Republic
Of The Philippines
Arellano
University School of Law
Technology
and the Law
(Atty.
Michael Vernon Guerrero y Mendiola)
Is
the Explanation of Malacanang to the relevant amendments in R.A.
10372 accurate?
The
Govenment is view of the enactment of R.A. 10372 which effectively
amended certain provisions Republic Act 8293 otherwise known as the
intellectual property code released FAQ’s (Frequently Asked
Questions) in the Government website.1
The Following are as follows.
- Am I still allowed to import books and DVD’s and CD’s from abroad?
The government responded . “Yes.
In fact, the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code have
removed the original limitation of three copies when bringing
legitimately acquired copies of copyrighted material into the
country. Only the importation of pirated or infringed material is
illegal. As long as they were legally purchased, you can bring as
many copies you want, subject to Customs regulations.” 2
Now
we dissect the government’s sentiments regarding this particular
matter, there is a need first to compare the provisions pertaining to
importation in Republic Act 8293 and its amendment in Republic Act
10372. The main provision which deals with the importation of
products from foreign countries in the old law is section 190.1
,190.2 (importation for personal purposes). But under section 14 of
Republic Act 10372, section 190.1 and 190.2 was deleted. There is now
a grey area pertaining to the importation of books, articles and any
object that has been subjected to copyright. Section’s 190.1 and
190.2 are not only limitations regarding the importation of
copyrighted objects from abroad but it also establishes rights, when
for instance a copyrighted object maybe the object of importation if
the copies does consist more than three copies and its usage is for
religous, charitable as well as educational institution. Another
situation is if such imporation of a copyrighted object is for
individual use only provided that it is not more than one copy. Now
since the provisions has been deleted, it goes without saying that
the previous exemptions provided under section 190 Republic Act 8293
are already abrogated and thus imporation of books and other
copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright owner is
illegal.
“Some
speakers believe that the the deletion is inconsequential because the
right to import copyrighted materials previously granted under the
Sections 190.1 and 190.2 is also covered and governed under the
existing provisions on fair use under Section 185.1. However, even if
bringing in of IP works for personal use is indeed covered under the
provision on fair use, the amendment exposes consumers to airport
inconvenience brought about by the possible differences of
interpretation on the part of the enforcement officers.”
3
The
answer of the government therefore in question no.1 posted in its
website is highly debatable. It is a basic tennet in statutory
construction supported by plethora of cases decided by the Supreme
Court that if a particular provision is deleted it is therefore the
intention of congress to disallow the operation of such provisions.
It is therefore concluded that when congress effectively deleted the
section 190.1 and 190.2, all statutory rights granted by it are
deemed suspended. However as discussed buy this article 4
section
190.3 was retained. Note the however the amendments to section 190 in
Republic Act 10372
“Section
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 of
infringing articles prohibited under Part
IV of this Act and
under relevant 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.
[Note: the underscored portions are the amendments]”5
We
therefore read this provision as an express delegation by the
congress to the specified branches of the executive to exercise quasi
legislative power regarding the importation and exportation of
copyrighted objects previously discussed in section 190.1 and 190.2.
We may interpret this as a way for congress to give this departments
greater leeway in implementing the copyright laws of the country.
Since according to the Supreme Court upon the evolution of human
interaction; society itself become more complex that it is almost
impossible for congress to foresee all possibe situations, this
resulted therefore to a trend where congress delegates to the branch
of government the power to legislate such as the implementing rules
and regulations.
- Is the reproduction of copyrighted material for personal purposes punishable by this law?
No.
Infringement in this context refers to the economic rights of the
copyright owner. So, if you transfer music from a lawfully acquired
CD into a computer, then download it to a portable device for
personal use, then you didn’t commit infringement. But if, for
example, you make multiple copies of the CD to sell, then
infringement occurs.7
The
government in their answer relative to the second question asseverate
that the one being violated is the economic rights of the owner.
Indeed there is no specific provision that make it a criminal
violation for users to reproduce copyrighted material for personal
use. But in reading the provisions of republic act 10372 it seems
that the copyrighted owner may file other remedies and a civil case
for infringement against the user who reproduced the questioned
copyrighted material, since acording to section 203.2 of Republic act
10372 in quoting the provision “the right of authorizing the direct
and the indirect reproduction of their performances fixed in sound
recordings or audio visual works or fixations in any manner or form”.
By
reading the provision therefore it maybe implied that it is a
condition sine quo non for the copyright owner to give his/her
consent in the direct or indirect reproduction of performances fixed
in sound recordings, audio visual works or fixations in any form. The
emphasis to this provision is the phrase “unauthorize reproduction
in any form”. The provision does not qualify what the purpose for
such reproduction, it maybe for personal use, for educational purpose
or religous performance or selling. The prohibitions stays regardless
of the motiviation for the reproduction. It may therefore be
concluded that the prohibition stays even if the original comes from
a legitimate source where the copy comes from.
