The failure to agree on the treatment of audiovisual products in the Uruguay Round led to an unsatisfactory result for all World Trade Organization (WTO) members. Yet a balanced evaluation of the arguments on both sides demonstrates that the stalemate need not continue indefinitely. The audiovisual industry is a business, but audiovisual products have cultural features that distinguish them from other tradeable goods and services. If members see local audiovisual products as a means of communication among their people, or if they do not wish to stifle creativity, free speech, or the progressive development of culture, they may need to support local audiovisual products in a manner that discriminates expressly against foreign products. The same cannot be said of discrimination between foreign audiovisual products. If a member wishes to extend benefits to audiovisual products from countries with cultures similar to its own, it can do so by adopting objective criteria, such as language to distinguish between the relevant products. Cultural policy measures in relation to audiovisual products should be the least trade-restrictive necessary to achieve their objectives.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: For helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, I thank Dr. Roger O'Keefe, Justin Fung, Alison Lam, Dr. Andrew Mitchell, Matthew Stilwell, and anonymous referees. All errors and omissions, as well as the opinions expressed here, are mine.

In recent years an increasing number of state-based heritage protection schemes have asserted ownership over traditional medical knowledge (TMK) through various forms of cultural documentation such as archives, databases, texts, and inventories. Drawing on a close reading of cultural disputes over a single system of TMK—the classical South Asian medical tradition of Ayurveda—the paper traces some of the problems, ambiguities, and paradoxes of making heritage legible. The focus is on three recent state practices by the Indian government to protect Ayurvedic knowledge, each revolving around the production of a different cultural object: the translation of a seventeenth-century Dutch botanical text; the creation of an electronic database known as the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL); and the discovery of an Ayurvedic drug as part of a bioprospecting benefit-sharing scheme. Examined together, they demonstrate that neither TMK, nor Ayurveda, nor even the process of cultural documentation can be treated as monoliths in heritage practice. They also reveal some complexities of heritage protection on the ground and the unintended consequences that policy imperatives and legibility set into motion. As the paper shows, state-based heritage protection schemes inspire surprising counterresponses by indigenous groups that challenge important assumptions about the ownership of TMK, such as locality, community, commensurability, and representation.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: My grateful thanks first to Vijayendra Rao and Gayatri Reddy for invaluable discussion and intellectual support; Debra Diamond, Jane Anderson, Lalitha Gopalan, Michael Sappol, Alexander Bauer, and two anonymous referees for extremely useful interdisciplinary insights; and to the Rockefeller Foundation and the Smithsonian's Center of Folklife and Cultural Heritage, particularly Richard Kurin, Carla Borden, James Early, and Peter Seitel, for the ideal fellowship and venue to get this paper written.

The practice of yoga outside India and for commercial exchange (transnational commercial yoga) is a multibillion-dollar industry that has been the site of increasing formal regulation. The primary questions these regulations are meant to resolve include the following: (1) What is yoga? (2) What is its proprietary nature? and (3) Who has the right to manage its expression? Two recent U.S. federal district court cases involving the Bikram Yoga College of India, a yoga franchise based in Los Angeles, have drawn international attention to the debate on whether yogic knowledge or practice resides in the public or private domain. This article asks, if given the monetary value at stake, did the global market for transnational commercial yoga set the stage for claims to individual IPRs? Furthermore, this article analyzes how yoga, due to its unique characteristics as an embodied practice and intangible form, serves as a platform for experimentation from which new meanings of open source, IPRs, and information management strategies emerge.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I would like to thank the Department of Anthropology, the School of Social Sciences, and the Center for Asian Studies at the University of California, Irvine, for their funding support.

This article presents a more human, dynamic, and holistic perspective of cultural heritage, closely referring to the currently observed changes in its conceptual development. It argues that the conceptual focus of cultural heritage has shifted alongside three interrelated and complementary directions: 1) from monuments to people; 2) from objects to functions; and thus 3) from preservation per se to purposeful preservation, sustainable use, and development. The reappearing and alive functional heritage is discussed as opposed to the objectified, glass-covered, and frozen heritage of the past by referring to both practical and theoretical heritage domains. Conclusions are drawn in favor of an adequate reexamination and readaptation of the conceptual framework of cultural heritage, based on accepting its new functional socioeconomic dimension and integrating multiple perspectives from a variety of academic fields.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I would like to thank Alexander Bauer and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on this article.

Dugong v. Rumsfeld, a case charging the United States Department of Defense with violation of Section 402 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act, highlights the cultural importance of animals and the value of addressing this kind of significance in the intepretation of natural and cultural heritage legislation on both national and international levels.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I am grateful to Caleb W. Christopher of the Pace University School of Law for involving me in Dugong and for many helpful comments on the analysis presented here. Mr. Christopher points out that there are many other aspects of law, both domestic and international, that could be explored through analysis of Dugong, as well as philosophical and policy questions about the unity or segmentation of natural and cultural resource management systems. At the same time, he cautions that the case is not yet definitively resolved; the U.S. military may yet regroup and launch another assault on the beleaguered sea mammals. I look forward to an extended and updated analysis of the case by Mr. Christopher in the not-too-distant future. I am also grateful to Earthjustice San Francisco for assistance and advice, and to Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for permission to use the dugong image included in this article.

A recent Australian case has clearly illustrated the tensions between export regulations and the circulation of important cultural works through international exhibition. So far such claims have involved efforts of heirs of collectors to seize works of art appropriated in another country and temporarily located outside that country for exhibition, such as the claim by the Altman heirs in the United States or of Schuckina in France—a situation dealt with in many cases by indemnity statutes which prevent their seizure. This case involved the sensitivity of indigenous people who regard the work in question as part of their cultural heritage.

Lyndel Prott, ed., Finishing the Interrupted Voyage: Papers of the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Workshop on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage pp. 168; UNESCO Publishing and Institute of Art and Law, Leicester: 2006. ISBN: 1-90398711-3.

Almost 5 years after its adoption, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage has a mere six state parties. It requires 20 parties for the convention to come into force. Although there may be numerous reasons why states have failed to ratify the convention, perhaps the most common is simply because many developing states, even those rich in underwater cultural heritage, have little experience or expertise with protecting underwater cultural heritage, both practical and legal; and they are hesitant to ratify the convention without ensuring that they can implement the then-binding international obligations. This is particularly the case in the Asia-Pacific region, rich in underwater cultural heritage but as yet not represented in those states party to the convention. The need to encourage ratification of the convention in the Asia-Pacific is best described in the paper by Jeremy Green:

Sabine Boos, Kulturgut als Gegenstand des grenzüberschreitenden Leihverkehrs (Cultural Property as Objects of Transnational Loans) pp. 328. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2006. ISBN 3-428-12034-5.

Almost every important art exhibition also exhibits art objects on loan from domestic or foreign institutions or private owners. Recently, this lending policy has been severely threatened by third parties trying to attach art objects on loan from foreign countries and claiming to be the rightful owners of these objects, which were expropriated many years ago by the Nazis or stolen, converted, or confiscated abroad. Also, creditors of lending institutions may try to get hold of these objects and liquidate them. The Schiele affair, the Malewicz case, and the Russian-Swiss controversy about loans to the Fondation Pierre Gianadda at Martigny, Switzerland, from the Pushkin Museum in Moscow illustrate these dangers. Therefore, any study dealing with these problems and offering solutions for preventing or mitigating such clashes of interest is welcome. Boos devoted her research for a doctoral thesis, submitted to the University of Düsseldorf, Germany, to these problems, mainly those of a return guarantee given to the foreign lending institution with respect to art objects on loan for a local exhibition.