Pulgasari and North Korean copyright

 

Pulgasari is probably North Korea's most famous contribution to cinema internationally. This Godzilla homage has been overshadowed by the real life story of kidnapped South Korean director Shin Sang-ok and his ex wife Choi Eun-hee and how they used the promotion for Pulgasari as an opportunity to escape in Austria.

I reviewed the movie a long time ago . It's worth a watch if you're a Kaiju fan. There are better big monster movies but there are also much worse and its setting and themes are quite unique.

North Korea does have copyright, this may be surprising given how their country is heavily associated with industrial scale piracy and espionage. The rest of the so-called communist world also passed copyright laws and eventually took steps to conform to international standards including the Bern convention. North Korea took longer than most, its statute defining copyright was passed in 2001 with a period fifty years after the death of principle authors. They updated this policy in 2006 and I can't find anything in there about the legislation being retroactive. This means that much of its cultural and artisitc output was technically public domain immediately, though the isolation of the country and its limited economic activity outside of the Soviet bloc and the People's Republic of China meant that much of its output was not available. Pulgasari was an exception as it received a big push internationally. 

This combination of factors is why it's relatively easy to find subbed copies of the film floating around the internet and home printed dvds available in places like ebay. I believe that Pulgasari is one of the few films you could argue that lack of a robust copyright system did hurt its owners ability to make money. The film was a flop abroad but has since become a cult hit, but what money has been made from this resurgence in interest has been to South Korean and Asian small scale distributors and not the North Korea state. 

North Korea's ex-dear leader Kim Jong Il had been trying for years to build an internationally respected and financially viable cinema industry, and while it may sound silly the movie with a rubber monster costume was a key part of his offensive. In a way it's a good thing it failed and most of the money went into other pockets. The North Korean state would use those funds to secure itself and the film and television industry as tools for domestic control and foreign influence. They had already kidnapped South Korean film makers and the Japanese cast and crew of Pulgasari including Godzilla actor Kenpachiro Satsuma were lied to about shutting locations and brought to North Korea under false pretences. 

That's another issue with intellectual property rights, they're value neutral so it's perfectly acceptable that the owners are enriched and can use IP as a tool to win hearts and minds. In theory IP is for the benefit of struggling artists, but often the reality is that the beneficiaries are corporations with a strained relationship with ethics, or despotic governments.

Property as right and commodity

 The term copyright is somewhat misleading. The copy part is still accurate but the right has become outdated. Originally pioneering authors like Victor Hugo fought for the right to decide how their works were used and adapted, but over the years the concept has exploded into a maze of confusing legalities and commodities to be traded and sold. 

Recently a case has come up that shows the distinction between copyright the ideal and copyright the reality. Youtube channel Business Casual (BCs) and its lawsuits against Youtube and the Russian state. They've made an informative video documenting the situation and their side of the dispute.

Given my stance on intellectual property it may be surprising that I'm somewhat sympathetic to BCs plight. It does seem that the Russia Today network has been taking their content and Youtube has been covering for them because they're good for Youtube's business. But I do find BCs incredulity at the situation especially their lamenting of a betrayal of "American Values" rather hard to sympathise with. How naive must you be to believe that businesses do anything but what's good for business (or more accurately, what they think will be good for business) when left to their own devices. Money has no nationality or morals.

This blatant unfairness is what motivates the majority of the people who support the free information and open culture movements. Copyright isn't a right that applies equally to all, it openly privileges the established wealthy and the legally entrenched. Its no surprise to me that Youtube supports big channels, for years its been a joke amongst users that the best way to get your channel restored and issues resolved is to complain publicly via a twitter count with a lot of followers. Its also no surprise that the judges found in favour of the clients with many powerful law firms. 

I face this issue all the time, multiple times a month my channel with get copyright claims on content I know is public domain as I've spent days and even weeks checking, and yet every time I challenge them I have to weigh the potential damage a lawsuit will do to me. I'm just an individual, these are companies with their own legal departments and some have well established reputations for being vindictive. This is ultimately the reality of modern day intellectual property, on paper you have a right but the real question is do you have the means to fight for it? If the answer is no than your right functionally does not exist.

BC is still working through their suit against the Russian government and has vowed to continue fighting Youtube, so they may eventually after much time and resources see some results, but they aren't exactly amateurs with a built in laptop and microphone. I hope despite BCs negative commentary in the above video, the channel owners will learn from this episode that copyright as it stands is fundamentally broken and join in the efforts to end the excesses.