By Raïssa Robles
Yesterday afternoon, reacting to my blog post about the amended RA 8293, IPO director General Ricardo Blancaflor gave an interview to ANC where he addressed some of the points in my article. His office website also published a long “explanation” on the things I brought up.
Apparently stung by the story, the IPO has gone into overdrive and fired off several press releases and statements to the media.
Some people seem to think that with these responses the matter is closed, and I was mistaken.
Such is not the case, as this post will show.
In responding to Blancaflor’s response, I’ve taken the liberty of consolidating his statements, as well as that of his office, into several main topics.
ONE:
On the deletion of Section 190.1, which expressly states that Filipinos can bring home up to three copies each of copyrighted books, music and movies:
Blancaflor said, as quoted by ABS-CBN News’ David Dizon:
“We took that provision out and now you can bring as many as you can as long as 1) you are not infringing and 2) they are covered by fair use. Personal use is one of the samples of fair use,” he said.
Blancaflor said that in the past, a balikbayan bringing in 10 books from abroad could be stopped by Customs because of Section 190 of the IP Code.
Now, he said Filipinos could bring as many books as they want, provided that there is no copyright infringement and the books are for personal use or for educational purposes such as libraries or universities.
On the website of the Intellectual Property Office, DG Blancaflor also stated:
By deleting these provisions under the amendment, there is no longer any limit to the number of copies that can be imported. Also, importation shall not be considered copyright infringement if it falls under the general exceptions which includes fair use (Chapter VIII, Sec. 185 IP Code). Contrary to Ms. Robles’ insinuations that OFWs can no longer bring home copyrighted works, they can in fact bring home more copies for personal use that fall under the fair use exceptions. The deletion of Sections 190.1 and 190.2 in fact allows for religious, charitable, or educational institutions to import more copies, for as long as they are not infringing or pirated copies, so that more Filipino students in the country may use such works.
My reply:
DG Blancaflor said that with Section 190.1 deleted, balikbayans can bring home “as many as you can.”
Unfortunately, his statement is incomplete. Balikbayans can indeed bring home as many CDs and books as they want – PROVIDED they meet two conditions.
- FIRST, the materials must not infringe copyright.
- SECOND, the books must only be for personal use or educational purposes.
That seems easy enough to understand, but think about it: HOW will you be able to tell if the materials infringe copyright?
By the way, NOWHERE in the amended law is there a definition of what “infringement” means. Section 184 and Section 212 state what is NOT infringement. From these sections, you are supposed to infer what “infringement” means. Section 216 further confuses the definition of infringement. It states:
Sec. 216. Infringement. A person infringes a right protected under this act when one:
(A) Directly commits an infringement;
There’s another problem. Blancaflor said it’s OK to bring in books for personal use. But THE LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT, only Blancaflor does.
On the IPO website, DG Blancaflor points to Chapter VIII, Sec. 185 IP Code as the provision that guarantees the right of Filipinos to stuff books, movies and music in their personal baggage.
Here’s Section 185 he’s referring to. Notice that nowhere does it state “personal purpose” as part of fair use. All the reasons stated below are for serious stuff like news reporting and academic work. There’s nothing that indicates personal enjoyment is part of fair use.
Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. – 185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is
for non-profit educational purposes;(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;
(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole; and(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Furthermore, the only provision which specified “personal purpose” as part of fair use is Section 212.1 – which Congress deleted. It said one form of fair use is “the use by a natural person exclusively for his own personal purposes.”
Dear DG Blancaflor, in case I missed it, would you mind pointing out which part of Section 185 allows balikbayans to bring home 10 books of the same title – for “personal use”, not for educational purpose? Also, why did you only mention books? What about music and videos? Those were allowed under the deleted Section 190.1.
By the way Blancaflor also says the following on the IPO website:
“The deletion of Sections 190.1 and 190.2 in fact allows for religious, charitable, or educational institutions to import more copies, for as long as they are not infringing or pirated copies, so that more Filipino students in the country may use such works.”
My response? I never raised those points so his mention of them is is irrelevant and immaterial.
