Why isn't China on the 301 Priority Watch List?

Politics International Politics
1

Why isn’t China on the priority watch list? Everyone knows you can get cheap pirated software, dvds, cds, etc there… :?

[quote]U.S. Elevates Korea to Priority Watch List Based on Continued Concerns Regarding Film and Music Piracy
Background:

Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1974, under Special 301 provisions, the Office of the US Trade Representative must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for IPR or deny fair and equitable market access for persons that rely on intellectual property protection. Countries are placed into one of four categories: (1) Priority Foreign Country, (2) Priority Watch List, (3) Watch List, or (4) Section 306 monitoring.

Priority Foreign Countries that fail to enter into good faith negotiations or make significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective protection of IPR may be subject to sanctions. Currently, one country (Ukraine) is designated in this category and subject to $75 million in sanctions.

Countries that were previously designated a Priority Foreign Country but entered into good-faith negotiations and/or are making progress are placed under Section 306 monitoring; currently, China and Paraguay fall into this category. USTR has also created a “Priority Watch List” and “Watch List” under Special 301 provisions. Placement of a trading partner on the Priority Watch List or Watch List indicates that particular problems exist in that country with respect to IPR protection, enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property.

The Special 301 review occurs annually each April, but out-of-cycle reviews may be conducted at any time to evaluate changes and developments in particular countries. In the 2003 Special 301 Report, released on May 1, 11 trading partners were placed on the Priority Watch List and 36 trading partners were placed on the Watch List. Korea, which was originally on the Watch List, now joins Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, the EU, India, Indonesia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, and Taiwan on the Priority Watch List.[/quote]

2

China is the listed under “section 306”, Don’t know if that’s worse or anything
ustr.gov/reports/2003/special301.htm

Wandering around BaDe Rd. I can see that Taiwan’s listing is well deserved.

3

Doesn’t sound worse…sounds like they’re just ‘encouraging’ them.

4

'cuz then we’d make China mad, and if we made China mad, then where would Wal-Mart get all its stuff to sell?

5

Perhaps because it wouldn’t do any #*&$ing good? China is in favor of pirating American goods – why do they want to send money back to the U.S.? It’s sorta like asking why people don’t complain about human-rights violations in North Korea, or why Human Rights Watch doesn’t give a damn about Saddam’s filling up of mass graves with political dissidents.

6

Alien, for someone who is intent on castigating big business and its links with government, a better question would be: why hasn’t the US abolished 301 altogether or reformed it to create a less biased process?

Better this, surely, than standing shoulder to shoulder with the big corporate entertainment interests in bashing a third-world country.

Another question - can you see the parrallel in the stance you are taking here and the question of selling cheap, generic (‘pirated’) HIV drugs to Africa?

7

good point. this is exactly what drives me mad about politics…american…european…they are all the same…

8

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry:

[quote]With its slogan “Disneyland is too far,” Beijing’s Shijingshan Amusement Park features a replica of Cinderella’s Castle, with staff dressed like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and other Disney characters.

None of this is authorized by Disney - but that has not stopped the state-owned park from creating its own counterfeit version of the Magic Kingdom in a brazen example of the sort of open and widespread copyright piracy that has Washington fuming.

The United States announced Monday it would file a case at the World Trade Organization over rampant copyright piracy in China, a practice which US companies say deprives them of billions of dollars each year.

But 31-year-old housewife Zhang Li betrays a typical Chinese attitude on the issue while chasing her young son around the park.

“I don’t understand why that is such a big problem. Shouldn’t others be able to use those characters besides [Disney]?” she asks.[/quote]

I never understand why the Chinese authorities even bother with denials.

9

Neither do I. Maybe it’s the same reason Chinese people would rather give wrong directions than admit they don’t know the directions.

10

I say “fuck Disney.” It’s largely thanks to them that copyrights in the USA have been extended to last essentially forever. And let’s not forget their support for the notorious Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

I don’t like it when China pirates other stuff produced by honest artists, writers and filmmakers, but when it comes to Disney, I think what China is doing is great.

Hey, wasn’t it Disney who came up with “Pirates of the Caribbean?”

11

Agree with the Dog’s breakfast.

Disney here in HK was built with loans from the HK government, the terms of which are forty years interest free, but those years are only profit making years. In effect, the HK government gave them the land and indeed the development for free.

