Is Downloading Illegal?

Is Downloading Illegal?

By Mikaelo Jaime Reyes

I.                    Piracy in the Philippines

       

        The Philipines was on the “priority watch list” of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, an industry lobby group from the US. On 2006, the Philippines was dropped from the list.  Although dropped, movie pirates still have a surprising influence (International Intellectual Property Alliance 2005).

        The piracy market for DVDs, software, movie, and music is a boon to a number of varying groups of people. One group consists of producers, traders, and distributors of bootlegged media that earn a reasonable income. One estimate is that more than 1,000 people in the Philippines earn a living by being part of the supply chain for pirated media (The Culture of Piracy in the Philippines).

II.                  Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

                                ACTA is a multinational treaty for the purpose of establishing international                                                      standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. The agreement aims to                                              establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic                                               medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet, and would create a new                                                 governing body outside existing forums.

                                The final contents of the treaty was published on 15 April 2011.

                                RIGHTS OF HOLDERS:                                

                                                Section 2: Civil Enforcement

-          to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement

-          require in civil procedure pirated copyright goods and counterfeit trademark goods to be destroyed

-          may ask (alleged) infringers to provide information on the goods it "controls

                                                Article 23: Criminal Offences

-          wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale" should be punishable under criminal law.

III.               Opposition to ACTA

       

        An open letter signed by many organizations, states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy (Free Knowledge Institute, 2012).  The glaring error on the law is that it will punish even those persons who would be found watching a alleged infringed material on youtube although the person is not aware that the material is infringed. The 1987 Constitution Section 4  states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”

IV.                Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

        The law establishes a two-step process for intellectual property-rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation (Stop Online Piracy Act, 2011).

Proponents of the legislation state it will protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of "active promotion of rogue websites" by U.S. search engines, proponents assert stronger enforcement tools are needed (Gruenwald, 2011).

V.                  Three Stike Law

                                On receipt of a complaint from a copyright holder or representative, HADOPI                                                                may initiate a 'three-strike' procedure:

                                (1) An email message is sent to the offending internet access subscriber,                                           derived from the IP address involved in the claim. The email specifies the                                        time of the claim but neither the object of the claim nor the identity of the                                               claimant.

                                The ISP is then required to monitor the subject internet connection. In addition,                                           the internet access subscriber is invited to install a filter on his internet                                                     connection.

                                If, in the 6 months following the first step, a repeat offense is suspected by the                                                   copyright holder, his representative, the ISP or HADOPI, the second step of the                                              procedure is invoked.

                                (2) A certified letter is sent to the offending internet access subscriber with                                   similar content to the originating email message.

                                In the event that the offender fails to comply during the year following the                                                      reception of the certified letter, and upon accusation of repeated offenses by the                                          copyright holder, a representative, the ISP or HADOPI, the third step of the                                                           procedure is invoked.

                                (3) The ISP is required to suspend internet access for the offending internet                                    connection, that which is the subject of the claim, for a specified period of                                       from two months to one year.

                                The internet access subscriber is blacklisted and other ISPs are prohibited from                                              providing an internet connection to the blacklisted subscriber. The service                                                      suspension  does not, however, interrupt billing, and the offending subscriber is                                     liable to meet any charges or costs resulting from the service termination.

VI.                Philippine Bill on Online Piracy – Anti Online Piracy Act of 2012

       

        Under Section to oh HB 6187, the following acts are prohibited:

a.       To make in any manner not authorized by the copyright owner, copies of music recordings or films, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including but not limited to uploading, downloading or streaming.

b.       To offer goods or services, or provide access in a manner not authorized by the copyright owner, copies of music recordings or films, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including but not limited to uploading, downloading or streaming.

REFERENCES:

Retrieved last September  14, 2012, The Culture of Piracy in the Philippines, http://www.asian-edition.org/piracyinthephilippines.pdf

Intellectual Property Alliance. 2005 Special Report. PHILIPPINES. New York. 2005.

Retrieved last September 14, 2012. Free Knowledge Institute. http://freeknowledge.eu/acta-a-global-threat-to-freedoms-open-letter

H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act; House Judiciary Committee; October 26, 2011

Juliana Gruenwald (2011-12-08). "Critics of Online-Piracy Bills Release Their Own Draft Legislation". NationalJournal.