TWO:
On jailbreaking
DG Blancaflor posted this on the IPO website:
Jailbreaking is not a crime under the amendments. Contrary to the author’s opinion, jailbreaking or any other form of circumvention of technological measures (as defined in Sec. 6 of the amendments), are not crimes in themselves. The amendments require that you first be found guilty of copyright infringement, and that is the only time that jailbreaking or circumvention of technological measures increases the imposable penalty and damages that can be awarded by the courts. You still need to be found guilty of copyright infringement, as jailbreaking is merely an aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty.
I asked Prof. Disini whether jailbreaking – which removes restrictions on what and how apps and content can be stored and used – is a crime. He explained:
My understanding is, that was the intention of the law. To prohibit it.
When you circumvent technological measure, the purpose is to get access to the work in order to modify it. Why would you jailbreak something? You defeat the protection in order to change the code to make the device do other things. Modifications are an infringement of copyright.
My reply:
If one lawyer, Blancaflor, says it means one thing, and another lawyer, Disini, reads the same law and says it means something else, then the wording of the law has to be made clearer.
THREE:
On downloading pirated music
DG Blancaflor posted this on the IPO website:
Downloading Pirated Music has always been illegal. Downloading pirated music has always been illegal, and especially detrimental to our local artists. In fact, all organizations of Philippine singers, performers, composers, artists, and producers, have been pushing for the amendments because they have been severely affected by music piracy. However, even before the E-Commerce Act provision against piracy and hacking, downloading pirated music has already been penalized by R.A. 8293, enacted as early as 1997, which punishes copyright infringement or the reproduction of a work without authorization by the copyright owner (Sec 177, IP Code).
My reply:
I never said downloading pirated music was legal. What I wrote was:
If someone else had downloaded music from the Internet and shared the file with you, and you then uploaded it onto your technological device and listened to it, you could also be held liable if the download site was one that the US recording and movie companies have been trying to shut down.[Emphasis mine]
Let me put the context of this particular discussion. I had asked Prof. JJ Disini about the implications of inserting the phrase “temporary or permanent, in whole or in part” in Section 171.9, which legally defines the word “reproduction”.
The amended version [with the insertions in red] now reads :
171. 9 “Reproduction” is the making of one (1) or more copies, temporary or permanent, in whole or in part, of a work or a sound recording in any manner or form without prejudice to the provisions of Section 185 of this Act (SecA1[E], P.D. No. 49a);
The Section 185 talked about “fair use” of copyright material.
Prof. Disini’s explanation on the insertion of “temporary or permanent, in whole or in part”:
That’s for software. When you look at copyright, you look at economic rights. It does not include the right to use the thing.
For instance, you have a song. If I sing the song I’m using it. I’m not making a copy but I’m using it. I’m just singing it, unless I perform it in public for money.
Now think of software. Let’s say you bought a PC with pirated software. You did not put it there. When you run the software, you are not making a copy but you are using it. You cannot infringe the right of the copyright owner.
Now, what’s the significance of inserting the phrase “temporary or permanent, in whole or in part” in the legal definition of copying or reproduction?
For instance, someone gave you an iPod. You have no idea whether the songs in the iPod are licensed or not. But the fact that while listening to the music a copy of the song is being made temporarily in the device, you are already committing copyright infringement.
When you surf on your PC, a temporary copy of the websites you visit is made in your RAM (Random Access Memory).
What those amendments are saying now is that the mere act of visiting websites, if the websites don’t give you authority to copy their content, then you are infringing the website owner’s copyright because your computer is making a copy in your RAM.
What those amendments are saying now is that the mere act of surfing the web (and visiting download websites) is copyright infringement.
That includes software, books, accessing a book – copied temporarily – buying a device full of movies – when that device operates, it plays the movies onto your screen. You are not making a copy anymore. You bought it with all copies inside. But the act of playing it, you are committing copyright infringement under the new definition.
I asked Prof. Disini how he came upon such an explanation.
He said this interpretation of the word “copying” has been made by foreign copyright “maximalists”:
It’s an interpretation that is desirable for them because it strengthens the economic rights of digital content owners.
