<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Norbert -<div>I thought some more about this since our last exchange on the topic.</div><div><br></div><div>I am trying to understand what you are asking for. Are you asking that Microsoft should be compelled to use PPP-adjusted pricing? Is it to compel Microsoft to sell MS Office (as an example) at $440/$30,200 * $560 = $8 so it is a "fair" price in Viet Nam? It it to compel Microsoft to sell Office for $8 in Viet Nam and $38,486 in the US to 'compensate' Microsoft for being compelled to sell the software in Viet Nam for $8? Is it to compel Microsoft to not pursue copyright infringement in Viet Nam because they 'should' be charging $8, not $560?</div><div><br></div><div>If what you are suggesting is Microsoft only charges $8 in Viet Nam, that makes great business sense for Microsoft. It guarantees a dominant, near monopoly position for them globally.</div><div><br></div><div>I have nothing against Microsoft, but while such a regime is great business for Microsoft, it is bad for the Internet. Would not the world and the Internet be better off with free and preferably open source software? It is hard to dislike the price, and it ensures the Internet does not become a monoculture. Microsoft can <i>chose</i> to give their software away in Viet Nam. Microsoft can <i>chose</i> to price their software out of the market. Since there are now real alternatives to Microsoft infrastructure for Internet access (what the Internet Society cares about) and ICT in general, why would we ever advocate protecting Microsoft's business?</div><div>--</div><div>- Eric</div><div><br><div><div>On May 18, 2012, at 11:53 PM, President ISOC Cambodia wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Dear Colleagues reading the
[Chapter-delegates] List, </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">on 29 April 2012, I addresses an email
to Mr. Brigner on this [Chapter-delegates] list (repeated down
here),
explaining that I could not find his address on the ISOC website,
hoping that he might see this mail anyway here.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Thanks for the different direct
responses I received – but as I did not get any response from Mr.
Brigner, I try again here. I just checked again the ISOC website:
Who
We Are – Staff and Advisors</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff-and-advisors">http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff-and-advisors</a></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">but I find only the addresses of the
Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America Regional Bureau Directors
there.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Could someone reading this list please
help so that my mail is forwarded to Mr. Brigner. <font size="3"></font>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Thanks,</p><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; "><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Norbert Klein<br>
ISOC Cambodia Chapter </p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Windows)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style><br>
=<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>Fwd: Copyright violations are a real problem - At least I
think we can all agree?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:04:41 +0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Norbert Klein <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nhklein@gmx.net"><nhklein@gmx.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>'Chapter Delegates'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org"><chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td>Lynn St.Amour <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:st.amour@isoc.org"><st.amour@isoc.org></a>, Raúl Echeberría
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:raul@lacnic.net"><raul@lacnic.net></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Dear Mr. Paul Brigner,
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">as you know, on this ISOC Chapters
list we have regular and active exchanges of information and
opinion from Chapters from all around the world. These widely
different backgrounds and experiences contribute to the rich
volume of awareness in ISOC.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">I found a CNET report “<b>Comment on:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57404804-281.html">Anti-SOPA
Internet
Society under fire for hiring MPAA executive</a></b>” - let me
say that what I write is not about the ISOC hiring and your past
role at MPAA – but there is a reference to copyrights which calls
for further discussion.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://news.cnet.com/8618-31921_3-57404804.html?assetTypeId=12&messageId=12154966&tag=mncol&txt">(http://news.cnet.com/8618-31921_3-57404804.html?assetTypeId=12&messageId=12154966&tag=mncol&txt)</a></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> You are quoted there saying: </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">“To be certain, copyright violations
are a real problem, and on that I think we can all agree. (At
least I think we can all agree?) But I've become convinced that
the only way forward is through voluntary agreements between
content and technology communities to deal with those violations.”<br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Can we all agree? I think so – but I
am not sure if we all mean the same when we agree. </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Is it the “violations” that are the
problem – or is the real problem related to the way in which
copyrights are defined and handled? </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">As long as we, in the Internet
Society, proudly work under the slogan<b> “The Internet is for
everyone”</b> we seriously should take up the “real problems” at
the basis of the present copyrights regime and the grave
injustices which it creates, calling a very large numbers of
everyone using the Internet to be pirates. Pirates are violent
killers.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">Jordi
Carrasco-Muñoz, working in 2002 for the European Commission,
compiled some economic data showing that – under the present
copyright rules for commercial software - the Internet is
obviously not for everyone (if they would use proprietary
software), pleading for “</font></font></font><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3"><b>FREE/LIBRE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE AS OFFICIAL
DEVELOPMENT AID </b></font></font></font>(<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cosgov.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/download/Main/Sessions/munoz.pdf">http://cosgov.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/download/Main/Sessions/munoz.pdf</a>)</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">These are some of his figures (from
Vietnam and from 2002 – surely prices and salaries have somewhat
changed since – though his discourse is much wider than
economics). He does not end up “convinced that the only way
forward is through voluntary agreements between content and
technology communities to deal with those violations,” - but makes
a proposal: “Mass <font size="3">Distribution0f one</font><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3"> OfficialDevelopmentAid-FreeLibreOpenSourceSoftware
CD-ROM.”</font></font></font><font size="3"> This is not our
business here, of course; but the economics he researched are:</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">a) COST
(I) - BASIC DATA</font></font></font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><b><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">Cost
Windows XP + MS Office</font></font><br>
– <font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">Standard
Version
$560</font></font><br>
– <font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">Professional
Version
$800</font></font></font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times-Roman, sans-serif"><font size="3">As an example,
we can use the two most common packages found on a computer:
The MS Windows operating system and the MS Office package.
