back to article Belarus legalizes piracy – but citizens will have to pay for it

Life just got a whole lot better in Belarus – apparently piracy is now legal as long as the media being stolen is from a country that has been mean to the Eastern European utopia. Hopefully it's clear that was sarcasm. Belarus is an authoritarian state that has no qualms rigging elections and restricting civil liberties. Since …

  1. Potemkine! Silver badge

    The country is widely referred to as "Europe's last dictatorship"

    Thanks to Putin Khuylo, it isn't anymore.

    In Belarus, Nobel prize's recipient Ales Bialiatski faces a new trial and could be sent up to 12 years in jail. Lukashenko fears people defending human rights.

  2. jonathan keith

    There really are top legal minds working for Lukashenko's government.

    ... Who?

    Top. Legal. Minds.

  3. Paul Crawford Silver badge
    Pirate

    Arrr, the decadent west just has to make sure our films all take the piss out of Lukashenko and see how fast the Great Dictator's firewall comes down!

  4. demon driver

    "regime is allowing its population to steal"

    No, it is not.

    1. david 12 Silver badge

      Re: "regime is allowing its population to steal"

      Poster is downvoted for actually reading the article? Citizens have to pay for use, exactly the same as you or I or the rest of the world.

      Argument can be made that regime is stealing from the rest of the world by nationalizing license fees that are not collected in three years, or by licensing use of products that corporations are not licensing for use in Belarus. But neither of those are "regime is allowing its population to steal"

      1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: "regime is allowing its population to steal"

        It's one of those "A difference which makes no difference, is no different." If the citizens are using stolen content, it makes no difference if they're paying the government. Ultimately, the content is stolen. All the government is doing is making the citizens pay them for permission to steal.

        Mind you, I have no opinion over whether Belarusians should be considered thieves considering the government they have. But, the Belarusians should consider revolt.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "regime is allowing its population to steal"

          - Since the originator refuses / prohibited from supply, they cannot claim any losses or damages, and so they have no legal claim to make even in their home jurisdictions.

          - it is duplication, and not stealing, as the originator, and all other owners of other copies, still have full possession. Just because business is misusing the language doesn't mean we have to repeat the disinformation.

          - Copyrights are a privilege granted only by the law of the country you live in. Belarus is completely free to grant or not grant copyright privileges as it sees fit, though it might have to withdraw from treaties.

          Good on them for finding a legal way around it.

      2. demon driver

        Re: "regime is allowing its population to steal"

        I'm responding late, but still—my objection was to the word "stealing". I have always had the impression that in the IT crowd, which tends to be very precise in these matters, there is a broad consensus that consuming pirated media is not stealing. Stealing involves taking something away. Consuming pirated media does not take anything away from anyone. Yes, even if there is no payment at all, at most it deprives someone of a potential payment, but unlike theft, it does not make them poorer.

        As much as we still might want to condemn the act, and no matter what we think of Belarus and its regime, we should measure the same acts with the same standards and call them by the same terms...

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    spot on

    "So to sum up, a criminal regime is allowing its population to steal but is charging them for the privilege and lining its own pockets. Plus ça change."

    Yep, pretty much spot on on the recap !

  6. Black Label1
    Black Helicopters

    Beautiful Solution !

    Sanctioned country profits from IP of the sanctioner. A lot of people in the torrent business will buy Belarusian VPS - increasing the IT sector of Belarus, and generating more income, at the same time.

    Beautiful Solution !

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Beautiful Solution !

      Just block all IPs assigned to Belarus and you're done.

  7. Matthew "The Worst Writer on the Internet" Saroff

    The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

    WIPO is an organization dedicated to promoting rent seeking behavior, and as such, it has slowed the economy and exacerbated inequality.

    There are a lot of problems with Belarus, but this is not one of them.

    1. Joseba4242

      Re: The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

      If the content was available freely globally (which you seem to advocate), there would be no Harry Potter. No LoTR. None of the expensive-to-produce film.

      Cinema wouldn't exist.

      You might like that, but it's hardly a majority view that the world would be better without these.

      1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

        No problem with protecting IP, but there really should be a hard time limit on it, like say 15 years then it's public domain. 15 years is plenty of time to monetize it.

        1. gnasher729 Silver badge

          Re: The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

          Why should there be a time limit? Give me a reason that is more than just your opinion. If you don’t want to pay if it’s older than 15 years then don’t watch it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

            Why should there be a time limit? Give me a reason that is more than just your opinion.

            There is no reasonable justification for "big pharma" to get 20 years monopoly on a lifesaving drug that cost billions to produce, and took dozens of working lives of effort, when a journalist writing for "big news" gets >75 years for something that took a few hours of effort.

            Clearly, the fair starting place for corporate patents and copyrights would be the same length of time. (whatever that is)

            The difference speaks to the objectives: Patents are structured to encourage development of new technologies and expiry encourages companies to develop new tech to regain a monopoly.

            The incredible long copyright term, seeks to prevent competition from already existing content.

