• Home
  • About me
  • My Privacy Policy

Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Amended IP Code “disadvantageous” to students, teachers, researchers – says copyright expert-lawyer Ping Peria

February 16, 2013

Share:
Twitter0
Facebook0
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

Intellectual-Property---pos

A few weeks ago, writing about amendments to RA 8293 was farthest from my mind. RA 8293 is a mind-bending law. I was drawn to the story when my hubby Alan told me about a post written by Winthrop Yu on Facebook.

Yu, the senior vice-president for advocacies of the Philippine Internet Commerce Society, said:

Yu was referring to Congress’ approval of amendments to RA 8293, which only Interaksyon seems to have monitored. Here is a link to their story. By the way, the “Al” whom Yu was referring to in his Facebook post is Al Alegre, Executive Director of the Foundation for Media Alternatives.

That was what started me wading through the legal jungle that is RA 8293. I had a lot of help from:

  • Alan who has lectured on Internet Politics in Berlin for many years;
  • Harvard University law graduate JJ Disini, who teaches Technology and the Law at the University of the Philippines College of Law;
  • Ricardo Blancaflor, Director General of the Intellectual Property Office;
  • as well as from two other senior lawyers at the IPO who asked not to be named.

I will try to explain and elaborate on what they all told me and they are free to correct me.

Amended IP Code has negative impact on education sector

But first, let me mention a very important update from a lawyer who has closely been following copyright developments here and abroad for years.  Atty. Elpidio V. Peria is an expert on the subject and is the Executive Director of Biodiversity, Innovation, Trade and Society (BITS) Policy Center, Inc. based in General Santos City.

He was among those I wanted to interview on the amendments to RA 8293 but he was busy.

I’m glad that today, he posted on his foundation website how the IP Code amendments will be “disadvantageous  to ordinary users, students and researchers.”

Atty. Ping Peria wrote:

What about (the impact on)  students and researchers? On this I remember my son in Philippine Science High School in Davao City who had failing grades in one subject once and when I asked him, he said he cannot cope with the reading requirements as they were limited from photocopying in their library the required readings in class to only ten (10) pages per day, the assigned readings are usually more than the ten (10) pages limit and the queue is very long for photocopying oftentimes he didn’t bother queuing. I raised this in a Parent’s meeting one time and I said that the school should prioritize the learning of the students above all else and the respect of intellectual property rights of the authors of books will have to come later after they have graduated and they can afford to buy these books on their own, after all there is a long-standing principle in copyright law called fair use.

But lo and behold, now I cannot say that anymore as, with these amendments to the IP Code, the right to fair use of students and researchers has been limited. When before, the right to fair use to make “multiple” copies for classroom use, scholarship, research and similar purposes is not considered an infringement of copyright, that word “multiple” is now replaced with the word “limited”, and who sets this limitation, it is the Intellectual Property Office.

The Intellectual Property Office explained that there is no problem with the word “limited” as they can set the number of how many these are in the implementing rules and regulations to take into account the concerns of the copyright holders and the users, students and researchers.

But that is not the point of the provision of the law on fair use since the amendment shifts the power to make that decision on the copyright holder and the Intellectual Property Office. The previous wording of the law, the word “multiple”, gives to the user, student and researchers the right without even the permission of the copyright holder and the Intellectual Property Office, to make such reproduction or copying as that is the nature of the right of fair use.

Atty. Peria was referring to the amendments in Section 185.1 [highlighted in red]:

Sec. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. –185.1 The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple limited number of 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 a computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use under the criteria established by this section, to the extent that such decompilation is done for the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to achieve such inter-operability.

To read the rest of Atty. Peria’s highly authoritative piece, please click on this link. 

Why Congress erased your right to bring home books, software, music and movies

And now, to resume where I left off in Part 1 of  my  piece entitled – Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad.

Let me start by talking about the right of every Filipino overseas to bring back home legally acquired books, software, music and movie DVDs and CDs. This has been enshrined in the Intellectual Property Code for the last 15 years under Section 190.1 of RA 8293.