They cost $560 in the standard version and $800 in the
professional version.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">a) COST
(II) - VIETNAM</font></font></font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><b><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">(GDP
per capita $440/year)<br>
XP+Office = 1 Year 3 months<br>
XP+Office (Pro) = 1 Year 10 months</font></font></font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times-Roman, sans-serif"><font size="3">To a Vietnamese,
that represents dedicating -respectively- 1 year and 3
months of wages or 1 year and 10 months of basically not
eating; depending on the version.</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><b><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">a) COST
(III)</font></font></font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><b><font color="#000000"><font face="AmericanTypewriter, sans-serif"><font size="3">Cost-Equivalent
for
the US<br>
(GDP per capita $30,200/Year)<br>
XP+Office = $38,436<br>
XP+Office (Pro) = $54,909</font></font></font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times-Roman, sans-serif"><font size="3">For an American,
that would be like paying more than $38.000 for the standard
version, and almost $55.000 for the professional version.<br>
</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times-Roman, sans-serif"><font size="3"><br>
</font></font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3"><b>The Internet is for
everyone?</b> Surely not. – And there is not much room left,
to be found “through voluntary agreements between content and
technology communities to deal with those violations.”</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">To update figures: a
high-school teacher in Cambodia today, having a bit more than
US$50 (fifty) per month, does not have much room for “voluntary
agreements”- even if some companies start to offer concessionary
rebated prices. If you compare them with the salary, they are
far from being a solution.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">And the public
total-loss calculations by the music, motion picture, and
software industry, lamenting how much they lose, giving figures
by multiplying the estimated number of shared but not licensed
copies with the end-user price, are total fiction. Not many
people would be able to but any of their products at the stated
prices. </font> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">Apart from hard
economic facts, there is also another astonishing field which is
hardly ever touched upon, when economic power-holders in the
USA, from the position of a high moral ground, condemn all those
who commit “theft and piracy” related to intellectual property.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold,
sans-serif"><font size="4"><big><font face="Times New Roman,
serif"><font size="3"><big><span style="font-weight:
normal">Roberto Verzola, in his 212 pages book</span></big></font></font></big><b><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3"> </font></font>Towards
a Political Economy of Information</b></font></font><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://rverzola.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/infoeconomy-verzola.pdf">(http://rverzola.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/infoeconomy-verzola.pdf)</a><font size="3"> covers part of the history how the United States of
America fought against the imposition of copyright protection
for foreign intellectual property for decades – until it became
more profitable for the USA to turn around and fight others. I
recopy here almost his whole 3rd chapter:</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3"><i>= = =<br>
</i></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold,
sans-serif"><font size="2"><font size="4"><b>3. U.S. Piracy in
the 19</b></font><font style="font-size: 11pt" size="2"><b>th
C</b></font><font size="4"><b>entury</b></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Nineteenth century
America was a major center of piracy. The principal target
of U.S. pirates was the rich variety of British books and
periodicals. The U.S. was a perennial headache among British
authors and publishers, because foreign authors had no
rights in America. American publishers and printers, led by
Harpers of New York and Careys of Philadelphia, routinely
violated British copyright and “reprinted a very wide range
of British publications.”</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">James Barnes, who
wrote an excellent book on this subject, said that the
Americans were “suspicious about international copyright,”
and were afraid that recognizing international copyright
meant “exploitation and domination of their book trade.”
