In Mexico, creators and industry are getting together

Very interesting news here in Mexico. El Universal and others (all sources are in Spanish) are reporting that over 30 copyright-related groups are coming together to form the Coalición por el acceso legal a la cultura (Coalition for legal access to culture). According to composer and coalition co-president Armando Manzanero (rough translation): “We are uniting so that no one steals a song, a book or a picture, so that everyone pays royalties to the artists.”

What’s most significant is that this coalition unites artists’ collective societies and unions with those on the corporate side, such as the Asociación Productora de Fonogramas (the only industry group mentioned by name in the articles, though I understand from people I’ve talked with that the coalition basically includes everyone traditionally involved in copyright). Furthermore, it has the blessing of the two main government oversight bodies, INDAUTOR and IMPI, as well as the head of the main congressional oversight committee, la Comisión de Cultura de la Cámara de Diputados, Kenia López.

Generally speaking, the coalition favours stronger copyright laws (and enforcement). Their initial projects include working toward a copyright levy and a regime for ISP liability, since right now there is no specific Mexican law governing ISP liability. I also understand that they are interested in getting the government to enforce their copyright laws by granting them ex officio authority, meaning that the government would not have to wait for an infringement complaint to take action against suspected infringers. (I think this is the big one, since it moves the onus for enforcement from the private sector to the public sector and, thus, the taxpayer.)

Getting Ready for the Future

This coalition comes in advance of what will likely be a major reform of Mexican copyright law in a few years’ time. The last major reform to the Mexican Ley Federal de Derecho de Autor was in 1997, mainly (but not completely) to implement Mexico’s obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement; it was modified in 2003, notably to increase the standard copyright term to a world-leading life of the author plus 100 years (at the request of Mexican authors’ groups – not all copyright reforms are driven by American industry).

The upcoming legislative battle will likely pit coalition members against Mexican Internet Service Providers, with the coalition wanting the ISPs to undertake some form of policing of their networks and the ISPs trying to minimize their legal obligations. Having a coalition allows these disparate groups to work out their differences (and there will be differences) in private before dealing with the ISPs, and to present a unified front to the authorities, giving their conclusions a lot of weight.

Issue Framing

The coalition is also a savvy move in the battle for control of how the issue is framed. In countries like Canada and the United States, there is a growing appreciation that artists and distributors/producers sometimes have conflicting interests when it comes to copyright. It is no longer identified solely with authors, but rather as a commercial right whose benefits accrue mainly to large corporations. In contrast, the Mexican copyright discourse is still dominated by the Continental idea of copyright (or, rather, derecho de autor – author’s right) and is seen as a tool for the protection of the national culture (whereas in Canada, the claim that copyright serves mainly foreign, i.e., American, interests, has a lot of currency). This narrative is reinforced by the role of collective societies as providers of social programs to artists and as their main representatives in the legislative process. Having all these groups under one roof reinforces the idea of copyright as an author’s right, rather than as a commercial right.

Getting Ahead of the Public

The coalition is also getting ahead of another group that has proven increasingly vocal in places like Canada: the user community. While the past several years have seen an astonishing politicization of copyright in Canada, there is to date no evidence of a similar groundswell in Mexico. (According to one of my interview subjects, this book, released in July 2009, was intended partly as a way to kickstart a public debate over copyright in Mexico.)

Part of this lack of interest can be attributed to the low level of Internet penetration in Mexico. This won’t always be the case, however; as more Mexicans go online, they are likely to become more aware of how they are affected by copyright law. In the face of a well-organized coalition, it will be harder for consumers to organize effectively.

At a time when many folks in the blogosphere are focused on the (admittedly important) Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (which should be made public, if only to allow for reasoned debate on the issue), the creation of this coalition is a reminder that copyright law, at the end of the day, is made and shaped domestically, not just internationally, and that stronger copyright protection is not necessarily only an objective of the American copyright industries.

Tepito!

As I mentioned above, I'm in Mexico to study Mexican copyright policy (I'm actually comparing the implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties by Canada, the United States and Mexico to see what it can tell us about North American governance, but I'll save that for later). A few weeks ago, I went with my neighbour and his girlfriend to Tepito. If you're interested in copyright, then you've heard of Tepito. If you're a political junkie in Washington, you go to Capitol Hill; if you're into copyright, you gotta check out Tepito.

It's an infamous thorn in the side of the copyright industries and the Mexican government (Outside of copyright, it has a colourful history). The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) - the main lobby group for American copyright companies - claimed in 2008 that Tepito accounted for "65% of the pirate music product manufactured and distributed" in Mexico. Thanks to its deep connections with organized crime, it's also a no-go area for law enforcement.

