Monday, May 20, 2013

ARE THE STATEMENTS OF MALACAÑANG OF ITS F.A.Q RE: REPUBLIC ACT 10372 ACCURATE?



ARE THE STATEMENTS OF MALACAÑANG OF ITS F.A.Q RE: REPUBLIC ACT 10372 ACCURATE?



INTRODUCTION:

REPUBLIC ACT 10173, AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE

On February 28, 2013, President Benigno Aquino III signed into law Republic Act 10173, amending certain provisions of the Intellectual Property Code. The Act took effect on May 22, 2013 or fifteen (15) days after its publication date of March 7, 2013.

On March 8, 2013 Malacañang clarified Republic Act No. 10372, or "An Act Amending Certain Provisions of RA 8293," otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and for other purposes.

It is important for the public to be made aware of the amendments on intellectual property following concerns raised in social networking sites and the media on the new law.

The amended IP Code actually removes the limit to the entry for the number of copyrighted items one can bring home to the country provided they will be for personal use.

What is prohibited under the new law is the illegal downloading of copyrighted works as this would amount to violating a copyright.

RA 10372 also allows religious, charitable and educational institutions to import more copies for as long as they are not infringing or pirated copies, so that more Filipino students in the country may use such works.

It also creates the Bureau of Copyright and Other Related Rights under IPO, which will be in charge of policy formulation, rule making, adjudication, research, and education.

The new law also mandates the accreditation of collective management organizations (CMOs), whose job will be to ensure the protection of the rights and financial benefits of copyright owners.

It also allows the non-commercial reproduction of copyrighted works for use by people with hearing, eyesight and reading problems.

Now the blind can access their favorite bestseller, their favorite novels. Unlike before, our blind fellows have to buy in Braille form (Braille is a series of raised dots that can be read with the fingers by people who are blind or whose eyesight is not sufficient for reading printed material). But this time, they can just go to a bookstore, and if they find a bestseller, they can ask that it be reduced to Braille and that they don’t have to pay for the royalty.

The new law further empowers the enforcement of IP rights, although a complaint from the copyright owner is still needed before violators can be apprehended.

The new law also strengthen the government’s campaign against IP pirates, infringers and criminal syndicates.1


DISCUSSION:

The Government in view of the enactment of R.A. 10372 which effectively amended certain provisions Republic Act 8293 otherwise known as the intellectual property code released FAQ’s (Frequently Asked Questions) in the Government website. The Following are as follows.


A)    Am I still allowed to import books and DVD’s and CD’s from abroad?

The government answered that the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code have removed the original limitation of three copies when bringing legitimately acquired copies of copyrighted material into the country. Only the importation of pirated or infringed material is illegal. As long as they were legally purchased, you can bring as many copies you want, subject to Customs regulations.

The new law, Republic Act No. 10372, totally deleted Sections 190.1 and 190.2. This deletion is interpreted by some quarters as a clear intent to disallow such acts. In other words, they argue that unlike before, Filipinos and foreigners alike cannot bring to the Philippines an intellectual property work, a book or a CD for instance, even if it is for personal use. This would mean that if the traveller brings a book, perhaps bought from the airport bookstore abroad to pass away time, it would be illegal for that book to be brought into Philippine jurisdiction.

Some speakers believe that the deletion is inconsequential because the right to import copyrighted materials previously granted under the Sections 190.1 and 190.2 is also covered and governed under the existing provisions on fair use under Section 185.1. However, even if bringing in of IP works for personal use is indeed covered under the provision on fair use, the amendment exposes consumers to airport inconvenience brought about by the possible differences of interpretation on the part of the enforcement officers.

