Dear friend in the arts,
You might be mildly aware that there is an ongoing campaign towards the strengthening of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement in the Philippines as the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced plans in April 2008 to pursue more aggressive IP protection schemes with its trading partners around the world.
This global campaign aims to include stronger IPR provisions (often promoted by the USTR as "world-class" IPR provisions) in many free trade agreements being pursued with many countries, calling for more sophisticated protections for digital products such as software, movies and music, and implementing stronger protection for US patents and test data (which are monopolized by large pharmaceuticals and needed by domestic regulators for the registration of generic medicines after their patents have expired) in the pharmaceutical industry.
The approval and enforcement of touted "world-class" IPR provisions into trade agreements aim to allow US products and services more access into more markets around the world especially in the developing countries, the liberalization of investment laws to enable more US claims into domestic resource, and the removal of export barriers where these currently exist in national law or in the implementation of obligations under the WTO-TRIPS Agreements.
Today, even higher standards of IP protection and enforcement are being brought upon countries of the developing world through the new narratives of security, border control and police enforcement.
Following the overwhelming demoralization of alternative business, creative cultural practices and development models in many developing countries by casting them in the wide rhetorical sensationalist net of "piracy", "counterfeit", "theft" and "illicit", higher standards in international IP protection and enforcement are being spear-headed by the US through a new non-transparent treaty-making process involving a handful of the wealthiest countries in the world with interests inimical to the domestic development policies of many developing countries.
Touted as the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" or ACTA, this proposed treaty aims to create a new global standard for a stronger top-down enforcement regime covering strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity, criminalization of copying under a wide variety of contexts, and higher IPR enforcement measures in trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks.
Another forum being used by the US and the wealthiest countries in the world in their IP expansionist agenda is under the World Customs Organization (WCO)'s proposed Standards Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement or SECURE. SECURE brings IP enforcement beyond the existing standards of the TRIPS Agreements through the back-door of international border controls, proposing to enlarge the powers of Customs Administrations to be the watchdog of IP enforcement and give them authority well beyond their current mandate.
While IP units have already been established within the Philippine Bureau of Customs and in customs agencies in other countries, the campaigning, giving of grants and the bullying have apparently not moved the IP agenda up in the time the USTR desires. ACTA and SECURE, two of the many "war against terror" instruments being pushed before the end of term of the Bush Administration, intend to seal with certainty the winnings of the long and aggressive political and ideological IP campaigns launched against the intellectual, economic and cultural sovereignty of developing countries worldwide.
The Arts as IP-Philippines centerpiece
In April 2007, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IP Philippines) celebrated World IP Day with member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The centerpiece of the local celebration was the opening of an art exhibition in a gallery space called "Alab Art Space" located at the ground floor of the IP office building. "Alab" boasts of being the first art space in an IP office in Southeast Asia.
In a special section called "Exhibits Asia" in The Philippine Star, Thursday, April 26, 2007, there were three news articles: (a) IP Philippines celebrates World IP Day, encouraging creativity among Filipino artists, entrepreneurs, inventors; (b) BSA awards citation to Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team; (c) Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team cracks down on users/sellers of pirated software in Davao City.
Advertising for the IPO press release included Lacoste, Business Software Alliance (BSA), Microsoft, Vera Law, BNU Intellectual Property Attorneys, iProbe (investigation and consulting firm), and the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team (PAPT) consisting of the National Bureau of Investigation, Optical Media Board and Philippine National Police.
As announced in the press release, part of the mandate of the IP-Philippines is training, campaigning and servicing for the protection of IPR as an important strategic tool for national development in the current global knowledge economy, with not a single mention of alternative IP domains such as the commons, open-source and copyleft licensing nor the on-going contestation of the IP regime worldwide especially in the developing countries.
With some kowtowing to the arts in the effort to highlight the rhetoric of "protection of intellectual property rights helps stimulate creativity and innovation", IP-Philippines celebrated World IP Day through the signing of an MOU with the US Patents and Trademarks Office for the joint effort of safeguarding US intellectual property in the Philippines, upgrading Philippine intellectual property law to be "at par with international standards", and the creation of mechanisms by which patented technologies may be commercialized.
With the arts being advocated as IP-Philippines' centerpiece, I call on all artists to challenge the "piracy" and "counterfeit" discourse of the Intellectual Property Rights regime in the Philippines and worldwide, to continue to follow local and international developments in IP protection and enforcement, and to (re)claim and enhance the creative process by taking commentary, questioning and exposing the myths of the IP expansionist regime.
As an artist confronted with the balancing of the multiplicity of perspectives, possibilities and outcomes in the creative process, I am appalled that mainstream media continues to lack miserably in providing a more balanced picture of the true social and political battles being waged against the IP campaigns in the Philippines and worldwide. I am appalled at the lack of a more creative and critical journalism that transcends the template of "good IP enforcers vs. bad pirates" in the stream of anti-piracy actions being urged by the US, a foreign country imposing its will against Philippine sovereignty.
If IPR was created only as a means to encourage further creativity for the ultimate benefit of all society in contrast to the more traditional forms of property rights that are designed to protect the private interests of their owners, then why are protection and enforcement measures more suited for these more traditional forms of property rights being imposed upon intellectual rights? Why are intellectual rights being made more and more absolute like property rights? Why is copying being demoralized as "theft", "piracy" and "illicit"? Why is copying called stealing even though the original does not disappear?
Is there evidence that without IPR protection, creativity will cease and that works produced will be substandard? Is the business model of IP the only way or the best way to encourage innovation and creativity? Is the selling of an idea and the commodification of culture the way for creators to profit from their labors?
Why are IP protection and enforcement standards and agreements being made by a few rich countries in secrecy, with meetings suddenly announced as concluded, taking the process away from international scrutiny especially in the interest of developing countries?
Is creativity measured by plus points gained with the USTR through catching up on "global competitiveness" and manipulating our legal, social and political systems to be at par with so-called international standards?
Is local creativity and innovation really stimulated by providing the level of IPR protection and enforcement determined by the USTR and by increasing market access for companies (mostly US entertainment, media and pharmaceutical) relying on intellectual property protection?
With our imperceptible compromises, will we still recognize our Privacy, Freedom of Expression Rights and our Creativity when these have been destroyed by the moralistic campaigns of the US-led IP expansionist coalition?
Is society and the creator truly the beneficiary of the global IP regime?
Through our practice and understanding of art, I hope that these questions be constantly asked to challenge the IP agenda. These are the burning issues that define the kind of society we envision for the future; let this not be overwhelmed by the patronage of IP-Philippines and its counterparts in the global IP expansionist regime.
Sincerely yours,
Fatima Lasay
http://korakora.org/proyekto/
