All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Robin Hoods or thieves? A Foucauldian analysis of international trade policies regarding software piracy
Unformatted Document Text:  Foucauldian analysis of international trade policies 15 account for the majority (87 percent) of revenue losses. The ten countries with the highest piracy rates in 2000 were (in rank order): Vietnam (97 percent), China (94 percent), Indonesia (89 percent), Ukraine/Other CIS (89 percent), Russia (88 percent), Lebanon (83 percent), Pakistan (83 percent), Bolivia (81 percent), Qatar (81 percent), and Bahrain (80 percent). In January 2002, the Ukraine’s parliament approved a law designed to crack down on pirated compact music discs, in hopes that the move would avert $75 million in U.S. trade sanctions. In spite of the action, the U.S. imposed sanctions on metals, footwear, and other goods from Ukraine in retaliation for piracy of software and music compact discs, according to Delio (2002, Jan 22). These U.S. sanctions, it was argued by those who had opposed them, cost thousands of Ukrainians their jobs and drew criticism that the U.S. campaign against piracy is politically motivated (i.e., by design, can be punitive and unrelated to the particular problem at hand) and (this time) designed to protect American metals interests. Given the nature of the discursive formations constitutive of this part of the system, it would appear that, as time goes by, any U.S. interests whatsoever will be primary in the policy making activity. For example, utilizing Foucault’s questions (particularly 1-c, 2-a, 2-c, and 3-b; see table, p. 34, herein) considering who can name activity, whose evaluations count in the discourse (i.e., who can say something is good or bad policy, or good or bad sanctions, right or wrong responses, etc.) The U. S. Trade Representative (USTR) has been given vast power in the “international” system, and is thereby contributes heavily to the discursive formation (see p. 20-21, herein, regarding the powers of the USTR), and having such legitimacy (i.e., being given the power) in the

Authors: Malyshev, Yuri. and Hamilton, Ann.
first   previous   Page 15 of 34   next   last



background image
Foucauldian analysis of international trade policies 15
account for the majority (87 percent) of revenue losses. The ten countries with the highest
piracy rates in 2000 were (in rank order): Vietnam (97 percent), China (94 percent),
Indonesia (89 percent), Ukraine/Other CIS (89 percent), Russia (88 percent), Lebanon (83
percent), Pakistan (83 percent), Bolivia (81 percent), Qatar (81 percent), and Bahrain (80
percent).
In January 2002, the Ukraine’s parliament approved a law designed to crack down
on pirated compact music discs, in hopes that the move would avert $75 million in U.S.
trade sanctions. In spite of the action, the U.S. imposed sanctions on metals, footwear, and
other goods from Ukraine in retaliation for piracy of software and music compact discs,
according to Delio (2002, Jan 22). These U.S. sanctions, it was argued by those who had
opposed them, cost thousands of Ukrainians their jobs and drew criticism that the U.S.
campaign against piracy is politically motivated (i.e., by design, can be punitive and
unrelated to the particular problem at hand) and (this time) designed to protect American
metals interests. Given the nature of the discursive formations constitutive of this part of
the system, it would appear that, as time goes by, any U.S. interests whatsoever will be
primary in the policy making activity. For example, utilizing Foucault’s questions
(particularly 1-c, 2-a, 2-c, and 3-b; see table, p. 34, herein) considering who can name
activity, whose evaluations count in the discourse (i.e., who can say something is good or
bad policy, or good or bad sanctions, right or wrong responses, etc.) The U. S. Trade
Representative (USTR) has been given vast power in the “international” system, and is
thereby contributes heavily to the discursive formation (see p. 20-21, herein, regarding the
powers of the USTR), and having such legitimacy (i.e., being given the power) in the


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 34   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.