What should be the
direction on Philippine Copyright reform?
Creative works are the ingenious
intellectual exertion of real people…like you and me!
It is not anymore an issue in
the Philippines about what a copyright law is. More often than not, anyone who
seeks about the topic Copyright is surely an educated person. So it is not
anymore necessary to discuss copyright. However, the following issues must be
undertaken - why is this law not implemented as to its purpose? Why does it
need a reform? What must a reform look like?
For the reason of how must
questions be framed touches much of public policy, and because of such,
copyright issue has become a sensitive and knotty subject. Copyright is not similar
with any conventional property, as there is a necessity to execute a rather
complex balancing test to ascertain which affords excellent reward and
advantage to society while giving suitable remuneration to the substance maker.
The term subscription, in the Philippines, is not underestimated.
Only, it is deliberately ignored and avoided. More often, when one desires a
copy produced by a particular company or by an artist, such copy is easily
procured from underground distributors. One big factor for that is, it is way a
lot cheaper than the original copy. More people aware of the copyright law
choose to neglect the intellectual
property of those deserving, and many continue not to acknowledge the
legitimate ownership of such things belonging to the rightful ones.
Why is this so?
The
most probable answer is that copyright law is not strictly implemented. Should
there be a need of stricter and more
dedicated law enforcers? Oh yes! One need not think double as to why it
is not enforced properly. The problem is embedded with how the Philippine
authorities execute such law. The Philippine copyright law needs reform in such
a way as to make it more spiteful against pirates, its patrons, include its protectors as well. Reform is
essential and at this point, indispensable.
The
rapid evolution of the information commonality and each and every modernism this
country has witnessed in the past many years has altered the way Filipinos
endure the day to day life. Filipinos can now impose their elementary rights of
entree to any communication for knowledge, facts, date or any reportage with
the aid of the internet. Human rights interference are recorded and communicated
to the whole world; the means of accessing and doling some facts, trivia or any
information - like a melody, motion pictures and news are transformed perpetually.
History has it that even before a transistor had ever come into existence, most
copyright rules were already cultivated for the printing press and systematized
for international use.
Sadly,
the international stature of the Philippines in regard of proliferation and
dispersion of counterfeit commodities is unsatisfactory. It is not anymore necessary to make mention
about the other countries that have similar degrading practice as it does not
count which nation does the illegal act better, but, it is significant that the
country knows where it stands and what it does to counteract such bad
reputation. It is a great and damaging shame that the Philippines must feel to
be placed under the Priority Watch List of the Office of the US Trade
Representative as the country’s unreliability to perform and abide by the
anti-piracy campaign has gone so poor.
Came the senate bill on copyright
reform. As it is said about the bill, it will empower the country to better
itself in its quest for anti-piracy, forestall filching of intellectual
property and safeguard copyright works. This bill aspires to improve and
engender sufficient defense of another country’s IP rights protection and
enforcement by distending the latitude of infringement to cover contributory infringement,
and the dodging of technological expedient and rights information. There are
provisions for statutory and actual damages.
The
bill is inclined to restrict Philippine law of fair use so that it refers only
to a defined quantity of copies, but particularizes that the right is not
generalized and exempts blind and visually-crippled, employment of
non-commercial works as not in contradictory with the WIPO’s suggested
exemption. Any act of duplication and dispensation are also
relieved from infringement of copyright laws. PROVIDED, remake representation evince
the non-commercial and are duplicated or dispensed in a mode not in dissension
with the conventional utilization of the work, and if it does not distort the usual
advantage and use of the copyright
owner.
The bill likewise conceives a provision which is “Disclosure
of Information” tending to elucidate the disclosure prerequisite for bona fide
search and seizure under the law, and to furnish the copyright owner with caution
and warning in cases where infringing objects transgressing his rights are discovered.
In that way, proper exertion shall be taken to impose what is due him.
The action is designed to render consideration
upon the rights of performers, phonogram producers and broadcasters in equal
inspiration as those granted authors of artistic and literary works by recognizing
the title due the producers, performers and broadcasters to restrain, and,
moreover, to be remunerated for the different means or ways their creations are
employed and benefitted from by the other people other than them.
On the other hand, said measure allows
the blind and those suffering from visual impairment possible and obtainable access
to the copyrighted printed materials and to reproduce the same without having
to procure authorization from copyright owners.
It also aims to reinforce the
government’s campaign to safeguard intellectual property rights, specifically things
which are in relation to digital media such as music, videos and books. And
because of the vault into the advanced computer technology and electronic era,
there is a clamor to change the law and propound updated and feasible defense in
favor of the intellectual property rights.
The hassle and disagreements about
how the copyright law is to be reconstituted, regrettably, is domineered by companies
owning copyright and on the opposite are the piracy advocates or the masses. And
sure enough, the consequence does not effectuate progressive reform but an
endless argument boiling to nothing. How can one be sure the end result of such
reform is not influenced by either of the parties? But, which is it really? Are
the copyright industries really controlling the legislators as to how the
reform must be like? For what it is worth, those who created something out of
their own ingenuity must be protected by the government. The heck with piracy
advocates! What right do they have to even question copyright law when they are
in every way encroaching upon the rights of those who exert efforts, shed
talents and “sweat the sweat?” So, this copyright reform is only for those who
have conscience; for those who take regard of the works of others and not steal
it in any way.
