page63
haPPy meal toys versus coPyriGht
41
in exchange for reciprocal agreements from the Brits to protect
American authors.
It’s hard to see why a developing country would opt to export
its GDP to a rich country when it could get the same benefit by
mere copying. The U.S. would have to sweeten the pot.
The pot-sweetener is the elimination of international trade-
barriers. Historically, the U.S. has used tariffs to limit the import
of manufactured goods from abroad, and to encourage the import
of raw materials from abroad. Generally speaking, rich countries
import poor countries’ raw materials, process them into manu-
factured goods, and export them again. Globally speaking, if your
country imports sugar and exports sugar cane, chances are you’re
poor. If your country imports wood and sells paper, chances are
you’re rich.
In 1995, the U.S. signed onto the World Trade Organization
and its associated copyright and patent agreement, the TRIPS
Agreement, and the American economy was transformed.
Any fellow signatory to the WTO/TRIPS can export manu-
factured goods to the U.S.A. without any tariffs. If it costs you
$5 to manufacture and ship a plastic bucket from your factory in
Shenjin Province to the U.S.A., you can sell it for $6 and turn a $1
profit. And if it costs an American manufacturer $10 to make the
same bucket, the American manufacturer is out of luck.
The kicker is this: if you want to export your finished goods to
America, you have to sign up to protect American copyrights in
your own country. Quid pro quo.
The practical upshot, twelve years later, is that most American
manufacturing has gone belly up, Wal-Mart is filled with Happy
Meal toys and other cheaply manufactured plastic goods, and the
whole world has signed onto U.S. copyright laws.
But signing onto those laws doesn’t mean you’ll enforce them.
Sure, where a country is really over a barrel (cough, Russia,
Content 2nd gal final.indd 41
7/4/08 9:56:36 AM