By
the facts stated above therefore, I partially accept the government’s
views. Indeed there is no criminal liability regargding this matter.
But the conclusion presented by the government is misleading and
incomplete. True there is no criminal liability, but the copyright
owner may file a case for illegal reproduction since according to the
provision stated above it is within the copyright owner’s right to
authorize or not to authorize the reproduction of his copyrighted
material in any manner or form. So the contention that if a CD’s
content is copied and transferred into another medium which resulted
in the transfer of such content to another device, it is of my humble
opinion that it constitutes reproduction within the contemplation of
the section 203.2 of Republic Act 10372 upon which a case for
infringement may be initiated.
Nothwitstanding
however the prohibition on unauthorized reproduction, Republic Act
10372 provided for an exception under section 13(former section 188.1
of R.A. 8293) the law provides that persons who’s activities are
not for profit, example's of which are libraries and archives may
without the authorization of the copyright owner make limited number
of copies of the work. Another example is the production of copies
where the original is lost destroyed or rendered unusable, etc.
- Is the possession of, for example, a music file procured through an infringing activity a violation of this law?
Only
if it can be proven that the person benefitting from the music file
has knowledge of the infringement, and the power and ability to
control the person committing the infringement.
It
is very clear from the provision of Republic Act No. 10372 section 22
thereof that a person may be held liable for infringement if he/she
has direct personal knowledge and such person benefits from such
infringement thereof. Under R.A. 10372 there is no specific provision
which expressly prohibits the possesion of a music file procured thru
infringinging activity. However under section 22 of the same law,
persons who directly benefit from an infringing activity of another
person maybe held liable provided that such person has been given
notice and has the right to control the activities of the other
person. A person may also be held liable if upon his knowledge of the
infringing activity induces or contributes to the infringing conduct
of another.
However
since infringement carries with it a criminal penalty it is therefore
presumed that the same rules on criminal actions are applied. Since
knowledge that a particular item came from or a product of illegal
acts, such person having knowledge of such illegal acts and directly
benefits thereof may be held liable as an accessory for the crime of
infringement.
“Section
22(former section 216 of R.A. 8293) turns internet service providers
into cops Another
new section now makes it possible to stop individuals from
downloading from torrents that foreign companies have tagged as
illegal download centers. Section
216 of
R.A. 8293 will
now make Internet Service Providers (ISPs) liable if they are
notified that a customer is downloading from such torrents sites and
they do not do anything about it. The
wording of the law makes it unfair to ISPs because no prior notice is
necessary:
“There’s
this copyrighted material. This law says you benefit (from the
download) because you sell bandwidth. The moment they (the IPO)
notify them (ISPs) of that, they are committing copyright
infringement. That’s unfair to the service provider.”8
According to one author (raisa
robles) relatively mall owners may also be held liable if for
example they have existing knowledge that some of their tenants are
in possesion of articles that have been downladed illegally from the
internet provided that they have control and supervisory power over
such tenants inside their premises. But such liability may only
attach if the buiding owner has working knowledge of such
infringement. The emphasis would be “knowledge of such
infringement” and such mall owner exercising control or supervisory
over their tenant fails to act upon it.
- Is jailbreaking or rooting my phone or device illegal?
No.
Jailbreaking or rooting by themselves are not illegal. However,
downloading pirated material, or committing infringement with a
“jailbroken” phone increases the penalty and damages imposed on
the person found guilty of infringement.
The
government mainatains the position that indeed jailbreaking is not
illegal per se, however the act of downloading a pirated material is
the one that is illegal. That may be so, the governments position
regarding this matter has some semblance of truth, jailbreaking your
iphone is not illegal per se, using your jailbreaked iphone however
to download infringed application constitutes infringements. But such
position of the government is somewhat misplaced, majority of people
who modify their device like jailbreaking of an iPhone, their
intention is to acquire the infringed application for free, this
infact causes or induces people to commit acts of infringement.
If
for example a store owner offers services like modifying your phone
so that the application that the user of such mobile device
previously pays over the application, and such modification will make
such application for free, then such store owner maybe held liable
for copyright infringement under section 22(section 216(c)) of
Republic Act 10372. As this practice induces or contributes to the
infringing act of another.
However according to one article,
“”Under
this new law, once you modify a device (for instance
“jailbreaking” an Apple product such as an iPhone or iPad) in
order to remove restrictions on what and how apps and content can be
stored and used — you can be held criminally liable for ”copyright
infringement.” The amended version introduces for the first time in
our criminal law the concept of “digital rights management” (DRM)
– which also covers how we use digital devices on the Internet and
which behaviors are considered criminal.
