The notion of piracy and copyright frames populations who do it as incapable of producing knowledge and thus less worthy of resources that come from their nations.

As Adrian Johns demonstrates in his history of "piracy," the concept is a historically complicated one, in which infringers such as the United States became protectors of intellectual properties once they had the authority and the incentive to do so. Accordingly, attempts to label those in the developing world as "pirates" have been met with considerable conceptual and legal resistance. In particular, those in the developing world have pushed back against the overarching development narrative of intellectual property law, asserting the existence and import of local approaches to the protection of knowledge. 219 Moreover, they have articulated alternative economic narratives, which reframe and even justify "Third World" infringement as necessary, beneficial, and unavoidable.220 For instance, Ravi Sundaram's concept of the "pirate modernity," which emerged through his study of the urban modernities in India, calls for recognition that the purportedly universal standards advanced by international intellectual property law do not even begin to describe the material conditions of existence in rapidly developing nations such as India.221 In Sundaram's retelling of the story of the piracy, the urbanization of the city, as well as its technological development, are integral to understanding the role of infringement, and indeed its unavoidability, within contemporary Indian contexts. 222 Liang tells a tale of Indian counterfeiters turned protectors of their intellectual properties, explaining that the progress of capitalism makes infringement necessary for many to survive. 223 He identifies capitalism as a core reason for piracy and counterfeiting, discussing the ways its detritus results in left behind individuals who copy protected works of authorship and invention to survive. 224 Liang's work demonstrates the nuance of the developing world's orientation toward knowledge production as well as how economic systems determine knowledge production structures.

Sundaram and Liang offer examples of attempts to reframe those narratives of so-called piracy that originate in the Global North. They and others continue to complicate the critique Shiva initiated, refusing reductive stories of infringement as exclusively about economic loss to Western nations. Studies of shanzhai in China, 225 hip-hop in South Africa, 226 and pharmaceuticals in Mexico and South and Central America227 ask us to reconsider accepted notions that piracy always flows from North to South. Discussions of cultural appropriation, particularly of traditional designs such as Navajo prints and adrinka and kente cloth, raise further questions about the nature of piracy. 228 Along these lines, Kavita Philip's work makes important claims about the social construction of the pirate figure, particularly by investigating how it is mobilized in the service of violence in contemporary politics. 229

We would be remiss, though, to suggest that framings of piracy or any of the other issues that we have identified here-are only contemporary concerns. Rather, practices of labeling racial Others as pirates can be traced to colonial notions that people of color were incapable of producing knowledge of value, a topic we take up further in Part IV of this article. 230 Questions about the definitions and scope of infringement and counterfeiting are not exceptional ones. Rather, they are likely to increasingly frame Critical Race IP scholarship, particularly as developing countries engage arguments for maximalist intellectual property law in the context of opposing histories, narratives, and materialities. The characterization and construction of the figure of the pirate-and infringer more generally-will figure prominently into these discussions and the pushback against intellectual property regimes.