|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 19 2017 00:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +As we learn every festival season, and all other seasons too, there's still a lot of confusion around the difference between appreciation and appropriation. There could soon be a strong incentive to get educated: jail time. Because being called out on the internet doesn't seem to be stopping the proliferation of runway chola bangs and high street Navajo panties.
Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News. A special committee has been asking for sanctions since 2001, long before Twitter and Instagram became the default ways for offended communities to call out BS and make their cases heard. This week, though, the ball is really getting rolling. Delegates from 189 countries are currently meeting in Geneva as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language. The UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee. Anaya took explicit aim at Urban Outfitters's aforementioned Navajo line, which resulted in the Navajo Nation slapping the company with a lawsuit in 2012. (The case was eventually settled out of court.)
This couldn't result in a slippery slope at all.
|
Trump's lawyer is making the news show rounds today, claiming that Trump didn't really mean he was under investigation when he tweeted that he was under investigation.
|
On June 19 2017 01:38 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 00:31 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/vice/status/876182691401650177As we learn every festival season, and all other seasons too, there's still a lot of confusion around the difference between appreciation and appropriation. There could soon be a strong incentive to get educated: jail time. Because being called out on the internet doesn't seem to be stopping the proliferation of runway chola bangs and high street Navajo panties.
Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News. A special committee has been asking for sanctions since 2001, long before Twitter and Instagram became the default ways for offended communities to call out BS and make their cases heard. This week, though, the ball is really getting rolling. Delegates from 189 countries are currently meeting in Geneva as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language. The UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee. Anaya took explicit aim at Urban Outfitters's aforementioned Navajo line, which resulted in the Navajo Nation slapping the company with a lawsuit in 2012. (The case was eventually settled out of court.) This couldn't result in a slippery slope at all.
Definitely a potential slippery slope, but I think the U.S. already has some indigenous people cultural protections. If you independently opened an Indian gaming casino or ran a for-profit pow-wow as a non-Native American, for example, I think you can be sued into oblivion completely legally already.
|
On June 19 2017 02:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 01:38 Gahlo wrote:On June 19 2017 00:31 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/vice/status/876182691401650177As we learn every festival season, and all other seasons too, there's still a lot of confusion around the difference between appreciation and appropriation. There could soon be a strong incentive to get educated: jail time. Because being called out on the internet doesn't seem to be stopping the proliferation of runway chola bangs and high street Navajo panties.
Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News. A special committee has been asking for sanctions since 2001, long before Twitter and Instagram became the default ways for offended communities to call out BS and make their cases heard. This week, though, the ball is really getting rolling. Delegates from 189 countries are currently meeting in Geneva as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language. The UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee. Anaya took explicit aim at Urban Outfitters's aforementioned Navajo line, which resulted in the Navajo Nation slapping the company with a lawsuit in 2012. (The case was eventually settled out of court.) This couldn't result in a slippery slope at all. Definitely a potential slippery slope, but I think the U.S. already has some indigenous people cultural protections. If you independently opened an Indian gaming casino or ran a for-profit pow-wow as a non-Native American, for example, I think you can be sued into oblivion completely legally already.
I don't get it though, how is that different from me opening a japanese restaurant or playing a german themed concert with Brahms and Wagner? I mean culture is something that's meant to be shared; it's really a mark of success when other people start to do your stuff..
|
On June 19 2017 03:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 02:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 01:38 Gahlo wrote:On June 19 2017 00:31 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/vice/status/876182691401650177As we learn every festival season, and all other seasons too, there's still a lot of confusion around the difference between appreciation and appropriation. There could soon be a strong incentive to get educated: jail time. Because being called out on the internet doesn't seem to be stopping the proliferation of runway chola bangs and high street Navajo panties.
Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News. A special committee has been asking for sanctions since 2001, long before Twitter and Instagram became the default ways for offended communities to call out BS and make their cases heard. This week, though, the ball is really getting rolling. Delegates from 189 countries are currently meeting in Geneva as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language. The UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee. Anaya took explicit aim at Urban Outfitters's aforementioned Navajo line, which resulted in the Navajo Nation slapping the company with a lawsuit in 2012. (The case was eventually settled out of court.) This couldn't result in a slippery slope at all. Definitely a potential slippery slope, but I think the U.S. already has some indigenous people cultural protections. If you independently opened an Indian gaming casino or ran a for-profit pow-wow as a non-Native American, for example, I think you can be sued into oblivion completely legally already. I don't get it though, how is that different from me opening a japanese restaurant or playing a german themed concert with Brahms and Wagner? I mean culture is something that's meant to be shared; it's really a mark of success when other people start to do your stuff..
