an extent before they started murdering Ukrainians). And Russia's economy will continue to fail.

jiveturkey 5y ago
> What do you think will happen now with Russia? We'll outsource all our manufacturing to them, and freely participate in technology transfer along the way, because we want access to the market? /s

refurb 5y ago

I mean these were and are free to choose how to deal with IP. The point is many entered treaties to respect and recognize foreign IP. And you know why? Because they eventually become technologically sophisticated enough that they want their IP recognized and respected. You act like this was imposed by the West when it entered into voluntarily.

encryptluks2 5y ago
IP has nothing to do with technical sophistication. I believe IP is directly led to culture and greed as people want to maximize profits rather than help society and promote ideas.

TravelPiglet 5y ago

Guessing Russia is not taking a stand against IP or copyright at all. Just making it legal for them to steal from non-Russian owners. Don’t think they will remove copyright for Russian creators.

sudosysgen 5y ago
By definition it cannot be theft. Because of sanctions, the Russians wouldn't be allowed to pay for Western software anyways, so there is no difference to the bottom line. Whereas if they pirate Russian software or software they can buy, there is an impact to the bottom line. As a result it can be seen as a logically consistent position.
- electrondood 5y ago
  If I'm banned from a store, it's still theft if I take goods from that store without paying.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Because the store can't sell those goods. In this case the store can still sell the goods, and there is no lost revenue. There is not a single analogy to theft.
  - postalrat 5y ago
    In this case the store doesn't exist due to sanctions. So if you take goods from a store that doesn't exist is it stealing?
  - akomtu 5y ago
    Software isnt taken, it's replicated like photographs.

tomc1985 5y ago

> I'm not arguing against the IP regime in the US/EU, or for breaking IP laws Maybe you should be. Personally I am of the stance that IP rights are inherently unenforceable once a work is released to the public, especially in the digital realm where information copies itself freely. Knowledge and art should be freely given and received and IP laws are directly opposed to this. There are other ways to monetize almost all forms of IP if that is the desired outcome.

KarlKemp 5y ago
If it’s possible to prevent some action entirely by technical means, then there is no need for law against it. The prohibition against murder is also “unenforceable” in the sense that there will never be any murder.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Very little of this existed prior to around 1700. It's a relatively recent construct too (although there are some historical parallels). You could say that about a lot of things. It's pretty irrelevant to the question of if something should be thing or not. But that fact should serve as a caution to people wanting radically change it (e.g. abolishment): most of us only have direct experience with the problems created by the solution, but not the problems the solution solved. > I'm not at all convinced we'll make much progress as society if we impose our values on everyone, and expect everyone to behave the same way. But likewise, we shouldn't compromise our values either. I'm not denying that "corporate lobbyists" have a had a pernicious effect on IP law, but my understanding is that most of this "imposition" has been in the context of the quid-pro-quo of trade deals. It's totally legitimate for a country with a Western-style IP system to decide it doesn't want to give some trading partner favorable trade terms if that partner refuses to recognize IP.

marcosdumay 5y ago
> most of us only have direct experience with the problems created by the solution, but not the problems the solution solved. The US copyrights regime was mostly imposed on my country in 1994. What do you mean we have no experience with the problems it solves? (Any honest discussion at that time would at a minimum bring shorter terms.)
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > What do you mean we have no experience with the problems it solves? Some people want to just abolish IP (e.g. patents and copyright) because they've read some articles about abuse by patent trolls or copyright terms that are too long. They're not thinking about (say) the author who spent a large amount of effort writing a successful book, just to have to continue working a regular job, while all the profits go into the pocket of some corporation(s) that are under no obligation to pay the author because copyright doesn't exist so they have no special rights. Or the books that never exist because the author never writes a second book, because it's too difficult and stressful to juggle writing with a job, and they can't live off the proceeds of their previous work. Legal rights give power to the little guys. Take away those rights, and it'll mainly be the big guys who benefit.

andrey_utkin 5y ago

This is not about IP regime. It's about not doing what they agreed for when they signed these contracts which are now terminated.

hedgewitch 5y ago

> If I steal from you, you no longer have what I've stolen. If I copy your software, you still have it; I might just have deprived you of profits (if I had otherwise bought the software). Okay, so what is your suggestion here? Make it legal to make the copies? You know that that will only make more companies implement more aggressive DRM, right? Because, if you can't legally stop people from copying your software, you have to stop those who copy it from being able to run it. This is also why cloud applications with web interfaces are on the rise. They don't have to worry about piracy because it's literally impossible unless people break into their servers, which I'm sure no one is going to argue isn't a crime.

Siira 5y ago
> more aggressive DRM Without legal teeth, they can’t do that with offline consumables. They haven’t been able to even with their current draconian laws. The client needs to consume the information, and so is in an inherently advantageous position to copy. > cloud applications Exactly. And these are popular even with their legal shenanigans. These laws have never helped the consumers at all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

siruncledrew 5y ago

I think that the value of IP protection makes sense for health & safety, and also for small/growing businesses that don't want to be shut-out from bad actors. Where it gets worse is when it gets enforced by some giant behemoth as just another tool to maintain dominance and essentially forbid competition. It's just extracting money for the sake of having more money. For example, Lay's (owned by PepsiCo) forbidding farmers in India from growing the same potatoes that Lay's uses for chips because PepsiCo owns a patent on the seeds. There's basically no other rationale behind doing stuff like this besides "but my money!". Like, the rest of the world should just cave to a $227B US conglomerate on everything they want? At that point, IP isn't even about up keeping freedom or justice or whatever, it's just another way to enforce a colonialism-esque class hierarchy via capitalism.

