Nintendo Unhappy With Piracy

TomLiotta  |   Feb 27, 2013  3:37 AM (GMT)

I don’t quite get the point. Is there some reason that Nintendo, out of the many companies that make recommendations every year, is different from the others? It’s a serious question purely out of curiosity. Almost all actions taken by the USTR are taken after company (corporations) recommendations, primarily because corporations are the primary IP holders that are to be protected, and that’s simply because they generate the vast majority of IP and represent the vast majority of affected people. — Tom

Dan O’Connor  |   Feb 27, 2013  12:06 PM (GMT)

I agree that they need to have the IP protected, but I am uncertain if the USTR is the appropriate method of resolving these issues. Section 301 allows the possibility of trade sanctions against countries by the recommendation of private companies, although I think it has been only done once.
I was not meaning to speak about Nintendo directly, I am just not comfortable with section 301. There is some criticisms about it and I agree with it, the intent of section 301 I feel is good, but I also see a possibility for abuse.

TomLiotta  |   Feb 28, 2013  3:39 AM (GMT)

Okay, the Nintendo element is clear. It was an example to publicize the overall issue. But now it’s brought a followup question. How can Section 301 be the inappropriate place? As far as I can tell, it covers the main point and purpose mentioned here.
 
Continuing to use the “Nintendo” specific aspect, 19 USC § 2412 – Initiation of investigations, begins with:

(1) Any interested person may file a petition with the Trade Representative requesting that action be taken under section 2411 of this title and setting forth the allegations in support of the request.
And 19 USC § 2411 – Actions by United States Trade Representative, defines:

(d)(9) The term “interested persons”, only for purposes of sections 2412 (a)(4)(B), 2414 (b)(1)(A), 2416 (c)(2), and 2417 (a)(2) of this title, includes, but is not limited to, domestic firms and workers, representatives of consumer interests, United States product exporters, and any industrial user of any goods or services that may be affected by actions taken under subsection (a) or (b) of this section.
Nintendo fits the definition. Some ‘interested person’ who has such a complaint is allowed to file allegations. This is specifically where such complaints are supposed to be made. It doesn’t mean anything will happen except that a complaint will be investigated.
 
Abuse, however, would only happen after validation when some retaliatory actions might need to be instituted by the U.S.A. government. Those, of course, would involve international politics in a global economy. It seems unlikely that actions would be undertaken lightly. Interconnections are complex.
 
And that brings it to the real question. Is there evidence of abuse? All possible sanctions of any kind carry a possibility of abuse. That’s what brings modern representational democracy into existence, to have control over possible organs of abuse.
 
So, have there been abuses? And I suppose, since Nintendo was the example, did they cause any? Abuses need to be brought into the open for our system to work.
 
Tom