THE opposition to copyright legislation becoming effective in Guyana echoes from a peculiar pool of ignorance, coupled with a comfortable way of doing business that regulates a large percentage of our citizens to a permanent ‘hand to hand’ existence.

Copyright is a complex economic process of accountability that requires a knowledge base, learned from participation as a creative person involved in copyright issues. The current opposition leader and his party, and the columnist and letter writers who are linked to his rhetoric, simply have not done the study nor have bothered to even have a conversation with those who have an understanding through practising Cultural Industries in a country that has no legal structure to protect its creative citizens, nor even with the establishment of the Commercial Registry did they indulge in this conversation.

Many of our political characters are ideologues of communism and capitalists in their private ambitions; they cannot perceive the legal individualism of copyright emerging to protect the perceived underprivileged. It was the Oil crisis of the 70s that killed manufacturing in this country. Every schoolboy in the 70s was eager to wear an Elite shirt with cuff links to church, job interviews etc. This was a Guyana brand, then there was ‘KENT’, Mr. MOD and Gobin’s drain pipes.

We sewed most of our clothes at popular tailor shops. Should the near future of oil and gas generate a likely return to local production, local brand names will need copyright and trademark laws to establish their niche. My buddy, the late Lance Braithwaite ‘Aladdin’s Cave’ brand of shirts and Linco’s, were a choice that Guyanese traders took to the Caribbean. Those days, we were never without creative talents. This seems lost to the critics of copyright in 2018.

The TRIPS agreement has so far evolved through several negotiations. We are already enveloped and subject to copyright restrictions from abroad. Should our manufacturing industry kick start in the next few years, our trademark capacity to trade must be intact; the world is not waiting for us. Our problem is our lack of adequate expertise in corporate trade laws. Two books that I can recommend for study among us explorers are ‘Protect or Plunder, Understanding IPRs’ by Vandana Shiva and ‘IPRs, the WTO and developing countries’ by Carlos M. Correa. Those explore the pros and cons and options.

To quote Shiva: “Indian medicines are far cheaper than even those in industrialised countries and other developing countries like Pakistan and Indonesia. This is primarily because many developing countries like Pakistan have continued with the colonial 1911 Patent Act inherited from the British which has maintained total dependence on imports with no development in indigenous capacity for production.”

Again –“In 1977, the South African government also passed a law to provide access to affordable medicines by using the provisions of compulsory licensing and parallel imports. The aim was to reduce the cost of treating HIV/AIDS by 50 to 90 per cent. With over four million AIDS patients,the government action was a public health imperative. Yet, all the pharmaceutical giants mobilised to challenge the South African law.” South Africa changed their laws to purchase medications from countries like Brazil and India.

Many of the big drug companies cut their costs to compromise. Vandana Shiva emphasises the energies towards local content, rather than the laziness other nations choose to be enveloped in. We do not even support a proper catalogue of local botanicals, herbs and berries on the coastal belt under strict legal management for the purpose of functional database towards industry.

The physiology of copyright constitutes licence, contracts, franchises and sale of rights that do not involve ‘the copyright’ production rights, all based on the laws we craft. Eric Clapton did not steal “I shot the Sheriff” from Bob Marley. For cover tunes work like this, you locate the publisher, serve them with proper notice and pay the statutory royalty rate. However, if the publisher has not copyrighted the song it becomes ‘public domain’ and can be used by anyone without paying royalties.

In an interview with Bob Marley in the book “Bob Marley Reggae King of the World” Marley was asked: “I noticed when ‘I Shot the Sheriff’ came out, I heard your tune on [the black radio station] WBLS but on the other stations I heard Eric Clapton’s. Why do you think that was?” Marley replied, “Well, people don’t know how to dance reggae, them don’t know where the beat drop.” Marley also spoke in that interview about the differences between Contracts and Agreements (The Jamaican music industry was created with a significant percentage of ‘cover tunes’).

Both of my last children have an interest in the Arts. I have warned them about the dangers of placing music and short stories on Internet sites that they have not copyrighted because once it gets in the ‘Public Domain’ it’s over, your rights are done. In respect to Comic Books and other literary works mentioned and casually inferred in the article, the broad conclusion implied by a critic of copyright was completely clueless.

I had in 2013 entered an MOU for the development of a non-fiction graphic novel which manuscript and layout pencil pages I had begun in 1998, with a New York entity. In late 2014, the contract was signed and it was a reasonable contract. The book was digitally submitted and within three months I received an email asking for amendments to the contract, through his agent, asking for extensions that would neutralise the contract. I rejected it. By the end of the contract year, the publisher had failed to publish.

I sent a letter warning on the 90-day contractual extension. He proceeded by using Staples or some other copy service to run off some copies then placed them on Amazon. I received via mail two of the contracted 12 copies. They were horribly done. I used a local lawyer, Leslie Sobers, to convey my concerns. The books were withdrawn from Amazon, in due course, the contract was cancelled and my work and copyright certificate are intact.

I had other experiences that instructed me on the importance of copyright and an understanding of contracts. This lobby against copyright is not fueled by knowledge of what it entails, but rather callous opportunistic contempt for the thousands of Guyana’s creative persons, from a constituency with an aversion to paying people they would prefer to rob, who will be empowered and employed in Cultural Industries, from Science to the Arts, and are a constituency regularly exploited. That exploitation will come to an end with the regulations of copyright legislation.