DG Blancaflor’s reaction to Disini’s interpretation:
I ran by DG Blancaflor the explanation of Prof. Disini. He said that was not the intention behind amending Section 171.9 nor is it the correct interpretation. This is Blancaflor’s explanation:
It’s another pro-Filipino provision. When something (you create) is stored in a computer, that’s a very temporary production. We included ‘temporary’ reproduction because this also includes the production of software which is in a very temporary state… he can store it (his creation) in the (computer) memory.
He explained that because of this, creators of songs and software who file an infringement suit could present their work as evidence, even though this is still in a temporary state inside a computer and not a “permanent fixation” like a record or CD.
He also said that unwittingly listening to pirated music does not make a person liable under the “fair use” clause because one of the four elements of fair use is purpose of the use. In this case, he said it’s “for personal reason”. He then pointed to Section 185 which defines fair use.
My reply:
Despite what Blancaflor says, personal purpose is not among the elements listed under Section 185, which I discussed earlier in this piece.
“Personal purpose” is listed under Section 212.1. But that section HAS BEEN ERASED BY THE AMENDED law
FOUR:
On deleting Section 212:
DG Blancaflor indicated on the IPO website that this deletion is actually A GOOD THING because it “in fact reinforces the general exception of fair use for infringement of related rights.”
My reply:
My understanding of DG Blancaflor’s convoluted sentence is that deleting the section on “personal purpose” expands the way the public can use copyrighted material without infringing on the rights of performers, producers or sound recordings and broadcasting organizations.
Unfortunately his sentence doesn’t explain how.
- He does not explain why “the use by a natural person exclusively for his own purposes” was deleted by the amended RA 8293 as part of fair use.
- He does not explain why this deletion is A GOOD THING that expands the way the public can use copyrighted material.
I find it quite interesting that the word “personal purpose” has been excised from a law on intellectual property.
I find it striking that the IPO, the agency created to watch over the fruits of human creativity is totally devoid of the human aspect in its stated mission posted on its website:
We are a knowledge-driven government organization that works towards economic, technological, and socio-cultural development by communicating, enabling, and ensuring the effective use of the Intellectual Property System in all levels of society for the creation, protection, utilization, and enforcement of Intellectual Property.
What is the purpose of copyright?
Prof. Disini explained it this way to me:
The purpose of copyright, intellectual property (IP) rights is to enhance public domain – the works that are freely accessible to everyone. Because we want culture to flourish we give exclusive rights to people who make cultural works so that they can make a living from it. But only for a limited period of exclusivity. But when the exclusivity is gone, the public can enjoy it.
Even without IP, the people are going to make songs. We want more songs and the only way for them to produce more is to give them exclusive rights. The end goal is to enhance culture.
These works enter the public domain so we don’t have to pay anymore. The Spoliarium copyright is gone. So now I can take a picture of it, make a song about it, that further enhances the culture.
How come there is no provision in the IP Code that tells us how to donate to the public domain. The IP Code is all about creating and protecting property instead of enhancing culture.
leona says
Raissa, before going into distance, this is another very interesting topic this Intellectual Property [ IP ] from the proofs showing the good discussions written here by the increasing number of pundits.
We, the CPMers and the generally interested, are gaining more and more clearer thoughts. My thanks to you for furthering the clearing up of the ‘vagueness’ or cloudy points of this IP law [ revisions not yet in effect ]. Just for dinning and not ‘To Go’ on the point:
” Personal Use” or FAIR USE also, can it be correct to say that though SEC. 185 does not expressly say about “personal use” as fair use in the Section 185, it can reasonably be interpreted that personal use fall under ‘a fair use’ when the provision of Par. (a) of SEC. 185 says –
“In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:
‘(a) The purpose and character of the use, xxx. ‘
Sub-Par. (a) is one of the “Factors” to be considered. And that Sub-Par. phrase also mentions other fair uses- “to include” like if the use if for commercial or non-profit use,etc.
Also, I think, the “Factors” enumerated are not intended as exclusive or the only ‘factors’ to be taken into considerations as it is not so expressly worded at that. There could be ‘other’ factors similar to what are given in SEC. 185.