This is now gone:

Section 190. Importation for Personal Purposes. –

190.1. Notwithstanding the provision of Subsection 177.6, but subject to the limitation under the Subsection 185.2, the importation of a copy of a work by an individual for his personal purposes shall be permitted without the authorization of the author of, or other owner of copyright in, the work under the following circumstances:

(a) When copies of the work are not available in the Philippines and:

(i) Not more than one (1) copy at one time is imported for strictly individual use only;

or
(ii) The importation is by authority of and for the use of the Philippine Government;

or
(iii) The importation, consisting of not more than three (3) such copies or likenesses in any one invoice, is not for sale but for the use only of any religious, charitable, or educational society or institution duly incorporated or registered, or is for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for any state school, college, university, or free public library in the Philippines.

(b) When such copies form parts of libraries and personal baggage belonging to persons or families arriving from foreign countries and are not intended for sale: Provided, That such copies do not exceed three (3).

190.2. Copies imported as allowed by this Section may not lawfully be used in any way to violate the rights of owner the copyright or annul or limit the protection secured by this Act, and such unlawful use shall be deemed an infringement and shall be punishable as such without prejudice to the proprietor’s right of action.

Section 190.1, under the law now awaiting President Aquino’s signature, is all gone.

I asked DG Blancaflor why they felt the need to remove this particular section

Blancaflor replied:

Our approach has always been ‘international exhaustion of economic rights’. It’s not as if we took it out of the air. We have treaty obligations in effect.

This is how a lower-ranking IPO official explained the concept of ‘international exhaustion of economic rights’ to me and why this particular section had to be deleted from RA 8293 (the emphases are mine):

In the copyright world, there are two kinds of exhaustion – ‘international exhaustion’ and ‘national exhaustion’. Under the principle of international exhaustion, “when a copyrighted work has been sold or distributed the copyright owner’s right over that work becomes exhausted. Once you sell the book, the buyer can do anything with that book. He can sell it again or destroy it.

Once you have publicly distributed or sold your copyrighted work anywhere in the world, your rights are exhausted. Another person (anywhere in the world) can import it (under the principle of international exhaustion).

In contrast, under the principle of national exhaustion, “the distribution should happen here in the country itself. This means, the right (of a foreign copyright owner) will not be exhausted unless the book is sold here in the Philippines.

Some people are suggesting that because of Sections 190.1 and 190.2 there is an implication of national exhaustion. Which means once a copyright owner distributes his work in some other countries in the world, unless it hasn’t been distributed in the Philippines, then importing it (to Manila) is illegal.

The work has to be sold in the Philippines for the rights to be exhausted…Some sectors claim therefore that we are adopting the national exhaustion principle, therefore they have a right of importation by implication.

When I asked which sectors he was referring to, the source said:

There was some clamor from some sectors to add exhaustion as part of the economic rights (of copyright owners). Our take is that the international treaties like those of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency which administers treaties) gives member countries of WIPO the flexibility as to the exhaustion principle that states may adopt. To us, it would be to the benefit of the Philippines if we adopt a liberal exhaustion principle – which is international exhaustion.

Those two (deleted) provisions will simply generate controversy – whether or not there is right of importation (by the copyright holder).

If any other country produces (the same) work at a cheaper price, we can legally import it.

To explain how this works, the source gave the following example.  Suppose a very expensive medical book was published in the US and suppose the publisher licensed someone in India to reprint the same and sell these at a much lower price in India. Invoking the principle of “international exhaustion“, someone in the Philippines can now import these legitimate Indian reprints of the same book.

On the surface, the prospects of obtaining cheaper imported books not only in medicine  but also in engineering and other specialized fields sound very attractive.

But UP Law professor notes how foreign copyright holders can stop cheaper imports of their products

However, Prof. Disini outlined for me another scenario which would defeat the very purpose for deleting Section 190.1 and stop  importation of cheaper books.  He said:

The amendments to RA 8293 say the Secretary of Finance can issue rules regulating or prohibiting the importation of infringing articles. The question is, how do you know what is infringing and what is not? If you are the Bureau of Customs, you won’t know.

