INTRODUCTION
When one hears or sees the word pirate, it automatically comes to mind a beard-laden old man with an eye patch, a pirate hat, a squeaky wooden leg on whatever side and a parrot perched upon his shoulder.
That is what a pirate usually typically looks like, however, these kinds of pirates are those engaged in piracy mostly perpetrated in the high-seas but we know for a fact that piracy may take some other form, say copyright infringement.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
There is copyright infringement when, "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." [1]
But with the fast-paced technology we have today, we cannot monitor every person in the world to know whether or not they are infringing the rights of a copyright owner. That would be too wide scale and probably administratively unfeasible. So the question now is how would the protection of copyright owners be performed in such a manner as to defeat its broadness and un-feasibility.
US TAKES ACTION THROUGH STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT (SOPA) and PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT (PIPA)
What is SOPA and PIPA? Here is the rundown of the said legislative acts:
"The legislation would allow copyright holders and the Justice Department to seek court orders against websites associated with copyright infringement. SOPA, the House version, applies to both domestic and foreign websites, while PIPA targets foreign websites. If that court order is granted, the entire website would be taken down. Internet users who typed in the site's URL address would receive an error message, and for all appearances, the site would never have existed. Importantly, the court does not need to hear a defense from the actual website before issuing its ruling. The entire website can be condemned without a trial or even a traditional court hearing." [2]
What is SOPA and PIPA? Here is the rundown of the said legislative acts:
"The legislation would allow copyright holders and the Justice Department to seek court orders against websites associated with copyright infringement. SOPA, the House version, applies to both domestic and foreign websites, while PIPA targets foreign websites. If that court order is granted, the entire website would be taken down. Internet users who typed in the site's URL address would receive an error message, and for all appearances, the site would never have existed. Importantly, the court does not need to hear a defense from the actual website before issuing its ruling. The entire website can be condemned without a trial or even a traditional court hearing." [2]
Both legislative acts are said to protect copyright owners and their rights based on such copyright. But honestly speaking, I think the main purpose of the said bills is not the protection but rather economic in purpose. Politico.com writer Mark Zappler and Kim Hart cites:
"According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, so-called “rogue” sites draw hundreds of millions of clicks a year — at a huge toll to the American economy. The business lobby cites research by brand protection firm MarkMonitor estimating that illegal sites cost legitimate businesses more than $130 billion in revenue annually." [3]
You can virtually see the damage online piracy does to the world economy as a whole. However, the main issue arising out of these bills based from my readings is the vague language on the said bills which can automatically shutdown websites with the posting of copyrighted material on it where such website posted the said materials in good faith. In a sense, we always go back to the concept of fair use. Furthermore, online writers agree on the matter that these bills may pose a huge threat to the thriving social media community as the bill intends to shutdown the entire website if they think there is infringement on their copyright. There is an indirect enroachment of one's right to express themselves because the shutdown of a site will affect everyone even those who did not participate the the infringing of another's copyright.
Furthermore, one the main targets of these bills are foreign websites that offers such copyrighted material for no price at all. Illegal downloading of movies and music has hit the movie and music industry big time. Reaching out to these foreign websites is a very sensitive matter and the advantages of these bills is yet to be seen.
SIMILAR ACTIONS ACROSS THE WORLD
Actions across the world against online piracy has been in the drumbeat for quite some time now. In the United Kingdom, The Digital Economy Bill of 2010 has been passed and is now being implemented. According to BBC,
"... the aspect that has received the most attention is measures designed to curb illegal file-sharing." [4]
Furthermore, the bill's main objective is again to protect copyright owners and as the law would put it, protect UK's creative industries. And another issue surfacing again is the lost of revenues from the said industries brought about by illegal download and sharing.
On the other hand , France's HADOPI has been in implementation since 2009 after a very much controversial and much fought passage. Internet articles strongly criticizes the law for being ridiculous. One article suggest that by implementing the three-strike rule and disconnecting a family's internet connection because they downloaded illegal music would be a violation of right of the other users in the family. [5]
These are only examples of laws that directly points out to illegal downloads and other forms of online piracy. However, in a concerted effort to totally eradicate online piracy, countries across the world have developed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or more widely known as ACTA.