My understanding on this point, if “personal use” was deleted in the proposed revision bill, it is because it falls under Sub-Par. (a) already – “the purpose and character of the use” which is known by a simple answer of the ‘user” – for personal use. [ this supports I believe @ saxnviolins theory on No. 4 on “without prejudice to the provisions of SEC. 185 of this Act. xxx, ” differing with that of Atty. Disini’s theory.
@sanxviolins’ theory is in agreement with that of Mr. Blancaflor of IPO on this point.
Can we get from Atty. Disini a further reply or answer on Sub-Par. (a) “the purpose and character of the use” as the first ‘factor’ on ‘Fair Use’ under SEC. 185, which as I understand it, can be ‘known’ from the answer of the user “for personal use” if and when asked?
My next comment or question is: why the senators, etc., removed “for personal use” as a factor and make it just as being included in the phrase “the purpose and character of the use” in Sub-Par. (a)? The provision would have been simply more informative and understandable without causing any doubt or vagueness. The removal did, as it is now happening, cause to ask: ‘So, personal use is not anymore like as before in the original law. That is the intent or reason why it was deleted.’
But 19 senators approved this point with 11 among them having filed the revision, as Sen. VILLAR authored it. No interpellation or point of inquiry made by anyone senator on this point, a very important point under the IP law.
Thank You Raissa. I pause now like you, to avoid getting cross-eyed too!
baycas says
Walang nakasaad na “PERSONAL USE” o “PRIVATE USE” o “FOR OWN CONSUMPTION”.
Paano ang interpretasyon nito?
Istrikto (strict) ba o malawak (broad)? Limitado (restrictive) ba o maluwag (extensive) na interpretasyon?
Hindi Ito kodigo penal na kung saan istrikto ang interpretasyon (gaya ng “religious feelings” na nasaktan–istrikto lang na dapat ayon lang sa kahulugan ng “notoriously offensive”).
Dapat maging bukas ang isip…at huwag makitid.
Kahit sinong hukom o huwes ay may giya na apat (4) na factors sa interpretasyon ng “fair use” pag kokopyahin ang isang copyrighted material…
Kung nga sa silid-aralan ay naipamudmod o naibahagi na sa mga mag-aaral ang copyrighted material nang walang pananagutan sa may-akda o copyright holder, paano pa kaya kung PERSONAL o PRIVATE ang paggamit o FOR OWN CONSUMPTION lang?
Sakop ng “fair use”, meaning hindi na kailangang humingi ng permiso sa may-akda o copyright holder, ang pang-personal na paggamit ng sipi ng isang copyrighted material.
Siyempre, huwag kokopya sa mga pinirata lang. Ibang usapan na ‘yan at ‘di na sakop ng “fair use”.
raissa says
Salamat sa pagpapaliwanang mo sa Pilipino nang madaling maintindihan.
Vibora says
Pwede po bang malaman kung bakit inaalis ang mga nasabing seksyon ng batas? Meron po bang mali sa dating probisyon? Meron po bang masamang epekto sa ilang grupo o organisasyon o sa nakararaming Pilipino ang mga nasabing seksyon?
Sa tingin ko po ito ay isang halimbawa ng, ” Hampas sa kalabaw, sa kabayo ang latay”.
baycas says
Unang-una, pagtagniin ang original RA 8293 at bicam bill na nirerebisa na ng PNoy administration.
Sa pinagtagni na batas na kulang na lang ng pirma ni PNoy…
Kapag may hawak ka na original copyrighted material, walang problema sa possession nito–ipasok man o ilabas ito ng bansa. Limitado ka ba sa tatlong (3) kopiya? Hindi na. Kahit ilan pa. Ipangregalo mo ang siyam sa sampu na binili mo, okay lang.
Kung masyadong marami naman, personal na gamit pa ba ‘yon???
Nawala ba sa “fair use” ang “personal use” o “private use” o “for own consumption” dahil tinanggal ang provision na nagsasaad nito? Siyempre, hindi!