What could happen is, if you are a foreign book publisher, you can send a letter to the Bureau of Customs and say:

‘We don’t allow anyone except our exclusive distributor to import these books into the Philippines. On that basis, if anybody imports, it’s in violation of the license we gave. We don’t allow anyone of our licensees to export books except us.’

From the standpoint of the Bureau of Customs, when something arrives – even if authentic but if it does not come from the publisher, they can block it.

Another example – Microsoft could send Customs a letter –

‘We don’t allow the any importation of any Microsoft products into the country because our license prohibits the end users from importing the same.’

Once Customs has been informed there are certain products that cannot be imported except by certain persons identified by the publisher or copyright owner – if somebody importing is not the identified as the authorized party, then the copyright owners can claim that the material is infringing.

I’m not saying that automatically, these (amended) provisions will result in that. But if used properly in the way I outlined, it could lead to that.

If Section 190.1 and 190.2 were still there, I could say ‘ I don’t care. Under the law I’m allowed.’ Now (under the amended law) you can no longer say it.

It’s different when you have a right that’s written down. When Congress amends a law, removing certain privileges or rights from you, the presumption is that it was removed intentionally. It was the intention of Congress to deny you that right.

Prof. Disini noted that the Philippines already allows parallel importation even without deleting Section 190.1. He said this can be seen by the fact that importation of used books for local resale is allowed.

However, he reiterated that under the amended law, foreign copyright owners could write Customs to block the importation of their own books coming in as used books. Unless, he said, “the Secretary of Finance will ensure that parallel importation will be preserved.”

The words ‘personal purpose’ were deleted from the IP Code

The IPO source I talked to claimed that even under the amended law,  Filipinos flying into Manila can still bring in books, music and movies “so long as (they’re) for personal use, only because we have the fair use provision.”

There’s just one problem with the source’s explanation . Nowhere does the updated law mention importation for personal use as part of the fair use clause.

Section 184 lists specific instances that fall under the fair use clause:

CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT

Section 184. Limitations on Copyright. – 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:

(a) The recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious institution or society; (Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49)

(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No. 49)

(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 49)

(d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;

(f) The recording made in schools, universities, or educational institutions of a work included in a broadcast for the use of such schools, universities or educational institutions: Provided, That such recording must be deleted within a reasonable period after they were first broadcast: Provided, further, That such recording may not be made from audiovisual works which are part of the general cinema repertoire of feature films except for brief excerpts of the work;

(g) The making of ephemeral recordings by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and for use in its own broadcast;

(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is compatible with fair use;

(i) The public performance or the communication to the public of a work, in a place where no admission fee is charged in respect of such public performance or communication, by a club or institution for charitable or educational purpose only, whose aim is not profit making, subject to such other limitations as may be provided in the Regulations; (n)

(j) Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title; and

(k) Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or for the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner.

 

Section 185 defines 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.

Notice that this list does not include “personal purpose” or personal enjoyment.

Section 212 is the only other section which states that “personal purpose” is part of fair use. But again, that section was deleted by Congress and replaced with something that no longer includes “personal purpose” as part of fair use. Below is the deleted section:

CHAPTER XV
LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTION

Section 212. Limitations on Rights. – Sections 203, 208 and 209 shall not apply where the acts referred to in those Sections are related to:

212.1. The use by a natural person exclusively for his own personal purposes;

212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events;

212.3. Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scientific research; and

212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions under Section 185. (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 49a)

I asked the IPO source why there was no more mention of importation for personal purpose listed under “fair use”. He suggested I talk to DG Blancaflor to get an official statement on the matter.

Here is how my interview with DG Blancaflor went:

R: Why did you remove Sections 190.1 and 190.2?

Blancaflor: Our approach has always been international exhaustion of economic rights. It’s not as if we took it out of the air. We have treaty obligations in effect.

R:What if a balikbayan or OCW comes home with a suitcase full of his personal collection of music CDs and DVD movies. Will he be stopped at the airport and his collection seized?

Blancaflor: I will have to answer specific cases. Case to case. I cannot– I have to make a disclaimer especially with those kinds of questions. The defense might use it. I will have to discuss each case.

I’m now in the position that I make official statements for IPO. If it comes out, that there’s a case filed within our office, that official statement of mine might be used by one party against the other.

