qummunismus / kommunismus reloaded

ACTA - How to kill Babies for Fun and Profit

mond — 2011-07-19T22:24:23Z

Initially I wanted to write a short analysis of this study. But just skimming over the study shows that is a blatant pro IP propaganda piece. Still interesting to dissect that a bit.

The Study (pdf) starts with the following statement:

“The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is motivated by the perceived lack of progress of multilateral enforcement of intellectual property rights.”

Ok. How to translate that: the “the perceived lack of progress of multilateral enforcement of intellectual property” means that some people are unhappy that the WTO did not manage to upgrade the insane TRIPS to a TRIPS+ agreement. Why did this happen? The answer is easy: The developing countries sooner or later found out that it does not help them much to pay huge licensing bills to the more developed countries just to be allowed to use newer technology. They realized that this would cost them a lot of money for nothing. On the other side where the big corporations who secured hundreds of thousands of patents and other so called “Intellectual Property” Rights that would have loved to see this money in their balance sheet. And thus this corporations would ask the political parties in the developed countries to do something about it.

Now, it happened that the interests of those political parties where somewhere aligned with the interest of those corporations. (Maybe there where some kind of financial bonds between them or something.). Now those parties which governed the G8 countries where happy to comply with the requests of these corporations and found some ways around the “problem”: If the poorer countries are not willing to comply with our IP regime then we will just ignore them and enforce those regulations anyway.

According to UN there are about 900 Million hungry people worldwide. About 6 Million Children are starving each year. Most of them of course in the least developed countries. Now those countries have rejected the TRIPS+ regulations out of some good reason. Further enforcing those absurd IP regulations would cost them money. And this of course would mean: More hungry children. More children starving.

It is that simple.

So this is what is ACTA all about: Killing Babies for Profit. Or to repeat it, as the euphemism of the EP study reads:

“The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is motivated by the perceived lack of progress of multilateral enforcement of intellectual property rights.”

Now to the point about the blatant propaganda of the "study":

“Today, there is growing statistical evidence suggesting that a stronger environment of IPRs contributes to an enhanced level of economic development, FDI and technology transfer in developing countries. Based on the most comprehensive empirical research to date, an OECD study of the relationship between IPRs, technology transfer and FDI in 115 countries found that in developed countries an increase of 1% in the strength of patent rights resulted in 0.5% of increase in FDI flow (based on licensing deals), which in turn resulted in the transfer of know- how, i.e. innovative capabilities.139 The study found that in developing countries, including least developed countries, the effect is even stronger so that an increase of 1% in the strength of patent rights could be associated with an increase of 1.7% in FDI flows.”

Or to translate that into plain english: “Hey, everyone is accousing us of killing babies. We need to do something about that. Lets find some numbers that would help us to prove that we are not killing that babies. Numbers. Any numbers. How far fetched. It does not matter. Killing babies for profit that would be a PR disaster. We need to avoid that. Just give us numbers. Any numbers.”

Now here is the long form. Why is the study totally wrong:

1.) Correlation does not imply causation: Countries with a neoliberal agenda are likely to also implement stronger IPR. After all this is what helps the rich get richer. And countries with that neoliberal agenda are likely to also be attract foreign investments. After all: Who does not want a chance to make some quick money?

2.) Now there is some correlation between foreign investments and IPR regulations: A company is motivated to build up sweat shops in countries that have some rules to ensure that those who work in these shops even if they gain some know-how there will never be able to use this knowledge for them self and might produce similar things on their own and maybe cutting into the profits of that corporations. So a strong IPR rules that “protects” the neocolonial slave labor are indeed in the interest of foreign investors. This helps to “stabilize” the difference between rich and poor. The rich will get richer and the poor will stay poor. Ergo: More dead babies in the long run.

Stay tuned for more analysis on these revealing ACTA study here.

Meanwhile: within the 10 minutes it took you to read this article. about 110 children died. male nutrition.

Franz Schaefer, July 2011

11 Arguments Against so called "Intellectual Property"

mond — 2008-10-22T13:03:21Z

The Terms „Intellectual Property“ (IP) or „Intellectual Property Right“ (IPR) are used to describe rather different legal constructs. Copyright, Patent Law, Trademark Law, etc, etc..

What they have in common is that they cover rights to exclude others from the use of immaterial goods like knowledge and information. Some authors, among them them most prominently Richard M. Stalmann, argue that the term should not be used at all. On the other hand, there are a lot of points that can be brought up against the concept of IP that applies to most or all of the different legal constructs that are commonly lumped under the term „intellectual property“. So it makes sense to use a term that describes all of the laws that exist for the purpose of excluding people from the access to knowledge and information.

Stallman argues that he does not like the term because it suggests a similarity with property law on physical objects. Where others (most prominently Sabine Nuss in her Book „Copyright & Copyriot“ [1] see this as an advantage: It points out the similarities with physical property rights. Just like with „intellectual property rights“, physical property right is a right to exclude others.

I share this sentiment. Of course there are differences between physical goods and immaterial goods. The fact that today, immaterial goods can usually be reproduced indefinitely without additional cost makes the exclusion seem even more absurd then with physical goods, though this argument neglects that, as Sabine has pointed out, the fact that creating an artificial shortage is rather common for physical goods as well under the capitalist mode of production.

1.) Unequal Distribution of Income

Excluding other people form access to immaterial goods does not create any wealth. What it does is it allows the people who create and those distribute these goods to demand some compensation for it. So the system of IPR is essentially a system for distributing income amongst people.

The global distribution of wealth as we see it today is generally not a fair one. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Capitalism lets some 10 Million people per year starve. Hard working people have to live below 1 or 2$ a day while others who do not work at all live from their capital. But let's take a closer look at the distribution of income that is caused by IPR. Lets look at the example of music production. From the price of a CD the artists usually gets below EUR 0.50 for a CD that costs EUR 15. The rest is payed as dividends to shareholders of music corporations or used for unproductive work like marketing. This is not a fair distribution of income. Among the artists some stars get really rich while most people producing good music can not make a living from their production of art.

