MR. Bharrat Jagdeo, on October 25, articulated the People’s Progressive Party’s (PPP) position on copyright legislation, in response to government’s announcement that an updated intellectual property rights bill will soon be tabled in the National Assembly.
Mr. Jagdeo said, “It may not sound the most enlightening position.” And indeed, it must be agreed that the position taken by the PPP is not only unenlightened, but also unfair, insupportable, prejudiced, contrary to international agreements, and morally improper. Mr. Jagdeo’s remarks should therefore be refuted and his party’s position absolutely rejected.
Mr. Jagdeo asserted that Guyana is not prepared for the “revolution” that would come with the implementation of copyright laws. The leader of the opposition said, “We are a poor developing country; wait until such time in the future when people can afford to pay for the copyrighted stuff. That is how I see it.”

In justification of his position, he said that when government passes this legislation, “Every video store in this country that sells these bootlegs will have to close.” Mr. Jagdeo said, too, that Guyanese “should get a special position,” as he supports the protection of local artistes only. Mr. Jagdeo also said that he agrees with U.S. President Donald Trump’s philosophy of ‘Making America Great Again’ and protecting what is American as relevant to Guyana. “We don’t have to be the policeman for the globe.”

Mr. Jagdeo’s position is unacceptable. Intellectual property — movies, books, stories, art, computer programmes, academic papers, music, and other patented, copyrighted, or trademarked materials — are creations of someone’s mind. Somebody spent their time thinking and creating a product that did not previously exist. That product is the result of someone’s hard work, and that person deserves to be paid when people make use of his/her creation.

Mr. Jagdeo’s suggestion amounts to the proposition that because we are a developing country, it is acceptable to continue the practice of stealing another person’s property; a person who expects to be paid. That is why the creator copyrighted the product in the first place.

Considering his background in economics and the constitutional office that he occupies, Mr. Jagdeo, in positing that “every video store in this country will have to close,” reveals a surprising ignorance of how markets work, as well as a misdirected moral compass.
The fact is, this pro-business administration has always made clear that it prefers a phased approach to development. Businesses will therefore have time to adapt and adopt new strategies and approaches; the current condition of stealing intellectual property — which became entrenched under the PPP regime, and is now being defended by that party — is gradually being phased out.

Ms Abiola Inniss, a researcher in Law and Public Policy at Walden University, USA, asserts that Guyana cannot continue to use this excuse at the expense of leaving its “innovative class” without protection. It cannot escape notice that this same discredited argument, designed to frighten citizens, was recently used by the PPP with respect to regulations on cigarettes.

Mr. Jagdeo’s suggestion that only local “artistes” be protected by law is preposterous. Who is “local”? A citizen, a resident, a citizen residing abroad, a foreigner living in Guyana? And what will our CARICOM brothers and sisters think about that idea, not to mention developed countries with which we must do business?

Having noted that the opposition leader’s position is unacceptable, his only point that may have a bit of merit is the fact that some businesses may be affected. However, as was stated, businesses, by their very nature, adapt. Additionally, under no circumstances can Mr. Jagdeo justify stealing someone else’s property and selling it.

And the former president’s attempts to justify theft is nothing short of shocking. The fact is, the current law, which dates back to 1956, is outdated and largely irrelevant to present realities. Technologies have changed, people have changed, values have evolved, and the world has moved on. Guyana, too, needs to move on and catch up in order to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and intellectual advancement.

And that is what the government intends to do. U.S. Ambassador Perry Holloway agrees. He wrote, “The protection of the creativity and hard work of writers, artists, musicians, and others makes prosperity and progress possible.”

Finally, as regards Mr. Jagdeo’s reference to the U.S. President’s policy of ‘America First’ and its relevance to Guyana, the leader of the opposition may wish to study the current global trading situation, particularly as it relates to China, the world’s most populous country.