Kung nga sa silid-aralan, mas marami pa ang kopiya na kahit walang paalam at permiso mula sa may-akda o copyright holder ay okay lang, lalo pa kung mag-isa ka lang. Okay lang din ito at siguradong walang magrereklamo sa ‘yo.
—–
Sa tanong mo naman, maaaring sa Senate o HOR Journal (transcript) ay may kasagutan kung bakit tinanggal ang pariralang “personal use”. Pero gaya nang nasabi, meron o wala nito…walang kaso.
Maaaring gumagawa lang ng sariling multo ang natatakot sa amiyenda. Uulitin ko lang, walang dapat ipangamba kung hindi ka naman pirata….
Aabangan ko pa ang mga susunod na blog posts tungkol dito.
bfdtranscriber says
Hi Baycas,
Paano yun, sino magdedetermine ng kung hanggang ilan ung personal use? Customs?
BFD
baycas says
Ang pinag-uusapan lang natin dito ay binili mong original copyrighted material…gaya kunwari ng isang libro.
Ang alam ko sa akin ang personal use ko ay isa lang. ‘Di ko alam sa ‘yo kung ilan ang kailangan mong iuwi mula abroad. Isang libro kaya kada kuwarto ng bahay mo o kaya naman kada shelf ng cabinet mo?
Kung ang tinutukoy naman natin ay ang sipi o kopiya o reproduction ng copyrighted material…
Dito, puedeng isa kada gadget mo…na siyempre naka-register sa pangalan mo lang.
Sa katunayan, sa pagbili mo sa iTunes ng isang kanta na gamit kunwari ang laptop, puedeng sabay-sabay na rin ma-download ang kanta sa iPod, iPhone, at iPad mo na naka-connect sa internet (Wi-Fi). One-time download lang, wireless pa!
So, @BFD, ikaw ang sasagot kung ilan ang personal na gagamitin mo.
Rene-Ipil says
[email protected]
Personal use : institutions – 12 copies; individuals – 6 copies.
Will write on this more soon.
Rene-Ipil says
On books.
drill down says
[quote]According to the Outline of American Literature: “The copyright law of 1790, which allowed pirating, was nationalistic in intent. Drafted by Noah Webster, the great lexicographer who later compiled an American dictionary, the law protected only the work of American authors; it was felt that English writers should look out for themselves.”[/quote]
source: http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/157
Art Montesa says
If there’s one thing that these folks don’t know yet – do not tangle with Raissa. You’ll just end up with egg on your face. Thank you, Raissa. What sayeth you now, White Flower?
raissa says
White Flower?
Oh!
christel_chops says
I assume I will still be protected by the Philippines Bill of Rights against illegal searches even if brings my 2 large capacity portable disk and 10 dvd burned disk all filled with torrent Aownloaded music and movies all for personal consumption. and i cannot be compelled to reveal show or reveal them barring probable cause or a specific warrant that the materials within them are indeed infringed, at airport Customs. Or Can I?
raissa says
It depends on the directive to customs.
christel_chops says
i assume though, that the Philippine Bill of Rights still protects everyone from illegal and malicious search and seizures without probable cause. So even if i bring in 2 large capacity hard disk filled with illegally downloaded movies books and music for personal use, and a stack of burned 10 DVD’s fllled with the same materials, and others stored in my laptop and Ipad and phone all for personal use, airport customs still cannot look through them without probable cause or a warrant with my name and specific violation? Or can they? What constitutes probable cause?
baycas says
Pag binili mo naman ay original copyrighted material puede mong iuwi iyon from abroad.
Kopyahin mo naman kunwari ang original CD na binili at ilagay mo sa lahat ng device mo ay okay lang kasi hindi naman “infringed material” ang pinanggalingan.
Laging bawal siyempre ang pirated source. (Yung file-sharing sa torrent sites medyo kaduda-duda yan kasi baka pirated ang source.)
Anyway, ukol sa pagkopya o “reproduction”, guided naman tayo ng Sections 177, 184, 185, 187, at 189.
Sa Sec. 187 nga pinapayagan ang “private reproduction” for “private study”. Op kors, may limitasyon.