If you can formally write me.

R: But can you just explain why those sections were deleted? Atty. (name withheld upon request) already explained to me the principle of international exhaustion.

Blancaflor: We are following international obligations of international exhaustion. Of economic rights.

If there is evidence to the effect it is properly bought, we cannot rule infringement.

R: Can they be questioned at the airport?

Blancaflor: No of course not. We are looking at certain items like optical media products which are governed by other laws. There are rules on that one.

R: Why did RA 8293 give Filipinos flying in a specific exemption? That they can bring home copyright materials – and that includes books, movies and music – as part of their personal baggage?

Blancaflor: When we introduced this (new amendment) 10 years ago, there was a move from external rights holders – from foreign rights holders of music – what they wanted was – for somebody to bring in goods, these should pass through them. In other words, (under the principle of) national exhaustion. That would explain why that section was removed.

This time, you asked me – What happens now if you bring in? As long as it’s not infringed. If it’s properly bought.

In the old law there was an insinuation of national exhaustion. We are for the intelligent norm of international exhaustion. As long as you have to prove – it’s legal – we will not rule against it. We have now removed the insinuation of national exhaustion. It even strengthens their position if they can prove they legally bought it.

R: But under the present RA 8293, they don’t even have to prove that. They have the privilege to bring in their personal baggage, no questions asked.

Blancaflor: You know – we have to – the Customs (Bureau) is part of our national committee on intellectual property rights. We can easily come out with a directive – that is the least of our worries.

R: They would be open to extortion at the airport

Blancaflor: I wish people would not draw conclusions that Customs will use this to milk people. They should read the law in its entirety. That portion was deleted to erase once and for all (the insinuation of national exhaustion).

It allows parallel importation. If I will buy that book from the US, under Section 190.1, I’m only limited to three… We removed Section 190 because we wanted to follow international exhaustion. Here (under the present RA 8293), you are only limited to (bringing in) three copies.

If you bring in five or six (books) so long as you are able to prove you properly bought it (you can do so under the amended RA 8293).

Whether we like it or not, our state of development is still low. We are still heavy on books.

If you have (Section)  190, then we can’t have parallel importation of books. Because you will exceed three. We removed that. These are what you call exceptions to the general law of copyright.

Under 190 (of RA 8293) if you exceed three or four, you are already liable. (Under the amended RA 8293) We are now allowing parallel importation.

From DG Blancaflor’s explanation, I get the following sense.

First, the government wants to encourage parallel importation of cheaper books. It says the only way it can do so is to delete Section 190.1 which expressly allows individual importation for personal purpose. The government wants to encourage bulk importation by formal entities and not by individuals.

Second, the government says it can write a directive allowing Filipinos coming from abroad to still bring home books, music and movies in their personal baggage.

However, in my view, such a directive can always be quietly modified or even erased later on. Besides, how can the government do the second thing – write a directive – when the lawmakers inserted the following additional amendment that “prevents” importation or exportation of “prohibited” materials”:

SEC. 190. IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF INFRINGING MATERIALS – Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation OR EXPORTATION [underlining mine] of articles the importation OR EXPORTATION of which is prohibited under this ACT and under treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported OR BEFORE THEY ARE EXPORTED. (Sec. 30, P.D. No. 49)

As Professor Disini observed in my separate interview with him:

You already have an explicit right, then you make that right silent. Why did Congress remove that right when you had that right before? On what basis can you put that (right back) in the IRR (Implementing Rules and Regulations) when Congress removed that right?.

To illustrate the impact of removing Section 190.1, Prof. Disini gave one of his relative as an example:

At the height of his loneliness, he buys music CDs. In a matter of one year, he bought 200 CDs at US$15 each. If he wants to bring home the CDs, under Section 190.1, he could. Now it’s not anymore clear if he can. Now he can be stopped at the airport and told it’s not allowed. I’m almost certain he won’t be allowed. That was the beauty of Section 190.1.

 

My take on the deletions

In my years of covering lawmakers, I have observed that they can balance competing interests if they want to. A law is often the result of such balancing acts. And they find the words to do that.

