REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10372 AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293, OTHERWISE KBOWN AS “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.” AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Intellectual Property (IP) is a legal concept which refers to creations of the mind for which exclusive rights are recognized. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such phrases, symbols and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copy right, trade mark and Service Mark, Patents, industrial design rights, Layouts-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuit; Protection of Undisclosed Information; TRIPS.
The term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867 with the founding of the North German Confederation whose constitution granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (Schutz des geistigen Eigentums) to the confederation. When the administrative secretariats established by Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) merged in (1893), they located in Berne and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combine title, the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The organization subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960, and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) by traty as an agency of the United Nations. According to Lemley, it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention.
Republic Act No. 8293 An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office , Providing for its Powers and Functions, and for Other Purposes Part I The Intellectual Property Office.
Sec. I Title – This Act shall be known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended in Section 6, The Organizational Structure of the Intellectual Property Office.
Under Section 6.2 The Office shall be divided into seven (7) Bureau, each of which shall be headed by a Director and assisted by the Assistant Director. These Bureau are “xxx (f) The Administrative, Financial and Personnel Services Bureau, and (g) The Bureau of Copyright and Other Related Rights.”
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8293 is hereby amended. Section 7. The function of the Director General and Deputies Director General are as follows:
(b) Exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all decision rendered by the Director of Legal Affairs, the Director of Patents, the Director of Trademarks, the Director of Copyright and Other Related Rights, and the Director of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau. The decisions of the Director General in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decisions of the Director of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau shall appealable to the Secretary of Trade and Industry.
II. Statement of the Problems.
I. Is the explanation of Malacanang regarding amended of R. A. No. 10372 Intellectual Property Law accurate?
A. R.A. No. 10372 as Intellectual Property Law how will affect the government of the Philippines?
B. Is the argue in Intellectual Property Law is there any errors or mistakes?
III. Significance of R. A. 10372 An Act Amending Certain Provision of R. A. No.8293, therwise Known as “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, “ and for Other Purposes.
I. The Malacanang on Friday March 9, 2012 clarified R. A. 10372 or An Act Amending Certain Provisions of R. A. No. 8293 Otherwise Known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and for other purposes,” signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on February 28, 2013.
Intellectual Property Office, Director General Ricardo Blancaflor, in a press briefing in Malacanang, said there seem to be a misconception raised by some sector that the new law will no longer allow balikbayans to bring home in CD, DVD.
“That is completely false,” he said.
Blancaflor explained that the amended Intellectual Property Code actually removes the limit for the number of copyrighted items one can bring home to the country, “ provided they will be for personal use.”
“There is no more limit to entry of copyrighted products into the country provided are for personal use,” he stressed.
What is prohibited under the new law is the alleged downloading of copyrighted works as this would amount to violating a copyright.
R.A. 10372- also allows religious, charitable and educational institutions to import copies for as long as they are not infringing or pirated copies, so that more Filipino students in the country may use such works.
It also creates the Bureau of Copyright and Other Related Rights under IPO, which will be in charge of policy formulation, rules making, adjudication, research and education.
The new law also mandated the accreditation of collective management or organizations (CMOS) whose job will be ensure the protection of the rights and financial benefits of copyrights owners.
It also allows the non-commercial reproduction of copyrighted works for use by people with hearing eyesight and reading problems.
“Now the blind can access their favourite best seller, their favourite novels. Before they have to buy in Braille form. Now, they can just go to National Book Store, if they find a best seller, they can ask that it be reduced to Braille. They don’t have to pay royalty,” said Blancaflor.
Braille is a series of raised dots that can be read with fingers by people who are blind or whose eyesight is no sufficient for reading material. When I was in 4th year High School I have a seat mate who was blind and she used Braille Method of writing. When there are notes or lectures and assignments need to copy I dictated the said notes or lectures for her.
The New law further empowers the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, although a complaint from the copyright owner is still needed before violators can be apprehended.
The new law also strengthen the government against Intellectual Property pirates, infringers and criminal syndicates.
“There are a lot of intelligent or have a potential’s Filipino. We are losing nurses, doctors to abroad. We’re losing creative Filipinos like artists, musicians, simply because there is no enough protection here. That is what we are trying to correct. We are creating a legal framework. There are many countries; billions of dollars are being infused. We don’t have these billions dollars, we have many other concerns. The most we can do is providing the legal framework where creative industry is nurtured and eventually protected,” said Blancaflor.
1. The R. A. 10372 affect the government of the Philippines in the case of amendment of the new law. The power of Intellectual Property Office has been expanded. Before the amendment was made the government was made law enforcement agencies of National Committee on Intellectual Property Rights (the Bureau of Customs, National Bureau of Investigation, Optical Media Board and National Police) could pursue arrest and prosecute counterfeiters. Police Powers for the IPO will boost the government’s anti-piracy efforts.