Fuck Disney and the HK government - or should that be mouthpiece of Beijing?

Unfortunately for almost everybody China’s vast growth potential means no one is going to complain too loudly in fear of being cut out of a big future market.

HG

12

So, why is it Disney’s problem that HK gave them a great loan? Isn’t it their right, if not their responsibility to the stockholders, to get the best deal that they can?

13

Um, if you paid tax to the HK government and were not a holder of Disney stock, then you probably wouldn’t see it in the way you imply with your question.

14

Free land for developers in Hong Kong!!!? Hold the front page!!!

China is a self-perpetuating myth and you either have an interest in keeping the gravy through-train on track, or you don’t. Why upset the apple daily cart and throw out the golden-week goose with the bathwater?

15

Um, if you paid tax to the HK government and were not a holder of Disney stock, then you probably wouldn’t see it in the way you imply with your question.[/quote]

So, you are saying that Disney is evil because they, as a business, are trying to maximize their profits while reducing their risks?
I am not arguing that the deal doesn’t suck for HK taxpayers, I just don’t see where Disney is in the wrong for taking a sweet deal offered to them. Any other company would do the exact same thing given the chance.

16

[quote=“JMcNeill”]So, you are saying that Disney is evil because they, as a business, are trying to maximize their profits while reducing their risks?
I am not arguing that the deal doesn’t suck for HK taxpayers, I just don’t see where Disney is in the wrong for taking a sweet deal offered to them. Any other company would do the exact same thing given the chance.[/quote]

Of course, I can’t speak for other posters, but as the originator of the comment “fuck Disney”, I’m saying that they are evil for screwing up America’s copyright laws, and then exporting this evil by forcing these rotten laws onto other countries via trade agreements. Copyright was originally granted for 28 years maximum - now it is either “the author’s life plus 70 years” or, in the case of corporate-owned copyrights, 95 years. Disney has been the chief lobbyist pushing these legislative changes, mainly to protect the Mickey Mouse franchise, which has caused critics to label the legislation the “Micky Mouse Copyright Extension Act.”

But the rotten Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) really takes the cake. This makes many things illegal, a notable example being it is now illegal to manufacture or own a multi-region DVD player. It’s even illegal to sell the parts that would allow you to modify your DVD player so that it could play DVDs from different regions. The DMCA was forced down Taiwan’s throat in an attempt to please America and get off the 301 Watchlist. The DMCA is now being used to destroy Internet radio in the USA. It’s also proved to be a very effective way to censor various web sites on the Internet, by filing “take-down notices”.

Wikipedia has a page which is a fairly good introduction to the DMCA, but you’ll find heaps more rottenness with a “DMCA” Google search, if the issue interests you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

Yes, Disney is evil. Fuck them 1000 times over. And ditto to their allies, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America).

Too bad Hong Kong was stupid enough to give Disney free land.

cheers,
DB

P.S. I am a copyright holder, and have considerable financial interests in seeing copyright laws upheld. But I (and most other non-corporate copyright holders) am opposed to the absurd copyright extensions and the DMCA. These laws weren’t written to benefit “artists, musicians and writers” as Disney claims, but to enhance corporate profits forever by making criminals out of everyone else.

17

Well there will be an official Disneyland in Shanghai soon. So I guess the Disneyland in HK and couterfeit-Disney in Beijing will have competition soon.

USA IP laws are usually there to protect corporate interest. I mean every now and then you here about absent-minded professor in his garage making obscene money on a patent buyout. But those are very rare, like a lottery ticket.

I think that a new equilibrium needs to be found. It is obvious that rampant free-competition, which allow for bootlegs before the creator can even make a dime, and rampant IP protection, which allows for a black and white Mouse to never become public domain, are not working.

18

I agree with this comment generally, but I don’t think Mickey Mouse is actually a good example. Mickey Mouse is actually a great example of why you would want a long lasting copyright. Unlike a lot of other copyrights, Disney is actually continually using the Mickey Mouse image in their products and “maintains” it so to speak. A better example I think would be with characters that they use once and then ignore, but then invoke if someone else comes up with something similar.

19

I agree. Disney uses the mouse much like a trademark, and trademarks are renewable without limit. All that is required for continued validity and the ability to renew is continual use.

And trademarks, unlike other forms of IP rights, actually benefit the consumer as well as the owner of the mark.