The music industry as a whole does not produce any value for society anymore because the distribution of music could be done more conveniently and almost without costs on the internet. This industry is completely obsolete but IPR allows them to drain resources.

An other example that highlights the unfair distribution of income for immaterial work is the example of patents. Patents usually only benefit large companies where small ones can not afford the legal overhead and do not have the large „patent pools“ that big corporations use to stipple innovative small firms.

Conclusion: While it is often argued that IP provide compensation for creative workers it can be seen that the current system of IPRs does not provide a good service in this field and it should be clear that it should be easy to find means of distributing income to creative workers with less overhead (like over 90% in the music example!).

2.) The Consequences of Compulsory Exploitation

If art, science, journalism, etc. are created for the sole purpose of being sold on the market, this will have influence on the works that are created in this process. While the artist would prefer to make good art, since he needs to make a living he will be inclined to produce some junk that he thinks will sell well.

The pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on marketing then on research. And about 40% of the funds that go into research are used for producing cosmetics, while on the other hand research on medicines to cure diseases like malaria which are a burden for large parts of less developed countries do not get much funding at all.

We see: The art, science, technology, journalism, etc.. that is produced under the need of being commercially exploitable will look very different then the art, science, etc.. that could be created otherwise. In many cases we see that the imperative for profit does not benefit society.

3.) „Intellectual Property“ as a Tool for Neocolonial Exploitation

Global corporations try to move production into countries with low wages, low labor rights and low environmental standards. Outsourcing and offshoring labor to less developed countries also means a transfer of technology and know-how to these countries. While the corporations want the cheap labor they do not want that the people in this countries get access to the technology as this would breed competition.

The control over „intellectual property“ ensured that this corporations can offshore production to this countries while keeping a strong grip over them and ensure the constant flow of profits. This is why IPR is a tool for neocolonial exploitation. It denies access to knowledge and information to less developed countries but ensures the exploitation of the people in these countries.

With the WTO TRIPS agreement the rich countries have force the IPR-regime onto developing countries. Today most developing countries have woken up to the problem and are reluctant to implement it or to negotiate stronger IPR. Thus the developing countries try to force stronger IPR onto developing countries outside of the WTO process (See: ACTA.)

4.) Excluding People from Access to Knowledge and Information Limts its Utility

Today the distribution of knowledge and information is extremely cheap and easy and many people could benefit from works of art or technological knowledge. Yet the system of IPR prevents this. Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at columbia university formulated this in the DotCommunsit Manifesto:

„Society confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility—reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge—at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude. If Rome possessed the power to feed everyone amply at no greater cost than that of Caesar's own table, the people would sweep Caesar violently away if anyone were left to starve. But the bourgeois system of ownership demands that knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay.“ —Eben Moglen dotCommunist Manifesto

The capitalist system does not maximize efficiency here at all. When access to knowledge and information is cut of through copyright and patents then some people can not make use of these goods. But there is more to it:

5. Free and Open Information comes additional Utility

Some Information might be useful, but if you need to spend 2 days in a library just to find that piece of information then it is not practical for many circumstances (e.g.: where you would need the information immediately to take an urgent decision). The fact that information is free allows people to build search engines for that information and to give you immediate access to it in many formats and ways. Information that is free has an additional utility over non-free information.

With Free Software (Software were the source code is available and can be modified to build new software) there is the advantage that one can not only use the software build use it as building blocks to create new functionality. Something that is not possible in closed and software which is encumbered by commercial licenses and/or patents.

The success of Free Software, the success of Wikipedia, etc. all show how extremely useful free and open information can be.

6. Censorship

Censorship was the godfather of Copyright. When the new printing press was invented those in power soon realized the imminent danger of that technology. To bring cut the free flow of information and to bring it under their control they granted an exclusive „Copy Right“ to selected publishers through which they could control what would be published.

Today Copyright is still used to suppress critical information. (e.g. the Scientology-Sect is notorious for using this practice). The free flow of information on the internet is the general target. Under the guise of preventing piracy we see an increase in surveillance and control on the Internet.

7. The Dangers of Fascist DRM Technology

In order to „protect“ their „rights“ the big corporations do not trust the legal system but also use technical means of „protection“. Under the name DRM („Digital Rights Management“ which is more of an „Restriction Managment“) the media corporations want to establish technology that controls every aspect of our information processing. Today this technology is still at its infancy and more or less easy to circumvent, but it is getting more tight every year. If it should work es intended it can only work if we give total control over our information processing to those corporations. That would allow them to spy on us and restrict everything we can see or listen or read. Apple is taking the lead in promoting this fascist technology but Mircosoft and othera are not far behind.

With so called „Trusted Computing“ this technology will be built into the hardware. This is already established in the Microsoft X-Box and in Apples iPhone, etc

Since today the DRM could be circumvented the Corporations bribed our politicans into releasing legal protection for their „Copyprotection“ Technology. This is the so called DMCA (US) or the EUCD (Europe).

8. Media Concentration is a Threat to Democracy

The concentration of media that goes along with their corporate dominance is a danger for the freedom of press and thus an danger for democracy. This domination is only possible because copyright law transforms information into a commodity that can be bought and sold.

Where corporations are getting more and more powerful and their lobbyists are controling more and more of our politics this is a huge problem. We need non-commercial media where opinion is not sold to the highest bidder.

In a similar way the trademark law is an area where monopolies are established. Nike does not sell shoes it sells a logo.

IPR creates monopolies. A patent is a temporary monopoly right. So even some of the neoliberal-ideologists like Hayek opposed the idea of such rights.

9. Creativity is not an Individual Achievement but a Collective One

Most creative work is not produced by one great single mind but a lot of people. We are constantly influenced by many ideas from society and our daily conversation with friends and colleagues . Innovation is built on the free education of our childhood and the songs and mathematics and culture and everything that is free. So why should only those who do the final steps have exclusive rights and benefit from everyone else?

