Every major brand is grappling with the issue of intellectual piracy. While infringements on property rights are a problem around the globe, the Chinese are especially guilty of rampantly “borrowing” ideas or adapting successful product and entertainment ideas, making them their own without much concern.
The U.S. Government, tired of China’s lackadaisical attitude about the issue, finally filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization. Protecting companies’ intellectual properties from being ripped off has become an onerous task, but billions of dollars are at stake. Even worse, brand equities can be eroded… .
Business Week reports on just one recent incident in a short article in the magazine’s May 28th issue, titled The Great Walt of China. Apparently, a Japanese TV news crew shot footage of Beijing’s Shijingshan Amusement Park in early May. Caught on film: a fake Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Snow White and Donald Duck among other copyrighted Disney properties.
This has understandably caused a real problem for Disney, whose attorneys made contact with Beijing’s Copyright Bureau to express their displeasure. Since Disney owns a park in Hong Kong, and has no contractual agreement with the amusement park in Beijing, the entertainment giant was bound to protect its interests.
By May 12th, no Disney characters were seen in the park, while Park General Manager Liu Jingwang stated that “he didn’t understand all the fuss.” He then went on to say, “We have our own mascots. We don’t need to imitate other people.” This led Disney Asia spokeswoman Alannah Goss to say, “We appreciate the efforts of the Beijing Copyright Bureau in dealing with this situation.”
Regardless who the guilty parties are who pirate the intellectual property of companies: the loss of revenue in real sales dollars and the damage done to brands, their values and reputations, can be catastrophic. Whether unique products, services, or other intellectual properties are being pirated, everyone stands to lose.
When companies work so hard to build equity–there is too much at stake to not be vigilant and not protect one of their most important assets–their brands.
Tags: brands, brand_equity, copyright, Disney, intellectual_piracy, Shijingshan_Amusement_Park, Ted_Mininni
Ted, did you see this article?
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/116/features-the-next-cultural-revolution.html
Chinese companies will start caring about IP, patents etc when they start innovating (instead of copying) and bring new products and services to the global marketplace.
It’s bad enough when they steal your idea but then to go so far as blatantly lie about it is what burns me up.
We have a competitor who follows us like a puppy dog – we come up with a new idea and lo and behold our new idea appears on their website. Ok – competition – I know. But then in the body of their “mission” statement they lie and say that nothing like their site exists on the Internet – they came up with the idea while riding in a car!
I guess you can’t protect your ideas but hey don’t pretend MY ideas didn’t even exist before you had your awakening.
I agree that copyright, trademark, and patent laws need to be respected, but I have some serious reservations about how long copyrights should last and what sort of “inventions” are protected under the patent laws by the bureaucracy that governs them.
Paul,
I did not read that article. However, I quite agree with you. Once Chinese companies start originating their own products, they’ll find out what it’s like when other companies steal their technology, copy their products to a T, and take what they perceive to be their intellectual capital away from them. Great point.
Paul,
I did not read that article. However, I quite agree with you. Once Chinese companies start originating their own products, they’ll find out what it’s like when other companies steal their technology, copy their products to a T, and take what they perceive to be their intellectual property, patented or otherwise, away from them. Great point.
Mona,
The points you raise in the area of intellectual thought and capital, are sometimes pretty gray areas in the law. The Internet is great in the way it connects us all, yet it makes it easier to steal ideas also; doesn’t it?
Is it any wonder a whole new generation of intellectual property lawyers are being spawned to fight infringements into other companies’ property? I understand that litigation has exploded in this area in the past couple of years and continues to grow exponentially. Again: is it any wonder this is happening?
Cam,
Thanks for your provocative viewpoint. I don’t know what the answer is to your observation about how far copyrights and patents should extend in every instance.
I do believe that properties like the Disney characters or Marvel characters (a company we’ve worked with for years) in the entertainment realm,should be absolutely and exclusively owned by those companies forever.
Ogilvy on Advertising:
“until you’ve got a better answer, you copy.”
Tammy,
Thanks for sharing this pearl from Ogilvy. Unfortunately, this goes for more than advertising. Many want to cut up the winning pie recipe that a few unique companies are able to conceive of and bake. What they ought to do is make up unique winning recipes of their own. That’s far more memorable and far more desirable for the customer, isn’t it?
Of Course I agree with you. Although every idea comes from some kind of inspiration.
