WHETHER SUCH ACT OF DOWNLOADING IS INFRINGEMENT OR NOT, SHOULD SIMILAR LAWS TO THE US PROPOSED LEGISLATION “SOPA/PIPA, “UK’s DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT 2010,” FRANCE’s “HAPODI LAW,” AND NEW ZEALAND’s “THREE STRIKES”RULE.

Introduction

Sometime in August 2012, when Senator Vicente Sotto delivered his speech opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, the issue on online piracy, plagiarism and copyright infringement had been again on its peak, when it was alleged by the groups  pushing the passage of the said bill that Sotto copied entirely and almost verbatim from an article of a US blogger Sarah without attribution, except for the expert opinion that Sarah also used as a source.

With the easy access of the articles available online, fear among the bloggers, writers online for an unauthorized use of their work has become their individual concerns. In fact, a lot of propositions have been circulating for the passage of a bill protecting works online.

Copyright law provides an incentive to create software, music, literature and other works by ensuring that the creator will be able to reap the financial benefits of the work.

In the Philippines, "Piracy" is slang for copyright infringement, it is usually used to describe the unlawful copying of software, videogames, movies or MP3s. Copyright law gives a creator of software, music, literature and other works a limited monopoly to reproduce or distribute in the created work. If a person is accused of piracy, then someone is claiming that he/she has violated their copyright by copying part or all of their work without authorization, or have enabled other people to produce such copies.

IS THE ACT OF DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED WORKS, SHARED BY OTHERS WHO ARE NOT COPYRIGHT OWNERS OF SUCH WORKS, AN ACT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ON THE PART OF DOWNLOADER?

Copyright gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, publicly distribute, perform and display their work. Nonetheless, the law allows "fair use" of copyrighted material. Fair use permits, in certain circumstances, the use or copying of all or a portion of a copyrighted work without the permission of the owner.

Original expressions of ideas are copyrighted for a certain period of time (generally the lifetime of the author, and for 50 years after his death). Copyrighted materials are everywhere around you: songs, movies, TV shows, photographs, magazines, books, software, plays and Web sites are just a few things that are subject to copyright protection.

The copyright of a work gives the holder a limited monopoly on reproduction, distribution, and display of that work. When you buy or are given a copyrighted work, you get limited use of it, but not the right to distribute it. The material fact that a downloader may be avoided from copyright infringement is that, he must only use it for personal use. A very simple example is when a person downloads for his personal use (for the purpose of watching the very controversial movie “The Mistress”. He is not liable for copyright infringement when he only use it for his own personal use. However, it would be a different story now when that person makes the reproduction of the movie for profit. In that case, he becomes liable for copyright infringement.  Hence, in my opinion, if a copyrighted work has been shared by others who are not copyright owners of such work, it does not simply constitute copyright infringement on the part of downloader. The element of purpose is necessary.

WHETHER SUCH ACT OF DOWNLOADING IS INFRINGEMENT OR NOT, SHOULD SIMILAR LAWS TO THE  US PROPOSED LEGISLATION “SOPA/PIPA, “UK’s DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT 2010,” FRANCE’s “HAPODI LAW,” AND NEW ZEALAND’s “THREE STRIKES”RULE.

SOPA/PIPA and other similar laws are pieces of legislation whereby purpose of these bills is to make it harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States, for example, to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods.

Now, copyright law provides incentives for creating. One of the incentives for creating software, music, literature and other works is being able to reap the financial benefits as the creator. Illegitimate distribution of copies may prevent the copyright holder from benefiting from the sale of legitimate copies of the product. The theory is that significantly fewer people would buy copies from the copyright holder if other copies were available cheaper or for free. When the act of piracy is supported with a law on copyright, the act mere act of downloading would in effect constitute infringement.

SHOULD THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT ENTER AND RATIFY “ACTA” TREATY TO REMEDY ONLINE PIRACY? WILL SUCH LEGISLATION BE VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON FREE EXPRESSION AND PRIVACY?

No. ACTA is not essentially a remedy for online piracy.

I think, the Philippines would opt to enter with this treaty when the proper laws and procedure for the same are laid in its finality. Eventually, by entering and ratifying this act, the Philippines is bound to observe the treaty by which it is a signatory. Hence, it would only make the Filipino online users vulnerable to criminal offense because a country which for one, is a signatory has the right to enforce its copyright rules under its local laws among participating nations. However, since freedom of expression and privacy are rights which are not always absolute, I for one, could not say that entering such treaty would outrightly be violative to the abovementioned rights. Since the threat of infringement is always present where web innovations are sprouting rapidly, it is essential for all users of the Internet and to copyright owners to remain vigilant in the face of future threats, and vice versa.