Reform! Easier said than done. Has
it ever occurred into one’s mind how any reform is made? Will it be as easy as
people shout it?
A profound copyright reform
is implausible to transpire soon. Yes, a reform may happen anytime as
legislators will just snap their fingers, vote for this and that, revise this
and that…and WALLLAHHH!!!, a new copyright law at your service! but, review it
or put it into action and it surely will be flawed. Why is that so? Well, for
starters there are the Philippine legislators dealing with more important
issues such as the pork barrel, fertilizer land scam, plunder case against the
former president, OWWA funds misused. These are all pressing issues than the
copyright reform. Seemingly, a hasty reformation is likely to occur and count
maybe two or three years and there will be another clamor to change it. Another
reason may be is that, a copyright reform assignment would entail substantial
amount of time and money. However, a reform is still worthwhile although
it may be abstruse to carry out.
The Philippines, despite
difficulty in achieving an ideal copyright law, must so welcome the heightened
publicity the anti-counterfeiting / anti-piracy has encountered in recent
months. It may have taken too long to be heard and a shameful watchlist issue has
to take place before the government realizes the necessity to put a halt onto
the violations so rampant against copyright law. It cannot now be ignored the
outcry of the copyright owners as it echoes through the land.
It cannot escape the observing
eye of a copyright reform advocate, notably the congruity of copyright laws in
the Philippines, a stricter execution of an antiquated disposition is proven
irrelevant and a waste of time. Execution is not realizable often among cases,
without having to trample upon another person’s basic rights. However, there is
an enormous pressure to carry out obsolete structures of copyright law by the government.
The copyright code squabble is oftentimes
enigmatic on particular salient thrust. In the middle of the argumentation about
pondering and balancing concern, communal interest and desolate interference to
change civilization, sits a momentous reticence. Oftentimes, copyright polemics disregard the reality
that copyright bears on creative works created by a person/s, that the conception
and entrepreneurship of such will somehow land upon some business threats. A discussion
that neglects these actualities is literally and conscientiously wanting. And a
reform that springs up from that frame of reference has tendency to be injurious
and severely prejudicial.
There are voices saying that not
a lone creator but most of the time, the large media corporations are truthfully
the recipients of copyright favors. However, there is no point arguing why
these humongous corporations get what they want, they deserve it anyway. They
shed out capital; thought of its feasibility, of course they have to protect
themselves! But may it not be forgotten also, as this is addressed to the
government, the individual creators deserve similar protection as that granted
to the corporations.
Should one be skeptical now of
the push for copyright reform, which casts a big doubt that it may just be grounded
upon the whispers of controlling corporations? There is still little hope that,
perhaps, this time, there will be no obvious circumvention of the law,
so to speak.
It is expected and hoped for
that the free market apologists recognize that media corporations fund the
creation and dispersion of creative work. It should not be correct to slander
media companies for simply wanting profits out of the risks they took by
financing artists, musicians, movies, and other similar products.
Should the government take
serious thought about having or pursuing any copyright reform, it must consider
the interests of the creators first and foremost. Philippines should have
copyright reform that really (to the core!) upholds property rights. In theory,
it may be said that the proposed reforms have some good in it; however, in
practice, it will be tested if they imperil rights of copyright owners and make
them less protected.
The goal of any reform must be
largely to ensure that the copyright law shall then be apropos and beneficial,
first, to the creators, and secondly, to the public at large.
As to
internet and other social media advancements –
It has been experiential that the
copyright laws and its implementations and execution in the Philippine
jurisdiction are not in accord with the digital age that is in existence
nowadays. The disjointedness of Philippine copyright places itself at an emulative
embarrassment in parity to the other nations.
Copyright law used to be imperceptible
to the Filipinos. However, as technology advances, artists, authors, producers
are now confronting problems frequently with regard to copyright issues.
Copyright code involves activities performed by ordinary people in their
ordinary lives. Thus, copyright has become portentous to big media
corporations, industry insiders as well as to all the netizens who access information
from the internet. A lot of people, through the use of internet, exchange
copies of these copyrighted work specifically movies and music. The enjoyment
and the seeming ignorance of the millions of people who engross themselves in
such activity have thwarted industries such as cinematography, music recording
studios and other analogous businesses and developed crisis.
Copyright laws are required to correspond
to the demands of the advanced information commonality that the Filipinos now
live in. To warrant a thriving digital exchange in the Philippines, there is a necessity
to dissect case laws in the past decade or so in reference to the internet; listen
to the authors, inventors and the masses. If Philippine government wants REALLY
to accommodate authors, innovators, consumers, artists and enterprises, it is
required to come with a new symmetry in copyright.
Every frame of reference in
copyright must be examined and reasoned such as the restrictive rights, proscriptions
and exceptions, comprehensive regulations, and execution, among other things.
And only then should the government of the Philippines tackle the ways and
means of executing the newly discovered symmetry unto its own people and later on
to the wider international sector.
Copyright laws in a particular country must be
perfected first; satisfy the copyright owners; and must have teeth against its
violators.
The Philippine government must
concentrate on reform to let the advantages of the internet to flourish rather
than tolerating out-of-date commercial paragon to restrict the masses, and to condemn
the public.
There is still hope that
Philippines can entrench pliant copyright rules which are felicitous to the
copyright owners, consumers and vehemently against copyright infringement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------adengocampo---march04/2013----
