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.

ShareThis

Edit: I think there is a part missing, so I will watch for that.

Part 1:

Part 2:

I think Joshua said he attended this. I wonder where he is at…

ShareThis

I have to say I felt pretty dumb.

I took another gander at NKEconWatch’s DPRK trip of 2004 to get a better understanding of that trip, although little of the Andrew Morse incident was talked about. That does not really matter. The purpose of the video was to get a better understanding of what North Korea was like. North Korean Junket gave a glimpse of that whether North Korea and/or the Korean Friendship Association intended to or not. The Andrew Morse incident did give some insight on just how firm the iron grip of Kim Jong Il is. All information is heavily censored, and people going to visit North Korea have to follow protocol. Furthermore, if one is smart, it is best to censor yourself. What appears to be ironic is while North Korea wants others to give an honest assessment of the DPRK (as rare as it is), they seem surprised and angry when another opinion (even sugar-coated) is given. Anything other than the official line is a lie and must be stopped. That was my overall impression of the video and the actions conducted by the Korean Friendship Association and the regime.

Overall, it is pretty rare for journalists to go to North Korea especially journalists from the United States. They are under special scrutiny even if they claim otherwise as suggested in that documentary. It appears to me Andrew Morse truly went to North Korea with the intent to give another view of North Korea, but as well know that is an impossibility with minders in tow censoring every step you take. Stepping over the line means serious problems as this video showed. According to a reply by the documentary’s director:

[...] There’s not that much of the story that didn’t make it to the video other than the former communications secretary resigned and got in a scuffle with Big Al at the end of the trip.

Who was the former communication’s secretary and Big Al?

[...] At one point Andrew asked to be taken to the Swiss embassy but he told me not to film him doing so before I could hit the record button. He apologized later though.

That suggests things were not going very swimmingly. Obviously, things were not as serious as it could have possibly been because Curtis got to go on another trip and Andrew Morse seems to still be a journalist (I do not watch ABC News, so I did not know anything about the guy until seeing this video and reading a bit about the backdrop). However, according to the blog post, the KFA has stopped people bringing in cameras (although Alejandro Cao de Benos obviously loves hamming it up for the camera):

Since the International March for Korea’s Peace and Reunification in 2004, the KFA has still been organizing trips to North Korea. But they don’t let just anyone take video like they did with me anymore. To that extent I’m grateful to the KFA for letting me use my videocamera. I’m also thankful for their crudity, because crudity makes compelling video.

That is no surprise. In my opinion, it is the good old censorship action at work, and that will not change anytime soon. I have to say while it took quite a bit of guts to attempt to get another viewpoint of North Korea, the hard questions asked were delivered in softball fashion. That is understandable considering they were on DPRK soil, and again, any mis-steps could be unpredictable. On the other hand, during the Philharmonic visit, reporters also had minders in tow and openly talked about the problems inside the secret state. When I saw that, I was very, very surprised they let that go. I cannot answer as to why it flew, but I am going to guess the Philharmonic paid a handsome amount to Kim Jong Il. Everything has a price, especially favor in North Korea.

So there was the KFA spinning away and spouting the official line, and in the end, the special was not aired on TV because Alejandro Cao de Benos was an asshole. That does not matter, because as Friends of Kim, the purpose is to be soldiers for the Juche cause asshole or not.

ShareThis

Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform

By Marcus Noland and Stephan Haggard

The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag

By Chol Hwan Kang

Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty

By Bradley K. Martin

If you folks have any other good suggestions for later, please let me know.

ShareThis

1. 7 boxes of documents describing North Korea’s nuclear activity dating back to 1986

2. The food problem

3. United States election primary

4. Burma’s junta regime, referendum and aid issues

DPRK Studies

Enjoy the podcast

ShareThis