Section 190.3 was retained, expanded to cover both importation and exportation as well, and renumbered simply as Section 190, with the following text (underscored portions are the amendments):

Section 190. Importation and Exportation of Infringing Materials. – Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of infringing articles prohibited under this Section Part IV of this Act and under relevant treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported or before they are exported. [Note: the underscored portions are the amendments] 2

The Government’s answer as to the above given still remains hanging and lacking, more so inaccurate, in the event as to how would an officer of the Bureau of Customs check on any importation of intangible works. At any rate, considering that the main goal of the law is to protect intellectual property, would there be any or no violation of any Constitutional rights once already executed?


B)     Is the reproduction of copyrighted material for personal purposes punishable by this law?

No. Infringement in this context refers to the economic rights of the copyright owner. So, if you transfer music from a lawfully acquired CD into a computer, then download it to a portable device for personal use, then you didn’t commit infringement. But if, for example, you make multiple copies of the CD to sell, then infringement occurs.

The government asserts that the one being violated in this issue is the economic rights of the owner. It can be viewed and qualified that there is no specific provision that would make it a criminal violation for users to reproduce copyrighted material for personal use.

On another thought, with exhaustive analysis of the provisions of R.A. 10372 Section 203.2 of the latter provision in particular which states that “the right of authorizing the direct and indirect reproduction of their performance s fixed in sound recordings or audio visual works or fixations in any manner or form”, the owner or the author of the copyrighted work may file other remedies and a civil case for infringement against the offender.


C)     Is the possession of, for example, a music file procured through an infringing activity a violation of this law?

Only if it can be proven that the person benefitting from the music file has knowledge of the infringement, and the power and ability to control the person committing the infringement.

The provision under Section 22. Section 216 of R.A. 10372 explains well which states that:

SEC. 22.  Section 216 of Republic Act No. 8293 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 216. Infringement. – A person infringes a right protected under this Act when one:

“(a) Directly commits an infringement;

“(b) Benefits from the infringing activity of another person who commits an infringement if the person benefiting has been given notice of the infringing activity and has the right and ability to control the activities of the other person;

“(c) With knowledge of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.3

The presumption of innocence on this part of the Government’s answer has a great weight as to its applicability. The person who has the possession of the material must be benefited from it before he can be considered liable. The knowledge of the person that the material is from infringement activity is the most important factor.


D)    Is jailbreaking or rooting[*] my phone or device illegal?

No. Jailbreaking or rooting by themselves are not illegal. However, downloading pirated material, or committing infringement with a “jailbroken” phone increases the penalty and damages imposed on the person found guilty of infringement.

Jailbreaking (iphone) or rooting (android) is not illegal per se. But using jailbreaked iphone or rooted android to download infringed application constitutes infringements. Majority of smart mobile users who modify their device with the intention to acquire the infringed application for free, this in fact causes or induces people to commit acts of infringement to which we may conclude that the position of the government is in a way inaccurate,

Nowadays, among the practice that induces or contributes to the infringing act of another is by way of an example wherein entrepreneurs running business comprising technological devices who in a way offers services of modification as to the applications that the user who previously pays over the application would eventually can avail of such for free after the said modification. In this consequence, the entrepreneur maybe held liable for copyright infringement punishable under Section 22 (Section 216[c]) of Republic Act No. 10372.


E)     Are mall owners liable for infringement activities of their tenants?

Mall owners are not automatically penalized for the infringing acts of their tenants. When a mall owner or lessor finds out about an infringement activity, he or she must give notice to the tenant, then he or she will be afforded time to act upon this knowledge. As stated above, the law requires that one must have both proven knowledge of the infringement, and the ability to control the activities of the infringing person, to be held liable. The mall owner must also have benefitted from the infringement.

In this answer by the government, I am suitable enough to agree as to its explanation taking into cognizance the provision under section 22. Section 216 of R.A. 10372 which states that:

SEC. 22.  Section 216 of Republic Act No. 8293 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 216. Infringement. – A person infringes a right protected under this Act when one:

“(a) Directly commits an infringement;

“(b) Benefits from the infringing activity of another person who commits an infringement if the person benefiting has been given notice of the infringing activity and has the right and ability to control the activities of the other person;

“(c) With knowledge of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.