          2. Sulio

            Re: The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

            I give you some reasons

            1. Its clear that you are shitty erican moron that cannot think outside well known neoliberal american narrative where everything is money.I have a surprise for you,not all world thing like American morons. Some people respect more progression of all population than some peoples (producers,composers,actors that rwpresent less than 1% of population ) why we cam make them superreach? And they will benefit from 50 years after they invest some money. Did you want your car manufacturer to charge you every kilometer forever? Don't tell me its different from cars.Its PRODUCT that return its investments with a NORMAL profit and then cant do more profit .You cannot profit from same product 95 years as in cinema.

            2. You are stupid in americam way because you dont asking yourself,why regime of copyright is VERY different for patent and drug patent and authors of the movie/song/literaure/paintings ? They are BOTH IP! But in the case with patent you must PAY yearly fee and terms are limited (max 11 years for drug patent) and in the case of copyright state pay to protect YOUR rights,you pay nothing ONLY charge money and the term can some times exceed 150 years (a composer write a song when he was 20 living until 100 and have 70 years after -total 150 years protection for FREE! This is real case,not my invention ).If this was the case with the patents you still had have expensive antibiotics ,no access to chops and internet because of price etc.Another story is that to be Author is much easy than to be inventor .I can imagine and write about time machine,Moon base,but really inventing time machine and Moon landing is very demanding intellectual efforts that have physical limitation and concordance with a lot of natural laws.So,much harder to dream like cinema author that MAKE cinema based of shortly lived patented inventions . We can survive without cinema literature songs (as we survived many thousand years ) but without inventions protected by patents we still should be in the caves.

            You thing that way because all american morons with missing brain and head empty feom cheap american propaganda cannot ask themself and for unknown reason consider US best country in the Universe . As well Register in order to be neutral media promoting different points of view promoting neoliberal political correct narratives labeling on untrue base peoples as dictators , criminals etc.Who said that to you ?The God because only He have right of absolute judgment .Everything else is a politics that serve to neocons and military bosses .I have neen in many countries ,including Belorus amd and USA and can claim that Belorusians living much better than mist of US citizens that are holded by mortgage,loans for everything ,unemployment etc. If Register get more balanced attiw,may be it can raise number of readers .

    2. Long John Silver
      Pirate

      Re: The Problem is not Belarus, it is WIPO

      Absolutely correct.

      "Intellectual property" (IP) is a specious concept, that being so at inception of IP laws, but only becoming obvious upon advent of the digital era.

      At present Belarus, Russia too according to a recent report on RT, is making sensible pragmatic response to USA 'sanctions diplomacy'.

      However, this potentially runs more deeply. That nations are willing to flout the letter of international convention on so-called IP, even temporarily so, indicates willingness to think outside a box imposed in the 18th century UK during the reign of Queen Anne. Principles underlying the Statute of Queen Anne (1710) were later adopted elsewhere and eventually incorporated into international conventions. These conventions were set in aspic long before many now extant nations, particularly in the 'Global South', had attained independence from various sources of colonial rule.

      Many nations pay fees to rentiers in order to access knowledge, culture, and products of technology. These fees, incorporated into the prices of goods and services provided by IP monopoly protected enterprise are a drain on discretionary expenditure of nations, and that of individuals within nations: resource which instead could support local intellectual endeavour, cultural innovation, and application of knowledge currently shrouded by patents (e.g. manufacture of pharmaceuticals).

      Nations now rebelling against Western hegemony (particularly that exercised by the USA using economic and military means) ought now consider the 'Economic Warfare Nuclear Option' of disavowing the notion of ideas, their promulgation, and their application being 'property'.

      Notional losses accrued by titular 'owners' of ideas (i.e. supposed IP) within dissenting nations would be swamped by gains from unfettered knowledge acquired from elsewhere. There would be global intellectual/cultural renaissance. Once one or more major nations inaccessible to US Marines take this option, then inevitably, like a cascade of falling dominoes, it will encircle the globe.

      What of lost 'ownership' of ideas? How shall the (truly) creative survive?

      Simply, they shall survive in an open market for imagination and requisite skills to apply it. Skills rather than end-products shall draw income. Support will come from voluntary patronage.

      What's on offer is a genuinely open market for creative inspiration leading to ideas and applications thereof, this replacing that of arbitrarily priced end-products of intangible nature (e.g. represented as sequences of binary digits). Reputation shall be the currency of sellers in this market. Reputation will be protected by entitlement to attribution, plus legal remedy against attempts at false representation.

  8. fpx
    Pirate

    Frankly, I agree with the sentiment that it ought to be legal to pirate content that rights holders refuse to make available. An increasing amount of content is geo-restricted. E.g., movies or TV shows made for a streaming platform that refuses sign-ups outside of their geofence. Streaming platforms should be forced to open up to the world.

    Ah, to live in Antigua and Barbuda, which was officially allowed by the WTO to pirate US content, in retaliation for the US refusing to allow its citizens to engage in "free trade" (online gambling) with the country. (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm)

  9. Arthur Daily

    In Australia the public libraries collect it, it go's to one central place, then distributed. I think Canada and Sweden do the same thing. So Belarus does the same, only that entity has sanctions against it, preventing the money getting out. If I were designing sanctions, I would say money can flow out, but not in. Probably because China would love that, as its banned from paying for IP.

    So there is no stealing, just that sanctions are working as designed. Again, a number of countries sweep unclaimed money into .govt coffers, including Australia. Or Belarus can send some Ukrainian currency bonds as payment.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like