I am pretty sure that given the brain power in the Senate, the senators could have found a way to convey the idea that the Philippines follows the principle of international exhaustion BUT at the same time recognizes the right of every Filipino to physically bring home copyright material obtained overseas for personal purpose.

Frankly, I don’t see any contradiction between the two. It can be argued that by buying such copyright material abroad, Filipinos have in fact internationally exhausted the economic right of the original copyright holder.

One of the perks of working and traveling overseas is buying books, music and movies that would never be available in Manila. Now, we all will have to worry whether such items could be questioned at the airport or restricted in the future by directive.

DG Blancaflor said deleting Section 190.1 is meant to be able to import academic and highly specialized books more cheaply. However, Prof. Disini has pointed out how deleting Section 190.1 could in fact discourage parallel importation.

Who is right in this case?

And what about software, including  digital games as well as game consoles bought abroad?

Amending RA 8293 was meant to take us off the US 301 Watch List

I just learned Friday night that one of the IPO’s underlying reasons for asking Congress to delete Section 190.1 was in order to persuade the US government to drop the Philippines from the 301 Watch List.

Below is the 2012 report of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) listing what it claims are the Philippines’ intellectual property rights violations.

It shows that the USTR leaned on our government to amend RA 8293.

But even if we amend it, would that be enough to get us off the 301 Watch List?

I highly doubt it, because  the USTR has a lengthy list of laws it wants us to amend.

Among them is the law that they say “limit(s) the patentability of certain chemical forms unless the applicant demonstrates increased efficacy.” This is the law that prevents foreign pharmaceuticals from extending their patent on drugs just by  tweaking the drug formula a little.

Below is the entire list of things-to-do that the USTR requires in order for our country to be removed from the 301 Watch List:

Philippines

The Philippines remains on the Watch List in 2012. The United States is encouraged by the significant decline in the incidence of unauthorized camcording of motion pictures in theaters that followed the enactment of the Anti-Camcording Act of 2010. Philippine officials also improved enforcement efforts, leading to the closure of at least two significant notorious markets. In addition, the Philippine Supreme Court promulgated long-awaited IPR procedural rules in 2011. The United States is hopeful that effective implementation of these rules will help streamline the judicial process for IPR cases. The United States encourages the Philippines to strengthen the criminal enforcement of IPR by improving the quality of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Philippines should also clarify its procedures for obtaining provisional measures, including by improving predictability with respect to search and seizure orders. The United States urges the Philippines to enact long-pending legislation to amend its copyright law and ensure that it fully implements the WIPO Internet Treaties. The United States remains concerned about amendments to the Patent Law that limit the patentability of certain chemical forms unless the applicant demonstrates increased efficacy. The United States encourages the Philippines to provide an effective system for protecting against the unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States also remains concerned about policies that inhibit U.S. exports of IPR-intensive products to the Philippines, including measures that limit the market for imported pharmaceutical products. The United States looks forward to continuing to work with the Philippines to address these and other matters.

You can read more about the Watch List here.

If we accede to all these, what do Filipinos get in return?

Cheaper goods? Not likely.

Coming next: Part 3 – this will take some time because I first have to finish my other writing assignments, which were interrupted by this topic :) 

Tagged With: Atty. Elpidio V. Peria, Executive Director of Biodiversity, Inc, Innovation, Intellectual Property Code or RA 8293, IPO Director General Ricardo Blancaflor, Trade and Society (BITS) Policy Center, UP Law Professor and Internet and the Law expert JJ Disini

Comments

  1. Mel says

    February 26, 2013 at 7:31 PM

    OFF TOPIC but relevant –

    Google to do battle with Spain’s data protection authority

    Reuters
    Posted at 02/26/2013 6:41 PM
    Updated as of 02/26/2013 6:41 PM

    BRUSSELS – Google will do battle with Spain’s data protection authority in Europe’s highest court on Tuesday in a landmark case with global implications which poses one of the thorniest questions of the Internet age: When is information really private?

    The issue before the European Court of Justice has been boiled down to this poser: If a person fails to pay social security contributions and their house is auctioned off as a result, do they have the right to ask Google to delete such damaging information from search results?