—–
“Infringement” ay basically “violation”, gaya ng “violation of patent or copyright laws“. Basahin ang original na R.A. 8293 at ang amendments nito sa kabuuang paglalahad nito.
curveball says
@baycas,
“Kopyahin mo naman kunwari ang original CD na binili at ilagay mo sa lahat ng device mo ay okay lang kasi hindi naman “infringed material” ang pinanggalingan.”
Tama po ito. Ngayon kung sa loob ng aking ipod ay meron 10-30 music album paano po malalaman ng may kinauukulan na lahat ng ito ay di pinirata? Hanapan ako ng katibayan? Ibig sabihin po ba ay dadalhin ko din ang 30 orig cd album?
Katulad din ng may 10-20 movies sa laptop ko at nabili ko ang original. Mas madali na dala ko ang laptop ko (download ang mga movies) para mapanood kahit saan ako. Kailangan po din ba na dala ko ang original dvd cases/boxes ng bawat isa?
Kasi kung di ko dala ang cases/boxes ay pwede naman nila ako kasuhan dahil wala ako katibayan na legal ko binili ang mga ito?
saxnviolins says
Ang nagpaparatang ng katiwalian ang siyang magpapatunay. Kaya ang kinauukulan ang dapat na magpatunay ng ang mga awit sa ipod mo ay nakaw. Wala sa iyo ang bigat ng pagpapatunay na ang mga awit sa ipod mo ay legal.
moonie says
true, wala sa atin ang bigat ng pagpapatunay na we are carrying something illegal. but if customs suspect we are carrying things we should not, they may throw back the ‘bigat ng pagpapatunay’ sa atin, detain us, check our luggage and engage us in Questions and Answers. we are oblidged to answer customs truthfully, or keep quiet. keeping quiet may not be good idea for that will only make customs more suspicious and they’ll double their efforts in interrogating us, also in searching for evidence. those who tell lies might just trip themselves at the Questions and Answers, if their answers are not consistent.
but if we have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to worry. we may not even attract customs attention.
saxnviolins says
Sisilipin nila ang ipod mo? Kailangan may probable cause.
Ano naman ang probable cause? Pareho naman ang himig ng legal na “My Way” at bootleg na “My Way”.
curveball says
@saxviolins,
paano magkakaroon ng “probable cause”
ano ang magtatakda ng may “probable cause”
ito ba ay sa pamamagitan ng “random check”? ng one out of 50 persons? ng ayun sa kutob ng may kinauukulan?
pasensya na at hindi ako masyado maalam sa mga legal terms lalo na kung english.
baycas says
Isang halimbawa na naman: ang “jailbroken” na iPad…
Madali na ang file-sharing. Madali na ang piniratang music. Aggravating ang possession mo ng jailbroken iPad pag inireklamo ka’t napatunayang mga piniratang music ang nasa sa ‘yo.
Kung baga…bakit ka mag-uuwi o maglalabas sa bansa ng pekeng LV na bag?
Wala kang dapat ipangamba kung ‘di ka naman pirata.
moonie says
maybe you need to keep original reciepts or dockets as proof of things bought.
moonie says
marami yata ang takot sa probable cause. hindi natin ito masyadong naiintindihan. I remember, at the airport before getting off the plane, flight crew handed us customs declaration form that has questionnaires and boxes you must tick or check. one of the boxes asked if you have anything to declare. and if you failed to tick or check this box, it may constitute probable cause for customs to detain you, question you and check your baggage. and if you seemed nervous, anxious and looked like you’re hiding something, that might give good reason for customs check you. I think, it’s customs who will be deciding what is probable cause.
Manny Boy M. Galia says
Thanks Raissa, for always looking out for flaws on our laws/amendments. They should not fix things which are not broken. Clearly, as you’ve pointed out, Mr. Blancaflor is wrong in his recommendation in amending the provisions on the Intelllectual property law. Bravo ma’am, salamat!
raissa says
Salamat. Pls. read Part 2 which I will post today.
I will be posting more next week on my interviews with DG Blancaflor and Prof. Disini.
