Does Singapore value copyright?

Intellectual property and its particular example, copyright, have made news recently, in Singapore. At stake, is the whole idea of ownership of a created work - and the rewards that go with having created it.

As you may know, copyright sometimes gets a rough time, in parts of Asia. China is famous for its businessmen who ignore copyright and intellectual property laws and just copy, or take, intellectual property without authorization or payment. Yet, there is another kind of copyright violation that its perpetrators may not even consider to be in the same arena: the illegal internet download.

Downloading material off the internet is so prevalent and so common the world over, that most young people give it no thought at all: indeed, the typical youngster seems to think it is their right to download whatever they please, whenever they please. This attitude, however, either ignores the notion of intellectual property and copyright - or is founded on an unawareness of it.

Recently, an anime (Japanese cartoon) distributor in Singapore, called Odex, has decided to stand up for its intellectual property rights and sue violators. In the past two years, they have suffered from a decline in sales of 60 to 70 %. They attribute this to a simultaneous rise in illegal downloads of their anime films, off the internet. Quite simply, they contend, young people are no longer buying their cartoons - they are stealing them off the internet. This is destroying their business model. Odex distribute such popular Japanese anime cartoons as Gundam Seed and Inuyasha, usually via VCD/DVD in retail outlets.

To be able to sue the illegal downloaders, Odex first had to find out who they were. To do this, they took the local internet service providers Singtel (government telco), Starhub and Pacific Net, to court. The first two judgements came in against the ISPs, forcing them to reveal the names of about a 1,000 downloaders each: Singtel has done so, Starhub is still mulling over an appeal. The interesting one is Pacific Net - or PacNet. The judge in that case - who was different from the other two - came down in Pacific Net's favour citing the importance of internet privacy, and blocking Odex's petition to secure the names of 1,000 illegal internet anime downloaders.

The fact that a Singapore court came down against the intellectual property owner, in a copyright violation case, is itself very interesting (and more of that later) - but what really intrigues and appals me, in equal measures is the reaction to Odex's case, in the online forums, in word of mouth - and in other forms of feedback to Odex, itself. There has been outrage all over the internet, that Odex would actually seek to protect its copyright - violators and sympathizers have been pouring vitriol against Odex in forum, after forum. There have even, reports in the Straits Times state, been DEATH THREATS against Odex.

Just reflect on that for a moment. The general feeling among young internet downloaders is that Odex, which owns the sole rights to distribute these Japanese anime cartoons in this part of the world, should not be allowed to protect its intellectual property. Indeed, the mass of internet users are angry that Odex should be doing so - to the point of issuing death threats against them. I find that really, really disturbing - and you should, too.

What exactly is Odex protecting? The right for the creator of a work to be compensated when someone else enjoys the use of it. I don't think that should be a controversial issue. If there were no rewards for creating works, in any media, exactly how many such works would be available for public distribution? Almost none at all. Without a fair financial return on the time, money and effort put into creating an artistic or other work (and all three facets are involved in most creations), then there would be no significant creative activity that wasn't entirely private. There would be no worldwide market for films, books, music, art, and the like. The entertainment world, as we know it, just would not exist. Is that a better world than the one we have? Few would think so - yet that is the world the outraged internet voices are arguing for. They are crying out for a world in which creators, producers and owners of creative works are NOT rewarded for doing so. In such a world, there would be no Japanese anime cartoons to be bought in the shops or even downloaded for "free" on the internet - for no-one would spend millions of dollars making them, when they could never recoup the money invested. The protesters against Odex are baying for a world without art, a world without culture, a world of utter boredom.

No. People should not be demanding a relaxation of copyright laws. People should not be demanding that the internet should be a free for all. People should, instead be demanding a strengthening of copyright laws. People should be demanding huge penalties for all who breach them. Why do I say this? Well, in a world in which copyright is strong and well-protected, creators feel secure in releasing their works to the public. They are rewarded well for it - and more works will follow. A world of strong copyright protection is a world with a burgeoning, vital culture - to the benefit of all, except the freeloaders who would wish to steal a work, rather than pay a reasonable sum for it.

Odex is seeking $5,000 Singapore dollars from each and every illegal downloader. They are not seeking a penalty for each individual copyright violation, as I understand it (though, really, they should). That is about $3,285 US dollars a head.

As a writer, myself, and as someone who understands the work that every creative work embodies (sometimes a lifetime's work in a single opus), I really hope Odex wins all its cases against illegal downloaders. Any case against copyright theft can only serve to strengthen copyright and protect the rights of all who create, in any way, and in any medium, anywhere.

What really worries me about this case, though, is that the Singaporean judge in the Pacific Net case did not understand this. Either he did not understand this - or did not care about it. He placed "internet privacy" above "copyright protection". That is equivalent, in the physical world, to putting the rights of shoplifters not to be identified (so that, hey, they can shoplift again, anonymously, no shop knowing who they are), above the rights of shopowners not to be stolen from. It doesn't make sense. Privacy is an important issue - but you cannot and should not use a right to privacy to hide a criminal, of any breed. A thief is a thief, whether they steal a car or a film - it is still theft. A court has no place coming down on the side of the thief, against the owner of the property that was stolen. That really doesn't make any sense.

Generally speaking, lawyers don't create anything. Therefore, perhaps, this particular lawyer does not understand the issues around creating a work - and being compensated for the use of that creative work. It is not an issue that he would feel strongly about because it is not an issue ever likely to concern him. Well, it should. The whole of human society is built on the works of intellectual property holders - be it copyrights or patents. We all, together, have a collective responsibility to ensure that intellectual property is protected and its owners properly compensated. If we do not do this, there won't be any intellectual property to protect - and then we will all suffer. In a sense, therefore, those who steal intellectual property, strike against us all - for they are striking against those on whom all the richness of society is built. We shouldn't stand for it. But first we must understand the issue. Once we understand that issue - and I hope to have done something to help, there - there should be no excuse for not protecting intellectual property with the same vigour that we protect physical property. If this issue doesn't mean much to you, put the words "my house" or "my car" in the place of Japanese anime cartoons - and see just how happy you feel about someone stealing it.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)