    Behind that lies complex arguments over freedom of information, the right to protect data, what it means to be a publisher and who ultimately polices the web.

    Lawyers for Google will argue the search engine company should not have to erase lawful content which it did not create from its massive search index.

    Spanish officials will argue that Google should delete information from its index where an individual’s privacy is breached.

    Tuesday’s hearing in Luxembourg opens arguments but it could be nine months to a year before a ruling is handed down.

    It is based on a complaint made by a Spanish man who made a Google search using his name and uncovered an announcement in a newspaper from several years earlier saying a property he owned was up for auction because of non-payment of social security.

    One of Spain’s top courts, the Audiencia Nacional, upheld his complaint and ruled Google should delete the information from its results. The case was referred to the Court of Justice in March last year after Google challenged the decision.

    Supporters say that if Google is asked to delete such information it will create a slippery slope leading to all sorts of data being deleted for spurious reasons, and it would essentially make Google the responsible party.

    CONTROLLER OR HOST?

    The European court will try to determine if Google can be considered the “controller” or just a host of information. It will also assess whether a search engine run by a company based in California such as Google can be subject to EU privacy law.

    Spain’s data regulator has said EU judges must consider if EU citizens have to go to U.S. courts to exercise their privacy rights and whether Google “is responsible for the damage the diffusion of personal information can cause for citizens”.

    The hearing will also test a draft European law that aims to strengthen citizens’ privacy. The rules proposed by the European Commission in 2012 and being debated by the European Parliament would give people “the right to be forgotten” – that is, the right to have personal data deleted, in particular from the web.

    The proposal has sparked sharp criticism from industry experts who say Internet content could be manipulated at the expense of freedom of speech if such a principle were to be enshrined in European law.

    In a blog, Google’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, said such a right created false expectations.

    “I regularly hear requests from people to ‘remove all references to me, Mrs. X, from the Internet’,” Fleischer said, adding that he was expressing his own views, not the company’s.

    “No law can or should provide such a right,” he said.

    Spain referred the case to the EU’s highest court to clarify how the EU draft law should be applied, particularly in relation to Google. It said the outcome of the hearing would be relevant not only in Spain but in all EU countries.

    Spain’s data protection agency said almost 200 verdicts in similar cases had been challenged in the Audiencia Nacional.

    SOURCE: www abs-cbnnews com/business/tech-biz/02/26/13/google-do-battle-spains-data-protection-authority

  2. Martial Bonifacio says

    February 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM

    Off-Topic:
    Post ko lang po itong article na ito baka sakaling magising si Sec. Voltaire Gazmin at si Lt. Gen Bautista at kumilos laban sa mga terroristang tulad ng CPP-NPA-NDF.

    Naaalala ko pa yung sinabi ni Lt. Gen. Bautista na gagawin niyang “irrelevant” ang mga komunistang grupo nung siya ay maluklok na mamuno sa AFP.

    Kaso sa ngayon wala pa akong nakikitang hakbang na ginawa niya laban sa mga rebelde.

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/152845/unangbalita/ilang-pag-atake-ng-npa-naitala-sa-iba-t-ibang-lugar-sa-bansa-mula-enero

    Bagkus sunod sunod ang mga krimen na ginagawa ng mga rebelde samantalang wala pa rin nahuhuli. Samantala ang Palasyo naman ay mukhang magpapatalo sa mga demands ng rebelde kahit kaliwat-kanan ang mga krimen na ginagawa nila :(

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/362507/palace-mulls-release-of-political-prisoners-to-revive-talks-with-communist-rebels

    Note:
    CHR kahit may civilian na napatay tulog na naman sa pansitan :(

  3. Martial Bonifacio says

    February 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM

    @Raissa another interview regarding IP Law (Atty. Louie Calvario and Atty. JJ Disini).

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/295875/scitech/technology/new-ip-law-to-liberalize-right-to-personal-use-not-remove-it-ipophl

    • raissa says

      February 20, 2013 at 11:47 PM

      Thanks.

