Copyright Violations In Thailand To Be Discussed

[Jingthing]

The only nutter here is clearly you since you have to make up lies to try to score points when you fail to make them the normal way.

OK. I'm a nutter. A rather pleasant moniker. You win!

Edited March 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[jazzbo]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Not even your own legal system claims it is. Maybe, but under Thai law (edited from Tilleke & Gibbins):

Infringement: Copyright infringement arises from a deliberate act with respect to all or part of a copyrighted work of another without permission, either directly or indirectly.

Penalties: In general, the penalties for infringement of copyright include fines of up to THB 200,000. Commercial infringement may result in a higher fine of up to THB 800,000 or imprisonment of up to four years, or both.

A copyright is inherent in every original work if: At the time of creating a yet unpublished work or else when it first became published, the author was either a Thai citizen or person resident at all times or most of the time in Thailand, or a national or resident of a member country of the Berne Convention or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

--- In other words Thailand by its own law can protect the rights of a copyright that originated in one of the bullying countries.

Edited March 27, 2011 by jazzbo

[TAWP]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Not even your own legal system claims it is. Maybe, but under Thai law (edited from Tilleke & Gibbins):

Infringement: Copyright infringement arises from a deliberate act with respect to all or part of a copyrighted work of another without permission, either directly or indirectly.

Penalties: In general, the penalties for infringement of copyright include fines of up to THB 200,000. Commercial infringement may result in a higher fine of up to THB 800,000 or imprisonment of up to four years, or both.

A copyright is inherent in every original work if: At the time of creating a yet unpublished work or else when it first became published, the author was either a Thai citizen or person resident at all times or most of the time in Thailand, or a national or resident of a member country of the Berne Convention or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

--- In other words Thailand by its own law can protect the rights of a copyright that originated in one of the bullying countries.

You might want to try again.

Copyright infringement isn't allowed here, it is a copyright infringement. It isn't theft.

You now, in law using the correct terms is fairly important.

Also, the addition of the copyright laws has been done over several passes since US and other nations pressed on it during WTO negotiations.

Basically 'follow this or your products will receive disproportionally high import-tariffs to our countries, effectively killing your ability to export to us, and seeing as you are an exporting nation...'

[jazzbo]

No ... I am not going to try again. Copyright infringement under Thai law, if commercial in nature, is a criminal offense and criminal penalties.

[TAWP]

No ... I am not going to try again. Copyright infringement under Thai law, if commercial in nature, is a criminal offense and criminal penalties.

Again, it is copyright infringement, not theft.

Did you even read the line you quoted?

[jazzbo]

The word 'theft' in this topic does not occur until your post #9 ... I do not see why I should have to address it at all.

... but I guess what you maybe are saying is that if I have a chicken hen, and you take the eggs, it isn't theft because I still have the chicken?

[TAWP]

The word 'theft' in this topic does not occur until your post #9 ... I do not see why I should have to address it at all.

... but I guess what you maybe are saying is that if I have a chicken hen, and you take the eggs, it isn't theft because I still have the chicken?

You might want to brush up on your reading-skill.

My post was clearly responding to Jingthings post saying:

Copyright violations are stealing.

[hedonist44]

This is the fallout of US and other large countries trying to bully Thailand and other smaller nations.

Oh please. Copyright violations are stealing. The creators have a moral, ethical, and legal case. Do Americans get free Thai rice?

Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Not even your own legal system claims it is.

Rice is a tangible commodity. A product of finite amount.

If I have a Star Trek machine and copies a bag of Thai rice you bought you still have your bag to feed your family.

If sew a bag that looks the same as a famous brand then I bought the fabric, I did the work, and they still have their bags. Where is the theft?

So in other words your saying that if "YOU" designed a product here in Thailand and went though the whole process of copy right and everything else that goes along with it, then bought the material, produced the product and then it sat in your warehouse and rotted because others where counterfeiting your design and selling it for far less, you would be OK with that because you still had your product. I love your way of thinking, or lack of it I should say...

[BKK03]

"The law in Thailand only seems to apply when powerful people are affected."