Yes and no. When good chefs and musicians do stuff from other countries, it is fine. The problems arise with tourist-traps and moneygrabbers, exploiting the heritage of others. The worst example I know is a "sami" park in the north of Russia, which essentially is a sorry parody of their art and customs, built by rich russians from far away.
|
On June 19 2017 03:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 02:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 01:38 Gahlo wrote:On June 19 2017 00:31 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/vice/status/876182691401650177As we learn every festival season, and all other seasons too, there's still a lot of confusion around the difference between appreciation and appropriation. There could soon be a strong incentive to get educated: jail time. Because being called out on the internet doesn't seem to be stopping the proliferation of runway chola bangs and high street Navajo panties.
Indigenous groups around the world are currently calling on the United Nations to make the appropriation of native cultures illegal, reports CBA News. A special committee has been asking for sanctions since 2001, long before Twitter and Instagram became the default ways for offended communities to call out BS and make their cases heard. This week, though, the ball is really getting rolling. Delegates from 189 countries are currently meeting in Geneva as part of a specialized international committee within the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The committee is pushing for three pieces of international law to put sanctions place. This will expand international property regulations to protect indigenous property ranging from designs to language. The UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee. Anaya took explicit aim at Urban Outfitters's aforementioned Navajo line, which resulted in the Navajo Nation slapping the company with a lawsuit in 2012. (The case was eventually settled out of court.) This couldn't result in a slippery slope at all. Definitely a potential slippery slope, but I think the U.S. already has some indigenous people cultural protections. If you independently opened an Indian gaming casino or ran a for-profit pow-wow as a non-Native American, for example, I think you can be sued into oblivion completely legally already. I don't get it though, how is that different from me opening a japanese restaurant or playing a german themed concert with Brahms and Wagner? I mean culture is something that's meant to be shared; it's really a mark of success when other people start to do your stuff..
Well, for the indigenous cultures I think it involves the fact that it's preceded by taking their land and often times contributing to the destruction and decay of their native cultures for centuries. They don't really want to share their culture to profit people who destroyed it for profit. It is definitely a tricky line to walk though.
Basically, it's not "sharing" any more when people say "no, I don't want you taking my stuff." For what it's worth I don't think having native-inspired dishes at a restaurant or playing music would fall under the purview of legal restrictions like this. Part of what I think makes it appropriation to me is that the actual people affected are upset about it, rather than some abstract concept.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but the UN thing is talking about IP rights.
Like not being allowed to use aboriginal art designs on t-shirts, not about white men taking native lands.
And who would control such a right? Who gets to decide if company X is allowed to use Eskimo designs but company Y isn't?
Who controls a culture?
IP law has a lot of issues with broad and vague patents flying around, I dont think adding Culture to the list is going to help the situation.
I think culture is important and that people should be assisted in protecting that culture, but this reeks of big $$ and not of protecting heritage.
|
On June 19 2017 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the UN thing is talking about IP rights.
Like not being allowed to use aboriginal art designs on t-shirts, not about white men taking native lands.
And who would control such a right? Who gets to decide if company X is allowed to use Eskimo designs but company Y isn't?
Who controls a culture?
IP law has a lot of issues with broad and vague patents flying around, I dont think adding Culture to the list is going to help the situation.
I think culture is important and that people should be assisted in protecting that culture, but this reeks of big $$ and not of protecting heritage.
Well, in the U.S. I'm pretty sure the actual formal tribes could and probably currently do decide the answers to those questions. That may be part of why it deals with indigenous cultures, those often still have formal independent councils in place.
(for example, the article discusses a Navajo suit; part of the reason they can even sue is because the U.S. recognizes a governing body for the Navajo)
|
This is so far out that it is never going to pass in the UN - like the internet censoring that was also pushed for some time ago. It might pass in some individual member states, but never on a UN level.