      • Cha says

        February 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM

        In the interview, Calvario said:

        “Actually ang batas ngayon nagkakaroon ka ng implied importation right ‘dun sa copyright holder. Ibig sabihin ‘nun, ‘pag magdadala ka rito ng copyrighted materials even for personal use, ang general rule is dapat magpaalam ka muna sa copyright owner.”
         
        With the “importation right” removed, “balikbayans” may enjoy their right to do what they want with the copyrighted material as the buyers.”

        So, will the Bureau of Customs then remove DVDs and CDs from the List of Regulated Articles that Require Import Permit/ Clearances when the amended RA 8293 becomes a law? Is Calvario willing to commit to that?

        http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php?title=BureauofCustomsRegulations,Duty-freePrivileges,CustomDeclaration&func=all&pid=1484&tbl=1

        http://www.philippine-embassy.org.sg/laws-policies/customs-passenger-guidelines/

        • Cha says

          February 21, 2013 at 3:15 PM

          P.S.

          The list of regulated articles referred to apply to items brought in by travelers to the Phiippines, not through other importation channels.

        • raissa says

          February 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM

          Hmmm.

          Must ask him.

  4. Mel says

    February 20, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    OFF-TOPIC

    Hubris: Selling the Iraq War – MSNBC Documentary FULLY Revealed by Rachel Maddow

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VEGhcaw3AQ&feature=player_embedded

    • Mel says

      February 20, 2013 at 7:03 PM

      —

      Is this “The biggest foreign policy deception and disaster in modern US History”?

      Who says that History can not repeat itself. For now, one mainstream media took the cudgel to expose the deception. What was an omission, it is now coming out in the mainstream.

      • leona says

        February 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

        My my…exposing the deception that on the ‘evidence’ gathered was not too good to be true! Is this all too good to be true or false? Thanks @Mel.

        • Mel says

          March 1, 2013 at 5:05 PM

          Media Fakes War Propaganda | Weapons of Mass Distraction

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b0vTmsbU_tA#!&feature=player_embedded

    • Mel says

      February 20, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      Former Powell chief of staff ‘damn sure the Bush administration cooked the books’ on Iraq By Stephen C. Webster. Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:40 EST

      • Mel says

        March 5, 2013 at 8:41 PM

        Speech on Iraq WMD for UNSC blot on my record: Powell
        Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:22PM

        Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has expressed deep regret over his remarks at the UN Security Council (UNSC) in support of waging the 2003 war against Iraq, describing his statements as a stain on his professional reputation.

        In his new book titled It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership, which is scheduled to be distributed next month, Powell alludes to his speech at the UNSC on February 5, 2003, in which he detailed George W. Bush administration’s fabricated report about purported Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, and described it as a blot on his record.

        The former US secretary of state has said in a recent interview that ever since he has realized that the information he received about the Iraq war had been fallacious, he has been asking himself what he could have done to end the US occupation of the country.

        In his defense, Powell said that he only had three days to analyze the data he had received in order to prepare his speech for the UNSC.

        In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding WMDs. But no such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq.

        More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored.

        Referring to the fabricated reports about Iraq’s stockpile of biological weapons and WMDs, Powell stated that he did not deliberately lie about the issue, but later it turned out that those weapons were being supplied by another country.

        SOURCE: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/04/291933/iraq-wmd-report-stained-my-reputation/
        Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:22PM

  5. Cha says

    February 20, 2013 at 11:55 AM

    About bringing books to the Philippines:

    Even with the current version of RA 8293 in force, the Bureau of Customs does not seem to be that much interested in posing restrictions on the books brought in by travellers to the country. Except, if they fall within any of the following two categories of restricted or prohibited items (as listed in the Bureau of Custom’s website):

    (2) Written or printed articles in any form containing any matter advocating or inciting treason, or rebellion, insurrection, sedition or subversion against the government of the Philippines, or containing any threat to take the life of, or inflict bodily harm upon any person in the Philippines.

    (3) Written or printed articles, negatives or cinematographic film, photographs, engravings, lithographs, objects, paintings, drawing or other representations of an obscene or immoral character.