I believe this statement is probably true to a great degree. Copyright law in Thailand is similar to other Thai laws. Laws for the most part benefit the families with the most power, connections, and money. Remember whose Thai son was caught cheating on a university exam? Case in point is that many Thai university students don't personally research and write their own theses. They pay other students or educators to do it.When reading some of the theses that have been published in Thailand, it is obvious that plagiarism is present through out the document. Plagiarism is a violation of copyright law.In Thailand, depending on who you are related to, connected to, and how much money you have, copyright law is a moot point.

[TAWP]

So in other words your saying that if "YOU" designed a product here in Thailand and went though the whole process of copy right and everything else that goes along with it, then bought the material, produced the product and then it sat in your warehouse and rotted because others where counterfeiting your design and selling it for far less, you would be OK with that because you still had your product. I love your way of thinking, or lack of it I should say...

If you cannot compete, don't blame the competitors.

[hedonist44]

So in other words your saying that if "YOU" designed a product here in Thailand and went though the whole process of copy right and everything else that goes along with it, then bought the material, produced the product and then it sat in your warehouse and rotted because others where counterfeiting your design and selling it for far less, you would be OK with that because you still had your product. I love your way of thinking, or lack of it I should say...

If you cannot compete, don't blame the competitors.

Yup, another great reply! I'm going to bed, eat a bowl of icecream and forget this ever happened....You my friend are really out there. But to each their own as they say and I agree 100%.

[jazzbo]

Thank you .... I will brush up on my reading skills .... You can brush up on maybe The New World Order.

[monkfish]

Funny I bought my first fake Rolex in New York!

The real issue isn't movies,software, Rolexes or Nikki shoes its Medicine!!

Especially those related to AIDS which Thailand just cannot afford to pay US prices for.

Do they have no compassion do they want people to die?

[jazzbo]

The issue of the availability and pricing of medicines is indeed important but it is an issue of patent -- not copyright.

[TAWP]

The issue of the availability and pricing of medicines is indeed important but it is an issue of patent -- not copyright.

Copyright, trademark and patent is part of the same group of laws.

[jazzbo]

Gee ... does that mean you can sue someone for intellectual property group violation?

[asiawatcher]

The MPAA is a body that is trying to protect their 'creation and right' of sale of others. If someone copies the authored and copyright material (which they do) it results in loss of income. The receiver of the income is the person who pays nothing (or perhaps a discounted pittance) and then onsells at a margin or profit, but because that person did not receive any 'license' to sell from the original owner, they are using property they do not own or have rights to, and thus income earned is from stolen IP. I am in the same boat as Hollywood filmmakers for what we produce. We do not have an Asian version of the Motion Picture Association so we cannot police theft of what we make. It takes about a year of hard labour to create a film from concept, to writing, to pre, shoot and post production and it costs a lot of money. It is usually 72 hour weeks, and we create a lot of jobs and pay a lot for services. We use cameras that cost about Baht 12M and have around USD1M in equipment on set every day. That is a big investment to have some hick in Panthip steal your finished product and sell it on thus cutting your income after such huge outlays. That is theft in no uncertain terms. You can try justify with words like Moral Slippage or whatever the <deleted> you want to call it - it is outright theft and when we find people in Thailand who steal our IP and sell it on with the right to do so, we take matters into our own hands. The BiB are oxygen bandits and do nothing unless you pay them off, so we resort to the 'Thai' method. So far it has not done a lot other than a great deal of personal satisfaction. But on the overall article of this post, all this is going to do is bring it to the Deputy Ministers table and will go nowhere - as always. Again, political jostling for points prior to election - it means nothing and as usual, nothing will be done other than to waste time, grab a few headlines and that is all there is to it.