If you get married you might consider going to a professional photo-studio to make some nice pictures. But you should avoid this, since they then own the copyright to this pictures and will charge you every time you need a copy and will refuse to hand out the digital data of the photography. The person who made the wedding-dress and the person who made the bridal bouquet also invested a lot of creativity that went into that picture but they do not get that exclusive right to steal some money from you. This is not fair.

When someone writes an article he or she might use a lot of knowledge from books, from free websites or from Wikipedia but the current form of copyright gives all the exclusive rights to the one person who formulates an article from all those free knowledge. This is not fair.

10. Money is Not a Good Incentive for Creativity and Capitalsm can't deal with it

Financial rewards are often not a good motivation for creativity. Often enough they are even counter-productive:

See gnu.org motivation

Quote:

„The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is based on a variety of studies, which have come up with such findings as these: Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of it. Teenagers offered rewards for playing word games enjoy the games less and do not do as well as those who play with no rewards. Employees who are praised for meeting a manager's expectations suffer a drop in motivation.“

But there is more to this. How much of their creativity, empathy and knowledge people put into their work is not something that can be measured. With the alienation that is imminent in the capitalist mode of production people will not have motivation to put their talents into their work. And unlike with tangible goods capitalism can not measure it and thus can not easily create financial rewards for it. The philosopher André Gorz thus concludes:

„Capitalism, in the development of its productive forces, has reached a frontier: A frontier beyond where it would have to overcome itself in order to realize its own potential“ André Gorz, Die Presse/Spectrum 14.08.2004. (my own translation from the German original)

11. Against Private Property in the Means of Production

Communists, for the last 150+ years have opposed the idea of private property in the means of production. Today, in our knowledge and information based economy, knowledge and information is the most important part means of production. And thus we should oppose the idea of „Intellectual Property“ as well.

The argument s behind this opposition towards private property in the means of production mostly reassemble the other 10 arguments that are listed above and vice versa.

But there is something new here. The cooperative way in which e.g. Free Software is produced is an example of how collective property does not just mean putting it in the hands of (authoritarian) state. On the other hand this is not so much new at all but was envisioned by Marx long time ago:

„In place of the bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, shall we have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.“ — Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848

This text is a rough translation of my article from Juni 2006: 11 Argumente gegen so genanntes 'Geistiges Eigentum'.

Franz Schäfer, Oktober 2008

[1] Sabine Nuss: Copyright & Copyriot, German, Aneignungskonflikte um geistiges Eigentum im informationellen Kapitalismus Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2006, 269 Seiten, ISBN 3-89691-647-5

How ACTA kills your job

mond — 2008-09-16T12:31:49Z

„Intellectual Property“ is called the „The Oil of the 21st Century“. Workers here are told that strong protection of that the protection of this so called „property“ is necessary for our economy and a means to protect jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With the ACTA-negotiations, the protection of this IPR should be made stronger once again. What is really behind it?

Global corporations need to maximize their profit. One way to do this is to offshore production into countries with lower wages. There is one problem with this approach. By transferring know-how into these countries there is the risk that these countries will produce product on their own and this breeds competitors [1]. And competition is bad for profits. Thus the global corporations need to find a way where they can utilize the cheap labor while protecting them self from competition.

Where the enforcement of copyright only protects them from direct clones the protection of trademarks ensures that only those who have the financial power to run a marketing campaign on a global scale can sell products at inflated prices. The most important tool is the enforcement of patents. This allows to „protect“ abstract ideas which potentially cover a wide range of similar products and technology.

So while it is true that IPR protection is „good for the european economy“ the workers here will not benefit from it. It will increase the profits of the global corporations but it will increase the trend towards offshoring protection. Your boss will get rich but you will loose your job.

It will not help the developing countries neither as it ensures that the profits are extracted out of this countries while access to cheap medicine and other goods is prevented. Most developing countries now oppose the WTO-TRIPS treaty as they are now forced to implement it. This is why ACTA was started. Now that the developing countries are ware of the neo-colonial effects of IPR it is not possible to conduct the IPR protection within the WTO anymore. So the rich countries decided to take it in their own hands.

ACTA is a way of economic warfare that is pursued against developing countries and against the working people in Europe, the US and Japan at the same time.

This should help to explain why the negotiations are held in complete secrecy.

Franz Schaefer, September 2008

More on ACTA: Arguments against ACTA - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

[1] e.g. See: Intellectual Property Rights and East Asian Renaissance

Arguments against ACTA - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

mond — 2008-08-29T15:15:53Z

Recently a Draft Report for a "Motion for a Resolution" was introduced to the European Parliament that Discusses the Position towards the secret ACTA Treaty and the Position of the European Commission within this Treaty. Here are a few reasons what is wrong with this Draft Document and why.

Getting the Definitions right

The ACTA Treaty is supposed to deal with "counterfeiting", yet it mixes in a lot of different "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR):

The term "counterfeiting" should only be used for the violation of Trademarks and not for the violation of other Rights like (Copyright or Patents). This is not the case with the language that ACTA uses and thus it is not really possible to lead a serious discussion about the topics at hand within the framework of the existing ACTA Documents.

Do we need ACTA?

The arguments we hear from the pro-ACTA side are:

There is a huge economic loss, due to "counterfeiting"
Counterfeited medicine with potentially dangerous substances in it are a threat to our health.

Counter Argument: No real threat to health.

If someone sells dangerous Products today and risks peoples health and life, each European country already has laws to deal with this. This is already covered by criminal law and there is no need to introduce new laws here. According to the study from Dr. Duncan Matthews [1] the level of counterfeit medicine in developed countries is below 1%. So we should assume, that if one does not buy drugs via dubious websites, there is no real danger for the people within the EU.

Counter Argument: IPR - Not the right tools to protect our health

It should be noted that copyright or patent violations never pose a danger at all. If at all, this is only a question of trademark violation. It must also be noted that a perfectly legal trademark on a product is no guarantee for safety neither. E.g.: The indian province of Kerala had to impose a ban an the sale of "Coca-Cola" and other soft drinks because of the high level of pesticides they contained.