Sorry I have to do it this way because of work commitments.
futboliztaz says
Wow, so all this hullabaloo is just because the words “personal use” are no longer spelled out in the law? since when did it become illegal to do something that is not mentioned in the law? so now we can only do things that are specifically spelled out in the law? i was under the impression that the law is there to prohibit specific acts, and not to dictate the totality of what citizens can do. what the law does not include is necessarily excluded. hence, when the law does not prohibit personal use, it is logically not illegal. seems to be basic logic to me.
raissa says
Let me put it this way:
When you have a very strong foreign and well-funded lobby against Filipinos who are perceived to be copyright infringers, would you not have the law clearly stated on your side rather than a law very much open to interpretation?
Would you not rather have peace of mind as you fly home to Manila loaded with copyright goods for personal use? Right now, you can point to the law and say I have the right.
Once amendments become law you, your loved ones and friends will no longer have that EXPLICIT protection.
X says
The point of it is, removal of the phrase “personal use” has made the law very vague and open to interpretation. There was nothing wrong with it to begin with. If it was just to remove the 3 items limit, then the amendments should have reflected that instead.
futboliztaz says
instead of making it vague, the removal of “personal use” actually made it clearer that whether for personal or commercial use, the buyer of a copyrighted work can do whatever he wants with it. he can import it, he can re-sell it to booksale for secondhand books, he can use the pages as wallpaper, if that’s what he wants.
the amendments removes “personal use” because it means that a buyer of a book can only bring it with him in the country if he will use it personally. so may limit ng 3. if he will use it for commercial purposes, does this mean that the copyright owner can stop him? under the present IP code, yes. Even if section 177.3 already said that the copyright owner can only control up to the first sale. The deletion of 190.1 and 190.2 actually goes back to 177.3, and says that when i (consumer) bought this book, the copyright owner already sold me all his rights to the material object or the book, and that means i can do whatever i want with it. it’s my personal property now.
josua says
I disagree with “do whatever i want with it”. You can use it but not reproduce it or share it with the public or profit from it. Thats what infringement means.
jcc says
ifringement — meaning the cds that you brought home were pirated or copies from the original.
as regards books, you can bring home your entire library as long as those books are not xeroxed copies…
are we on the same page here?
some have the view that copyright is actually an arsenal of the rich industrial nations against third world countries or agricultural based countries like RP. .
rich nations have the technology and money to engage in laborious experimentation using raw materials from poor country. then after putting their imprint on the product, prevent the country that produces the native product from making use of it unless the country pays copyright money.
here is another way of looking at it: Bill Gates product like Windows 8 was developed from old baseline, Win XP, Vista, Win 7. One product was produced in one labor, but this can be multiplied million times and sell each copy at say $100.
mang pandoy, a farmer tilling a hectare of land produces 100 cavans of palay in one harvest. to get another 100 cavans, he has to till the same piece of land again.
but bill gates get paid million times for one single effort.
hehehe…. third country like RP should get out from the convention about copyright. :)
saxnviolins says
Disini:
Begging to differ Sir. This comes under fair use. – copying merely for use (to read). That is expressly provided for in the exception clause highlighted below.
saxnviolins says
Copyright, is originally vested in the author. But he may sell that right to a publisher. That is usually what happens, when, say, Dan Brown sells his book to, say Simon and Schuster. That publisher, then, prints the material, and authorizes the distributors to sell the copies (actual books made from the words of Dan Brown) i.e. to sell the books.
So any book bought from a distributor is non-infringing material.
So nobody will stop you at the airports if you are carrying books bought from Barnes and Noble, or CDs bought from distributors of Sony.
How do you know if the material (usually CDs and DVDs, not books) are genuine or bootlegged material? Just from the looks of it. CDs bought from Barnes and Noble have a different look from those sold in the streets of Manhattan, usually by Africans, or Chinese. Only those CDs and DVDs will be infringing material.
So as stated by clementejak in the earlier thread, it is easier now, because one is not limited to just three copies of copyrighted material, to take home to the Philippines.
Just an aside. How many of you have three copies of your favorite book, or favorite CD? I have only one copy of the Fillmore East album of the Allman Brothers Band; also only one copy of Desmond Morris’ “The Naked Ape.”