Barnes noted that “as a young nation, the United States
wanted the freedom to borrow literature as well as
technology from any quarter of the globe, and it was not
until 1891 that Congress finally recognized America’s
literary independence by authorizing reciprocal copyright
agreements with foreign powers.”</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Throughout the 19</font></font><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font style="font-size: 9pt" size="2">th </font></font><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">century, a group
of American authors and Anglophiles led a persistent but
futile campaign to get a copyright treaty between the
U.S. and Britain ratified. But their efforts were
overcome by a much stronger lobby for free access to
British publications. Authors like Noah Webster of the
U.S. and Charles Dickens of Britain campaigned
vigorously, but time and again, the U.S. Senate rejected
proposed laws or treaties that would have granted
copyright to foreign authors in the U.S. Indeed, strong
laws existed for the protection of local authors, but
foreign authors had no rights in the U.S., and all
foreign works were fair game for American publishers and
printers.</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">As Barnes put it, “If
Americans thought of the topic [i.e., copyrights] at all
they were concerned with protecting domestic copyright and
not the rights of foreigners. As a country, nineteenth
century America was akin to a present day underdeveloped
nation which recognizes its dependence on those more
commercially and technologically advanced, and desires the
fruits of civilization in the cheapest and most convenient
ways. Reprinting English literature seemed easy and
inexpensive, and so America borrowed voraciously.”</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Barnes continued: “In
1831, ‘An Act to Amend the Several Acts Respecting
Copyrights’ was signed. It extended the copyright term from
fourteen to twentyeight years, with the option of renewal
for an additional fourteen. If an author died, his widow or
children could apply for the extension. For the first time,
the law allowed musical compositions to be copyrighted. But
not a word on international copyright. In fact, foreign
authors were explicitly barred from protection, which in
essence safeguarded reprints.”</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Even the U.S.
president at that time, John Quincy Adams, was himself
“strongly opposed to international copyright.”</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">In 1837, Senator
Henry Clay introduced a copyright bill before the U.S.
Senate. Within days, “a flood of negative memorials reached
Washington,” and objections deluged both houses of Congress.
The U.S. Senate’s Patent Committee rejected “the intention
of the measure,” its reasons sounding very much like the
justification today of Third World countries for their
liberal attitude towards intellectual property. The
Committee’s reasons were:</font></font></i></p>
<blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i>-
“<font face="DejaVuSans-Bold,
sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">A copyright agreement would promote higher
book prices and smaller editions. The point was driven
home by comparing the retail prices of new books in
England and America, for it was universally
acknowledged that English books were
disproportionately more expensive.”</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><i><font size="3"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">. . .</font></font> <br>
</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font size="3"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu">- </font></font><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Copyright has
never been regarded among nations as “property
standing on the footing of wares or merchandise, or as
a proper subject for national protection against
foreign spoilation.” Every government has always been
left to make such regulations as it thinks proper,
“with no right of complaint or interference by any
other government.”</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i>- <font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">British authors
only want the U.S. Congress to pass an act which will
enable them to “monopolize the publication here [in
the U.S.] as well as in England, of all English works
for the supply of the American market.”</font></font></font></font></i></p>
</blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3"><i>The Committee also
explained why international patents were acceptable but not
international copyrights: “American ingenuity in the arts
and practical sciences, would derive at least as much
benefit from international patent laws, as that of
foreigners. Not so with authorship and bookmaking.</i><br>
</font></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">In short, the
Americans stood to gain a lot of benefits by recognizing
international patents; and they likewise stood to gain a lot
of benefits by not recognizing international copyrights. It
was purely a matter of national interest...</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Thus, overwhelming
opposition from various quarters, including two of the
largest U.S. publishers, the Harpers of New York and the
Careys of Philadelphia, continued to block any effort that
would have granted copyrights to foreign authors in America.
Not even the hired services of topnotch Washington
lobbyists, as well as attempts in 1852 to bribe members of
the U.S. Congress and the U.S. press, could get an
Anglo-American copyright treaty passed.</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">The U.S. reprinters
advanced their own arguments for reprinting British
publications without regard for international copyrights:</font></font></i></p>
<blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">They were
making available to the American people cheap books
which would otherwise be very costly if they had to
compensate foreign authors. It was generally
acknowledged that the low prices of American books
would inevitably rise after the passage of a copyright
treaty.</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Access by the
American printing industry to British works provided
Americans with thousands of jobs.</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">British authors
and publishers would exercise “complete control over
the publication of their works in the U.S.” Popular
British writers “could then exact their own prices for
their books when sold here [in the U.S.]” Thus
copyright would not only enhance the profits of major
authors, but at the same time protect and encourage
second rate foreign talent.</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">International
copyrights “would also interfere with the laws of
supply and demand because it encouraged monopoly which
was never in the public interest.”</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Tariff duties
might be appropriate for some industries, but they
were never intended to confer a monopoly on a
producer.</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Books are
“unlike other commodities”; whereas it took the same
amount of labor to create each new hat or boot, “the
multiplication of copies of a book meant a saving on
each additional facsimile.”</font></font></font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="DejaVuSans-Bold, sans-serif"><font size="2"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Authors and
publishers enjoy copyrights “only by virtue of statute
law”; copyright is not “absolute and natural
ownership”. The right of individual property is
subordinate to the public good which is “best served
through free competition and cheap reprints.”</font></font></font></font></i></p>
</blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Several bills were
introduced in 1870, 1871 and again in 1872, but they were
all opposed by American publishers and the printing unions,
because they would “make English books more expensive,
really benefit American authors as a class, and permanently
injure the interests of book manufacturers.”</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">And so it went. In
the early 1880’s, the copyrights movement gained more
strength, but not quite enough to overcome the more powerful
forces that benefited from free and unrestricted access to
foreign publications.</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">By this time,
however, the U.S. had already accumulated a wealth of
American authored works which were themselves widely
reprinted abroad. American books like <font face="NimbusRomNo9L-ReguItal">Uncle Tom’s Cabin </font>became
quite popular in England. Also, U.S. authors and their
publishers had acquired considerable political clout. The
U.S. was ready to “protect” foreign authors, so that it
could in turn demand protection for American authors abroad.