Thus we have to conclude that one should be careful in equating health risks with trademark infringments: Not every trademark infringement is a health risk and not every health risk is a trademark infringement.

When the stated aim is to avoid health risk it does not make sense to also lump in copyright and patent violations and it is highly questionable to equate health risk and trademark infringement.

Maybe this is just a Red Herring after all.

Counter Argument: Zillions of Damage because of "piracy"

From the „Duncan Paper“ (see above)

„There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys. Industry estimates of levels of counterfeit and piracy are considered to exhibit an upward bias, with the difficulty in estimating levels of actual counterfeiting and piracy exacerbated by the failure to use the definition of the terms as set down in the TRIPS Agreement. The high levels reported in most industry-based surveys has been identified as a problematic aspect of the recent expert reports used as the basis of the 2007 OECD report on counterfeiting and piracy. The OECD report has also been criticised for framing the problem of intellectual property- related crime exclusively through the lens of “piracy” and lost corporate revenue, in doing so overlooking the social costs of intellectual property enforcement that restricts access to knowledge, creates barriers to follow-on innovation, and encourages anti-competitive business practices“

We can conclude that the numbers that are shown are exaggerated and that we do not have any numbers of how much harm is done because of the restrictions to knowledge at all.

If we take a closer look at IPR (especially copyright ant patents) we see that they are laws that restrict access to knowledge and information. They do not provide any real value but they are a system of distributing income from those goods.

Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia University, commented about this:

„Society confronts the simple fact that when everyone can possess every intellectual work of beauty and utility—reaping all the human value of every increase of knowledge—at the same cost that any one person can possess them, it is no longer moral to exclude. If Rome possessed the power to feed everyone amply at no greater cost than that of Caesar's own table, the people would sweep Caesar violently away if anyone were left to starve. But the bourgeois system of ownership demands that knowledge and culture be rationed by the ability to pay.“

So when someone talks about "damage" in the context of IPR this is actually a misleading term. When IPR is violated then we see a different distribution of income from these goods but we do not have any "damage" at all. The goods are still there for the consumers to use (unless the European Commission decides to forcefully destroy them). On the other hand there is a real damage done through IPR. Every IPR which excludes someone from the use of some work of art, some knowledge, some blueprint for a useful maschine, etc. there is real damage done: the maximum productivity that would be possible today is not archived.

We see: There is no damage done to society because of the violation of IPR but there is a lot of damge done through IPR. IPR are a system for the distribution of income. This system might be seen as fair or unfair. It might bee sen as beneficial to society because it is said to create an incentive for creativity but it might be seen as not so beneficial because it creates an incentive for the wrong kind of creativity (doing research on cosmetics instead of research on medicine to cure deseases in less developed parts of the world).

The numbers that are labelled as "damage" are not a measure of the volume of redistribution of income. e.g.: someone who downloads a few thousand songs for free from the internet would never buy that same amount of songs for the normal price.

Counter Argument: Zillions of Damage because of "counterfeiting".

Today we see the rise of big international corporations with budgets larger then the GNP of small countries. One of the reasons behind this rise is the possibility of running global marketing campaigns to establish global brand names.

This advertising is not useful to society. It does not create food, housing nor any other tangible useful good. What the marketing creates is "demand". It induces a desire into people to buy something that they might not have bought without the advertising. It leaves those who are not rich enough to buy the advertised goods unhappy. The advertising itself also eats up human and natural resources. While advertising is needed in the capitalist system that is based on ever lasting expansion it is not useful to society by itself. Today this expansion runs into a conflict with the limited resources on our planet and should be seen of one of the major problems for our society.

The forceful protection of trademarks builds the basis for this marketing. It would not make much sens to run a global advertising campaign for a brand name that is not globally protected.

We see: There is no damage done because of counterfeiting. As with the violation of copyright and patents there is only a different distribution of income. On the other hand the higher the protection of trademarks the better for the global corporations and the more wasted resources because of useless marketing.

Thus it might make sense to think about weather the protection of trademarks on an international (and national) level should not be reduced.

Enhancing this protection certainly makes things worse.

As mentioned above, the numbers here are exaggerated as well. If someone buys a fake Rolex on the beach for say 20 EUR he does not expect to buy a genuine brand. Maybe he does not care that it is a counterfeit at all but he just wants a shiny watch. In any case that person would never have bought a watch for 2000 EUR in his live. So there is certainly no damage or EUR 2000. There is not even a damage of EUR 20 since that is a fair price for a cheap watch. There might not even be any harm done to the integrity of the "Trademark" of Rolex since the person who bought it did not care or did expect a fake after all.

IPR, Neocolonial Exploitation and the Working People in Europe

IPR and ACTA are often argued with protecting jobs in Europe. We have already seen that it is not beneficial to society to enforce restrictions to access to information and knowledge and there are problems with the protection of trademarks as well.

Is this beneficial to the people working in Europe? Does it protect any jobs? With a strong regime of IPR-protection the incentives to off-shoring and outsourcing for corporations are even stronger. A lot of products with US and european products brand names are already being produced in countries with lower wages and lower environmental standards outside the EU. IPR is not a tool to protect jobs in Europe. What it protects are the profits of the gobal corporations.

With the WTO TRIPS the developed countries forced IPR onto developing countries. While there was a grace-period where these countries did not have to implement this legislation immediately, this period is now over and most of this countries have realized what huge problems this brings. This is one of the main reasons why the recent WTO negotiations have failed. The representatives of the countries which act on behalf of the interests of the global corporations tried to introduce even stronger IPR. (TRIPS-plus).

Most of the developing countries see that this is not in their interest. This is the main reason why the rich countries try to do it on their own now, in bilateral and multilateral treaties like ACTA.