[TAWP]

The MPAA is a body that is trying to protect their 'creation and right' of sale of others. If someone copies the authored and copyright material (which they do) it results in loss of income. The receiver of the income is the person who pays nothing (or perhaps a discounted pittance) and then onsells at a margin or profit, but because that person did not receive any 'license' to sell from the original owner, they are using property they do not own or have rights to, and thus income earned is from stolen IP. I am in the same boat as Hollywood filmmakers for what we produce. We do not have an Asian version of the Motion Picture Association so we cannot police theft of what we make. It takes about a year of hard labour to create a film from concept, to writing, to pre, shoot and post production and it costs a lot of money. It is usually 72 hour weeks, and we create a lot of jobs and pay a lot for services. We use cameras that cost about Baht 12M and have around USD1M in equipment on set every day. That is a big investment to have some hick in Panthip steal your finished product and sell it on thus cutting your income after such huge outlays. That is theft in no uncertain terms. You can try justify with words like Moral Slippage or whatever the <deleted> you want to call it - it is outright theft and when we find people in Thailand who steal our IP and sell it on with the right to do so, we take matters into our own hands. The BiB are oxygen bandits and do nothing unless you pay them off, so we resort to the 'Thai' method. So far it has not done a lot other than a great deal of personal satisfaction. But on the overall article of this post, all this is going to do is bring it to the Deputy Ministers table and will go nowhere - as always. Again, political jostling for points prior to election - it means nothing and as usual, nothing will be done other than to waste time, grab a few headlines and that is all there is to it.

If your business model isn't bearing fruit you can always change your career.

It isn't a 'right' to be a musician etc.

If musicians would have a majority of their income (as we now are heading towards) from concerts, sale of merchandise etc maybe we would see less of the no-talented pitch-corrected drivel that seem to emanate from too many 'music centers'.

[farang000999]

It does suck for Americans and Europeans that they have to pay $100/prescription for example so that the company who invested in the research can meet their profit quota and then the rest of the world gets to pay $15/prescription bootlegged.

[jazzbo]

So -- if a musician's business 'new' business model is to rely on live performance and merchandise sales -- as always did The Grateful Dead -- what is a film-maker supposed to do for a 'new' business model: live performance plays?

Personally -- while others in my general field discuss how to change copyright law or create international treaties -- I am mostly involved with how to interpret existing copyright law to the best of my advantage ... and let guys like Kinsella talk about the way things should be.

[gregb]

The simple fact is that most people have no problem with copyright infringement if the infringing good is as good or better than the original. If someone wants to sell me infringing medicine that is exactly the same quality as the product from the patent holder, then I have no problem with that at all.

Yes, this does require companies to sit down and rethink their business models. But my personal feeling is that the crime with infringing goods is limited to the case where someone is tricked into purchasing an inferior product. Copyrights and patents today have been abused in order to generate obscene profits to the IP holder. There needs to be more balance in the law.

If the only way a business can justify making a product is by charging extortionate prices and having those unreasonable prices protected by arcane IP laws, then the product simply should not be made in the first place. The world will get by just fine without it. If the only victim of infringement is the profits of the IP holder, then in my opinion there is no victim at all. Unless someone is unfairly using your good name to sell an inferior item, then I say there should be no punishment. Let the chips fall where they may.

Nobody needs 100 million USD budget Hollywood movies. The studios can operate their own chain of retail theaters and make their money by charging admission. They can also license their product to independent theaters in such a way that they lose their license if they show movies from any unapproved source. I can buy all the movies I want on DVD, but I still pay to see a movie on the big screen now and then.

This is the model for a fair and just society. What we have today is an abomination of justice. Copyright infringement is absolutely NOT theft. Any punishment for infringement should come under the same regulations that punish fraud, and if there was not any fraud involved, it should not be a crime.

[jazzbo]

You guys are a riot:

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court anti-trust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films.

Edited March 29, 2011 by jazzbo

[gregb]

You guys are a riot:

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court anti-trust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films.

AT&T was also broken up into several Baby Bells under anti trust legislation. After decades operating in that regime, the companies are today remerging into a single, monolithic company, and facing no scrutiny. That just shows that different social and economic conditions can lead the people to different conclusions.

In 1948, there were no DVD players, and the concept of having multiple movie theaters in a small town was absurd. People really did not have a choice, and it was probable that they might have needed some protection. Beyond this, the studios themselves were hardly in danger of going out of business due to lack of profits, but there was a danger of Paramount taking over the entire industry. Things are different today, and I would be happy to have that case revisited if it meant a more sane copyright law in the bargain.

As times change, we need to change with it. The problem, as you have eloquently illustrated, is using 19th century laws to try and regulate 21st century problems.

