Copyright is about livelihood

Dear Editor, I read the letter by Kumar Kowlessar, October 30, in Stabroek News `There are wider impacts to the proposal to implement copyright legislation’ and the Kaieteur News. Whether this person is real or is using a pseudonym, the letter seeks to justify the position taken by the PPP against empowering the Arts community of Guyana over the years. That Mr Jagdeo expressed it with passion does not separate him from what Sam Hinds said to me some years ago, “That we cannot introduce copyright, because too many of our constituency benefit from piracy”. The PPP government authorised the illegal printing of textbooks. Their lawyers fought a trademark case against ‘Demerara Gold’ and lost. Because copyright is an alien concept that will empower the people they view as politically alien, had they explored the elements within how the trademark was applied taxpayers’ millions would not have been wasted on that case. Their president appealed to the UN to suspend copyright in Guyana, or, in the PPP’s interest, and he was lectured that ‘copyright is a human right’ he didn’t know this? Mr Kowlessar’s letter intends to introduce some kind of blame focus, the letter is overwhelmed by the usual political recitations and reveals a void of the basic understanding or relevance to why copyright is necessary.

“There is very little respect for copyright in Guyana and that makes it difficult for any person desirous of establishing a local recording studio” - Eddy Grant 2004. “International covenants on copyright protection were relaxed since 1971 to enable developing countries to reproduce educational material, but under certain conditions” - Brynmor T.I. Pollard 2012. “In the World Intellectual Property Organisation [WIPO] report for 2011 titled ‘The changing face of innovation’ that focused on the growing trend of creation and exchange of Intellectual Pro-perty Rights [IPR’s] among both developed and developing countries, it was disclosed that there was a growing demand for [IPR’S]” - Abiola Inniss 2012.

Though I have posted these references I am aware that the priority of the opposition stance is not related to the logic of any national interest, the evidence of the PPP is always driven by self- serving motives, and innate motivations that rest with no rational impulses. This is a party in government that paid an American artist US$250,000 but never placed a cent towards the development of cultural industries locally, though its own ambassador to Venezuela, Odeen Ishmael in 2009 reported and penned an article in the Kaieteur News that ‘Cultural Industries were growing in significance in Latin America and the Caribbean.’ The concern with copyright in Guyana and all that it involves to the PPP cabal is the financial award in the courts for copyright violations that will have to be seriously upgraded. The fact that a percentage of local content will have to be aired and royalties paid to all music owners by both radio and TV stations is where the fears of the PPP lie. The arts community is not owned by the PPP as the cane cutters are assumed to be their political property, thus our interests were never a consideration for development. These are the truths that are the foundation of the PPP’s resistance to the copyright bill. Yours faithfully, Barry Braithwaite