"... the aspect that has received the most attention is measures designed to curb illegal file-sharing." [4]
Furthermore, the bill's main objective is again to protect copyright owners and as the law would put it, protect UK's creative industries. And another issue surfacing again is the lost of revenues from the said industries brought about by illegal download and sharing.
On the other hand , France's HADOPI has been in implementation since 2009 after a very much controversial and much fought passage. Internet articles strongly criticizes the law for being ridiculous. One article suggest that by implementing the three-strike rule and disconnecting a family's internet connection because they downloaded illegal music would be a violation of right of the other users in the family. [5]
These are only examples of laws that directly points out to illegal downloads and other forms of online piracy. However, in a concerted effort to totally eradicate online piracy, countries across the world have developed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or more widely known as ACTA.
ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT (ACTA) AND THE PHILIPPINES
The agreement's main objective is to enhance the protection of intellectual property rights and streamline online enforcement mechanisms in the intellectual property arena. [6]
As of this writing, there has nine signatories to the said agreement plus European Union with the signature of its 22 members. [7] However, the said agreement has been met with criticisms all over the world particularly on the issue that it will violate a person's right of expression citing that such agreement would create a culture of surveillance and suspicion. [8] Furthermore, other provisions met with criticisms within the ACTA is the removal of legal safeguards in protecting ISPs from liability for the actions of their subscribers. [9]
My opinion on the matter is that, there would be no violation on one's civil rights particularly right to freedom of expression as long as it would only focus on its mandate to establish the protection of intellectual property rights. We are so engrossed in exercising our civil rights that we always forget that we have the responsible in exercising such.
Say for example that the Philippines did ratify ACTA, what will happen now? Yes it may stop rampant piracy that our country is experiencing now. It may stop such but not totally eradicate the same. And yes, the Constitution guarantees and safeguards the right to express and the right to privacy but we always have to go back to the notion that exercising these rights also entails the responsible exercise of these rights subject to certain limitations.
It is just a simple reflection of our online lives and what we do while we are on the internet. We do not have to go through the technicalities of multi-lateral agreements, municipal laws and others. Just simply ask yourself, "do you download copyrighted materials illegally?" If you're answer is in the affirmative, then you are doing something wrong. And you are violating another person's rights on their creative works. I don't see any violation of a person's civil rights on that.
CONCLUSION
We cannot deny for a fact that piracy has been widespread in our country. Bangketas everywhere are selling pirated copies of everything. More so, some movies are not yet even shown in our local cinemas but copies of the same are rampant.
Do we blame the government for its inaction on these kinds of infringement?
Do we put the blame on the distributors and sellers of these pirated products?
Do we point the fault to the consumers themselves who patronize these products?
These are only some of the questions we have to answer. Clearly, we cannot answer them now. But what is clear is that the protection of copyright infringement is not one way or two way but rather a disciplined and concerted effort to eradicate piracy that is leeching our economy, our country and across the world today.
We cannot disregard the fact that part of this concerted effort to stop online piracy is the capitalist notion. Yes, illegal downloads are illegal even if no law defines it. We know for a fact we are violating another person's right by downloading their copyrighted material. But we have to understand the outrage we may feel if the same thing happens to us.
Gone are the days that this online piracy is yet to appear. Remember the times when cassette tapes and radios rule the airwaves. No online piracy around. Persons running around carrying their walkmans. We are to blame here. The rampant online piracy is the product of humanity's strive for innovation and technology. And we reap what we sow.
We cannot disregard the fact that part of this concerted effort to stop online piracy is the capitalist notion. Yes, illegal downloads are illegal even if no law defines it. We know for a fact we are violating another person's right by downloading their copyrighted material. But we have to understand the outrage we may feel if the same thing happens to us.
Gone are the days that this online piracy is yet to appear. Remember the times when cassette tapes and radios rule the airwaves. No online piracy around. Persons running around carrying their walkmans. We are to blame here. The rampant online piracy is the product of humanity's strive for innovation and technology. And we reap what we sow.