Rebuttal via fact sheet
In fact sheet uploaded to its website; the IP office said Filipinos returning from abroad can bring in more than three copies of legitimate copyrighted works. Under Sec. 190.1 of the present law R.A. 8293 importation of personal purposes means that you are only entitled to import in the Philippines up to the three copies of copyrighted works in your personal baggage. . . . By deleting these provision under the amendments there is no any limit to the number of copies that can be imported.
The Intellectual Property Code said, “importation shall not be considered copyright infringement if it falls under the general exceptions which include fair use.”
The IPO listed among the beneficial provisions of the amendments to the IP Law its increase in Power to include law enforcement. The bill grants visitorial powers to the IP Office and allows it to the undertake enforcement function with the support of concerned agencies such as PNP; NBI, BOC, OMB and local government units.
While the IP Office will not be conducting raids or seizures, it will be coordinating with the said agencies. However, as IP rights remains to be private rights, there must be complaint from the IP Rights owner . . . if an author \sees pirated copies of his book in certain store he may notify the IP Office, which can then initiate together with any of the said agencies to address the problem.
The agency also said the amendments include the establishment of a Bureau of Copyright to fill the gaps left in that area by the National Library, which acts mainly as repository for copyrighted, works. The copyright Bureau is dedicated to serving the needs of the copyright-based industries and stakeholders could give more focus and rally more resources and support for the creative industry, which is very important for the protection of works by Filipinos both here and abroad.
The amendments to the IP Law also provide for the accreditation of collective management organization (CMOS) to enforce the copyright of its stakeholders, so the IP Office can monitor and promote good corporate governance among CMOS, benefitting not “only legitimate collecting agencies can collect royalties – on behalf of copyright owners” from end – users like shopping malls or restaurant. (Secondary liability), circumvention of technological measures and rights management information as aggravating circumstances, and the option to collect statutory damages instead of actual damages instead of actual damages, “ the IP Office said.
The fair use policy was expanded for the impaired so that blind persons may be able to purchase copyrighted works done in Braille at cheaper prices.
The IP Office said the amendments to Sec. 27 of the IP Law ensure rights of the academic community professors, researchers, students over their literary, scholarly and artistic works are clearly delineated and respected. With an IP Policy in existence, these sectors within the academe will have a clear delineation detrimental to education, research and development of their respective rights and benefits, thus, avoiding disputes and costly litigation within their rates which would be detrimental to education, research and development.
2. In the argument regarding the amendments of the IPL or R. A. No. 10372 there is a misconception. Like the Journalist and blogger Raissa Robles raised the alarm over these changes that effectively remove the limits on number of copies of books, software, or other materials protected by IP Law (three, before amendment) people could bring into the Philippines.
In her blog title “Congress Erase Every Filipino’s Right to Bring Home Music, Movies and Books from abroad” Robles raised several concerning over the removal of the hard limit on the importation of materials with intellectual property protection such as copyright morning that once the IP Code amendments kick in Filipinos returning home which such pasalubong (greeting gifts) and souvenir’s may face legal sections for lack of protective framework for their rights as consumers and users of such products.
More distributing than lack of consultation or transparency in the process of amending IP Law is the way these changes seem to have been rail roaded while the nation was reverted to something else.
In the case of amendment of RA 10372 the power of the IPO have been expanded for University of the Philippines – College of Law professor and technology -sway lawyer JJJ n Dinisi put it in various for a “it is even more regrettable that the President approved the law without any public indications that the arguments against the bill (amending it) had been duly considered.
And here we have been led to believe (yes, we believe the 1987 Constitution rights? That the Philippine is run by government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The discussion between Representatives of the IP Code and Dinisi as early morning newscast two weeks ago and the rebuttal of the IPO website of Robles’ blog post on the matter smacked of dismissiveness.
The explanation of Malacanang in amending r. A. 10372 is accurate. Before the signing of the bill or law referring to the IP L aw President Aquino urged to veto IP Code amendments.
Then there was a review for the bill before signing the president. This law amending the ip code, there is no limit to entry of copyrighted products into the country for personal use.
the principal author of this bill is from Cagayan de oro city representative Rufus Rodrigues, made his clarification amid apprehension raised by overseas Filipino workers and travellers that the new law bans the bringing in of products by (IP) rights.
the confusion arose from the deletion of two provisions in the old law limiting the bringing in or importation of such products personal use to only three copies. In the new law, lifted the number they may bring as many as they can as long as it is for personal use.
the jail breaking is merely an aggravating circumstance that increases the penalty for copy right infringement. Other major changes were the offices expands his power, police power with the coordination of the following government agencies: PNP, NBI , BOC,COM and the local government units.
in sec. 198. Term moral rights 198.1 the right of an author section 193.1 shall last during the lifetime of the author and in perpetuity after his death while the rights under sec. 193.2; 193.3 and 193.4, shall be coterminous with the economic rights.
It also stated that the works of the talented Filipinos be submitted to the national library for repository in case the owner might lost or destroyed their copy he/she may request an extra copy for himself or herself.
caridad f. maguad
Atty. berne guerero