zelon88 5y ago

So a business in America should have to pay thousands of dollars for a Windows Server license despite our society being the one who makes windows and russia just gets to steal it? Then we have to compete with russia using technology they stole from us? Why don't we all just keep our technology to ourselves. Or does that not suit russia because russia can only steal everyone else's technology?

zelon88 5y ago

"Russian culture isn't conducive to innovation. So russia shouldn't be forced to respect intellectual property. If it weren't for stolen IP russia would have no IP." Great argument, Putin.

throwaway894345 5y ago

I'm not super fond of the notion of IP, and I have lots of criticisms of "the western IP regime"; however, it's incorrect to frame this as "imposing western IP regime" in any sense that implies that "imposing one's regime" is immoral. In other words, this is just a trade agreement, and all parties have the right to impose their conditions. Trade only ensues if both parties are content with the conditions. Arguing that one party's conditions are "imposing" while the other's aren't is nonsensical. Your suggestion that the west should be required to trade with countries which don't respect western IP policies is actually an imposition insofar as it imposes on western nations' freedoms of association, but allowing countries to determine their own trade provisions isn't an imposition. I'll hazard an analogy: if I refuse to debate certain people on the Internet who don't adhere to my rhetorical standards, am I "imposing my regime on everyone else" (and thus I should be required to debate everyone who wants to debate me)? EDIT: significantly revised to (hopefully) improve clarity.

qsort 5y ago
I completely agree with this, and I'm an abolitionist. We either abolish IP for everyone, or recognizing each other's IPs is the bare minimum for a trade agreement.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Trade agreements usually begin with far more tangible and fundamental agreements to allow physical goods, stop tariffs, and allow for health/safety standards and inspections. IP agreements are far more complex and are usually negotiated on top/after the initial agreement.
anothernewdude 5y ago
> Arguing that one party's conditions are "imposing" while the other's aren't is nonsensical. You think modern trade agreements can't be coercive?
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30592404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30592404

pkulak 5y ago

The point is that I pay hundreds of dollars for JetBrains and Russian citizens return the favor for stuff that I write. That's what we've agreed on as two countries. Agreements aren't a new construct.

uncomputation 5y ago

I have an issue with the suffocating IP regime (videos being copyright stricken for simple use of works, DRM, rent seeking, patent trolls, etc). And if non-Western countries want to construct or use their own notions of intellectual “property,” then so be it, if it is their own software and their own creations. But Russia is specifically saying you can pirate software from countries supporting sanctions i.e. Western software made under Western ideas of IP and an expectation of profit for their work. If Russia wants to allow pirating Russian software, then I don’t see the issue. But to buck another country’s legal framework is a step over the line. If Russia wants to use Western software (Photoshop, Microsoft Word, cloud providers), they need to respect the Western terms of use. Take the .cat domain for Catalan. It is Catalonia’s right to make the terms of use of that domain such that the user must support Catalan translations. If you don’t want to agree by these terms, it is not your right then, to say “well that’s a Western idea of cultural integrity and I don’t agree with that and I’m gonna use the domain anyways.” It’s their domain, their software, not yours.

shoulderfake 5y ago

lend000 5y ago

If I were king of the US for a day, I think the lowest hanging fruit would be cutting virtually all IP durations in half and eliminating submarine patents. I might even go further for copyrights, and eliminating many types of software patents. It would help businesses, it would help consumers, it would help most content producers -- the only group that wouldn't benefit are lawyers.

yeahsure8 5y ago

Leverage in negotiations is not the same as force. It’s easy to look beyond the months of negotiations that precede trade agreements when not involved. Or buy into certain narratives crafted to pressure US negotiators, that the US is “forcing itself” on nations. But elected officials from other nations signed on the dotted line after, ostensibly, long debate.

muyuu 5y ago

> "However, the concept of IP ownership -- let alone specifics of how its structured -- are a cultural and human construct." This "X is a social construct" meme has degenerated from meaning "it could have been designed/evolved differently" to "it doesn't matter, because it is relative so it might as well not be" - it's a terrible meme. There is a very big difference between claiming something is very wrong AND it follows an arbitrary decree or custom that was unjust, and claiming that whatever is socially constructed is also wrong. Pretty much every aspect of social life is a social construct. Justice is a social construct. Not killing each other over the slightest disagreement is a social construct. Pretty much every boundary, every aspect and definition that gives people meaning is a social construct. The case for somehow breaking up IP laws regionally, I don't think it's a very good one because it would effectively cut out entire regions from many developments. But "it's just a social construct" - that just doesn't make any case either way. BTW having separate, insular knowledge is what the current situation evolved from. Mutual certification and validation - say Rospatent being integrated into the Madrid System ( https://rospatent.gov.ru/en/activities/international_cooperation/madrid https://rospatent.gov.ru/en/activities/international_coopera... ) - is just a way to remove insularity and reduce costs for smaller IP owners without big pockets behind. What Russia is doing here is basically reneging accords, not some valiant pro-IP-freedom effort. This is a bit like US prints pirating the hell out of every British (+Empire) author after US independence. Just getting away with it, not some Libertarian movement.

mrtweetyhack 5y ago

anothernewdude 5y ago

I think long term this will probably have a negative effect on the fight against encroaching IP laws. It's like having the KKK join your cause.