Edited March 29, 2011 by gregb

[jazzbo]

Great ... never let a US Supreme Court decision of getting in the way of the new model ... or that in the USA 'theft' is a set of state laws while 'infringement of copyright' is a federal law ... and that INTERPOL at the present time would not agree with the notion herein that only 'fraud' is criminal use of copyright.

There is nothing wrong with giving one's opinion of how things should be ... as the New Yorkers however say, your opinion and a subway token gets you a subway ride. How things should be to me is someone else's department; I spend my time analyzing how the exceptions and limitations under existing international copyright laws allow me to get accessible renditions of copyrighted materials to disadvantaged communities around the world even if the copyright owners say that under the current laws that I cannot so do ...

I am widely published in the international IP community with those views... and have told the IP interests point-blank that if they do not like it they can sue-- obscene profits or otherwise.

[dominique355]

How about movies, especially ones playing in theaters currently? Let's see you rationalize that one as not being theft of i.p.

Look I reckon most all of us here in Thailand are not clean on this issue, but that doesn't mean we have to invent absurd rationalizations about it either.

If you really want to read - but I doubt it since this topic has been up here before and you are just posting inane rehashes of the same confused arguments - some about this topic there are several good books and essays on the subject.

If I buy a blank CD and burn a copy of a friends CD then it is my copy and I have the sole ownership rights to it as I possess the tangible, physical object.

This is not the first time TAWP tries to explain his somewhat bizarre notion of property. What TWAP fails to understand is the concept of "intellectual" property, as opposed to property of tangible goods.

Of course you own the CD as an object. But if you burn a movie from a friend, who stole it too, you are infringing on the copyright of the author.

Imagine, TWAP, you wrote a novel and it took you a lot of time and effort to finish it. You have it stored in your computer. Now someone has access to your computer, copies the file with your novel, publishes it and gets the money from this publication. Would you object to that?

You certainly would and you are right so. Because this guy stole your intellectual property. He didn't steal your computer, he stole the novel you created.

And the Copyright Law protects your creation. The Copyright Law does not hinder you creating something new, but it hinders you copying what others have created already.

Got it?

[EdDantes]

I love that song "Lyin' Eyes" by the Eagles.

If you can recite those lyrics, that means the pattern has been stored in your brain by neuron growth - does the songwriter Glenn Frey own part of your brain now because that's his 'Intellectual Property'?

Absolutist avenues lead to absurdity...

I'm betting Glenn doesn't collect neurons, but I've already shelled out for albums and then cd's so we're even. And f... iTunes I'm finished paying for the same content.

Unfortunately 'Intellectual Property' is a term that muddies the waters because it covers three very different areas of law - copyright, trademarks, and patents.

Originally all of these laws were developed to serve the common good while protecting the individual inventor/artist. It's become so skewed now that the common good is all but forgotten and it's all ostensibly about the originator.

I say ostensibly because a songwriter/composer gets a paltry portion of what the music industry collects. A software designer/programmer gets a paltry portion of what his employer collects, and so on for chemists, engineers, etc.

So in fact neither the originator of a work nor the common good figure much in these laws any more, it's large corporations who are making hay at the expense of everyone elses interests.

[TAWP]

How about movies, especially ones playing in theaters currently? Let's see you rationalize that one as not being theft of i.p.

Look I reckon most all of us here in Thailand are not clean on this issue, but that doesn't mean we have to invent absurd rationalizations about it either.

If you really want to read - but I doubt it since this topic has been up here before and you are just posting inane rehashes of the same confused arguments - some about this topic there are several good books and essays on the subject.

If I buy a blank CD and burn a copy of a friends CD then it is my copy and I have the sole ownership rights to it as I possess the tangible, physical object.

This is not the first time TAWP tries to explain his somewhat bizarre notion of property. What TWAP fails to understand is the concept of "intellectual" property, as opposed to property of tangible goods.

Of course you own the CD as an object. But if you burn a movie from a friend, who stole it too, you are infringing on the copyright of the author.

