US Targeting China In New Anti-Piracy Drive

oxide7 writes "The United States will make China 'a significant focus' of its beefed-up efforts to fight global piracy and counterfeiting of US goods ranging from CDs to manufactured products, a US official said on Wednesday. The International Intellectual Property Alliance, which represents US copyright industry groups, has estimated lost sales in China at more than $3.5 billion in 2009 due to piracy of US music, movies and software."

Re:Give it a rest

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who expects artists to work without compensation would be a hypocrite if they didn't similarly offer their labor pro bono. The ideal solution for this problem is not unfettered piracy. But I definitely don't think the RIAA's death grip (and yes, it is a death grip; we can confidently conclude rigor mortis has set it) on standing copyrights is the best solution for artists, either. In an ideal world, people would purchase media which they value most and pirate the rest. Artists still make money; artists get maximum exposure; more exposure to works of art enriches the culture. On a side note, I also maintain that if ebooks catch on, hardbacks and paperbacks will go the way of the do-do bird. Not because there won't be demand for them, but because the profit margins of ebook publishing are infinitely more appealing (it's like Coke in glass bottles). The Thomas Pynchon's of the world will be reimbursed at rates comparable to those of penny dreadful storytellers.

Re:Give it a rest

[Anonymous Coward]

Imaginary property also includes trademark law and patents.

I am also against IP. I don't consider trademarks to fall under Imaginary Property. I consider trademarks to fall under fraud prevention. I only support trademarks that achieve this aim.

I don't care if a manufacturer makes a cheap knockoff (or even an exact duplicate) of a Rolex watch and calls it a Polex watch. I do care if a manufacturer who isn't Rolex makes a watch while claiming to be Rolex.

Re:Would be nice to see

[mcgrew]

If they claim to defend their financial interest in their products it's raises the question: Why don't they actually fight the infringement that causes the damage to the revenue? This clearly demonstrates that the MAFIAA was not interested in protecting their existing revenue stream, but are only trying to create an additional (unrelated) stream of litigation-revenue from the consumers who commit level 1 infringement.

A more logical reason is their hidden agenda -- fighting their competetion, indie labels. The RIAA has radio, which never (except low watt college stations) plays indie music, while the indies have P2P. There actually is monetary damage there; if I buy four $5 indie CDs, that's twenty bucks I don't have to buy a Mattellica CD. That's a very good reason for fighting P2P, but they can't very well admit it, can they?