SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Open Business Systems Fill Gap In Mainstream Entertainment Industry

    Published on 12 September 2008 @ 11:35 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Kaitlin Mara
    Outside the realm of mainstream proprietary entertainment, owned by big studios and protected by brand names, lay large numbers of artists without audiences looking for the means to distribute their creativity, and groups of people who yearn for art reflective of experiences not touched upon by the mainstream movies and music. These artists have created independent side industries that challenge conventional views on piracy.

    Such expression used to be the property of neighbourhood streets, or oral tradition, but the digitising world has brought with it two important changes: on the one hand, localised forms of creation and communication are being outpaced and outcompeted by mass media capable of faster movement and farther penetration; on the other, the internet and the rise of personal recording equipment – coupled with its falling price – has placed the power of communication within reach of those who want to grasp it.

    “We have cultures literally vanishing,” said Charles Igwe of motion picture information and services company The Big Picture, which advises the successful Nigerian film industry: “each time someone dies, it is like losing a library.”

    The issue was addressed at a 9 September panel of Yale University Law School’s third annual Access to Knowledge conference.

    In Brazil, said Ronaldo Lemos from the Center for Technology and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) law school in Rio de Janeiro, major music company Sony/BMG releases about 13 new compact discs a year. “Where,” asked Lemos, “is the Brazilian music?”

    The answer to that question is that out of these previously unrecorded spaces, several independent industries have grown, with unique ways of creation, recording, and distribution.

    The Brazilian website TramaVirtual, for instance, boasts over 60,000 artists: “an entire generation of art and music coming from this website rather than the traditional music industry,” said Lemos. A popular form of Brazilian street music, tecnobrega, sees the production of about 400 new CDs and 100 new DVDs every year, he added, “but you won’t find them in stores.”

    This music is instead distributed directly to street vendors. The same people normally thought to be selling pirated material have a deal with tecnobrega in Brazil to sell the real thing, explained Lemos.

    Such people are sometimes dismissed as pirates, said Regina Casé of Pindorama Produçes Artisticas, which she argued is unfair as the music is theirs.


    Regina Casé, with help from Ronaldo Lemos, talks about the relationship between prejudice towards certain communities and the label of piracy
    Casé spoke of her organisation’s work in televising this music scene, at first in Brazil and increasingly around the world.

    “We travel,” she said, “to places no one had an interest [in] before and show people that were invisible to most… then we noticed that TV was no longer what you normally see.” This TV programme was dubbed Central da Periferia – the Centre of the Periphery – and plays the kind of music wildly popular in peripheral areas, and often neglected by mainstream record makers. They document distribution methods such as the “candonga” – vans with speakers, so that people can listen to new music as the driver drives through a neighbourhood.

    A single episode of Central da Periferia may reach over 100 million people, she said. On one video clip, grinning musicians triumphantly grip the keyboard and cheer, “Let’s hear it for the technological outsiders!”

    Nor is Hollywood immune from this outpouring of creation from marginal areas. In 2005, according to Lemos, Brazil released 51 new movies a year, the United States 611, India 934, and Nigeria 1,200. In Nigeria, the cost to purchase a film is $3, and $0.50 for a rental. From these sales, the industry generates $200 million a year, the third highest in the world after the US and India.

    Igwe said that after a 1992 decision to commercialise television broadcasting in Nigeria, stations decided it would be cheaper and easier to buy a foreign product. But there was a leftover and undersupplied market for the old Nigerian TV stars and programmes that were then off TV. A movie made with some of these stars sold 200,000 copies in a week; making clear the potential in this industry.

    Demand quickly outpaced the supply and soon pirate copies of films were making their way into the market. Igwe said the industry faced two options: to look for collaboration to stop counterfeiting and piracy – an expensive prospect in a fledgling industry with no state support – or allow that every disc, legitimate or not, that went into the market “created an audience for us.” Behind the piracy, explained Igwe, was a desire for more of the product; in the wake of piracy, even more new markets opened up.

    Charles Igwe discusses piracy in the Nigerian film industry

    This is a key factor of open business, explained Elizabeth Stark of the Yale Information Society Project: they are “not relying on traditional means of exclusive rights.” When traditional means of licensing are not an option “people work outside the system, innovate to create these models.”

    And in the western world, alternative forms of distribution and licensing are catching on: the band Radiohead, for example, released its latest album In Rainbows on a “pay what you want” system. Another band, Nine Inch Nails, went even farther, noted Stark, releasing their latest album The Slip on a Creative Commons licence.

