Kerry Segrave's book Film Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry dedicates its entirety to my topic. Segrave's research though, extends significantly farther back into the history of film than I will be including in my analysis. She provides a wide berth of information about past and present domestic film issues as well as specific international ones. Chapters 6, "Domestic Piracy, 1975-2001," and 7, "Foreign Piracy, 1975 to 2001," are laden with the utmost pertinent material for my research. In these two chapters, Segrave goes into exquisite detail, not only providing an enormity of statistics, but also documenting vast amounts of specific legal action taken to prevent film piracy over sixteen years. Segrave's in depth method of relaying information allows me to get more than just a surface level understanding of Hollywood's constant struggle concerning film piracy. Her attention to detail regarding legislative measures and the strategic moves made by Hollywood to suppress piracy will add substantial support to my own analysis.

The statement of this interest group discusses the concerns the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) raises. These include the lack of transparency of its content, the limited information given to the public, the fact that this is an executive agreement and the implications this will have in practice in the Unites States political context. Public Knowledge is also uneasy with the terminology used in the ACTA – the use of “piracy” and “counterfeit” without concrete definitions of what these words would encompass. 
    The opinion of Public Knowledge adds an important perspective to my argument because it criticizes the format and the ramifications of ACTA implementation on a domestic level. The interest group raises the fact that the ACTA is an executive agreement and as such does not require the “signatories to be accountable to the public” since it circumvents Congress. If one links this information to the claim that the ACTA is supported predominantly by copyright industries then it leads me to believe that the sole purpose of this accord is to give the companies such as the RIAA and MPAA greater powers to prosecute copyright infringement internationally at their own discretion. Eliminating accountability also signifies that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) does not want to directly involve the U.S. in multinational infringement disputes but only seeks to facilitate the domestic copyright industry to defend its rights in the international arena. The limitation of the Public Knowledge opinion is that it doesn’t consider the newest Fact Sheet that was released by the USTR in August 2008. Even though the fact sheet does not give a substantial amount of concrete information, it does formally address some of Public Knowledge’s questions.

     This article discusses the legal framework in which copyright cases are debated and decided. Geller begins by describing the basis of “territoriality” and how it is derived from the international system of nation-states and clear boundaries. The author admits that this definition is highly problematic when dealing with cyberspace and transfers of data that cut across borders. He then goes on to discuss the variations in each country’s laws regarding cyberspace copyright infringement and how this often leads to inconsistent judgments. For example, in a case that involves multiple countries, a court may award infringement compensation within the conservative limits of a particular country’s legal system. At the same time, it might use justification from another country’s legal code to grant a severe punishment. Geller concludes that the most effective way of combating international intellectual piracy is through a standardized legal code that eliminates such gross inconsistencies.
     This paper is very valuable for the question that I am trying to answer, because it shows the legal perspective and legal limitations of the prosecution of international copyright infringement cases. The Internet operates in a borderless context and if the international community wants to regulate online copyright infringement, multinational institutions needs to modify their framework. Similarly, if the ACTA is to be effective, it should not be based on a borders and territoriality. The paper also demonstrates that the ACTA will merely add another set of rules to the already complicated international legal network. Nevertheless, the paper fails to propose a way to iron out the inconsistencies in legal codes around the world. Perhaps the ACTA is a valuable multinational forum but its focus should be shifted to addressing the problems within the existing legal system and not creating new laws.

"The Trouble With Larry." Forbes (2004) Vol. 173 Issue 6, p84, 1p

The article is a response to Lessig and his beliefs than anything else.  The technology section of Forbes Magazine is usually not a theater for copyright arguments and Manes goal is clear from the beginning of the article: to discredit Lessig and his extreme view of fair use.  As such, Manes’ arguments are less academic and more of a subjective style.  While this has limited value, Manes opinion serves as at least a dissenting view of the situation.  It is these general disagreements in which Manes basis his article.

            Manes believes that there is a strong need for a balanced definition of fair use for copyright law, but that Lessig’s opinion is far too liberal, allowing for illegal activities to occur at the expense of the creators.  To finish his attack on Lessig, Manes points to a Supreme Court ruling that Lessig lost attempting to reform the current copyright law.  Lessig believes in legal file sharing and is a proponent of technology, whereas Manes prefers current law is adequate.

            A major point of disagreement comes from the fact that Manes believes a new copyright law similar in proposal to Lessig’s would be detrimental to our current international copyright law.  If changed, Manes argues, it could effectively destroy treaties, agreements, and current practices of media culture, thus greatly affecting America’s cultural export.

            The closing comment relates to my thesis in that Manes argues that current copyright law has established the United States as the major culture center in the world.  He states that “our intellectual property provides America’s greatest worldwide successes,” and that current copyright law facilitates this flow.  Manes credits current copyright law to the success and globalization of American movies and music and that Lessig’s attempt to change copyright laws would greatly detriment this.

"Piracy battle a global one, Shiner tells AFM attendees." Hollywood Reporter -- Internaional (2005) Vol. 391 Issue 37, p96-96, 1/3p

This article from the Hollywood Reporter describes the message given y Josette Sheeran Shiner on behalf of the US Secretary of State at the American Federation of Musicians.  Shiner states that international intellectual property protection is important for everyone, not just studios in Hollywood.  Shiner states that the problem of intellectual piracy is rampant in the world in nearly all sectors, not just entertainment.

            Shiner credits the MPA for its work protecting film products, but she states that the problem is much broader than the ‘audiovisual sector.’  The same problem that exists with intellectual piracy in film also exists with “manufactured good from baby foods to automobile parts,” Shiner states, highlighting the need for better protection.  In attempts to strengthen protection of US goods, the United States has joined APAC and the G8 with hopes of timely positive results.

            As countries develop protection against piracy, Shiner claims that they tend to strengthen their own investment and brand names as well.  Shiner refers to China as a region in which positive progress has been made to protect intellectual property with encouraging results.

            This article points to the fact that countries that better protect intellectual property, better protect their own property, and in turn help cultivate it.  Intellectual property theft is extremely common in China and as steps are taken to protect rights, brands and exports are cultivated and delivered to the rest of the world.  Piracy in China has greatly hurt the Chinese film industry however, as law enforcement of intellectual property improves, the cultivation of film improves.

            American cinema benefits from this through distribution and potential value for American remakes of movies.  Few mainland Chinese movies are released in America due to the lack of quality from extensive piracy.  However, once practices change, both China and the United State can greatly benefit from better product production, distribution, and authorized adaptation.