Vatican to rich countries: stop "excessive zeal" for IP rights

The Pope wants the rich world to moderate its enthusiasm for ever-stronger intellectual property rights. Put the Vatican on the "stronger copyright is not always better copyright" side of the ledger.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/vatican-to-rich-countries-stop-excessive-zeal-for-ip-rights.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Laffo]

WTF? This almost sounds halfway reasonable. Are you sure this was the Catholic church?

 

[JamesHulsmann]

Don't worry, they will go back to their gay-hating, molestor shuffling ways soon...

IF they dont trip over sexism or nazism on the way...

 

[Daros]

Go Vatican.... ?
!
?!

I really don't know what punctuation to use here...

 

[NegativeZero]

Easy for them to say, the copyright on their most well-known work already expired.

 

[JohnP]

WTF? This almost sounds halfway reasonable. Are you sure this was the Catholic church?

Sure they are, remember that communism derived from Christianity, and you know how true communism feel about getting stuff for free aka socialism. But on a serious note, since the Vatican II, they are some what liberal compare to the old Vatican, but not much. Anyway JC loves you, not really

 

[reflex-croft]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

 

[Gary Patterson]

As much as I loathe the concept of organised religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular (although not as much as the evangelical sects popping up like acne on a teen's face), the Catholics have a few positives these days.

The recognise evolution as a real thing, and choose to put their God at the other end of the process. That's fine, they're not denying physical reality and are instead supporting science. They've recanted on that whole Galileo thing as well. Sure, a few hundred years too late, but turning a ship that big is tough.

Now they're making progressive and intelligent statements on intellectual property.

It's another reminder that there are plenty of good people who also happen to be religious. The Catholic Church is definitely improving.

(yes, we know they've still got problems, let's focus on the topic at hand though)

 

[dlux]

Go Vatican.... ?
!
?!

I really don't know what punctuation to use here...

Use this: ‽

 

[NAT]

Is child porn copyrighted?

 

[Devin]

There's a surprising amount of hate here. Whatever happened to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

 

[raybiker73]

Wow, this is definitely not the level of discourse I'm used to on Ars. Did I accidentally get sent to Gizmodo or Reddit or something?

 

[TomTheAlmostUgly]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

So the Vatican is wrong because you managed to find _one_ counter-example worldwide?

What the Vatican is against are IP laws and treaties that allow content creators to dictate terms with a "my way or the highway" approach, without being subject to market forces and with no concept of charity. How are the poor to benefit if prescription drugs are priced the same in Mogadishu as in Malibu?

I'm sorry, your statement is as ridiculous as saying that the DMCA "benefits" college students.

 

[Daros]

Wow, this is definitely not the level of discourse I'm used to on Ars. Did I accidentally get sent to Gizmodo or Reddit or something?

We're just having a bit of fun. ;-)

On a serious note, I'm really not sure if I think this was the obvious stance they would take, or that I should be surprised. Not meaning that in a rude way, either. I just can't figure out if I should be surprised or not.

 

[knbgnu]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Not on average. You get some outliers (what doesn't), but even Rowling was not in the kind of poverty that many in developing nations are in, and limited availability of modern medicines does quite a bit of harm. Also, Rowling doesn't need STRONG copyright protection, as the entire Harry Potter series would still be covered by the terms of the Statute of Anne.

 

[AdamM]

Anyone else notice that the countries with little innovation in the IP field are the only ones who are so highstrung on getting rid of them?

Of course they want them gone if you can't innovate make it easier to copy those who can.

 

[Doug Dolde]

He may just want better and faster access to child porn

 

[AdamM]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Not on average. You get some outliers (what doesn't), but even Rowling was not in the kind of poverty that many in developing nations are in, and limited availability of modern medicines does quite a bit of harm. Also, Rowling doesn't need STRONG copyright protection, as the entire Harry Potter series would still be covered by the terms of the Statute of Anne.

So what do you say to the companies who do all the R&D work making those medicines? While a company in another country profits off just making it?

 

[Traddy]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Rowling would have been rich with sweet fuck all in terms of IP. People would have bought her books anyway, and stood in line for them on openeing day.

They helped her not at all to get rich. But, they did help her get filthy rich, and not to bother spreading it around to people who support the series by releasing their own works.

With weaker IP law, she would still be rich, and so would others.

 

[icrf]

On a serious note, I'm really not sure if I think this was the obvious stance they would take, or that I should be surprised. Not meaning that in a rude way, either. I just can't figure out if I should be surprised or not.

I don't think it's surprising that they have this position, it's just surprising that they made it publicly. Of everything on which to make a statement, international IP laws?

 

[Gary Patterson]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Not on average. You get some outliers (what doesn't), but even Rowling was not in the kind of poverty that many in developing nations are in, and limited availability of modern medicines does quite a bit of harm. Also, Rowling doesn't need STRONG copyright protection, as the entire Harry Potter series would still be covered by the terms of the Statute of Anne.

So what do you say to the companies who do all the R&D work making those medicines? While a company in another country profits off just making it?

There's a balance to be struck somewhere between total open slather and complete lockdown of IP.

Ideally the companies developing medicine would price it according to each market, but that whole 'free market' ideology is pretty much strangled by corporate greed.

 

[iamwhoiam]

He may just want better and faster access to child porn

All they have to do is set up cameras in the church and catch the priests with the alter boys.

 

[knbgnu]

So what do you say to the companies who do all the R&D work making those medicines? While a company in another country profits off just making it?

A good share of the funding comes from taxpayers, and a lot of money is wasted on derivatives trying to game the patent system further, such as Claritin and Clarinex. Most of the figures I've seen say that more money is spent on promotion than R&D, and it takes a while to get serious production of a generic up.

Even if we do conclude we need to provide some protection for medicines, it doesn't need to be done though exclusion. Mandatory licensing with statutory caps will give a return on investment while getting more medicine to more people at a lower price.

 

[wanorris]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Rowling would have been rich with sweet fuck all in terms of IP. People would have bought her books anyway, and stood in line for them on openeing day.

If there were legal print-on-demand, digital, etc. publishers pumping out books that pay her no royalties from the day the text was available to the public, she would still be rich? If movie studios were free to make movies based on her IP without paying her royalties, she would still be rich?

How, exactly?

 

[Shannara]

This is the Vatican. You have to mentally unstable for that position. Therefore, untrustworthy, words worth a grain of salt, leader of the mentally insane. No thank you.

 

[Gary Patterson]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Rowling would have been rich with sweet fuck all in terms of IP. People would have bought her books anyway, and stood in line for them on openeing day.

They helped her not at all to get rich. But, they did help her get filthy rich, and not to bother spreading it around to people who support the series by releasing their own works.

Why should derivative works be allowed at all, unless the original author consents (or some copyright has expired)?

Why shouldn't the original author retain control over their works and the characters they created?

 

[hobgoblin]

To bad the WIPO is already neutered by the gathering of the willing also known as ACTA...

 

[knbgnu]

How, exactly?

Rowling writes the first Harry Potter book, getting a small sum for a manuscript
It becomes a hit.
Rowling is the only one that can produce a genuine sequel.
She gets a much larger sum for the next manuscript, so the publisher can produce millions of copies before other publishers can get copies to the market.

 

[hobgoblin]

Strong IP laws protect the poor as well as the rich. In fact, they enable the poor to become rich. We have many, many recent examples of that. JK Rowling being an obvious one.

Not on average. You get some outliers (what doesn't), but even Rowling was not in the kind of poverty that many in developing nations are in, and limited availability of modern medicines does quite a bit of harm. Also, Rowling doesn't need STRONG copyright protection, as the entire Harry Potter series would still be covered by the terms of the Statute of Anne.

So what do you say to the companies who do all the R&D work making those medicines? While a company in another country profits off just making it?

Except that we are already seeing big pharma staying away from the most vital of medical research, the future replacements for penicillin and friends. This because nature will make their findings obsolete before they can generate the profits the stock market expects from them.

Instead such discoveries shows up by way of chance discoveries done by smaller biotech lab.

In all, this is pretty much the same as we see related to such things as micro-payments and equivalent loans. The big players won't get the profit margin that keep their share price going, and so stay away. This even tho society may well benefit more from such a service then the next billion dollar loan made to some sociopath in a suit.

 

[Ganso]

This is the Vatican. You have to mentally unstable for that position. Therefore, untrustworthy, words worth a grain of salt, leader of the mentally insane. No thank you.

yea, because post like these are obviously made by a sane and stable individual

 

[wordsworm]

When the Vatican opens its libraries to be copied by Google, maybe I'll take seriously their stance here. Their old way of protecting IP was to burn libraries.

IP protection in poor countries offers the opportunity to those same countries to fund the creation of IP by their own people. It's for their own good, and has a lot less to do with protecting the rights of Hollywood, et. al.

 

[Freetopia]

Anyone else notice that the countries with little innovation in the IP field are the only ones who are so highstrung on getting rid of them?

Of course they want them gone if you can't innovate make it easier to copy those who can.

This.

 

[Plankhead]

Rowling is the only one that can produce a genuine sequel.

J.K. Rowling would be the only one who could produce a genuine Harry Potter sequel regardless of whether it was legal for somebody else to.

 

[mtnrunner2]

Whenever you start advocating ideas in line with the Vatican, it's time to reconsider your position. They have a proven track record of wanting to tear down the successful for the sake of the unsuccessful. Why would anyone listen to them when it comes to economics, property rights, or morality for that matter? Unless you're an envious third-world country with an authoritarian government, and consequently have no industry or IP to speak of, and have everything to gain by robbing people of their IP rights.

knbgnu says:
>A good share of the funding comes from taxpayers, and a lot of money is wasted on derivatives trying to game the patent system further, such as Claritin and Clarinex

Ever wonder why that is? It's because the costs of FDA approval are astronomical and because you can't wield unjust power over industry and expect them to not try to game the system. The problem is not Big Pharma.

IP rights are merely one application of the wider principle of individual rights, a principle which would do away with such taxpayer funding, and some or all of the FDA control that has turned the pharmaceutical industry into a politicized purveyor of incremental drug improvements and boner pills.

 

[Shannara]

This is the Vatican. You have to mentally unstable for that position. Therefore, untrustworthy, words worth a grain of salt, leader of the mentally insane. No thank you.

yea, because post like these are obviously made by a sane and stable individual

Of course they are made by people who dont believe in zombies and fairies ....

 

[HalationEffect]

Anyone else notice that the countries with little innovation in the IP field are the only ones who are so highstrung on getting rid of them?

Of course they want them gone if you can't innovate make it easier to copy those who can.

This.

... is a strawman. (T,FTFY)

Which countries, exactly, are calling for outright removal of all IP laws?

 

[MatthiasF]

You know you're on the wrong side when the Pope is on your side.

 

[Freetopia]

How, exactly?

Rowling writes the first Harry Potter book, getting a small sum for a manuscript
It becomes a hit.
Rowling is the only one that can produce a genuine sequel.
She gets a much larger sum for the next manuscript, so the publisher can produce millions of copies before other publishers can get copies to the market.

And how much would a publisher be likely to pay if they only had, say, a two week window before much cheaper perfect copies hit the market from the parasite re-publishers?

Rowling would have made a tiny fraction of her current wealth under such a system. I see no reason why 3rd party publishers who didn't help fund or develop her creations should displace a good chunk of her earnings for their own undeserved coffers.

 

[wanorris]

There's a balance to be struck somewhere between total open slather and complete lockdown of IP.

Ideally the companies developing medicine would price it according to each market, but that whole 'free market' ideology is pretty much strangled by corporate greed.

This is a great idea in theory, but difficult to make work in practice. Gray market smuggling makes it difficult to offer exactly the same product at vastly different prices in different countries.

If I remember correctly, I've already seen articles about how India's medical tourism industry is starting to take off -- people fly over there to get procedures done for considerably less than the cost of having them done here.

With the price of some expensive medications in the U.S., if they were way cheaper in poorer countries you could fly over to India (or maybe just cross the border to Mexico), get a year's supply, and have saved yourself a ton of money even counting travel expenses. This is not a scenario the pharmaceutical industry considers rosy, even if it sounds appealing to people who need those meds.

 

[knbgnu]

You know you're on the wrong side when the Pope is on your side.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I think a better argument is that you know you're wrong when the Pope thinks you are really screwing poor people because you are overzealous.