Communal Copyright Neg - Michigan 7 2024 BFHR

T-Domestic
NEG
T---Domestic---1NC
Domestic means the plan must exclusively create protection within the United States
Kellie Kunkle, 2023 – “Understanding The Difference Between Domestic And International Intellectual Property Law” Intellectual Property Law, 8/31, https://www.intipsa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-domestic-and-international-intellectual-property-law //DH
Intellectual property (IP) law is a complex and ever-evolving field, with different rules and regulations governing different countries. It is essential to comprehend the distinction between domestic and international IP law to guarantee that your IP rights are secured. Domestic IP law is the set of laws that control intellectual property inside a particular nation. These laws are typically set up by the legislature of that nation and are intended to secure the privileges of people and organizations to their intellectual property.
This incorporates patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other forms of IP. Domestic IP law is usually enforced by the courts of that country, although some countries may have international agreements in place that allow for enforcement of IP rights in other countries as well. International IP law, then again, is a set of laws that control intellectual property across multiple countries. These laws are typically established through international treaties or agreements between countries.
International IP law is intended to give a uniform set of rules for protecting IP rights across multiple countries. This incorporates giving assurance for patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other forms of IP. International IP law is usually enforced by international courts or tribunals. The primary contrast between domestic and international IP law is that domestic IP law applies just inside a particular nation, while international IP law applies across multiple countries. Domestic IP law is typically more prohibitive than international IP law, as it is intended to secure the privileges of people and organizations within a particular country.
Violation - Indigenous land is NOT “in the US”
David Siegel, 11-19-18, (Siegal has a BS in physics from Michigan State University, is an APL application developer, and a political activist.) “Are Native American tribes considered part of the United States?,” 11/19/18, https://bit.ly/2Gz6pl4
Tribes
For some purposes, the various Native American tribes were treated as separate nations. Most obviously, treaties were negociated and signed with various tribes. Treaties are not normally signed with a group that is part of a country, rather treaties are signed with other countries. On the other hand, the various tribes were not regarded as independant. For example, they were not allowqed to have separate relations with other non-US nations, or even with other tribes. The term "dependant nations" has been used for this status.
I don't know of another arrangement which is or was quite the same as that between the US Federal government and the various tribes. Perhaps the closest analogy was the relation between the British Imperial government and various nations that had "accepted" the "protection" of the Empire, sch as some of the Indian states who retained their own rulers and governmetns, but had no independant foreign policy or foreign relations. Some parts of Polynesia had simialr arrangements, i understand.
Overall
The various Native American tribes and their members were neither regarded as fully a part of the United States, nor as fully separate. The question can ony be answered in the context of a specific purpose or aspect of participation in the US.
That’s bad for limits & ground. Their interpretation explodes the topic to include international affs. That overstretches the negative research burden and undermines preparedness for all debates. Default to competing interpretations, reasonability is arbitrary, and T IS substance. Vote neg.
T---Domestic---2NC
US domestic policy must be limited to just the US- implementation anywhere outside makes it foreign policy
Robert Longley, 9-4-2020, “What is Domestic Policy in US Government?” (Robert Longley is a U.S. government and history expert with over 30 years of experience in municipal government and urban planning) https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-domestic-policy-4115320)
The term “domestic policy” refers to the plans and actions taken by a national government to deal with issues and needs present within the country itself. Domestic policy is generally developed by the federal government, often in consultation with state and local governments. The process of dealing with U.S. relations and issues with other nations is known as "foreign policy." In the United States, domestic policy can be divided into several different categories, each concentrated on a different aspect of life in the U.S. Regulatory Policy: Focuses on maintaining social order by outlawing behaviors and actions that endanger the public. This is typically accomplished by enacting laws and policies banning individuals, companies, and other parties from taking actions that might endanger social order. Such regulatory laws and policies might range from mundane issues like local traffic laws to laws protecting the right to vote, preventing racial and gender discrimination, stopping human trafficking and fighting illegal drug trade and use. Other important regulatory policy laws protect the public from abusive business and financial practices, protect the environment, and ensure safety in the workplace. Distributive Policy: Focuses on ensuring the fair provisions of taxpayer-supported government benefits, goods, and services to all individuals, groups, and corporations. Such goods and services funded by citizens’ taxes include items like public education, public safety, roads and bridges, and welfare programs. Tax-supported government benefits include programs such as farm subsidies and tax write-offs to promote home ownership, energy savings, and economic development. Redistributive Policy: Focuses on one of the most difficult and controversial aspects of domestic policy: the equitable sharing of the nation’s wealth. The goal of the redistributive policy is to fairly transfer funds raised through taxation from one group or program to another. The aim of such redistribution of wealth is often to end or alleviate social problems like poverty or homelessness. However, since the discretionary expenditure of tax dollars is controlled by Congress, lawmakers sometimes abuse this power by diverting funds from programs that address social problems to programs that do not. Constituent Policy: Focuses on creating government agencies to help provide services to the public. Over the years, for example, new agencies and departments have been created to deal with taxes, to administer programs like Social Security and Medicare, to protect consumers, and to ensure clean air and water, just to name a few.
Recognition K
Notes
This k is designed to beat the Indigenous copyright aff. The k needs to characterize the aff as an example of a “politics of recognition” where the state cedes its domination of Indigenous groups and instead integrates them into Western legal and political structures. The thesis claim is that this politics of recognition is simply assimilation by a different name.
I think the best version of the k integrates a cap k angle, and the Coulthard alt along with many of the links connect the ideas and argue that capitalism is inherently settler-colonial. This also could allow you to read cap k links as well. However, this alt is more material, so those wanting to go for a more framework-based strategy may prefer to read the Henderson alt. Either way, the negative should make the argument that property is an inherently Western idea, where not only land but cultural ideas are transformed into ownable, consumable commodities, and the aff is a project to advance assimilation.
The strongest aff answers rely on pushing back on the alt and challenging its ability to prevent cultural appropriation without engaging in Western legal structures. You should use aff offense plus the perm to push back on the neg’s characterization.
Have fun!
Megan
Shell
1NC – Recognition K (FW)
Settler colonialism isn’t simply domination. It’s sustained through a politics of recognition that accommodates Indigenous legal claims to naturalize colonial hierarchies.
Glen Sean Coulthard 14, a Canadian scholar of Indigenous studies who serves as an associate professor in the political science department at the University of British Columbia, xx-xx-2014, "Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition", University of Minnesota Press, https://doi-org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4324/9781003116097 //MRK
In writing this book I set out to problematize the increasingly commonplace assumption that the colonial relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state can be reconciled via a liberal “politics of recognition.” I characterized the “politics of recognition” as a recognition-based approach to reconciling Indigenous peoples’ assertions of nationhood with settler-state sovereignty via the accommodation of Indigenous identity-related claims through the negotiation of settlements over issues such as land, economic development, and self-government. I argued that this orientation to the reconciliation of Indigenous nationhood with state sovereignty is still colonial insofar as it remains structurally committed to the dispossession of Indigenous peoples of our lands and self-determining authority.
My conceptualization of settler-colonialism as a structure of domination predicated on the dispossession of Indigenous peoples’ lands and political authority drew significantly from two theoretical resources: Karl Marx’s writings on the “primitive accumulation” of capital and Frantz Fanon’s anticolonial critique of Hegel’s master/slave parable when applied to colonial situations. With respect to Marx, I argued that three issues must be addressed within his work to make his writings on colonialism relevant for analyzing the relationship between Indigenous peoples and liberal settler polities like Canada. First, I argued that Marx’s thesis on primitive accumulation must be stripped of its rigidly temporal character; that is, rather than positing primitive accumulation as some historically situated, inaugural set of events that set the stage for the development of the capitalist mode of production through colonial expansion, we should see it as an ongoing practice of dispossession that never ceases to structure capitalist and colonial social relations in the present. Settler- colonialism is territorially acquisitive in perpetuity. Second, I argued that Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation must be stripped of its early normative developmentalist character. While it is correct to view primitive accumulation as the condition of possibility for the development and ongoing reproduction of the capitalist mode of production, it is incorrect to view it as a necessary condition for developing the forms of critical consciousness and associated modes of life that ought to inform the construction of alternatives to capitalism in settler- colonial contexts. I also suggested that Marx himself came to acknowledge the problematic character of this early formulation of his thesis and worked to correct it in the last decade of his life. And finally, I argued that the forms of colonial power associated with primitive accumulation need not be understood as strictly coercive, repressive, or explicitly violent in nature; rather, the practices of dispossession central to the maintenance of settler-colonialism in liberal democratic contexts like Canada rely as much on the productive character of colonial power as it does on the coercive authority of the settler state. Seen from this angle, settler-colonialism should not be seen as deriving its reproductive force solely from its strictly repressive or violent features, but rather from its ability to produce forms of life that make settler-colonialism’s constitutive hierarchies seem natural.
To tease out the productive character of settler-colonial power I turned to the theoretical contribution of Frantz Fanon. I used Fanon’s work because it implicates the role played by recognition in the reproduction of settler-colonial forms of rule in a manner that still resonates today. More specifically, I used Fanon’s critical engagement with the dialectic of recognition theorized in Hegel’s master/slave narrative to identify the neocolonial function played by contemporary recognition politics in maintaining the settler-colonial relationship between Indigenous nations and the Canadian state. I drew three in- sights from Fanon in particular. First, I claimed that Fanon’s critique of Hegel’s theory of recognition convincingly unpacks the ways in which delegated exchanges of political recognition from the colonizer to the colonized usually ends up being structurally determined by and in the interests of the colonizer. Second, Fanon also identifies the subtle ways in which colonized populations often come to develop what he called “psycho-affective” attachments to these circumscribed, master-sanctioned forms of delegated recognition. For Fanon, these psycho-affective or ideological attachments create an impression of “naturalness” to the colonial condition, which he referred to as “internalization” or “internalized” colonialism. Third, Fanon showed how colonized populations, despite the totalizing power of colonialism, are often able to turn these internalized forms of colonial recognition into expressions of Indigenous self-empowerment through the reclamation and revitalization of pre- colonial social relations and cultural traditions. In the end, however, Fanon viewed these practices of Indigenous cultural self-empowerment, or self- recognition, as insufficient for decolonization: they constitute a “means” but not an “end.”
IP is intrinsically settler-colonial and built to coopt Indigenous knowledge in the name of protecting property
Julia Choucair Vizoso and Chris Byrnes 23, Vizoso is an independent knowledge producer and co-founder of the art collective AbolishIP. She works on environmental and climate justice in the Arab world, teaches courses on political economy, and occasionally translates Arabic literature into English. She holds a PhD in Political Science from Yale University and an MA in Arab Studies/BS in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, Byrnes is an intellectual property (IP) lawyer, independent scholar, and co-founder of the art collective AbolishIP. He focuses on ethical IP licensing, web3-based IP commoning, and hacking IP to protect biodiversity and empower radical imaginaries. He holds a JD from Georgetown University, an MTS in Religion, Ethics & Politics from Harvard University, and a BA in Physics from Denison University, 2-9-2023, "Abolitionist creativity", Transnational Institute, https://www.tni.org/en/article/abolitionist-creativity //MRK
Instead, we begin our analysis by looking at the broader global system in which knowledge and information operate: a settler-colonial system that extracts wealth, knowledge, and culture from economically marginalised communities and inequitably redistributes their economic fruits to the wealthiest and most powerful. This approach is in line with critiques that activists and critical scholars have long made of open-access movements: that the central focus on liberty values ignores concerns about equality; that a romantic notion of the ‘public domain’ as a neutral landscape where every person can reap its riches ignores its real role in exploiting the labour and bodies of people of colour, women, people from the Global South, and the impoverished. We now know that the ‘public domaining’ of Indigenous knowledge about local flora and fauna, traditional medicines, folklore, or traditional cultural expressions has enabled Big Pharma to take Indigenous knowledge, transform it into IP, and become the exclusive owner of that knowledge: a phenomenon known as biopiracy.
Abolitionist creativity also disagrees with an ideological belief that runs through some prominent segments of the open-access movements, namely that the system once worked well, but that ‘unfortunately, our IP regimes have strayed far from their original purposes’. For the colonised, for Indigenous Peoples whose collective knowledge has been ransacked, for communities forced into oppressive trade agreements (e.g. TRIPS), for the rising number of modern slaves working in global supply chains powered by intangibles, it is hard to see how the IP system ever worked for them – or what decades of reformist attempts inside IP law in the US have accomplished. For abolitionists, the system is not broken and in need of reform, tweaking, and tinkering. It is working as it was designed to work, as a settler-colonial legal and economic structure. And we are running out of time and of magical thinking waiting for public policy to somehow turn favourable in a corporate-dominated oligarchy.
The alt is the Indigenous Domain – that preexists European arrival and generates sovereignty without the grant of imperial legislatures.
James [Sa’ke’j] Youngblood Henderson 21, Research Fellow, Indigenous Law Centre, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan. Tribal citizen of Chickasaw Nation, 12-18-2021, "The Indigenous Domain and Intellectual Property Rights", Lakehead Law Journal, https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2021CanLIIDocs13032#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_1/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMAjAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5KrERCYXAnmKV6zdt0gAynlIAhFQCUAogBl7ANQCCAOQDC9saTB80KTsIiJAA //MRK
In Canada, the Indigenous domain continues to be part of the supreme law of the land. 41 Canada’s constitution recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights. 42 The SCC has affirmed that Aboriginal peoples’ constitutional rights are collective, communal, or group rights. 43 The constitutional rights generate the Indigenous domain, a metaphor for a holistic source of these rights. The Indigenous domain reveals the interrelated manifestations of the spiritual realm that generates diverse Indigenous lifeworlds. 44 These spiritual forces of nature have inspired and guided Indigenous peoples’ knowledge. 45 The Indigenous domain’s creativity and expressive modes have generated Aboriginal sovereignty, inherent powers, rooted constitutionalism, persuasive laws, and consensual treaties. 46 The Indigenous domain, which in Latin is called ex proprio vigore or sui generis, was vested in the Indigenous nations by the law of nations at the critical date when the British sovereign asserted jurisdiction over Indigenous territories. 47
The Indigenous domain has always been grounded in the ecologies that operate as the Indigenous peoples’ education system, just as nature is the Eurocentric public domain’s source. Their experiences with biotic and abiotic forces shaped their knowledge systems. The Indigenous domains have many Indigenous keepers and generators of knowledge, so that families continually generate distinctive heritages, identities, and landscapes. 48 The oral traditions and symbolic literacy of Indigenous peoples reveal the continent’s embodied and teaching ecologies, investing their ancestors’ knowledge, imagination, and experiences. This enduring spiritual process of generating knowledge, stories, and artistic media that makes people live right has never ceased; they have been a method of “survivance.” 49 It has survived the linguistic violence of colonialism and forced assimilation.
These intergenerational dialogues creatively reconstruct the central aspects of the Indigenous domain through oral tradition and written literature and genres such as film and photography. The intertribal pow-wow seasonal circuit in North America is the most beautiful a

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.