According to one author, Ms. Raissa Robles, in relation to mall owners, they may also be held liable if for example they have existing knowledge that some of their tenants are in possession of articles that have been downloaded illegally from the internet, provided that they have control and supervisory power over such tenants inside their premises. But such liability may only attach if the building owner has working knowledge of such infringement. The emphasis would be “knowledge of such infringement” and such mall owner exercising control or supervisory over their tenant fails to act upon it.


F)      Is it legal for the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to visit businesses to conduct searches based on reports, information, and complaints?

The IPO may visit establishments based on reports and complaints; this in itself is constitutional. However, if the IPO intends to perform a search and seizure, it must comply with constitutional requirements, such as having a search warrant. A warrant wouldn’t be required, however, if the IPO is accompanied by the Bureau of Customs or the Optical Media Board—two agencies that can perform a search and seizure on their own right without a warrant (per Republic Act No. 1937 and 9239, respectively).

The procedure and safeguards for this are to be spelled out in the Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Section 2. Section 7 (d) of Republic Act 10372 states that:

The director general and deputies director general may conduct visits to establishments and businesses engaging in activities violating intellectual property rights based on report, information or complaint received by the office.

Section 2. Section 7 (c) of Republic Act 10372 also states that:

The director general and deputies director general undertake enforcement functions supported by concerned agencies such as the Philippine National Police, The National Bureau of Investigation, The Bureau of Customs, The Optical Media Board, and the local government units, among others.


From the abovementioned provision, is the power of the IPO to conduct visits not in violation of the Constitution?

Taking into consideration Article 3 Bill of Rights, Section 2. This section of the Bill of Rights states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons of things to be seized.4

One of the concerned agencies that may undertake enforcement functions in support to IPO is the Optical Media Board. One of the provisions closely relative to the provision of Section 2. Section 7 (d) of Republic Act 10372 is Sec. 10 of RA 9239 otherwise known as the Optical Media Act gave the Optical Media Board the power to:

    (d) Conduct inspections, by itself or in coordination with other competent agencies of the government, at anytime, with or without prior notice, of establishments or entities including those within the economic zones engaged in the activities as provided in Section 13(a), (b) and (c) of this Act, and employ reasonable force in the event that the responsible person or persons of such establishment or entity evades, obstructs, or refuses such inspection. For this purpose, the agents of the OMB shall be considered agents in authority.5

In the aforementioned provisions, admittingly indeed is the handled confusion as to OMB’s power to “conduct inspections” with the IPO’s power to “conduct visits”.

EPILOGUE:

The Philippine government have lots of brilliant, talented, artistic and creative citizenry. Yet we are losing these talented Filipinos simply because there is not enough protection as to their work. In order to cure this defect, the Philippine government’s responsibility needs to provide a legal structure where innovative industry is fostered and ultimately be protected.











Disclaimer:

This blog is for academic purposes only. I am not a lawyer nor pretending to be one. Please note that this article is for general information and educational purposes only. All articles contained here in this website are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Arellano University School of law nor My professor Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero y Mendiola, any member of the bar or any other organization that I may or may not be affiliated with or connected to. In accordance with the law, this is not intended to constitute legal advice, and nothing in the articles or comments should be taken as such.

Author: Marife Tubilag Maneja

2 comments:

  1. Regarding your statement that under D that 'the entrepreneur maybe held liable for copyright infringement punishable under Section 22 (Section 216[c]) of Republic Act No. 10372.' I do not think that it is applicable to jailbreaking or rooting. Please clarify. Thank you :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mentioned that among the practice that induces or contributes to the infringing act of another is by way of an example wherein entrepreneurs running business comprising technological devices. Are you then saying that jailbreaking is a violation of RA8293 and not merely an aggravating circumstance?

    ReplyDelete