    In 2008, Igwe said, Nigeria’s film industry, dubbed “Nollywood,” is making 2000 films a year – and it is not just growing, “it’s mushrooming.” There is a “massive cultural revival” in Africa, he said. In Uganda, an Ugowood is growing; a Riverwood in Kenya is doing the same.

    The explosion of these films is the first time there has been a way to record traditions that are not conducive to being written down, traditions that are otherwise at risk of being lost Igwe said. Nollywood is a business, and has to be to survive, he explained, but it is a business with extraordinary social impact and social responsibility.

    Charles Igwe talks about the role of motion pictures in preserving Nigerian oral history in the knowledge economy

    What underpins much of this drive for new business models may have its roots in something even more fundamental than the desire for access to information. Rishab Ghosh of United Nations University Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT) said of open source software, another form of participatory and open business, that the key issue is really about “not just access to consuming knowledge” but also “access to participation.”

     

    Comments

    1. Alan Story says:

      Journalist Kaitlin Mara missed a very revealing set of comments in her reportage on the open business panel at the A2K3 conference last week in Geneva.

      The three speakers at this session —- Case and Lemos from Brazil, Igwe from Nigeria — had given us many examples of how both the Brazilian tecnobrega music scene and the Nigerian
      “Nollywood” film industry had grown, spread, and prospered over the past decade by ignoring copyright laws. In fact, in the case of Nollywood —- now worth more than US $200 million a year —- “piracy built our market,” explained film producer Igwe.

      So, asked a questioner right at the end of the session — I am afraid I don’t know his name —.now that your two industries are so popular and doing very well, do you see a future role for intellectual property in these two industries?

      Oh yes, replied Lemos. He said he hoped that such Brazilian music will be used in various forms of new technology, such as mobile telephones, and copyright law protection would be very useful here.

      Film producer Igwe echoed this view. He said Nigerian film producers would soon begin discussions with copyright officials in that country to formulate some new copyright laws that would be useful for Nollywood.

      The responses of Lemos and Igwe remind me of how the government of the United States of America has acted towards foreign owned copyright during its history.

      In the 19th century, when the USA was a young and growing country and badly in need of English language materials, it had no hesitations in ignoring foreign-owned copyrights. The works of the well-known English novelist Charles Dickens were a favourite of the US “pirates.”

      But once the USA became top of the world copyright heap — today it exports far more copyrighted works than any other country in the world — no country has been more shrill in the call to “ crack down on those nasty pirates. “

      Perhaps some in the A2K “movement” may agree that it is perfectly proper to take what we could call a “pragmatic attitude” to national and global intellectual property laws.

      Ignore them when you don’t need them and, in fact, build up your consumer base by encouraging piracy. Then when you get to the top of your own particular heap, advocate the use of strong copyright laws to consolidate your position and your profits.

      Some would label this as the oldest marketing tactic in the world: “make sure you take advantage of a good business opportunity.” The rest of us would label it simply as “open business opportunism.”

      Alan Story
      Kent Law School,
      Canterbury, UK
      Chairperson, The Copy South Research Group

    2. RLemos says:

      Hi Professor Story, just to clarify my response at the A2K3 panel.

      I said that IP laws would be very important as soon as the cultural scenes emerging globally regardless of IP incentives start to use other networks, such as cell phones and the internet. I then explained that the reason I believe they will be important is precisely to make sure that it is possible to replicate the same conditions under which they operate right now (the conditions of “openness”) in their own contexts inside these other digital networks, for instance, by means of the usage of CC or other copyleft license.

      Accordingly, the proposal is not to restore the same old use of IP once this cultural production becomes widespread in other networks, but it is precisely to make sure that the same openness secured by de facto circumstances where these cultural scenes emerge can be translated into legal terms when they migrate to other more formal networks.

      It is important to consider that the Trips agreement is here to stay (developing countries would not take the risk of being penalized under the WTO because of IP rights non-compliance), and that the IP default rules of copyright (everything is protected, unless you legally state that it is not protected) will apply regardless of the opinion we might have about them.

      Best regards from Rio de Janeiro,

      Ronaldo

    3. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Inside Views: Voices From Innovative Business Projects in Brazil and Nigeria says:

      [...] to see what they had to say on piracy and cultural expression within their industries, and then click here to read more about it (IPW, Access to Knowledge, 12 September [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.