POST SCRIPT
At the time of posting of this article, I have reported to RIAA three download links on Christina Aguilera's new song. I am a big fan of the said artist and because of what happened during the release of her previous album, fans like me are now aware of the effects illegal downloading has on a person's career discounted the fact that the recording company she is signed in lost millions of dollars in revenue because of the leakage of the said album.
At the time of posting of this article, I have reported to RIAA three download links on Christina Aguilera's new song. I am a big fan of the said artist and because of what happened during the release of her previous album, fans like me are now aware of the effects illegal downloading has on a person's career discounted the fact that the recording company she is signed in lost millions of dollars in revenue because of the leakage of the said album.
_____________________________________
SOURCES:
[1] Definitions, U.S. Copyright Office
[2] Johnson, Luke. What Is SOPA? Anti-Piracy Bill Explained. The Huffington Post. 19 January 2012.
[3] Zappler, Mike and Hart, Kim. What is SOPA? Politico.com. 17 January 2012.
[4] Q&A: The Digital Economy Bill. BBC Co UK. 9 April 2010.
[5] Solon, Olivia. Berners-Lee: HADOPI law is 'so out of whack it's ridiculous. 19 April 2012.
[6] Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Speak out against ACTA
[9] Shaw, Aaron. The Problem with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (and what to do about it). April 2008.
[2] Johnson, Luke. What Is SOPA? Anti-Piracy Bill Explained. The Huffington Post. 19 January 2012.
[3] Zappler, Mike and Hart, Kim. What is SOPA? Politico.com. 17 January 2012.
[4] Q&A: The Digital Economy Bill. BBC Co UK. 9 April 2010.
[5] Solon, Olivia. Berners-Lee: HADOPI law is 'so out of whack it's ridiculous. 19 April 2012.
[6] Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Speak out against ACTA
[9] Shaw, Aaron. The Problem with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (and what to do about it). April 2008.
I’m in accord with your idea that piracy should be stopped as it serves as a menace to the music and film industry, piracy is causing the degradation of the type of movies or music being released the industry is stuck to movies depicting illicit love affairs and almost all domestic films being shown in the in the big screen can be hardly considered as a work of art however on the positive side it has paved the way for the growth of independent films. ACTA/SOPA/PIPA all share the same purpose to stop online piracy, this laws extends punishment to the downloader who is downloading from source which is not the owner or does not have any permission from its owner. Our law on Intellectual property only extends to the person who is reproducing illegally and has left a loophole with regard to the downloader with the adoption of this laws in the Philippine setting such vagueness or inaccuracy of the law can be cured. Stern oppositionist of this acts rely on the premise that the imposition of this laws will affect the freedom of expression of a person I agree with your opinion that people are very assertive in the exercise of this right but most often than not forget that the exercise of such freedom is subject to the civil law provision that everyone in the exercise of a right and in the performance of a duty must give everyone his due, furthermore downloading a stolen material is not freedom of expression but theft.
ReplyDeleteAgree as well. However, I would like to get your thoughts regarding the implication of the newl passed law RA 10175' Cybercrime Law. Obviously, this law has been hastily passed and undoubtingly not reviewed very well since the repercussions of any violation exceed that of what is orescribed and criminally penalizes any violator thereon. The law is way different from the objectives it sought to regulate i.e. plagiarism, cyberbulluing, etc,...and in the process has negaively crossed the border of infringing basic rights protected under the constitution. Let me know your thoughts, because upon reading your blawg, I thought that, would it have been better if we had a "wait-and-see" attitude first with tegard to the mpact of these laws in US and Europe i.e. SOPA, ACTA, and Data Privacy Law, rather than pass a law in haste only to shun the truth that one politician in particular plagiarized and has been caught red handed?
DeleteI strongly agree with your thoughts that, there would be no violation on one's civil rights particularly right to freedom of expression as long as it would only focus on its mandate to establish the protection of intellectual property rights. There's nothing to worry about if you know that you are not violating people's Intellectual property rights. Sometimes, the problem with us is, we tend to focus on the things that might harm us but doesn't care about others who were affected by our wrongful doings. It's just a matter of self- discipline and sense of responsibility. Nothing to fear about if you know that you are a law abiding citizen. :)
ReplyDelete