About 10 Million people each year are starving or dieing because of hunger-related causes. This year, due to the worldwide increase of food prices probably more. The price of rat meat in Cambodia has quadrupled this year.

Given this fact it is a scandal that the EU, the US and Japan are trying to use means of economic warfare towards developing countries in order to force the IPR-restrictions onto them.

We have seen: IPR is bad for the people working in Europe and it is bad for the people working in developing countries. We have to ask what kind of reasoning there is behind the ambitions to tighten the IP-regime at all.

ACTA negotiations, Policy Laundering and Software Patents

We have seen that the strengthening of IPR is not beneficial to society. Thus it should not come as a surprise that those who try to pursue it do this within secrecy and try to avoid democratic control.

For month the public did not know about negotiations at all. Only after a document was posted to wikileaks did the public find out about ACTA. It seems a common trend that more and more international treaties are used to circumvent national or European law making processes. When the European Commission was pushing for the introduction of software patents in Europe the EC told us that Software Patents would be required by TRIPS. The European Parliament decided that this was not the case and rejected the directive. Now the EC is negotiating for TRIPS-plus and ACTA to further their IPR-agenda. With proposed ACTA there is the potential danger that European SMEs who can enjoy the freedom to be not restricted by Software Patents would need to comply with US or Japanese Software Patent law. This could bring Software Patents and other mischief to Europe through the backdoor.

We conclude: The ACTA negotiations (like other green-room negotiations of international treaties) are not just used to avoid democratic control but are potentially used against the democratic decisions made by the European Parliament.

The "Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union" (TFEU) would give the European Parliament more control in the negotiations of such treaties (see the Duncan Paper). The hastiness of the ACTA process seems to be an indication that the EC wants to finish the negotiations before such control is in place.

Privacy Considerations

Under the guise of a "war against terror" we have seen a dramatic increase in surveillance in the last few years, that many would have thought is possible under totalitarian Regimes only. If ACTA is intended to introduce more control over digital content this could again be used to legitimize unprecedented surveillance.

Of course, the monitoring of physical goods and extensive searches at boarders and might pose a threat to privacy as well.

Suggestions for Alternatives

If one is interested in the damage done through IPR then it would make sense to have scientific studies that do some research in that field. How much labor and resources are wasted because of the artificial restrictions that different IPRs pose on the access to knowledge and information? How much within different branches of industry. We suggest that the EU finances research in this field. We would also need research in the field of alternative ways of distributing funding towards creativity and research.

If one is interesting in protecting jobs in Europe we should do some research into how global environmental and labor standards can be raised. We would suggest that guaranteed minimum wages, maximum working hours and environmental protection should be a central element of all trade treaty-negotiations.

If one is interested in protecting the health of consumers then it would make sense to introduce standards for consumer-protection clauses into all trade-treaty negotiations.

If one is interested in making global corporations more profitable we could just introduce a global tax and hand the money over to the Fortune-500. ;-)

No need to introduce ACTA because of any of this.

In any case we should demand:

That trademark-violations, copyright violations and patent violations are not intermixed and not dealt with in the same negotiations.
That there is a clear distinction made between material goods and the transport of data over the internet or other means. This should not be dealt in the same treaty and not be in the same negotiations.
That all negotiations of international treaties are performed in a comply transparent way. We need to know who demands what and why and when.

Franz Schäfer, August 2008

Update: 8. Sept. 2008 The EU-Council debates their own ACTA related Resolution

p.s: Analysis of ACTA @FFII, Another good Analysis of ACTA

[1] EXPO/B/INTA/2008/28, PE 388.960 "The Fight Against Counterfeiting and Piracy in the Bilateral Trade Agreements of the EU", June 2008

ACTA: Aufruf zum Handelskrieg gegen Entwicklungsländer

mond — 2008-08-27T12:43:16Z

Das ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) wurde bis jetzt in Geheimverhandlungen zwischen EU, USA und anderen reichen Ländern ausverhandelt. Über diese Geheimverhandlungen können Bestimmungen eingeführt werden die dann in nationales Recht und in EU-Bestimmungen übernommen werden müssen. Durch die Vielzahl der beteiligten und den intransparenten Prozess ist oft auch nicht klar, wer welche Bestimmungen gefordert hat. Dafür hat sich inzwischen der Begriff "Politikwäsche - Policy Laundering" durchgesetzt.

Dank Wikileaks wurden diese Geheimverhandlungen aufgedeckt. Daher musste die EU-Kommission die Flucht nach vorne antreten und hat sich inzwischen dazu durch gerungen auch das EU-Parlament einzubinden. Es liegt jetzt ein Papier der EU-Kommission vor das in den nächsten Tagen im Parlamentsausschuss für internationalen Handel diskutiert (und eventuell durch Amendments ergänzt oder abgeändert) werden soll. Wir haben dazu etliche Abänderungsanträge verfasst und an die Abgeordneten der Europäischen Linkspartei und den Grünen übermittelt.

Der Text der EU-Kommission strotzt nur so vor Lügen und falschen Darstellungen. So wird dort etwa Behauptet dass ACTA vor allem Klein und Mittelbetrieben nützen würde (eine Behauptung die ein keinem EU-Papier fehlen darf egal ob sie jetzt richtig ist oder nicht.).

Tatsächlich können es sich aber nur Megakonzerne ein globales Marketing leisten. Wenn also Produkte "gefälscht" werden so trifft das selten kleine oder mittlere Unternehmen sondern hauptsächlich große Konzerne. Der in Marketing investierte Aufwand ist unproduktiv. Davon wird niemand satt. Im Gegenteil: Werbung schafft künstliche Bedürfnisse und treibt somit die expansion des Kapitalismus voran. Angesichts der begrenzten Resourcen dieses Planeten und angesichts der drohenden Umweltkatastrophen ist das nicht unbedingt etwas das gefördert werden soll.

Mit diesem "Schutz" (der aus unseren Steuergeldern finanziert werden soll) werden also vor allem die Profite der Megakonzerne geschützt und die Konsumprodukte unnötig verteuert. Siehe auch: Verachte die Marke! No Logo!.

