There's more to this problem than meets the eye, though, Ibsen.

Certainly, protecting intellectual property is a major priority for big technology-producing countries, no doubt about it. From the developing world's point of view, it amounts to a net transfer of resources from poor, technology-using countries to rich, technology producing countries. That's the law, alright, but is the law fair?

Ha-Joon Chang wrote a fascinating book that touches on this that I heartily recommend: Kicking Away The Ladder, it's called. In it, he documents the way the Now Developed Countries typically had much weaker Intellectual Property Protection laws back when they were developing countries than the ones they now demand from today's developing countries. The reason is straightforward - they rightly perceived that appropriating cutting-edge technologies as fast as possible would be crucial to their development prospects. Only once they themselves became net exporters of I.P.R. protected goods did they have a "change of heart" and start demanding strong I.P.R. protection from poor countries.

It's a story that goes right back to the XVIIIth century, when the British government actually financed the deployment of industrial spies in Belgium to "steal" cutting edge textile technology. It includes stories like that of Switzerland, which spent most of the 19th century without any patent system at all, precisely because they realized that it would retard take-up of cutting edge technologies by Swiss companies. And runs straight up through the latest wave of New Industrialized Economies in East Asia, which made reverse engineering and technology transfer key planks of their development strategies.

So the question arises: is the demand for strong IPR protection really just a ploy by the now developed countries to keep their technological edge over peripheral economies? And if so, don't countries like China and Mexico have something like a duty to skirt existing laws, if that will help lift more of their populations out of poverty more quickly?

There are some hairy questions involved in this whole debate. The fact that the holders of today's technologies do what they can to extend their monopoly power over what they've invented is neither really surprising nor really relevant to this debate. If I'm the leader of Mexico, and my choice is between fattening Microsoft's bank account even further or helping my domestic producers compete successfully in international markets, well...it looks rather different, this debate, from that point of view.

I guess my feeling is that the term "pirate" is too emotionally loaded to really serve as a guide here. It forestalls the possibility of a deeper consideration of the interests at stake.

Why not "Endogenous Technology Appropriation Agents", instead?

Do grab that H.J. Chang book, though: you'll like it.

First off, that study was funded using OUR TAX DOLLARS paid to a company that is financially dependant on folks like RIAA. If that isn’t biased reporting, I don’t know what is.

Second, if anyone in the industry thinks that passing laws about it, or otherwise cracking down on it by continuing to sue 12-year olds, they are more delusional than first thought.

Not only will Piracy thrive into the future, but there is nothing that can be done about it until the industry stops producing crap and expecting us all to pay to go see it… Only to be very disappointed and wanting our money back from the theatre.

Most downloader’s I know will go to the theatre to see the movie if it looks good enough on their laptops for free…. Or will buy the song through iTunes.