In China, it’s a deep, deep societal issue. This story about the Disneyland rip-off park is cute, but that park in Beijing a tiny little dumpy park, like the old Santa’s Village. Not a threat to Disney. What is a threat is the millions of garments manufactured with Disney images on them. I live in Shanghai, and the estimates on the street on the number of deaths per year in China that can be attributed to pirated medicines and foods is over 100,000. Interesting to note that famous Chinese goods are now being pirated as well – in particular, La Ni sports 15- shoes and Haier appliances. It will take 20 years before there is seriousl ehadway here
Tim: Did you say Santa’s Village?! You must be from New England!
Ted -
It’s a complicated issue… but if we apply the law that way to companies like Disney and Marvel, then equal protection demands we apply it to record labels and artists, too. We’d still be paying Mozart’s former employer for renditions of his works if that were the case.
I was thinking about it for awhile yesterday… The conclusion I came to (and this is subject to change with new information or revised lines of reasoning) is that it should not be perpetual, but it should be renewable. If Disney, Marvel, or any other company wishes to retain society’s protection for those copyrights, then it needs to pay a renewal fee to do it.
I don’t know what that fee should be, but it should at least enough to discourage using it indiscriminately.
The TV program, Heroes, I heard had to pay Marvel because the characters were “like” the X-Men. Well, they weren’t the X-Men.
But that’s the risk you run when you make these laws ambiguous and perpetual. Ideas and general concepts should not be allowed to be hoarded by the few, forever.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for sharing an inside view of piracy within China. It’s interesting to learn that Chinese products are being pirated as well as Western ones. Some people will do anything to make a buck, it seems. As you point out, with a problem as rampant and widespread as this, it will take some time to root out these practices.
Cam,
I agree that this is a complicated issue. However, there is a way entertainment companies share their ideas. They set up licensing agreements with selected partners ensuring that their properties will be used correctly. There are myriad Disney products, for example, and the company’s official licensees are utilizing their properties in a proper manner.
As to how long patented ideas and processes should remain in one company’s or individual’s hands before going into the public domain, this issue ought to be in the hands of lawmakers. No matter what remains the same or changes in the laws protecting intellectual property, some people won’t be happy. However, if we don’t protect people’s rights to their own inventions and creative output for some time, there would be chaos around the globe. What would the incentive be to push forward with new solutions to problems and new developments in existing technologies?
“this issue ought to be in the hands of lawmakers.”
It is important to recognize both why Congress was given that power and why it was not given the power to grant exclusive rights perpetually. As it turns out, there are good and valid reasons for both.
Since we live in a system of self-government, the people themselves should also have a basic understanding of the issues involved. The Constitution affords Congress the power “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” (Article I, Section
What should the limit be? Well… Since there are good and valid points of view on it, and since it affects all of us, we should be open to engaging in that discussion.
Congress creates the legislation, but we should have an idea what principles they will rely on to make those decisions, since we are responsible for putting them in office.
Cam,
Congress doesn’t enact legislation on issues of this magnitude without the input of many experts in both the private and public sectors. Let’s face it: there are huge economic ramifications at stake here. Any changes or updates in the laws governing intellectual piracy, necessitated by current events, will no doubt be presaged by much discussion on all sides.
I agree we should be informed and understand any proposals to amend or update current law in a general way. This issue impacts us all in varying degrees. However, the minutia and legalese of these laws won’t appear in language that’s discernible to most of us, I’m afraid. The lawmakers will hash this all out with corporate experts on the subject. At the rate these things get done at the Federal level, I suspect it will take a bit of time before anything happens in this regard, as well. In the meantime, we all need to become as informed as possible and track future developments concerning the protection of intellectual capital.
Ted – Without going TOO far down the path (is it too late?) of analyzing the philosophical and practical reasons for creating legislation that is accessible to the masses in a representative republic, the law does not need to be so complicated that ordinary people cannot understand it. Indeed, as it turns out, the more complicated and unintelligible it is, the greater chance it will tie up the court system (on the taxpayer’s dime) and subject our ability to follow the law to the whims of unelected judges.
This is why the founders were careful to word the Constitution in a way that it could be easily understood — to protect the people from the “tyranny of ambiguity,” which turns out to be “tyranny of the courts” that don’t demand exactitude in legislation.