Gipfel der Widerwärtigkeiten im Papier der EU-Kommission ist aber der offene Aufruf zum Handelskrieg gegen Entwicklungsländer:

8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make all appropriate efforts to achieve a swift and satisfactory conclusion to the ACTA agreement; takes the view that not only is the entry into force of the agreement an essential international benchmark, but that it can ensure that counterfeiting is suppressed more effectively and provide an important tool for putting pressure on non-signatory third countries;"

Angesichts der Tatsache, dass jährlich etwa 10 Millionen Menschen an den Folgen des Hungers sterben ist das ein unglaublicher Skandal. Gerade diese so genannten "geistigen Eigentumsrechten" werden immer häufiger als Instrument neo-kolonialer Ausbeutung benutzt.

Darüber hinaus Verlangt die EU-Kommission praktisch eine Generalvollmacht ausstellen lassen die ACTA Verhandlungen zu führen.

Ein gutes hat die Sache allerdings. Seit der draft Report auf dem Tisch liegt steht jetzt einiges zur Disposition: Das Verhaltend er EU-Kommission in der Verhandlung internationaler Verträge. Der wirtschaftliche Imperialismus gegenüber weniger entwickelten Ländern. Die Positionen zu TRIPS, WTO und WIPO. All das kann steht jetzt EU-öffentlich zur Debatte. Auch wenn es sich bei dem eingebrachten Text nur um eine rechtlich unverbindliche „Motion for a Resolution“ handelt, ist es Zeit für alle NGOs sich da einzubringen....

Franz Schäfer, August 2008.

Am Beispiel von Microsoft: Wie teuer kommt uns der Kapitalismus?

mond — 2008-05-20T22:00:00Z

In Zusammenhang mit den, von der EU gegen Microsoft verhängten Bußgeldern, wird oft von "Rekordstrafen" gesprochen. Tatsächlich betragen diese aber umgerechnet nur etwa 1 EUR/EU-BürgerIn und sind vom tatsächlich durch Microsoft verursachten Schaden um mehrere Größenordnungen entfernt. Aus der Betrachtung dieses Falles lässt sich auch einiges über den Schaden den der Kapitalismus ganz generell anrichtet lernen.

Zur Schadensabschätzung

Monopolrente: Die Preise der Microsoft Produkte sind durch das Defacto-Monopol enorm überhöht [1]. Der direkte Schaden dürfte in Europa etwa 75 Euro pro Kopf betragen.

Überteuerte Hardware: Ohne dass die Software viel nützlicher wird, benötigt jede neu Windows Version immer stärkere Hardware. Viele UserInnen benötigen nicht viel mehr auf ihrem Arbeitsplatz als ein wenig Textverarbeitung, E-Mail und einen Webbrowser, was auch auf älterer Hardware gut funktionieren würde, wenn die Software nicht immer aufgeblasener werden würde. Der Netzwerkeffekt zwingt die Menschen aber zum Software Upgrade und dies erfordert bei Microsoft auch immer einen Hardware Upgrade. Besonders Vista ist in dieser Hinsicht besonders unverschämt ressourcenfressend. Rechnen wir überschlagsmäßig, dass Betriebsystem und Office Software etwa ein Drittel der Anschaffungskosten ausmachen und dass etwa jedes 2te Upgrade der Hardware nur durch den unnötigen Ressourcenhunger von Microsoft Produkten entsteht, dann haben wir hier auch etwa 75 Euro an entstandenem Schaden.

Datenverlust, Spam, Viren, Torjans: Dieser Bereich ist natürlich schwer abschätzbar. Keine Software ist hundertprozentig sicher. Bugs gibt es überall. Jedoch macht (getrieben durch kurzfristige Marketingüberlegungen) Microsoft an allen Stellen an denen es zwischen Sicherheit und oberflächlicher BenutzerInnenfreundlichkeit zu entscheiden gilt immer die Entscheidungen zugunsten letzterem. Das waren von Anfang an elementare Designentscheidungen [2]. Wie hoch der Schaden dadurch ist, ist schwer zu beziffern. Heutzutage wird die Welt von Botnetzen (zumeist infizierte Windows-PCs von PrivatbenutzerInnen auf DSL Leitungen) terrorisiert. Diese sind eine massive Bedrohung der gesamten Netzwerksicherheit und die Hauptquelle von Viren und Spam Attacken. Rechnen wir den Spam so ergeben sich etwa Kosten von 1 Euro/Monat/Arbeitsplatz für Spam- und Virenfilter und vielleicht etwa 10 Euro/Arbeitsplatz an Produktivitätsentgang pro Monat. Hochgerechnet auf die Gesamtbevölkerung haben wir einen Schaden durch Spam von etwa 130 Euro/Kopf. Konservativ geschätzt dürfen wir davon ausgehen dass der Schaden durch Datenverlust noch einmal so hoch ist. (Dieser ist meist in klassischen TCO Berechnungen nicht enthalten und sollte daher extra angeführt werden).

TCO: Software wird nicht nur gekauft sondern muss auch laufend gewartet und bereut werden. Laut einer EU-Studie (PDF) kommt hier bei vielen Packten Freie Software um die Hälfte billiger als vergleichbare kommerzielle Software [3]. Wenn wir davon ausgehen, dass die TCO etwa 10 mal höher sind als die Anschaffungskosten der Software und davon langfristig etwa 50% gespart werden können, dann haben wir hier einen Schaden von 375 Euro/ Kopf. Auch eine von Micro$oft bezahlte studie rechnete vor wie viele Job (mehrere 10000) durch die Einführung von Vista geschaffen werden. Als sie merkten, dass die KäuferInnen davon nicht begeistert sind wenn man ihnen erklärt wie viel extra Kosten ihnen der Wahnsinn aufbürden würde hat Microsoft die Studie schnell wieder von der Website entfernt. [4]

In Summe haben wir also 705 Euro an Kosten durch Microsoft pro Kopf [5] in Europa in den letzten 10 Jahren. Dagegen wirken die etwa 1 Euro an Bußgeldern ziemlich lächerlich. Natürlich handelt es sich dabei um eine relativ grobe Schätzung, aber die Größenordnung von etwa 700 Euro dürfte stimmen. Der Schaden ist also sicherlich höher als 70 Euro und vermutlich geringer als 7000 Euro. Ebenfalls nicht eingerechnet ist der Schaden durch andere kommerzielle Softwarehersteller.