Based on what I'd read about the place, I wouldn't have gone without my Mexican neighbour, but once there, it's an eye-opener (and it didn't feel too dangerous, but I may have been oblivious). That it's a veritable warren of stalls makes it familiar to anyone who's ever been to the night market in Chaing Mai, or countless other places throughout Asia and Latin America. I didn't see any CDs being burned, but I did see hundreds of DVD covers in the process of being prepared for assembly. Anyone who's interested in copyright and how it interacts with the real economy should definitely check it out.

Some thoughts and observations:

Free marketers would love Tepito. It's remarkably complex and has developed in the absence of government regulation. Many vendors specialize (some exclusively offered porn, Mexican movies, and arthouse flicks). They may also have overcome the quality problem associated with pirated materials. According to a professor I interviewed for my field research, many vendors offer you the opportunity to return the DVD if you're not satisfied with the quality. To me, this suggests that these vendors have developed roots in their community.

What's also interesting, for a lapsed economist, is the complementary (or symbiotic) economy that has developed around Tepito. Much (or most) of the stuff sold there may be stolen, but there are also a lot of vendors selling food (a lot of which looked quite tasty) and crafts. There is also a market (or more than one; I was unclear where Tepito ended and the others began) near Tepito; I'd bet that one depends on the other.

Price competition. Seeing the low prices for DVDs (three to five dollars Canadian) made me think that the really interesting question for copyright aficionados is not how to eliminate copyright violators, but why people still buy full-price CDs and DVDs and go to movies, when substitutes are available at a fraction of the price. Economically, it makes zero sense. I'd love to see any work that's been done on this (I've been too focused on the philosophy of copyright and the Internet treaties to be of much use here, unfortunately).

Full-price DVDs may be a status symbol: a form of conspicuous consumption unavailable to the majority of Mexicans, 50% of whom live below the poverty line. So what you have is two markets: the rich and the poor. The professor I mentioned earlier said he thought his students bought so much bootlegged material because while they've been trained to consume, being students, they lacked the means to buy authorized goods.

Extend this argument to the entire economy and you've got a situation in which an illegal market may not necessarily be a bad thing for the content industries. Cheap knockoffs may get people interested in consuming these status products; once they make enough money, they might switch to the more expensive legit (status) copies.

It also made me wonder what would happen if the copyright industries slashed their prices to compete with the bootleggers, and what the industry would look like at those prices. I'm going to have to do some hunting for papers on the economics of piracy. I'd love to know what their profit margins are.

Grist for a post-doc, maybe.

Availability. Contrary to what you read, you can't buy everything in Tepito. I looked high and low for a copy of Star Trek - for research purposes, of course - and I couldn't find a copy anywhere. I saw it on the streets for the first time two days ago. Wonder if they took any special precautions to keep it from leaking out.

The future. Mexican Internet penetration rates are still quite low. It would be interesting to come back in ten years and see if the commercial market for illicit CDs and DVDs had been replaced by non-commercial (potentially illicit, depending on what the law says at the time) file sharing by Net-savvy Mexicans. Tepito's days may be numbered, not by law enforcement, but by technology.

Killer swag

Caught The Killers at the Palacio de los Deportes last Sunday, general admission, along with about 10,000 screaming Mexican fans. How good are The Killers live? Good enough that they can play "Somebody Told Me," their ridiculously catchy debut hit, only two songs into their 90-minute set and not have to worry about any post-hit letdown. I'm not the biggest Killers fan in the world and their albums are kind of uneven, but live? Wow. They're one of those bands that know how to play a stadium and don't shy away from the Rock Anthem (which, combined with pyrotechnics, is a thing of beauty to behold). If they ever manage to harness their talent for an entire album, they'll be unstoppable, live and on tape.

Almost as good was the variety of bootleg swag available outside the venue. I'm talking countless different T-shirt designs, glassware, posters, stickers, lighters: basically, if it was possible to stick a "Killers" logo on something, you could probably find it in one of the many stalls lining the route from the metro station to the stadium. Also saw some cops standing idly by, for what it's worth.

I've been to a few shows in the two months since I arrived in Mexico City, and the big shows usually have the same things for sale, only with a different logo. That said, every show so far has had some unique merchandise. There was nothing at The Killers show to match the pure awesomeness of the Depeche Mode T-Shirt featuring the band members, drawn Simpsons-style, trapped along with Homer Simpson in individual test-tube thingies while Kang and Kodos look on, slobbering. I regret few things in life; not buying that shirt is one of them.