Imagine, TWAP, you wrote a novel and it took you a lot of time and effort to finish it. You have it stored in your computer. Now someone has access to your computer, copies the file with your novel, publishes it and gets the money from this publication. Would you object to that?

You certainly would and you are right so. Because this guy stole your intellectual property. He didn't steal your computer, he stole the novel you created.

And the Copyright Law protects your creation. The Copyright Law does not hinder you creating something new, but it hinders you copying what others have created already.

Got it?

Since when is it the right to become rich from being an author?

If you tell me a story and I write it down and sell that paper, should I pay you? If someone else reads the paper and writes down the story, to the best of their knowledge, on their own piece of paper, can I now sue him? Can you sue him too? Do tell, what makes your story more valuable than those that was told hundreds of years ago?

If you print a book you own that book and can sell it.

If I print letters on a paper, that I payed for, then I own those papers and whatever content I put on it is my own prerogative. If I later want to sell my paper to a friend it is my right since I own the goods.

Your repeated celebration of 'intellectual property' is cute but not in the interest of mankind. Nor very 'intellectual'.

[jazzbo]

I can see the next great ThaiVisa debate: GRAVITY -- Is it or is it not in the best interests of mankind?

BTW this past week (22 MAR) the Judge after 13 months' deliberations gave his ruling in the Google Digital Library Amended settlement -- the original original lawsuit started in 2004 and the judge's ruling only rejects the most recent settlement offer ... the parties still can either craft a new settlement or appeal or whatever ...

So when you all talk of a complete overhaul to the legal notion of copyright it ain't gonna happen overnight.

http://www.nysd.usco...=special&id=115

Edited March 29, 2011 by jazzbo

[dominique355]

How about movies, especially ones playing in theaters currently? Let's see you rationalize that one as not being theft of i.p.

Look I reckon most all of us here in Thailand are not clean on this issue, but that doesn't mean we have to invent absurd rationalizations about it either.

If you really want to read - but I doubt it since this topic has been up here before and you are just posting inane rehashes of the same confused arguments - some about this topic there are several good books and essays on the subject.

If I buy a blank CD and burn a copy of a friends CD then it is my copy and I have the sole ownership rights to it as I possess the tangible, physical object.

This is not the first time TAWP tries to explain his somewhat bizarre notion of property. What TWAP fails to understand is the concept of "intellectual" property, as opposed to property of tangible goods.

Of course you own the CD as an object. But if you burn a movie from a friend, who stole it too, you are infringing on the copyright of the author.

Imagine, TWAP, you wrote a novel and it took you a lot of time and effort to finish it. You have it stored in your computer. Now someone has access to your computer, copies the file with your novel, publishes it and gets the money from this publication. Would you object to that?

You certainly would and you are right so. Because this guy stole your intellectual property. He didn't steal your computer, he stole the novel you created.

And the Copyright Law protects your creation. The Copyright Law does not hinder you creating something new, but it hinders you copying what others have created already.

Got it?

Since when is it the right to become rich from being an author?

If you tell me a story and I write it down and sell that paper, should I pay you? If someone else reads the paper and writes down the story, to the best of their knowledge, on their own piece of paper, can I now sue him? Can you sue him too? Do tell, what makes your story more valuable than those that was told hundreds of years ago?

If you print a book you own that book and can sell it.

If I print letters on a paper, that I payed for, then I own those papers and whatever content I put on it is my own prerogative. If I later want to sell my paper to a friend it is my right since I own the goods.

Your repeated celebration of 'intellectual property' is cute but not in the interest of mankind. Nor very 'intellectual'.

Don't worry, TWAP, I am not tying to be "in the interest of mankind".

I just tried to explain to you some basic concepts if Intellectual Property. But I see that I failed.

As the French say: "Il n'y a pas pire sourd que celui qui ne veut entendre."

Or a Germain saying: "Gegen Dummheit kämpfen selbst die Götter vergebens."

[jazzbo]

Kuhn D355 -- No big problem ... you just have run smack into the Libertarian IP Playbook e.g.

"Kinsella argues that property rights can only apply to scarce resources; thus, if a new lawn mower could be magically conjured up out of nothing in the blink of an eye, it would not be theft to steal one. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_intellectual_property