It is the infringing material which is susceptible of being held in the airport – bootlegged CDs and DVDs, or pirated CDs of say, Microsoft products, or even games.
The law need not state that, because you have permission from the copyright holder to possess the book. The sale by the publisher to you,gives you permission to possess the book.Heck they handed it to you.There is no infringement here, because you derive possession from the owner of the copyright.
There is no infringement for another reason. There is infringement, ONLY if you copy without permission. But your copy was made by the publisher – the owner of the copyright. So there is no violation here. You have permission to possess, and the copy you hold was made by the owner of the copyright.
The fair use clause only comes into play when you reproduce or copy copyrighted material. For instance, in your screenplay of a movie, there is a part there, where your character mouths some lines from a book, she supposedly is reading. You do not need permission from the author, or the publisher, to copy and “publish” (by way of the movie), those lines. They come under fair use – Section 185 (c). In fact, if I were the author, I would thank you, for giving my book free advertisements.
saxnviolins says
Ibang usapan na, if you come up with a CD of the music from the movie. Now you will need permission, and will have to pay royalties to the copyright owner.
If you have Beatles music for instance; or the Cold Case CDs, with music from the 60s. Those CDs will pay royalties to Sony, or Michael Jackson’s estate. I forget now, who owns the Beatles’ music. (No you don’t pay to Paul McCartney, or Yoko Ono).
moonie says
my cousin has another idea. he will come home with no copies of anything, be it books or cds and so he wont cause a stir at the airport and wont be stop by customs. but he has them downloaded in his overseas home computer ready to be accessed once he’s back in manila, he will then access his home computer overseas, via internet, and make copies to be given to friends. the books? he has an e-reader on standby. by the way, you dont really have to carry stacks of CDs with you. you can download their contents in USB memory sticks. they’re almost immaterial and rarely got noticed in airports. and he will keep away from things that wipe out contents of memory sticks like heat and strong magnetic fields.
Victin Luz says
There are too many costly important of special quality book’s needed in our studies especially in the field of science (Medicine, Engineering and etc. books ) than even copies For Sale at say REX BOOK’s STORE are available…( cost thousand of pesos ).. NAMUHUNAN naman sila.
The new law regulations with regards to 3 copies of a books by a balikbayan was to protect also those book store’s and other business men who secured and paid for their licenses and were PAYING FEEs thereat and PAYING business TAXES yearly ( they are supposed to pay ). What was happening before and until now , example , students whose relatives are returning home in our country are used as CONDUITs in SMUGGLING costly and very important books to be distributed to his/her classmate at an amount lower than the price at the books store OR if it’s much higher ,said books are of excellent quality where the visual senses of a student are fully satisfied.
Dahil mga sa inaabuso natin , here is now the law regulating it. But I think it will be FAIR if the implementation is of NO EXEMPTION.
3 copies for family use or for my 3 relatives studying medicine or engineering will be enough and maybe just have it scan or colored xerox if it happens that 6 or 7 of your children are studying at the same time at different schools or GREEDY with each other not to lend their’s. BOOKs ito ha.
Alan says
(1) “inaabuso natin” – Where is your proof? do you happen to have figures?
(2) “maybe just have it scan or colored xerox” — perhaps you don’t know that this is illegal here? So you don’t advise breaking the law coming to the airport, but you advise breaking it at the local copying shop?
baycas says
http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2005/06/06/ipods_and_timeshifting_fair_use_personal_use_and_the_digital_copyright_morass.php
X says
Well, based on the exchanges, we can see who is actually the smarter lawyer. Most lawyers don’t really bother understanding the law they are supposed to practice, as such, I believe, this, like the CCL, was done in haste, removing just the parts without any further adjustments or explanation.
Antonio Hilario says
Strike two, for these not-elected technocrats that supply legislators with vague input that make for bad law. Geronimo Sy – RA 10175. Now Ricardo Blancaflor – for input to HB 47, amending RA 8293.
Seriously, WTF? Ano ito – legislation being used to shore up administrative turf?