Sunday, September 16, 2012

DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED WORKS AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT



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:

1 comment:

  1. 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