In any event, getting around the Constitution’s requirement that such protections of copyright and patents have defined limits is logically and rhetorically problematic, absent an amendment to the Constitution.
I wouldn’t put it above them to try to circumvent this requirement by means of a treaty (since, if experience tells us anything, not many countries will fight to enforce and protect our copyright laws), but that has it’s problems, too, because treaties made under the Constitution’s authority cannot metaphysically be greater than the document they rely on for their own authority.
Okay. We’re WAAAAAAY off topic now. Let’s just say I agree with your statement that, “we should be informed and understand any proposals to amend or update current law in a general way.”
Cam,
Interesting conversation you’re having with Ted.
I really appreciate your comments and your insights into the Constitution, but let’s remember that one of its strengths is the fact that so much of it is open to interpretation, and a bit ambiguous. Many people, in fact, do not understand all of the language in the Constitution; even Constitutional scholars and attornies debate the meaning of many sections of it. The courts constantly interpret it. On and on. . .
I’ll also say this, in response to “since, if experience tells us anything, not many countries will fight to enforce and protect our copyright laws”. Every country is involved in commerce. We all have much to gain and much to lose in this battle over safeguarding intellectual property. Our economies are all linked into one big world economy, so it’s important for everybody to be vigilant. China is experiencing many growing pains, but let’s hope the government there gets on board with this since its own business sector is beginning to be impacted by this, as well, according to Tim who is living in Shanghai.
“I really appreciate your comments and your insights into the Constitution, but let’s remember that one of its strengths is the fact that so much of it is open to interpretation, and a bit ambiguous.”
It’s true, some of the Constitution leaves open the definition of certain terms, and the courts rely on — in the best cases, common law, and the worst cases, their own flights of fancy — to interpret the Constitution. However, we should not EVER take that to mean that judges and legislators have the liberty to change the meaning of clauses and amendments that are clear.
In other words, when the Constitution directs there time limits on the protections society should afford to those inventors and proprietors of the “useful arts,” it should never be interpreted as “perpetual,” which has the exact opposite meaning.
Failing to accede that fundamentally destroys the entire purpose behind putting the Constitution in writing and making it available for the public to read.
Cam,
You are right. But, I personally don’t believe anyone who has the temerity to change any clear meanings in the Constitution would ever get away with it. There would be more than a little outcry, I assure you.
Everyone who lives in this country, whether they are born here or become naturalized citizens, should become acquainted with this precious document, and I did not suggest otherwise. In fact, I also recommend: “The Words We Live By”, a fabulous book, written by Linda R. Monk. Whether we understand every word and its meaning or not, whether we are Constitutional scholars or not, we are very fortunate to have had this magnificent document as our living guide since 1787. . .still as relevant and revered as it ever was.
“You are right. But, I personally don’t believe anyone who has the temerity to change any clear meanings in the Constitution would ever get away with it. There would be more than a little outcry, I assure you.”
If anyone tried to do it all at once, you are right. But we see that is possible to fundamentally change the purpose and intent of specific elements of the Constitution over time through small, incremental violations and “interpretations.”
I would be glad to take the discussion offline and provide specific examples, but for the moment, I think it’s safe to leave it at our point of incontrovertible agreement:
As citizens of this country, we ought to know our Constitution and the laws to which we will be held responsible, without ambiguity.
Ted,
Apologies for getting off track here. Companies should seek protection for their intellectual currency, and expect that once secured, it be honored.. . even across national boundaries.
Intellectual piracy happens for a reason. Everytime a patent copyright, trademark is issued, the government creates a monopoly on that good. Monopolies are a direct threat to true free trade and supply and demand of free trade. Piracy happens, because there is too high of a profit margin on one material good. Blank CDs and boxed DVDs are less than a dollar to produce. Yet they sell the material good for 20 dollars. Unless businesses start selling at a less profit per material good, piracy is here to stay. Intellectual piracy isn’t really stealling, but it isn’t really not stealling. Your not truelly taking something from them, your copying it. But on the other hand, people need to be paid to invent more things. The problem is our patents are slanted to far infavor of the intellectual property owners, which screws that consumer buying the product. The chinese can’t afford to buy items at the prices that they are at. So they have to pirate intellectual property just to afford the item.(Consumers) Until, patents and copyrights are limited by money, instead of time owned, the patent holders and copyright owners will have too much power over the market, with their monopolies. Intellectual piracy will always survive until the consumer stops getting screwed.