Einwände

Aber die Zahlen doch auch Steuern? Nein: wir zahlen die Steuern. Die Mehrwertsteuer wird ohnehin nicht mehr Teil des Umsatzes gerechnet.

Aber die schaffen doch Arbeitsplätze?

„Wir brauchen keine Arbeitsplätze, wir brauchen Schuhe, Nudeln, Betten, Wohnungen, Musik und Kartoffeln, Anzüge und Würste, Badewannen und Artischocken, Haarnadeln und Rotwein, Kopfschmerztabletten und Lastwagen, Bilder, Bücher und Brot.“ — E.A. Rauter

Es nützt aber nichts wenn wir Arbeitsplätze Schaffen die uns keine Gebrauchswerte produzieren. Da könnten wir auch Leute dafür bezahlen, dass sie Gruben ausschaufeln um sie danach gleich wieder zuzuschütten. Das schafft auch Arbeitsplätze. Die 700 Euro an Schaden zeigen genau dies auf: Um dieses Geld hätte auch gesellschaftlich nützliche Arbeit finanziert werden können: KrankenpflegerInnen, LehrerInnen, etc.. etc... Alleine in Europa könnten mit 140Euro/Jahr/Kopf etwa 1.5 Million Menschen beschäftigt werden die sinnvolles leisten. Oder wir könnten statt dessen alle einfach etwas mehr Freizeit genießen.

Ist das Ganze für den Kapitalismus insgesamt beispielhaft?

Ja und Nein. Solche Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse wie sie im Software Bereich geschaffen werden können sind nicht überall möglich, aber in unserer High-Tech Welt immer häufiger. Siehe: Vendor-Lockin und die digitalen Wegelagerer. Die Schaffung künstlicher Knappheit ist ebenfalls viel weiter verbreitet als gemein hin angenommen. Siehe: Bastiat, Broken Windows, Klimakatastrophen und Kriege.

Das sind Aspekte die in der klassischen marxistischen Analyse oft außer Acht gelassen werden. Dort gilt manchen die kapitalistische Konkurrenz immer noch als Garant für Effizienz. Dass Firmen wie Microsoft 10 mal mehr Schaden anrichten als sie selbst Umsatz machen ist dort noch nicht bekannt. Daher wird in diesen Teilen der Linken auch vor allem die Forderung nach „Umverteilung“ des geschaffenen gesellschaftlichen Reichtums aufgestellt. Dabei wäre bei einer Abkehr von der ineffizienten Kapitalistischen Produktionsweise auch insgesamt mehr für alle da. Im Beispiel von Microsoft 10 mal mehr. In vielen anderen Bereichen sicherlich ebenfalls zig mal mehr: Das Ganze ist also kein Nullsummenspiel wo nur das was den einen weggenommen wird den anderen gegeben werden kann. Siehe auch: Die sieben Probleme mit dem Kapitalismus.

Franz Schäfer, Mai 2008.

Update August 2008: Laut einer Studie betragen die externen IT-Kosten von Unternehmen etwa 700Euro/ÖsterreicherIn/Jahr. Davon 47% Hardware und 30% Software. Das zeigt, dass die obige Schätzung eher zu vorsichtig (zu niedrig) ist als zu hoch.

[1] Openoffice, ein im Vergleich zu Microsoft-Office vergleichbares Produkt, wird noch immer relativ wenig verwendet obowohl es gratis und frei ist. Das Selbe gilt für das Betriebssystem selbst und viele andere Anwendungen. Die Entwicklung von OpenOffice würde etwa 230Millionen EURO kosten. Wenn wir annehmen dass Microsoft Office weltweit öfter als 230 Millionen mal verkauft wurde gibt sich ein Anteil an den Produktionskosten der Software von unter 1 Euro / Kopie. Siehe Wikipedia: SLOC, More than a Gigabuck: Estimating GNU/Linux's Size , Die Produktion Freier Software als Beispiel für Kooperation statt kapitalistischer Konkurenz. Der Preis für MS-Office beträgt aber etwa 200 Euro. Weniger als 0.5% des Verkaufspreises werden also für die Produktion der Software aufgewendet. 99.% sind Entweder Profite an Shareholder oder unnützer kapitalistischer Overhead, Marketing, Vertrieb, etc.. Eventuell auch Korruption. Da der Microsoft Umsatz vorwiegend mit Software Verkauf gemacht wird, kann ausgehend von dieser Abschätzung davon ausgegangen werden, dass weit mehr als 95% des Umsatzes der Firma keinen Nutzen für uns Schaffen. Mehr als 95% des Umsatzes der Firma müssen hier als Schadenssumme angesetzt werden. Eher etwas mehr, da die ZwischenhändlerInnen für Software ja auch noch eine Gewinnspanne haben die auch in den Schaden eingeht (Es wird ja gegenüber einem Gratis Download kein Gebrauchswert geschaffen, eher im Gegenteil). Wir können den Microsoft Umsatz also zur Gänze als Schadenshöhe Ansetzen. Dieser betrug im Jahre 2007 etwa 35 Milliarden Euro. Das sind etwa 5 Euro pro Kopf der Weltbevölkerung (egal wie alt, egal ob jemals einen Computer benutzt). In Europa dürfte der Umsatz etwa 15 Euro pro Kopf pro Jahr betragen. Rechnen wir einen linearen Anstieg in den letzten 10 Jahren dann haben wir etwa 75 Euro Gesamtschaden pro Kopf.