The Killers show did, however, feature (and I don't think I'm imagining this) a Killers sleeping bag cover, which I didn't buy, and a Killers travel pillow, which I did.

Anyway, check it out: Killers bootleg swag (mug: 100 pesos, keychain: 30 pesos, pillow: 40 pesos, general admission ticket: 800 pesos. 12 pesos = C$1). If they'd had stuff like this for sale officially, I would have bought it.

(Mandatory IP question: why do people buy official concert T-shirts, especially when there are plenty of knock-offs available at a lower price? Quality? A desire to support the band? The designs are cooler? I'm guessing there's no one answer. If anyone wants to share, feel free.)

And, as an added bonus, some glassware from the Pet Shop Boys' concert here on October 1.



The paint started coming off before I got them home. Obviously, when it comes to bootleg merch, it's buyer beware.

The Leaked ACTA Documents: What Next?

I had originally intended my first post to be more introductory (PhD student in political science at Carleton University in Ottawa, writing a dissertation on implementation of the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, former economist and reporter, currently working out of Mexico City trying to finish my dissertation so I can rejoin the workforce), but instead I’m going to jump right into what I hope will be regular postings related mainly to my academic work: copyright policy and North American regional integration. Comments always welcome.

I’ve been experiencing a bit of déjà vu reading Michael Geist’s recent postings on the leaked Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which, despite its name, seems to have at least as much to do with copyright as counterfeiting (Geist has a link to a leaked description of the parts of ACTA related to ISP liability and technological protection measures). The secret negotiations among a group of (mostly) developed nations attempting to set a global standard that goes far beyond the existing international treaties, the leaks that have sparked outrage among activist groups, the negotiations outside the subject’s traditional fora: what we have here is practically a repeat of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI: OECD page; Wikipedia) in the late 1990s.

As a pup reporter for a small Toronto-based Catholic social-justice newspaper (how’re those for some loaded labels?), I filed many a story on the opposition to the MAI, and I remember how activists claimed victory when it was shelved. For those of you who don't recall the MAI, it was like the Battle of Seattle, only about global investment rules. Its defeat was seen as the first expression of what has come to be called global civil society.

For those concerned with the potentially harmful effects of an ACTA, which could include a three-strikes rule for repeat copyright infringers and a notice-and-takedown regime for ISPs, there are some important lessons to be learned from the MAI experience, the most obvious to me being:

Lesson #1: The negotiating forum matters. This is the big difference between the ACTA and the MAI. The MAI was negotiated under the aegis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD, and not the recently established WTO, was chosen as the negotiating body because it was felt that its limited, relatively homogenous membership (currently 30, mainly industrialized, countries) would make it easier to conclude an investment treaty. This treaty could then be presented to the rest of the world as a fait accompli without the bother of having to negotiate with countries whose interests may not be in sync with the richer OECD countries.

The one flaw in this plan was that the OECD was working under consensus rules: if one country objected, then the whole treaty would not proceed. Indeed, while activists can take a lot of the credit for the eventual demise of the MAI, it was actually the French government’s decision not to pursue the MAI that actually killed it but good.

The big question for ACTA opponents (and proponents, for that matter) is whether the talks are vulnerable to a country pulling a France before the end of negotiations next year. I don't know the answer to that question, mainly because (what with the secrecy and all) the terms under which the treaty is being negotiated are not readily available. But it would seem that so long as the United States, Japan and the European Union are on board (the U.S. isn't going anywhere; don't know about Japan or the EU), it doesn't matter if most other countries stay or go. If the United States can go into Iraq with Britain, Australia and Moldova as its main allies and call it a coalition, they could still negotiate a treaty with bit players and call it a new world standard.

So ACTA opponents will have to take into account the likely success of a treaty and plan accordingly. The basic strategy of the MAI protesters seems to remain valid here: international information coordination (the easy part) and domestic political pressure (the hard part). The real battle will probably take place country-by-country, first over whether to withdraw (Howard Knopf argues for walking away) and then over the treaty’s implementation.

While this likely will make the ACTA political debate different (and more difficult for opponents) than the MAI debate, the final outcome is not predetermined. Treaties can be modified before they are signed, and then they have to be implemented, and then enforced. As has been demonstrated by Canada’s inability to implement its obligations under the WIPO Internet treaties, and the U.S. refusal to implement the Kyoto Accord (which it signed), just because a country signs a treaty does not mean that it’s going to implement it.