</font></font></i> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">In July 1891, the
U.S. Congress adopted the Chace International Copyright Act
of 1891, establishing a framework for bilateral copyright
agreements based on reciprocity. While the act granted
copyright to resident and nonresident authors for a period
of 28 years, renewable for another 14, it also set very
difficult conditions, reflecting the interests of the U.S.
publishing industry:</font></font></i></p>
<blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">1. A foreign book
had to be published in the U.S. not later than its
publication in its home country.</font></font></i><br>
<i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">2. All
manufacturing of books, photos, chromos and lithographs
had to be done in the U.S. (This is the so called
“manufacturing clause”, which is today protested by the
U.S., when Third World governments adopt it to ensure that
a technology is actually worked in their own country.)</font></font></i><br>
<i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">3. Foreign
copyrighted books in English, photographs, chromos,
lithographs or plates could be imported for sale, but not
more than two copies at a time could be imported for use,
and these were subject to duty.</font></font></i><br>
<i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">4. Foreign
works published before July 1, 1891 may not be
copyrighted. In 1952, the U.S. joined the Universal
Copyright Convention (UCC), but not the Berne Convention,
which was considered the “premier instrument of
international copyright”.</font></font></i></p>
</blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">Under the UCC, the
U.S. retained such protectionist measures as the requirement
of manufacture in the United States.</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" align="LEFT"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">In the meantime, the
U.S. had been exerting tremendous pressures against Third
World governments to adopt strict intellectual property laws
and to strengthen their enforcement. By the late 1980’s, a
number of governments, including Singapore, Hong Kong,
Taiwan and South Korea in Asia, had finally succumbed to
U.S. pressure.</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><i><font face="NimbusRomNo9L-Regu"><font size="3">And so in 1989, the U.S. finally and belatedly
acceded to the Berne copyrights convention.</font></font></i></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><font size="3">= = =<br>
</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">1989 – that is fairly
recently, only about two decades ago – the USA was already a
world super-power at that time. But why is the US copyright
history not remembered more? And not applied to the
understanding what the “real problem” of not respecting
copyright legislation is?</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">More on this issue is
in the 208 pages of <b>The Copy/South Dossier (</b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://copysouth.org/portal/node/1">http://copysouth.org/portal/node/1</a>)
which say as introduction:</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">“<font size="3">We are told that we
live in the 'digital revolution' era and that we can communicate
across the globe as we never could before. In fact, restrictive
copyright laws still act as a serious barrier to sharing and
learning from each other. <b>This is particularly true in
countries of the South where three quarters of the population
live.” </b></font> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b><font size="3">And: The Internet is
for everyone?!</font></b></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">I would be happy to see
here some responses from Chapters in the USA – how they might
help to rectify a heavily biased approaches to “piracy.” </font>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">And I would also be
happy to know how you – on the background of your experience in
the MPAA - plan to help that <b>“The Internet is for everyone”</b>
becomes easier to be achieved. As Roberto Verzola pointed out:
When we share material goods, we have less – but when we share
knowledge, we do not lose it, but our community as a whole gets
richer.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3"><br>
Norbert Klein<br>
President<br>
ISOC Cambodia Chapter</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font size="3">From our Chapter's
site:<span lang="en-US"><b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.isoc-kh.org/?p=227">http://www.isoc-kh.org/?p=227</a></b></span></font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
<br>
Mr. Paul Brigner - apologies: as the "Staff and Advisers" section
of the ISOC site (<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff-and-advisors">http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/staff-and-advisors</a>)
does not have your address, I share this only through the Chapter
list, assuming that you are reading it anyway. <br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <br>
</p><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; "> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in; "> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<br><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="LibreOffice 3.5 (Windows)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
H1.western { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif }
H1.cjk { font-family: "MS PMincho" }
H1.ctl { font-family: "Khmer OS" }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Chapter-delegates mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org">Chapter-delegates@elists.isoc.org</a><br><a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>