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
INTRODUCTION:
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.
History
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.”
Beneficial
Provisions
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.
Prepared by:
caridad f. maguad
5/19/1213
Submitted To:
Atty. berne guerero
Professor
No comments:
Post a Comment