Penalties
for “jailbreaking” and other forms of copyright infringement
range from three years in jail and at least P150,000 for the first
offense, and up to nine years in jail and P1.5 million pesos for the
third and subsequent offenses.”9
In
section 23(amended secttion 217.2) of Republic Act 10372 provides for
penalties of if the defendant provided for the circumvention of the
effctive technology measures, removal alterations of any electronic
rights management information from a copy of a work. In reading this
provision indeed the penalty provision provides for acts of
infringement upon mere circumvention of effective technological
measures and/or removal or alteration of any electronic rights
management. I respectfully opine that section 23 (amended section
217.2) effectively criminalizes the act of jailbreaking. Jailbreaking
in my opinion is a technology measure that will effectively
circumvent all security features of the phone inorder for its user to
download the application for free.
- Are mall owners liable for infringement activities of their tenants?
Mall
owners are not automatically penalized for the infringing acts of
their tenants. When a mall owner or lessor finds out about an
infringement activity, he or she must give notice to the tenant, then
he or she will be afforded time to act upon this knowledge. As stated
above, the law requires that one must have both proven knowledge of
the infringement, and the ability to control the activities of the
infringing person, to be held liable. The mall owner must also have
benefited from the infringement.
As
previously discussed under section 22( section 216) of Republic act
10372, the enumeration are the acts that constitutes infringement. I
agree with the government’s position pertaining to its answer to
question number 5. The mall owners are not automatically penalized
for the infringement acts by their tenants, the prosecution must
first establish that the said mall owners have knowledge of the
infringing acts and was benefitting from the same. If a government
office officially informed the mall owner that his/her tenants
exercises infringing acts to his establishment and such mall owner
fails to stop/ or prohibit such infringing acts, then there is a
presumption of knowledge of such infringing acts on the part of the
mall owner and that would make him accessory to such violation.
Inorder for the mall owner however to be liable they must have the
right and ability to control the activities of the infringer. By
virtue of an agreement it is presumed that the mall owner and the
tenant incorporates upon their contract that all illegal activities
are prohibited. Infact it is deemed impliedly incorporated in every
contract that such contract will abide by the statutes of the
sovereign otherwise contracts that are contrary to law is void.
- Is it legal for the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to visit businesses to conduct searches based on reports, information, and complaints?
The
IPO may visit establishments based on reports and complaints; this in
itself is constitutional. However, if the IPO intends to perform a
search and seizure, it must comply with constitutional requirements,
such as having a search warrant. A warrant wouldn’t be required,
however, if the IPO is accompanied by the Bureau of Customs or the
Optical Media Board—two agencies that can perform a search and
seizure on their own right without a warrant (per Republic Act No.
1937 and 9239, respectively).
The
procedure and safeguards for this are to be spelled out in the
Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Under
section 2 (section 7(d) of Republic Act 10372, the director general
and deputies director general may conduct visits to establishements
and businesses engaging in activities violating intellectual
property rights based on report, information or complaint received. I
am greatly disturbed by this provision. What is therefore the
definition of visit? If for example the owner of the establishment or
a warehouse refuse to allow the deputies to enter their premises will
such warehouses owner be liable criminally? Indeed the bureau of
customs and the optical media board may conduct search and seizure in
their own right subject to specific limitation, nonethless the
provision giving the director general and its deputies power to
conduct searches and seizures without a warrant makes it
constitutionally unacceptable.
“Notwithstanding
the fact that IPRs are private rights, now we have the
much-talked-about IP Code amendments giving powers to the Director
General and the Deputies Director General of Intellectual Property
Office (IPO) to undertake enforcement functions with the support of
the PNP, NBI, Bureau of Customs, Optical Media Board and the local
government units, among others and in addition, these same people
will now be able to conduct visits during reasonable hours to
establishments and businesses engaging in activities violating
intellectual property rights and provisions of this act based on
report, information or complaint received by the Intellectual
Property Office.”
10
“Prof.
JJ Disini of the University of the Philippines College of Law
characterizes this latter set of powers as warrantless searches which
are unconstitutional, but what we will highlight is that this
enforcement function makes the IPO officials both judge and
executioner of the cases involving violations of IPRs and this is
what makes it problematic.“11
Indeed
the powers granted to optical media board to conduct inspections and
lawful searches are confined to specified places, while in section
2(section 7(d) as long as there is a report and a complaint by the
office then the IPO office may conduct inspection regardless of the
place. This provision is indeed in my opinion highly controversial
and I doubt its constitutionality. It will violate right of the
people against unreasonable searches and seizures
“Section
2. The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.”12
End
Notes:
- Section 2 article 3 of the constitution (http://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html)
Disclaimer:
This blog is for academic purposes only. I am not a lawyer nor pretending to be one. This article does not reflect the view of Arellano University School of law nor My professor Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero y Mendiola.
Author: Aedler Jo-Lean Atutubo