Downloading Copyrighted
Works and Copyright Infringement
Copyright law protects
the value of creative work. It is against the law the law to not only
make unauthorized copies but also to both upload and download
copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright owner
because it is as if you are taking something of value from the owner
without his or her permission. Any said act may subject the doer to
civil and criminal liability. In the United States, the courts have
consistently ruled that many peer-to-peer (P2P) programs and other
unauthorized uploading and downloading inherently amount to copyright
infringement and therefore constitute a crime. It amounts to stealing
since it violates the copyright owner’s distribution right and, as
a result, constitutes copyright infringement.
Early this year, reports
about a plan to pass a bill to stop (or at least reduce) online
piracy in our country (Philippines) began to catch not only the
attention of the copyright owners who are expected to be protected
but also the society in general. The proposal was to adopt a bill
somewhat similar to SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) or PIPA (Protect IP
Act) and to help protect copyright owners from having their content
being pirated by others.
Several actions had been
taken to remedy online policy:
In New Zealand, for
example, a report last July stated that internet piracy in the said
country have halved since the introduction of the controversial
“three strikes” rule where fines of up to NZ$15,000 will be
issued to illegal downloaders caught three times;
In Europe, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA) was signed. According to an online article of BBC,
ACTA is an international treaty aiming to standardize copyright
protection measures. It seeks to curb trade of counterfeit physical
goods, including copyrighted material online. Possible imprisonment
and fines may be issued to violators of the said agreement. However,
ACTA was attacked by several issues which have affected its
ratification by other joining countries. It has been said to have
adversely affect fundamental rights including freedom of expression
and privacy, and endanger access to medicines in developing
countries. It has been said to create a culture of surveillance and
suspicion. It has also been said to limit the freedom of countries –
like India and Africa who cannot afford to pay for patented HIV drugs
– to determine their own medical choices since said agreement
treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. These issues,
however, were addressed by Commissioner De Gucht at his speech the
European Parliament in the Workshop on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement on March 1, 2012. He assured that ACTA is not an attack on
the liberties of the people but rather a defence of their
livelihoods; that it will not censor the internet and not mandate the
monitoring or controls on people’s emails, blogs or file-sharing
activities; that it will not impose any restrictions on trade in
generic medicines. In another online source
(http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta)
, it mentioned that ACTA does not contain any provision that
provide for the cutting of internet access or for monitoring of the
internet. It is not about checking private laptops or smart phones at
borders. In fact, ACTA is after only on large scale traffic. It also
stated that ACTA considers a fair balance between the interests of
the parties concerned – the citizens, consumers, civil society or
business. In addition, ACTA does not prevent people from sharing
content online. It only fights against piracy and provides the tools
to react against illegal content as defined by European and national
legislation. Lastly, said agreement does not provide any direct or
indirect effect on the legitimate trade in generic medicines or the
global public health.
In the Philippines, we
have the Business Software Alliance that does rounds to help reduce
software policy, and the Optical Media Board (OMB) that raids shops
and stalls selling fake CDs. However, despite these measures,
counterfeiting and piracy have been a problem in our country. A call
for a similar agreement (ACTA) might be a good route to help lessen
pirates who steal money that should have gone to those deserving
creative individuals. ACTA aims not only to establish international
standards for intellectual property rights enforcement, but also to
establish an international legal system to end counterfeit goods and
copyright infringement of the Internet. It is about time that we
comply with a comprehensive framework to protect intellectual
property, the rights that can be protected and the means to enforce
them.
SOURCES:
The SOPA/PIPA and similar acts or bills may, although be a solution to protect the rights of the copyright holder, may result to a violation of one's freedom of information and expression. The question would be, whose right should be given greater weight? Proprietary or the right to information and free expression?
ReplyDelete