This essay by professor Michael Geist tries to turn the tables on US advocates for copyright abroad. The problem, he asserts, is that the US has gotten out of step with the rest of the world, not that the rest of the world has failed to live up to some absolute standard.

He misses a key point, though. The U.S. economy is doing well by international standards, including--indeed, especially--those sectors involving intellectual property. The state of US law is not an absolute, but it is something of a recipe for success. And the US is one of the first countries to have to deal with the impact of the Internet. Other countries need to be careful about which aspects of the law they imitate (an emphasis on criminal process and penalties is *not likely to be a success in copyright), and how similar rules will play in different cultures. But striking out in a radically different direction--or lagging too far behind--may simply hold back growth. This is no more desirable for foreign textile artists, authors, musicians, or photographers than for domestic ones.

Furthermore his critique unties the issues (compulsory licensing, for example) from the substantive reasons for raising the issues. Critics of compulsory licensing abroad aren't arguing that it should be abandoned because the US doesn't have any (obviously it does), but rather because it isn't a good idea to substitute administrative mechanisms for markets, and they make the same arguments within the States. It's just not that easy to get rid of.

All in all, the essay comes across as a bit of a futile exercise in cultural relativism, tinged with anti-Americanism.