This is a message Mickey Davis wrote in response to Jaime R. Angeles P.' s note regarding INDECOPI and other specialized IP police and courts.
James Love
<love[_at_]cptech.org>
[snip]
There is a huge problem with allowing, let alone encouraging, judicial seizures of allegedly infringing items. So-called copyright and trademark infringement differ profoundly from other claimed legal violations, because the very existence of "property" which forms the basis of the violation, is ALWAYS contestible. This is not the case when somebody "pirates" an automobile (car theft) or cash (bank robbery) because the property is tangible, readily identifiable, and its title is usually well-established.
Corporate interests, however, are trying to treat intangible and tangible property equally when they are fundamentally different. They then ask the state to come to their aid -- through seizures -- before the issue of who owns what is even addressed. If you look at any copyright or trademark suit, you will see that the nature and ownership of the "property" is heavily litigated -- sometimes for years -- before a court can conclude whether there has been infringement. Issues like fair use, in fact, have been called the "metaphysics of the law" because they are so difficult to resolve.
To authorize special courts and draconian seizures to come to the aid of international corporate interests to protect their exploitation of what may well be publicly held "property" (like status and culture, for instance) is to conduct a kind of cultural imperialism that is indefensible as the milennium passes.
This is a very complicated subject but I hope that showing that even the fundamentals are in doubt will show that it is a very negative and shameful development.
Mickey Davis
-- Prof. Michael H. Davis 29 Cornelia Street Apt. 12 N.Y.C., NY 10014 212-366-9113 212-627-2199(FAX) mdavis[_at_]trans.csuohio.eduReceived on Fri May 23 1997 - 14:35:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT