An in depth analysis of GNN article “Digital Axis of Evil Escalates Efforts Against DIS.”
(Original post:) http://www.mediawars.co/game/42/article/26895
This ‘boycotting’ (in general) only signifies a ‘dissatisfaction’ with regard to this issue and sends the wrong message to what should be considered unacceptable as well as ‘unlawful.’
Putting pressure on another country in order to gain their compliance toward another country’s ownership rights or international law through use of a ‘boycott’ would be feasible if the activities were strictly the result of black market activity. Yet the implication here is a corruption at the government level that condone’s the suspected activities.
Considering this, as well as use of the ‘boycott’ approach, there is also an implication here (from the international community) that these activities may only be ‘suspect’ and as such would most likely result in the scenario above. (As presented in this article.)
To prevent this incident, as well as its escalation, a ‘hard evidence’ followed by ‘sanction’s’ approach should be used.
There are hidden radical agendas cleverly masked under a false ‘guise’ of freedom that seeks, really, to undermine the effectiveness of ‘deterrence.’ (such as authorities protecting Identities and intellectual property online.)
The long term solution to the general problem of piracy itself (on an international level) would not make much improvement considering this method of ‘Attack’ comes (on a diplomatic level) with complete deniability as well as avoidance of the issue itself considering this incident.
What would further add damage to this incident is for a ‘third party’ to lay claim to this incident. This would continue to add toward the ‘suspicion’s’ among all parties overall. Also, another attack in this manner would further heighten the tension among all effected and suspected parties.
Considering this, the best plan of approach to ‘minimize’ the potential effects of further incident (especially if the agencies determine this incident most likely was ‘inflicted’ by a suspected ‘outside’ third party) would be a direct addressing of this incident (full diplomatic channels open) as well as an ‘active’ investigation (in assistance to) and on behalf of the ‘suspected’ parties.
The implication here, considering this scenario, would show that the issue was not already resolvable within a countries borders. This may be issue enough that may only complicate things further down the road when involving others. (And as such gives an opportunity for a third party to further proliferate the issue.) The UN, in order to remain effective in its primary purpose, must deal with issues that can show a direct condition toward effecting that purpose. tbc.
Issues like these must have gotten to be a problem if it reaches a level where one (or a series of countries) bring it to the ‘UN.’ The UN’s primary purpose is to keep open lines of communication between countries for the sake of peace and humanitarian rights. If the UN need to find resolve in this issue a good case among concerned countries would have to involve issues that relate to the UN’s primary purpose.
Current loopholes in intellectual property rights are being taken advantage of (by foreign markets where original ownership cannot be bought and/or is not recognized (especially at the govt levels)) and will require a more pro-active approach at the govt level in the originating country where the authentic and original product resides. And for good reason. Imported ‘copies’ do the most damage to the authentic brand when it returns to compete in its authentic market of origin.
A ‘general’ boycott to potentially effecting (bringing internal pressure to effected countries) what may only represent a ‘minority’ of business overall, would only serve to bring about a quick ‘veto’ from these p-5 members. This would also quickly nullify any efforts in bringing about any UN ‘resolution’ in this matter. (Especially if the UN hasn’t already set an ‘agreed’ upon resolution with these countries with regard to the actual issue behind this boycott!)
Possible responses to these ‘pressures’ (as reported in this article) would be most likely regardless of whether or not the suspect countries ‘issues’ in this matter were a result of black market activity and/or govt level corruption.
Protections on intellectual property rights are unenforceable in countries where the owner fails to ‘pay’ for that right (and in that locale specifically. For ex an international patent could be tens of thousands and it may only apply specifically to a country where that ‘protection’ is paid for.)
Considering this, and the generally accepted idea that intellectual property rights only exist when ‘paid for’ leaves the possibility for others claiming ownership ‘first.’ Even if it was the result was outright theft!
In conclusion: In order to work toward prevention of these scenarios (as listed in these articles) some of the factors that help to contribute to the problem can be avoided/reduced/reversed by reworking intellectual property rights at its initial stages in the ‘originating’ country. The most damaging factor in this scenario occurs when authentic goods are copied (as ‘outsourced’ into a foreign market) and then re-inserted back into the originating country to ‘compete’ against the authentic product. If the copied product came from a country of origin where the authentic product did not pay for ownership rights or have a govt level recognition of ownership, the imported ‘copy’ may (by legal definition) be ‘immune’ from legal action.
Even authorized manufacturing overseas where the product comes ‘back’ to sell in the ‘originating’ country can be just as detrimental in locally competing markets. Also, product ‘labels’ made by ‘outside’ manufacturers to identify themselves as such, may help to keep out ‘unidentified’ competitors but the competition from ‘outside’ trade is still overwhelming to local manufacturers.
It’s only good when the intellectual property rights and ‘economies of scale’ remains intact for the originating country in the global market. Stripping this away and competing a form of ‘pseudo-product’ BACK into the ‘source point of origin’ (originating country) eliminates the ‘real’ products cost effectiveness. This will serve to also effect the value of the real product in the local markets (within the country) driving down market share and value and eventually allowing for other competitors to steer ownership and control away as well. (locally.)
Rights and protections on a global level, (especially outside the originating country) usually means having to ‘buy’ into this protection with each country you wish to seek that protection. And in countries where this doesn’t not already exist, makes for a potential safe haven for intellectual property theft. This is such a problem that it is actually possible for these sellers to distribute back into the originating country (where these so called protections exist) without incident from authorities on either side of the border. Enforcement by international agencies may still be challenged without cooperation from government in each country where this problem resides.