Who will benefit from copyright legislation?

Nov 04, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

In life, context underlies everything. You don’t have to read Freud to understand that. It is commonsensical. Whenever I write about context, I recall that article by a BBC sportswriter. Using context, he examined the great statistics of Sachin Tendulkar via the comparative method and rated him as the 28th greatest batsman in the world. It is the best use of context I have ever seen.
Within the context of international political economy, it makes no sense for Guyana to have copyright legislation. If you do not grasp the fundamental nature of international political economy, then you cannot understand why poor countries should avoid copyright laws. I contend that given the power disparity in the international economy the past five hundred years, poor countries like Guyana will not gain anything, even minimal from the world, by having copyright legislation.
People have jumped on former president Jagdeo for rejecting copyright legislation here. They have confused the messenger with the message. Jagdeo’s interest while he was president was economics. He was president for twelve years. You cannot deny him the knowledge he acquired from watching the tentacles of that power disparity.
It is because of that knowledge, he rejected (and rightly so) in 2008, the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). It favoured Europe over the countries of the ACP. Why would any Third World (TW) country think the EU would draft an economic arrangement between itself and the ACP countries that was to the disadvantage of Europe?
It would be interesting to hear the views of those Guyanese who want copyright legislation – what they think of adherence by world powers to the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the first place, the WTO, which succeeded GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), was drafted by the big economic powers of the world. The Caribbean input was minimal if any at all. WTO rules are constantly violated by the very powers that brought them into being.
One of the most egregious assaults on the rules of the WTO is European and American subsidies to their farmers. Third World countries cannot do that, but the super-rich nations can. IMF edict to the TW is that the state cannot subsidize government entities, but look how the US government virtually saved the commercial banks with state funds in the great financial crash of 2008.
For a good analysis on how Obama spent state funds to help the rapacious capitalists of the US, see the November 22, 2018 issue of The New York Review of Books. Robert Kuttner in an article titled “The crash that failed” to mark the 10th anniversary of the disaster, wrote; “Far from breaking up the big banks or removing their executives, Obama’s team bailed them out.”
Last week, the US said it will not adhere to a decision by the World Court in favour of Iran. The US under Obama did not join the International War Tribunal.
What will Guyana earn from copyright legislation within a global context?
A number of questions should be put in focus. Who stands to benefit more from copyright laws – countries that invent, manufacture and produce countless scientific, industrial and intellectual products as against those which don’t? Why then should copyright legislation be an obsession with countries that do not have anything to protect?
Let’s go to context again. Brazil and India argued that they will not observe international patent rights when it comes to AIDS drugs, because poor AIDS sufferers in their countries cannot afford brand name drugs. Brazil and India were inflexible and the world’s top pharmaceutical companies had to concede.
Another question is – what resources does Guyana have to protect its products from being stolen from powerful countries like Europe, China, the US, Russia, India, Brazil, etc? Foreign researchers came to this country and took back countless species of our flora and fauna without permission and Guyana got not a cent in return? I could name the institute in the US that did this dishonourable thing, but maybe in another column.
Since we are on the subject of money, Bob Marley said that he didn’t get one cent when rock superstar Eric Clapton made Marley’s composition of “I shot the sheriff” into a global hit. Marley did not pursue the case in court for obvious reasons. So you have a Guyanese author whose cookbook, or book of poetry or comic book has been stolen in the US. Does that author have the funds to hire high-priced lawyers to pay for litigation?
Finally, when we bring in copyright laws, all those Chinese stores that are selling fake designer clothes will have to close down. People will still wear genuine designer clothes in Guyana though – the super-rich, elite families. Guyana is indeed an idiotic and funny country.

---

---