The bigger story here is that Danglars apparently reads Vice o.0
EDIT: Dude, you need some help at this point (not Danglars)
|
|
|
On June 19 2017 01:59 Nevuk wrote:
Trump's lawyer is making the news show rounds today, claiming that Trump didn't really mean he was under investigation when he tweeted that he was under investigation.
But tweets are official statements from the presidency according to Spicey.
Honestly watching with baited breath for Trump's weekly meltdown is rather entertaining.
|
On June 19 2017 01:59 Nevuk wrote:
Trump's lawyer is making the news show rounds today, claiming that Trump didn't really mean he was under investigation when he tweeted that he was under investigation.
He is doing a bang up job. Let me tell you. Amazing.
|
On June 19 2017 04:26 Ghostcom wrote:
This is so far out that it is never going to pass in the UN - like the internet censoring that was also pushed for some time ago. It might pass in some individual member states, but never on a UN level.
The bigger story here is that Danglars apparently reads Vice o.0
EDIT: Dude, you need some help at this point (not Danglars)
I think it's a slippery slope. And I read this forum, why is it so strange I read vice? And NYT WaPo. You gotta hear both sides.
|
Vice has a lot of good reporters working for it. And sometimes they churn out some garbage.
|
Apparently Trump considers "the best people" to be those who also contradict themselves on a lightning-fast basis.
|
On June 19 2017 07:05 NewSunshine wrote:Apparently Trump considers "the best people" to be those who also contradict themselves on a lightning-fast basis.
The best people are the ones who make Trump look good.
|
On June 19 2017 06:17 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 01:59 Nevuk wrote:
Trump's lawyer is making the news show rounds today, claiming that Trump didn't really mean he was under investigation when he tweeted that he was under investigation. But tweets are official statements from the presidency according to Spicey. Honestly watching with baited breath for Trump's weekly meltdown is rather entertaining.
I think it's some bizarre contortion in which Trump's not lying because his tweet was purely from him just believing the lying WaPo stories rather than inside knowledge he's being investigated. And his lawyer knows he's not being investigated...for some reason...that I think is related to what Comey said (?) which is of course nonsense.
|
On June 19 2017 07:22 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 07:05 NewSunshine wrote:On June 19 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:On June 19 2017 01:59 Nevuk wrote:
Trump's lawyer is making the news show rounds today, claiming that Trump didn't really mean he was under investigation when he tweeted that he was under investigation. https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/876513747598270464He is doing a bang up job. Let me tell you. Amazing. Apparently Trump considers "the best people" to be those who also contradict themselves on a lightning-fast basis. The best people are the ones who make Trump look good.
I don't know that there are any left though.
|
On June 19 2017 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the UN thing is talking about IP rights.
Like not being allowed to use aboriginal art designs on t-shirts, not about white men taking native lands.
And who would control such a right? Who gets to decide if company X is allowed to use Eskimo designs but company Y isn't?
Who controls a culture?
IP law has a lot of issues with broad and vague patents flying around, I dont think adding Culture to the list is going to help the situation.
I think culture is important and that people should be assisted in protecting that culture, but this reeks of big $$ and not of protecting heritage.
In Brazil tribal cultural knowledge is already protected by IP law. Presumably other countries with significant (historical) cultural minorities have similar laws. Doesn't mean they don't get exploited. Just means they have a legal tool for fighting back.. and if picked up by the UN, it might work against things like the Japanese making a profit off açai as a hip new "wellness" medicine (without paying Brazilian tribes who have used açai berries in tribal medicine, and food, for centuries).
|
Canada11370 Posts
I read about that push to change IP law just last week- or maybe it was on CBC radio. It doesn't make sense to me, but if anything passes through, I hope it's restricted to North American indigenous. If they want to lock down their culture, fine. We pull down every vestige of their stuff that isn't on their negotiated lands, allowing them to horde it as they please, but it's going to be a mess if appropriation is expanded to include any ethnic group at all.
I would like to see IP laws go back to how the Americans first conceived of it "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." Not how the Europeans have conceived of it, locking down IP long after an author could be incentivized to make more things... because they are dead.
It may never pass but the arguments being made are on the wrong side- an overwhelming expansion of granting monopolies, rather than a new defence of the public domain (which is in dire need of defending.)
In short, it's perhaps a good idea (don't appropriate), but using entirely the wrong tool. IP laws are for the creation of new things, not to lock away old knowledge that has been passed down for generations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