[2] z.b. eine Macro-Sprache in Microsoft Office die auch beliebige Systembefehle ausführen konnte und die alle die solche Dokumente per E-Mail oder damals noch per Diskette erhalten hatten allerhöchsten Gefahren aussetzte.). Auch wenn Microsoft heute versucht die gröbsten Lücken zu schließen hat sich an der Philosophie nichts geändert. Siehe z.B.: New Malware Report Hits Vista's Security Image.

[3] Siehe auch: Linux Versus Microsoft TCO

[4] Siehe guardian.co.uk: Will Vista really create 100,000 jobs in Europe?

Kopie der Originalstudie (pdf)

[5] egal ob dieser Computer verwendet und ohne den schwer zu beziffernden Datenverlust gerechnet.

Der produzierte Geist

mond — 2007-12-19T07:15:00Z

Der Vortrag versucht zwei Fragen, die das Feld der aktuellen Auseinandersetzungen um geistiges Eigentum bestimmen, zu beantworten. Zum einen: Ist geistiges Eigentum überhaupt möglich, d.h. lässt sich eine im Umgang mit Dingen entwickelte soziale Praxis wie Eigentum überhaupt anders als bloß metaphorisch auf die Ergebnisse geistiger Tätigkeit übertragen? Und zum anderen: Ist geistiges Eigentum eine notwendige Konsequenz der ökonomischen Entwicklung in der Gegenwart?

Schmidt, Christian: Dr., Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Publikation u.a.: Individualität und Eigentum. Zur Rekonstruktion zweier Grundbegriffe der Moderne (Frankfurt am Main 2006)

Konzeption und Organisation:

Odin Kröger: studiert Philosophie mit Schwerpunkt politische Theorie und Medientheorie und schreibt zur Zeit an seiner Diplomarbeit zu geistigem Eigentum.

Zeit: Dienstag, 15. Jänner 2007, 19.00 Uhr

Ort: Depot, Breitegasse

Links: IWK - Institut für Wissenschaft und Kunst

Demo gegen Sicherheitspolizeigesetz

mond — 2007-12-18T13:19:41Z

Zweck / Thema: Aufmerksam machen auf entstehende Problematiken durch die geplante Novelle des Sicherheitspolizeigesetzes [SPG]

Ort: Beim Zentraleingang des Parlaments, Dr.-Karl-Renner-Ring 3, 1010 Wien

Zeit und Datum Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007, 8:30 bis 8:55 (vor der Bundesratssitzung)

Verwendete Mittel: Tafeln, Kameras, Handys, etc.

Siehe auch:

Parlamentarische Petition zur Behandlung des Sicherheitspolizeigesetzes im Innenausschuss des Nationalrats
Was steckt hinter dem Ganzen Überwachungswahn?: Vorratsdatenspeicherung
SalonWiki Protestaktion

Update: Online Demo Siehe: Liste der teilnehmenden Blogs und Sites

Update: Bilder von der Demo:

Copy me – I want to travel

mond — 2007-12-13T06:42:00Z

„Copy me – I want to travel“ so lautet der Titel eines Songs von Bernadette La Hengst. In ihm ruft „die Idee“ dazu auf, die Leute mögen sie kopieren, sie sei kollektiv und möchte gerne reisen… Das Lied ist künstlerischer Ausdruck gesellschaftlicher Auseinandersetzungen um geistiges Eigentum, durch dessen Formierung bislang noch nicht durch die Warenform organisierte Sphären dem Eigentumsregime unterworfen werden. Im Vortrag soll die theoretische Grundlegung geistigen Eigentums, die in den aktuellen Debatten meist stillschweigend vorausgesetzt bzw. naturalisiert wird, analysiert werden. Auf dieser Grundlage sollen in der Folge häufig aufgeworfene Fragen diskutieren werden: Ist geistiges Eigentum durch den technischen Fortschritt gefährdet? Sind alternative Produktionsweisen wie Freie Software oder Open Access die (Wissens)Produktionsweisen der Zukunft und weisen gar über herrschende Verhältnisse hinaus? Wie reproduzieren sich „WissensarbeiterInnen“ angesichts solcher Produktionsweisen?

Sabine Nuss: wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung. Publikation u.a.: Copyright & Copyriot. Aneignungskonflikte um geistiges Eigentum im informationellen Kapitalismus (Münster 2006)

Montag, 17. Dezember 2007, 19:00 Depot, Breitegasse 3, 1070 Wien

Wem gehört die Natur? – Biopiraterie und die Konflikte um geistiges Eigentum

mond — 2007-10-17T18:32:00Z

Konflikte um biologische Vielfalt und insbesondere ihre vererbbaren Eigenschaften (die genetischen Ressourcen) sind in den letzten 20 Jahren immer sichtbarer geworden. Zum einen schreitet die Erosion der biologischen Vielfalt dramatisch voran und betrifft vor allem die Landwirtschaft. Zum anderen gelten die genetischen Ressourcen als wichtiger Rohstoff für die Agrar-, Pharma- und Kosmetikindustrie. Manche bezeichnen das „grüne Gold der Gene“ als „Erdöl des 21. Jahrhunderts“. Transnationale Unternehmen und Forschungsinstitute werden etwa der „Biopiraterie“ bezichtigt. In dem Vortrag geht es um die Konflikte der Aneignung biologischer Vielfalt in einer zentralen Frage, nämlich den geistigen Eigentumsrechten. Die Bandbreite der politischen Vorschläge verläuft von der Patentierung der Vielfalt und der aus ihr gewonnenen Produkte hin zu ihrer Behandlung als globales Gemeingut. Anhand von Beispielen werden die Konflikte dargestellt und analysiert sowie die Frage nach einer demokratischen Biodiversitätspolitik gestellt.

Ulrich Brand: Professor am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Universität Wien und forscht u.a. zu Biopatenten.

Montag, 26. November 2007, 19:00 Depot (Breite Gasse 3, 1070 Wien)