DPRK Forum

UPDATE: Big hat tip to Hapo for the information. I had no idea about what copyright treaties resided where. Hapo pointed out there is a little thing called the Berne Convention. I looked on this list, and lo and behold, North Korea is on that list. North Korea is not part of other treaties, but their works are still recognized. Something I had absolutely no idea about thanks hapo.

The other questions still remain.

So I received an E-Mail from Google Video saying they got a complaint of a copyright violation of uploaded propaganda. Apparently North Korea does have copyright laws which I had no idea were enforceable in the United States. Richardson sent me a link with the North Korean copyright, and as comprehensive as the law is, there is a huge irony in it. Much like the DPRK constitution, rule of law does not mean anything. The regime promises freedom of religion, movement, expression and all the other things many people take for granted. As you all know, the inverse is true. The constitution is only there as a facade much like everything else in North Korea. In other words, it is only good for toilet paper.

Now going back to the copyright thing, it is understandable Google removed the video and I do not dispute that. They have a business to protect and there is a lot of liability attached to it. I did not wait for Google to delete the videos; I just did it on my own. Beside all of that, this raises some interesting questions. Not just the question of what kind of treaties the United States and North Korea have regarding copyright, but the idea of copyright in North Korea itself. Since copyrights in a communist society obviously cannot cover individuals because everything belongs to the state, individual rights do not mean anything, however, the copyrights are only there for the benefit of the regime. There is no other way. So I looked at the “law” and read it several times. Some things stood out, namely, contradictions that do not make any sense in the kind of society we all know normal North Koreans live in.

Article 5. The copyright of a corporate body or an individual whose country is a party to a convention to which the DPRK is also a party shall be protected by the convention. But if a corporate body or an individual whose country is not a party to the same convention makes public works for the first time in the DPRK, the works shall be protected by this law.

Article 6. The copyright of any work whose publication, issuance, performance, broadcasting, show and exhibition are prohibited shall not be protected.

Emphasis mine. This is kind of interesting in several ways, and raises some questions. Perhaps somebody well-versed in law can interpret the seemingly contradicting terms. The biggest thing is the “individual” clause. North Korea or any other communist society does not deal with individualism, but deals with collectives. Therefore, anything made by individuals is part of that collective and is the property of the state. Nobody is allowed to have personal property, inheritance or whatever. I mean was the original idea of communism to stop the bourgeoisie? Stop big business, exploitation and all that. So copyrights in a communist society cannot work because copyrights have to protect the individual or private entity making the work. So the only thing I can get from this is, anything made by an individual (or private enterprise) will automatically belong to the state and the individual cannot have any right to that work because the idea of profiting and enjoying the fruits of individual labor will not be there. All wealth belongs to the state. There is no way around it. Granted, I could be wrong about this because Juche is different from other communist societies but I am going to guess the same ideas of Marx are there.

Next is the question of Article 6. The word that comes out is “prohibited”. A lot of things are prohibited in North Korea. Works not praising the leaders, the system or anything dissenting will result in serious problems. In fact, people have been sent to gulags to be tortured because they hum a song from the ROK. So the “prohibited” carries a lot of spilled blood, cult of personality and lack of human rights. That is not the intention of the facade this “law” says, but we all know it is true in the case of North Korea. Nothing is as it seems.

In other words individualism that copyrights ensure for individuals and enterprise cannot work in a communist society. It can only benefit the regime. Nobody has any say whatsoever in creative works in North Korea. The state dictates everything.

Next is regarding treaties with other countries. For copyright to work, other countries have to agree to enforce a copyright in case somebody breaks the rule of law. This article explains a little more:

Article 7. The state shall promote interchange and cooperation with other countries and international organizations in the field of copyright.

Since North Korea is a heavily sanctioned state with very few friends, who recognizes North Korean copyright? I talked with a copyright lawyer, and he said it does not matter where the copyright work was made. If a work was used without permission, it is still copyright infringement. That raises some questions. Maybe somebody can explain this better. It seems to be a big issue.

Another interesting thing. The KCNA is copyrighted, but there is a contradiction namely this article:

Article 12. The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright.

Since it is a mouthpiece of the state and is “current news”, then copyright does not apply, right? Take a close look at the KCNA web site. It seems people cannot re-use it without cite, and I suppose it is fair, but this seems to contradict. Very odd indeed.

Another oddity is this:

Article 23. The property rights to a copyrighted work shall be protected from the moment of its publication to the 50th year after the death of its author. The property rights to a joint copyrighted work shall be protected from the moment of its publication to the 50th year after the death of the last survivor of the co-authors.

This implies the right to inheritance. I always assumed in a communist society the rights to inheritance was supposed to abolished. According to the communist manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

[...]

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

So when did Juche change the fundamentals of communism? It goes on and on, and you folks get the basic idea. Anyway, this is something interesting to discuss. Can copyright work in a communist society? I cannot see it working other than for the benefit of the state.