    This is also what one will find included in the list of items that are not allowed to be brought into the Philippines on the Sydney Philippine Consulate website advisory on Bringing Personal Items into the Philippines. Other than this, there is no mention of a limit to the number of copies of a book that one can bring into the country from the Consulate website either for personal use or as donations.

    In fact, this is what the website says about donations:

    Any individual, group, or organization can send donations to the Philippines. To avail of duty-free entry of donations, certain conditions and requirements have to be complied with under existing rules and regulations governing the importation of donations. There are specific items which may be allowed duty-free entry, as there are organizations entities in the Philippines that are allowed to receive donations on a duty-free basis.

    o Goods or items which may be allowed duty-free entry by the Philippine government are the following:
    o Food items and non-food commodities for relief dispensing organizations;
    o Medicines and medical supplies/ equipment;
    o Books and other educational, scientific, or cultural materials;
    o Essential machinery and equipment, including spare parts and accessories thereof;
    o Essential consumer goods not available locally in times of calamities and/ or fortuitous events; and
    o Other articles in the interest of economic development, not included in the list of prohibited/ contraband and restricted/ regulated items issued by government agencies concerned subject to certain conditions.

    The Bureau seems to be more concerned (at the current time) about DVDs and CDs brought in by travelers.

    In the Customs Declaration form one accomplishes and presents upon arrival into the country, one of the questions is : (4) Are you bringing in prohibited items (firearms, ammunitions and part thereof, drugs, controlled chemicals) or regulated items (VCDs, DVDs, communication devices, transceivers).

    The Sydney consulate website does not mention these regulated items, but in the website of Philippine Embassy in Singapore , this is what I found:

    Regulated Articles That Require Import Permit / Clearances:

    Articles that need import / export permits and / or clearances and government agencies that issue them:

    -Live Animals and Meat- Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI)
    -Fruits and Plants- Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI)
    -Marine and Aquatic Products Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)
    -Firearms, Parts, Ammunition, etc. PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO)
    -VHS, Tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc. Optical Media Board (OMB)
    -TV, Movie, Film Print and
    Negatives, etc. Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)
    -Transceivers, Communication
    Equipments, etc. National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
    -Endangered Species Dept. of Environment and National Resources (DENR)
    -Medicines and the like Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD)

    Also mentioned in the Philippine Embassy – Singapore website as prohibited articles are those which violate the Intellectual Property Rights Code, R.A. 8293 (i.e., DVDs, VCDs, other imitation products). Again, books are not mentioned here.

    So books, even now are actually safe and easy to bring in.

    As for the DVDs and CDs, I wonder if they will now be taken off the list of regulated articles that require import permit/clearances when the amendments to RA 8293 become law, given what the IPO people have been saying about there now being no more restriction on the number of copies of DVDs and CDs that one can bring in for personal use?

    Sources:
    Bureau of Customs website
    Philippine Consulate in Sydney website
    Embassy of the Philippines-Singapore website

« Older Comments

Trackbacks

  1. IMPORTATION RIGHT OF FILIPINOS BASED ON TREATIES OR CONVENTIONS | encaminglaywer says:
    June 25, 2015 at 7:19 PM

    […] researchers – says copyright expert-lawyer Ping Peria. Exclusive by Raissa Robles. Retrieved from http://raissarobles.com/2013/02/16/amended-ip-code-disadvantageous-to-students-teachers-researchers-…. […]

  2. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE REMOVAL OF SECTIONS 190.1 AND 190.2 IN THE AMENDED LAW, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10372, WITH REGARD TO THE IMPORTATION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS | TO EACH HIS OWN says:
    June 1, 2015 at 6:18 AM

    […] http://raissarobles.com/2013/02/16/amended-ip-code-disadvantageous-to-students-teachers-researchers-… […]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist Then they came fof the Trade Unionists, and I did not out speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— And there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Subscribe to raissarobles.com

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from raissarobles.com:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

This blog uses MailChimp as a mass mailing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp but only for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Christopher “Bong” Go is a billionaire – Duterte

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NmX1Px57cI

Find more of my articles by typing here:

My Stories (2009 – Present)

Cyber-Tambayan on Twitter:

Tweets by raissawriter

Copyright © 2022 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Decline Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT