Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad

Share:

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

Everyday, many Filipinos arrive in Manila, bringing back with them books as well as  DVDs and CDs of music and movies they bought in other countries for their personal use.

They can do this without fear of being questioned because it’s a right specifically granted “to persons or families arriving from foreign countries” under Section 190 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines or Republic Act 8293.

What these Filipinos probably do not know is Congress has just passed a law erasing this right.  The law — a consolidated measure amending RA 8293, was sent to Malacañang Palace on January 29,  2013 and  just needs the signature of President Benigno Aquino III to become effective.

That’s not all.

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.

There’s more.

If you happen to be leasing out space — for instance, if you’re a mall or building owner  — to someone who infringes copyright, you could be held liable.

And that’s not all.

If someone else had downloaded music from the Internet and shared the file with you, and you then uploaded it onto your technological device and listened to it, you could also be held liable if the download site was one that the US recording and movie companies  have been trying to shut down.

Downloading music was the sixth most popular reason for surfing cited by 683 Internet users ages 10 to 17 in a 2009 study conducted by the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communications for UNICEF.

Authorities say that downloading music was made illegal as far back as the year 2000, when then President Joseph Estrada signed the E-Commerce Act into law. They point to Section 33 of the E-Commerce Act which punishes with fines and jail “piracy or the unauthorized…downloading” of, among others, “copyrighted works including legally protected sound recordings or phonograms…through the use of telecommunication networks…in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights.”

They neglect to point out, though, that the last part in Section 33 contains a qualifying clause which states that downloading becomes illegal only when done “in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights.”

Intellectual property rights are spelled out in RA 8293 – the Intellectual Property Code.

Here is the particular section in RA 8293 which states when the economic rights of performers (as spelled out in Section 203) and sound recording producers (as spelled out in Section 208) have to give way:

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 will repeat – Section 212.1 states that the economic rights of performers and sound recording producers have to give way when the copyright material is for “the use by a natural person exclusively for his own personal purposes.

What can be clearer than that? A natural person means you and me. Not a corporation.

Now guess what.

Our lawmakers erased the entire Section 212 and replaced it with something else that no longer contains this particular exception – “the use by a natural person exclusively for his own personal purposes.”

That exception is NOW GONE from the just-approved congressional measure amending RA 8293.

Later in another post, I will show you how they did it in such a totally confusing way that it would make you quite dizzy to understand it. It took me a long while to understand it. And at the end, I thought – Wow!

I will also try to answer the question posed to me by my hubby Alan:  What do ordinary Filipinos get out of the amended RA 8293?

Just out of curiosity, I did a word search of the phrase “personal purpose” in RA 8293, our present Intellectual Property Code. The phrase was repeated THREE TIMES.

I then inserted all the approved congressional amendments to RA 8293 and did the same word search for the phrase “personal purpose”. It’s now ALL GONE.

Because our lawmakers not only excised Section 212, which I just mentioned. They also erased the following:

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).

I was greatly disturbed by that, especially after I learned that no organization of overseas workers was invited to attend the lone public hearing that Senator Manuel Villar, the measure’s main sponsor, called on March 9, 2011. My Senate sources told me only representatives from the following were invited to that public hearing:

In this case, it was the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) under the Department of Trade and Industry which had played an active role in drafting the amendments to RA 8293. And so I asked Ricardo Blancaflor, the IPO Director General,  why they felt the need to erase Section 190.1 – which specifically guaranteed the rights of ordinary Filipinos flying home from overseas to bring home copyright materials such as DVD movies, music CDs and books.

And does this mean that Filipinos could now be open to extortion at the airport and harbors when they bring in such copyright materials?

Blancaflor’s initial reply to me was the following:

“The greater good has to be served. This law is for everybody.

I think instead of people criticizing it, I think people should recognize it’s a long awaited legislation. It was done within the bounds of the law.

The good side of the law should also be highlighted. Hindi negative that some interest groups are pushing.

We should be congratulated for the great work we are doing.”

These are only some of the amendments to RA 8293.

In the next article,  I will discuss at length what Blancaflor told me and what University College of Law Professor JJ Disini also told me about the amendments’ vast implications on the listening and viewing habits of ordinary Filipinos.

And especially on their Internet behavior and the way they transfer music from the PC, to an MP3, to an Android Phone and a Pad.

The amendments to RA 8293 could make them liable and open to extortion.

I have to hand it to Blancaflor. He gave me a very lengthy interview past office hours last Friday and although tired, he was very patient in explaining the law to me. He explained how provisions – which I thought favored foreign movie, recording and software companies – were in fact “pro-Filipino.”

My thanks, too, to Prof. Disini who answered my questions for many hours. I think we were both bleary-eyed when we ended our discussion past midnight.

Both of them talked passionately about a topic that would put most people to sleep. sleeping AddEmoticons04242

After realizing the amendments’ implications, however, you just might end up doing this – Yell AddEmoticons04239

 

397 Responses to “Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 126
    AWS says:

    was this ratified?

  2. 125
    Leon says:

    My only question is that what ever happened to Sec. Ronald Llamas. Did he get some spanking already from buying pirated dvd’s. So how can Pnoy sign this in to Law if he cannot also control his men from being the first to violate this.
    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/133563/aquino%E2%80%99s-man-no-poster-boy-for-antipiracy-drive

    • 125.1
      raissa says:

      It turns out we have no law punishing people who buy pirated DVDs.

      However, we NOW have a law punishing punishing people who DOWNLOAD the same movies and songs available as pirated DVDs with the amended Intellectual Property Code.

  3. 124
    Radiogirl says:

    I just want to ask if im studying abroad and im going on vacation sa pinas. I cant bring my own books to study while having my vacation?

  4. 123
  5. 122
    agot says:

    The Intellectual Property Code defines the rights of owners of intellectual properties, such as patents, trademarks and copyrights. With respect to patents, the Code expressly grants to the patent owner the exclusive right to import products covered by his patent, thus:

    SEC. 71. Rights Conferred by Patent. – 71.1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:
    (a) Where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to restrain, prohibit and prevent any unauthorized person or entity from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing that product,
    (b) Where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to restrain, prevent or prohibit any unauthorized person or entity from using the process, and from manufacturing, dealing in, using, selling or offering for sale, or importing any product obtained directly or indirectly from such process.
    71.2. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign or transfer by succession the patent, and to conclude licensing contracts for the same. (See. 37, R.A. No. 165a)

    SEC. 76. Civil Action for Infringement. – 76.1. The making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing a patented product or a product obtained directly or indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patentee, process without the authorization of the patentee constitutes patent infringement.

    No similar provision expressly granting copyright owners exclusive right to import is found in the Code with respect to copyrighted materials. However, the now repealed Section 190 of the Code provides that:

    SEC. 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.
    190.3. 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 of articles the importation of which is prohibited under this Section 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. (Sec. 30. P.D. No. 49)

    With Section 190 , there was in effect a restriction on the right to import copyrighted materials notwithstanding that there is no provision granting the copyright owner any exclusive right to import copyrighted materials. There is basis, consequently for the view that anyone may now freely import into the Philippines copyright materials (but not the fake ones, of course).

  6. 121
    b4tist4_911 says:

    this law will kill the mobile phone technicians profession whose livelihood was mostly based on phone unlocking… bago sana pirmahan ni pres noynoy ang batas na yan.. may nakahanda na syang work para sa mga mobile phone technician sa pilipinas…

    • 121.1
      Tray says:

      Good example. Unlocking phones per se won’t penalise them. But unlocking it so they can put in it pirated music that they sell will get them in hot water.

  7. 120
    Lion girl says:

    I agree with the law that held the space owner must be liable for illegal that happen within his property/building.

    Therefore, If you happen to be leasing out space must know what type of business will be set up and what are the reflection of that towards society.The goods, products, or brand must not be FAKE, INFRINGING, or COUNTERFEIT plus assurance of customers on buying genuine goods, and customer education to purchase genuine goods.

    In conclusion; it is just fair that mall owners are held LIABLE for copyright infringers who rent in their malls. Same way na dapat liable sila for people who get mugged or children who get snatched inside the mall.

  8. 119
    mike santos says:

    I was browsing the net to check out what’s new. I saw a link from one of my friends. It was about Congress erasing the rights to bring books, music and movies from abroad. I decided to read it, since I was quite curious. There, I saw that the blog pointed on the changes about RA 8293. The first one mentioned was about jailbreaking being considered as a crime. This is not true, since you must be found guilty of copyright infringement. Jailbreaking just increases the penalty if one is found guilty the penalty, and it won’t really send you to jail because you did that.

    Speaking of gadgets, file sharing also seems to be under fire. It is understandable, since many local artists are being affected by music piracy. Besides these people actually work hard for their music. If we buy albums and digital copies from international artists, why cant we do the same? For other Asian acts such as J-Pop and K-Pop, fans actually buy their albums so they would get an edge at countdown shows and it shows how much the fans are willing to support their idols. BTW, most of the songs which could be legally downloaded are priced cheap. Since the business also knows that your money also goes to other commitments in life, not just by buying albums.

    Eh, speaking of which.. some people were also asking if it’s still legal to bring media into the Philippines from another country. Well, the answer is a big fat YES! In fact, you can bring more than three copies! Isn’t that awesome or what? For me, it is good news since I would be able to bring a ton of books, games, albums and DVDs. It is also fantastic since I would be able to play my games even before it is released. And for me to also spaz over the latest K pop albums.

    • 119.1
      raissa says:

      Hooray for you.

      You read the law that way.

      Wait until the restrictions start trickling in, citing the amended IP Code as the basis.

      For instance, let’s take the “awesome” new right of OCWs to bring home more than three copies of legitimately bought software abroad.

      Once the amended IP Code comes into full force and once the IRRs are set up, let’s see you bring in ONE HUDNRED LEGITIMATELY BOUGHT MICROSOFT PRODUCTS through NAIA.

      Let’s test the waters, shall we.

      • 119.1.1
        Victin Luz says:

        Wait for the IRR of the new amended Law on IP and read first the REPEALING CLAUSE so as the SEPARABILITY CLAUSE@ mike santos …

        Of course we can always take refuge at Supreme Court , but why WAIT THERE . It will be better if the law will be VETOED by PNOY and further review and public hearing’s ( TRUE ) will be conducted first.

        • 119.1.1.1
          Arsenio Reyes says:

          Presidential veto is not absolute. The veto can be over-ridden by I think 2/3 votes of the members of each chamber. I don’t know exactly the procedure but it can be over-ridden. Finally there is a remedy for the over-ride, i.e., take the matter to the Supreme Court for infirmities or unconstitutional provisions.

          But that’s not the important point. Usually they will try to rectify any perceived error for the sake
          of what is called as parliamentary courtesy. Wala naman sigurong bastusan between co-equal
          departments. The President in practical terms need Congressional support for his programs.

          Even based on jurisprudence, the Supreme Court is duty-bound to sustain the acts of the Executive and/or the legislative in case of doubt. It is expected they will be careful because after the Supreme Court, there is no more remedy except perhaps a showdown with the people. Hehehe

          • 119.1.1.1.1
            Victin Luz says:

            Yes @Arsenio it is not really absolute , the Congress can overide it so as every Department respecting their Co-Equal Department’s but the Most PARAMOUNT of all or firstl RESPECT our BASIC RIGHTs .

            I believe that the amended Law on I.P. was a Curtailment of some of our Constitutional Rights ,guaranted under the Constitution. WHY wait , if the prevention of that curtailment is the non signing of PNOY on the amended law on IP sir…. He he ngayon na , habang isinusulat pa nila ang IRR ng BAGONG batas.

            • Arsenio Reyes says:

              Correct me if I am wrong. Normally IRRs are practically prepared “after” the law is passed. I have never come across a law with an IRR before it is approved/passed or lapsed into law.

              How can there be an IRR when it is not a law yet? I don’t know, probably a draft. Probably I’m wrong. But it should be that way logically that there is a draft already. If ganun sila kasipag and diligent in their work, maraming salamat po.

              As an example, if you remember there was that amendment to the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) increasing the amounts of personal exemptions and other amendments. The IRR was issued I think 6 months after the amendments were passed and signed into law. They didn’t how to interpret it and I remember the then Senator Roxas filing a complaint or appeal of some sort that the B.I.R. was interpreting the law and not implementing it. Meaning he was claiming that the B.I.R. were making rules which were not in the law or the intent of the law. Probable reason, political expediency to pass the law without planning how to correctly implement. In the end, we never knew what the outcome of the Roxas action. In the end, the B.I.R. rules were followed because the questioned transitory nature of the issues transpired already. What followed was a series of 2 extensions for all taxpayers to file the related and affected annual reports. Meanwhile, while the IRR was pending, it could not hold pending related transactions such as refund of taxes. And if I am not wrong, Roxas was either the author/proponent or co-author of the bill.

              Yes, only in the Philippines.

              Just like the existing IPP laws, there are some provisions there which at a certain point of time were not yet implemented and there were on-going cases already. I remember it concerned the creation of a Board to implement fines and sanctions.

              • Victin Luz says:

                YES Arsenio@ ….KAYA NGA KAKO NAKAKATAKOT that PNOY will sign now the amended Law on I.P. It is because of so many inconsistencies between or against RA. 8293 and also against PD # 49.

                Those inconsistencies can be harmonize by the IRR . Like section 30 of PD 49 , last paragraph, that 3 copies of books allowed by a balikbayan in bringing in home in the Philippines. And other’s said to be defined not crystal clear on the amended Law on IP.

                Kaya sabi ko , with the express provision of the law authorizing the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Finance to reduced into writings the Rules and Regulation of the amended Law on I.P. , the provisions thereat which are not clear and DISADVANTAGEOUS for US , can become clearer if written under the Whims and Caprice of the B.C. and D.F.

                Pag naprmahan ang batas , IRR will follow and our remedy now is to go to the Supreme Court for our redress….. WHY WAIT? If it can be send back to Congress for further review and public hearing thru the VETO of PNOY, anyway our Basic Rights as Guaranted in the Constitution we now feel are goingnto be violated with some provisions of the new amended Law on Intelectual Property.

              • Victin Luz says:

                The IRR or the Implementing Rules and Regulations has the EFFECT of a LAW itself so that under the REPEALING CLAUSE of the IRR, if it was stated that Presidential Decrees , Laws, Presidential Orders and Rules and Regulation or part thereof which are inconsistent with the NEW Republic Act are hereby repealed….. Vested Rights and Privileges granted/acquired on the old Laws,PD,PO etc., are no longer available if repealed.

              • Victin Luz says:

                Correction…Executive Orders not P.O.

            • Victin Luz says:

              In fact the SEPARABILITY CLAUSE and REPEALING CLAUSE of an Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Law will play an important part of the amendatory Law and the IRR itself .

              I know that an IRR of a LAW comes after signing of the Law itself , SO , Much More that with the existence of infirmities in the new amendatory Law, WHY NOT CORRECT FIRST WHAT IT IS CLOUDY BENEATH THE LAW BEFORE …..PNOY signed that LAW.

              • Victin Luz says:

                Sa IRR dyan sila minsan nagtatago ng BOMBA o LENIENCY o FAVORABLENESS at ang NASA isip ng PROPONENTs so as sa MAMBABATAS na nag hain ay BAKA MAKALUSOT….. E KUNG MAKALUSUT , PAPANO NAMAN si Juan de laCruz @Arsenio .

              • Arsenio Reyes says:

                Yes I agree, the laws may seem to be fair but the the implementation are practically done in favor of the privileged few.

                Swerte lang pag nakatsamba ang ordinary tao tulad natin. Then we say it’s fair.

                For those not lucky enough to benefit from the actual intent, sorry na lang walang kang “K” whatever that means.

                The rules must not only seem fair, reasonable or justified. They must be actually and in reality be fair, reasonable and justified. Give everyone his/her due regardless of station in life. Kaya nga probably ang “dare” ni Raissa is “let’s test the waters”. She is not fully convince with words of opinion or advices only. The law or rules must be crystal clear in the most possible way.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Yes, Victin. They should first repeal the entire PD 49 categorically. Say, “PD 49 is hereby expressly repealed” without any qualifications such as inconsistent parts thereof. So that the IRR would be controlling and without PD 49 co-existing with the new IP Code.

  9. 118
    Arsenio Reyes says:

    “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the “unalienable rights” with which all human beings are endowed for the protection of which they institute governments.

    The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.[2] The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads,
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
    (Source : Wikipedia)

    The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is found in other Constitutions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is a quite a massive response to Ms. Raissa’s blog because it appears these rights are being threatened. Also, the right to property of the common people like us vs. the right to property of intellectual proprietors.

    Government is basically entrusted to protect the interests of its citizens, their happiness although with due
    regard for the rights of others. In the hierarchy of values, can we say that the right to life, liberty and pursuit
    of happiness is higher than the right to property. Well, I think so. Laws are made to attain order and give
    justice. Primarily, it should protect the weak. Otherwise, it is not “for the people”.

    So where is the “Gusto ko happy ka, or happy kayo?”. Many are confused as I am confused with some of the
    arguments here which are technical in nature. Why? Because the government lacked the actual sincerity to explain the proposed law. Ms. Raissa brought the issue to the people because she is also worried about
    what it actually means for the people. She is probably not satisfied with the answers she was getting.

    In other words, goverment efforts to explain the proposed law is lacking the necessary perseverance or
    zeal or enthusiasm (Sigla in Tagalog). Will the people just leave it to the lawyers to act on the matter. The answer is a resound “NO!”.

    Benefit of the doubt is therefor unacceptable. I think this is what Ms. Raissa is telling in her blog and
    certainly we are affected.

    • 118.1
      Joe America says:

      Arsenio, thank you for nailing what I’ve tried to express in several blogs. The Philippine Constitution seems to me to be a legalistic document lacking soul. What is being expressed in this blog thread is that “soul”, the desire to live free and active and richly without having to report to this or that heavy-handed, authoritarian agency. In a way, Raissa’s blog is so valuable, not for the arguments about music CD’s, but because it represents the voice of Filipinos who would kindly like it’s government to allow them to live free and healthy and active lives, in search of opportunity and happiness. Bingo. Beautiful. Thanks.

      • 118.1.1
        Arsenio Reyes says:

        I think I got the idea from your comments and with a little knowledge of law, democratic principles and watching the movie National Treasurer over and over again in the past couple of years.

        Philippine laws are mostly copied from American laws (and jurisprudence) I think primarily because of their very high sense of fairness and easy to understand principles in relation to individual freedoms. Whenever there is a legal question with no precedence in the Philippines, US cases are cited in order to arrive at decisions. In the modern days they still appear to be consistently but sometimes overly democratic to a fault due to a high degree of respect for individuals even for those accused of crimes. That is the legacy of great American leaders like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and others and of course the American people to the world handed down to all peoples of the world from generation to generation.

        There will always be a lot to learn from reading excerpts from the Black Law Dictionary because legal and democratic principles are briefly explained and American jurisprudence is very rich, certainly a gift for all mankind to emulate and imitate. There is no other model or standard available.

        There lies the difference in leadership and service to the people. American leaders (I think mostly) would rather sacrifice their personal interests than damage democratic principles and ideals. Significant leaders here sometimes sacrifice personal but not “bank interests” when the time comes to make a choice.

        The “hurt” being experienced now being profusely and angrily expressed in this blog concerns those
        inalienable rights which may be imaginably or actually threatened, we don’t know exactly. The Filipino people especially the OFWs I think deserve better treatment from their leaders. In the American scenario, I would think the American people trust their leaders, systems and process to protect them in their shores or outside of it. In the Philippine setting , there is general distrust for our leaders, systems and actual practices. The citizens will now try to protect themselves.

        Thank you Mr. Joe America. God bless.

  10. 117
    Waray2ako says:

    Regarding landlord liability of mall owners and owners of establishment….I think it is only right that they will be held liable if they are allowing retailers in their malls to sell copycat items. Corporations like mall owners have corporate responsibilities and this should include respect for the right of others, i. e. copyright owners. If they continue to allow retailers in their mall to sell pirated products, it reflects on what kind of management is running the corporation.

  11. 116
    OFW wife says:

    Raissa you are misleading the public…..it is not true that the IP Code amendment erasedOFW’s right to bring home original CDs, DVDs and books. Since Section 190 was deleted, it means that they are now free to bring those personal stuffs to the country ( not limited na to 3 copies anymore) as long as what they are bringing in is not pirated. Ang husband ko OFW and lagi ako nagpapabili ng CD/DVD of foreign artists kasi mura lalo na pag sale, di naman nacoconfiscate dati how much more kung wala ng limit.

    • 116.1
      raissa says:

      The amendments have not yet been signed into law.

      But you want to wake up one day and see your rights diminished?

      Sinasabi lang nila na walang limit. Ang totoo, meron.

      • 116.1.1
        Victin Luz says:

        Let them bring out First the IRR of RA 8293 @ofw wife ,…. IRR may erase everything to conform the new law and become part of the law itself new . DANGEROUS FOR US.

        Any inconsistencies between RA 8293 and PD 49……….RA 8293 will prevail because it will be the latest sentiment of the Filipino people thru their representatives , member of the House and member of the Senate.

  12. 115
    lol. Dun kerr says:

    And on other news, I’ll still jailbreak the hell out of my ipod…. which I’m about to sell anyways. I’ll still end up DL-ing illegal crap from the net because no nation can control it (not that I would do it, but I’m saying they can’t really do anything about it. Kung yung mga pangkaraniwang kriminal di nila agad mahuli pano pa yung nakatanga lang sa bahay kakagamit ng gadget?) without killing free will outright.

    If they’re calling this an ingenious solution (to which, I’m not clear about anyways) you can trust people to make even more ingenious solutions. Specially for guys and gals coming home from the airports.

  13. 114
  14. 113
    nicoletski says:

    Jailbreaking DOES NOT NECESSARILY equate to copyright infringement! Are you fucking kidding me, Congress? Please do your research. Jailbreaking is even legal in America, because this allows the users to freely use the device they BOUGHT and OWN.

    Sure, the app piracy and iPhone unlocking (open line) part ARE forms of copyright infringement, but jailbreaking in it self IS NOT. Please do your fucking research.

    • 113.1
      raissa says:

      DG Blancaflor says jailbreaking is not illegal but the law is unclear on when it becomes illegal.

    • 113.2
      Tray says:

      Please read the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. You can simple google DMCA and jailbreaking. I think it will enlighten you a bit.

    • 113.3
      Victin Luz says:

      Nobody is fucking kidding you@nicoletski,… At the IRR of RA 8293, can determine when is jail breaking became ILLEGAL .

      FULL of LOOPHOLEs unless they lay to us the IRR, for scrutiny first before PNOY sign the RA 8293

  15. 112
    pinay ako says:

    Haay naku! That’s the government. They pretend to be doing something for the good of the many, but kidaw ka, they are doing something behind, and what they are doing is just to cover what they are doing that is not good for the many only for themselves. Kaya lumang tugtugin na yan. Para may ibang pagkaabalahan ang mga tao at di mapansin ang mga gawain nyo.

  16. 111
    Thursday says:

    The title is misleading.

    The article is essentially claiming that “Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad” because Congress included in the proposed amendments to the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) the deletion of Section 190.1 of the IPC. While the article correctly pointed out that the deletion of Section 190.1 will remove the “personal purpose exemption” in the importation of copyrighted works, it failed to consider or take into account that the deletion of the entire Section 190.1 will effectively remove not only the “exemption to the general rule” but also the “general rule” itself. In other words, by deleting the entire Section 190.1, Congress is effectively removing the rule that the importation of a copyrighted work must be authorized by the copyright owner. This is because if you examine our copyright law, there is no provision other than Section 190.1 which expressly or impliedly requires the authorization of the copyright owner before a copyrighted work may be imported into the Philippines. It should be noted that Section 30 of PD 49 which is being cited by others as the basis of the copyright owner’s right to authorize or prevent the importation of his work has already been expressly repealed by the IPC.

    Thus, it is not true that Filipinos will lose their right to import or bring home their music, movies, books and other copyright-protected properties if the amendment is signed into law. The truth is under the current copyright law, anyone who wishes to import or bring into the Philippines a copyright-protected work is required by Section 190.1 to secure the authorization of the copyright owner UNLESS the importation falls under the “personal purpose exemption”. Under the proposed amendment, anyone who wishes to import or bring into the Philippines a copyright-protected work will NO LONGER BE REQUIRED to secure the authorization of the copyright owner EVEN IF the importation is NOT for personal purposes.

    The right to import will of course not be absolute under the proposed amendment as it will still be subject to the economic rights of the copyright owner under Section 177 of the IPC. For instance, the importation of a book will not be allowed if it is a pirated copy since it violates the “reproduction right” of the copyright owner under Section 177.1 of the IPC.

    • 111.1
      raissa says:

      This is part 1.
      Pls read Part 2. I’m posting it today.

      Thanks for elaborating on Section 190.

    • 111.2
      Rene-Ipil says:

      Thursday@111

      Please tell us how Section 30 of PD 49 was repealed, expressly or even impliedly.

      • 111.2.1
        Thursday says:

        Please see Section 239.1 of the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293) which expressly repealed PD 49. It reads:

        “239.1. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, more particularly Republic Act No. 165, as amended; Republic Act No. 166, as amended; and Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code; Presidential Decree No. 49, including Presidential Decree No. 285, as amended, are hereby repealed.”

        Note that one of the reasons why the IPC was passed was to consolidate all the laws on intellectual property including RA 165 which dealt with patents, RA 166 which dealt with trademarks and trade names, and PD 49 which dealt with copyright, moral rights and related rights. Thus the IPC now both covers patent, trademarks, copyright, moral rights and related rights. Note also that both Section 30 of PD 49 and Section 190.1 of the IPC regulate the same thing, i.e., the importation of copyrighted works.

        • 111.2.1.1
          Rene-Ipil says:

          Thursday@111.2

          To my understanding, only Acts (like PD 49) and parts of Acts (like Section 30 of PD 49) which are inconsistent with RA 8293 were repealed. Please specify to me the parts or portions of Section 30, PD 49 that RA repealed, or modified. And I will then point out the parts that remains consistent with RA 8293.

          • 111.2.1.1.1
            Thursday says:

            Congress clearly wanted to replace Section 30 of PD 49 (“Section 30”) with Section 190 of the Intellectual Property Code (“IPC”) since the provisions under Section 30 were not just incorporated but practically copied word for word with a few amendments under Section 190 of the IPC. Thus, Section 190.1 of the IPC corresponds to the first paragraph of Section 30, Section 190.2 corresponds to the second paragraph of Section 30 and Section 190.3 corresponds to the third paragraph of Section 30.

            Aside from the fact that Section 190.1 was enacted to replace and supersede the first paragraph of Section 30, it also changed the “importation rule” under Section 30 thereby making the said two provisions inconsistent. The rule under Section 30 is that the importation of copies of a work which are piratical copies or likeness of any work in which Philippine copyright subsists will need the authorization of the copyright owner unless (1) the copies of the work are not available in the Philippines subject to certain conditions, or (2) when the copies form part of libraries or personal baggage under certain conditions. The rule under Section 190.1, on the other hand, is that the importation of copies of a work (without qualification) will need the authorization of the author of, or other copyright owner in, the work unless it is made by a natural person for personal purposes and (1) copies of the work are not available in the Philippines subject to certain conditions, or (2) the copies form part of libraries or personal baggage under certain conditions.

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Thursday@111.2

              You wrote that in the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), the provisions of Section 30 of PD 49 were” practically copied word for word with a few amendments under Section 190 of the IPC. Thus, Section 190.1 of the IPC corresponds to the first paragraph of Section 30, Section 190.2 corresponds to the second paragraph of Section 30 and Section 190.3 corresponds to the third paragraph of Section 30.”

              My position is that the provisions of Section 30, PD 49 have NO substantial and irreconcilable conflict with Article 190 of the IPC. Both pertain to importation of copyrighted work for personal or non-commercial purposes. Both laws do not require any authorization from copyright owner if the importation is in prescribed quantity. The other requisites are similar, if not identical. The only difference is that Section 30 refers specifically to “Philippine” copyright while Article 190.1 concerns copyright in general.

              But for legal and practical purposes, Philippines laws cannot protect a copyright owner who has no local copyright counterpart, i.e., an authorized or licensed local manufacturer or distributor of a certain product. So we are here concerned practically with Philippine copyright. And the deletion of Articles 190.1 and 290.2 would in fact bring us back to square one, that is, Section 30.

              If the intention of the new IPC was to repeal Section 30 of PD 49 and replace it with the new Article 190, then by all means state it categorically to avoid confusion. For example:

              “Repealing clause – Section 30 of PD 49 is hereby expressly repealed.” Or “The entirety of PD 49 is hereby expressly repealed”.

              To my understanding Section 30 of PD 49 co-exists now with Article 190 of the IPC because, conformably with the supreme court decision in Berris vs. Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404, October 13, 2010, any amendments concerning both provisions have no “substantial and irreconcilable conflict”.

              • Thursday says:

                There is no more need for Congress to categorically state or express that “Section 30 of PD 49 is repealed” in the IPC given the language of Section 239.1. Obviously, when Congress provided in Section 239.1 of the IPC that “all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, more particularly … Presidential Decree No. 49… are hereby repealed”, it was aware that there are inconsistent provisions in the IPC and PD 49. Given the language of Section 239.1, all inconsistent provisions in PD 49 should therefore be deemed repealed even if Congress did not SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY the inconsistent sections and EXPRESSLY DECLARE that they are repealed since there is already a clear legislative intent in Section 239.1 to repeal all inconsistent provisions.

                Indeed, Section 5 of PD 49 (which specifies the exclusive rights of the copyright owner) was clearly repealed by Section 177 of the IPC (which now specifies the exclusive rights of the copyright owner) and yet there is no provision in the IPC which expressly provides that “Section 5 of PD 49 is hereby repealed”. Since there appears to be no section or provision in the IPC which expressly provides that a particular section in PD 49 is being repealed, does this mean therefore that the IPC had no intention to repeal any of the sections of PD 49?

                It should also be considered that when a provision in a new law is meant to incorporate (with or without amendments) and/or replace a provision in an old law, reference to the old provision would ordinarily be indicated immediately after the new provision. Thus, you will find “(Sec. 5, P. D. No. 49a)” at the end of Section 177 of the IPC and “(Sec. 30, P. D. No. 49)” at the end of Section 190 of the IPC in the text of the law. (See these links for reference: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129342#P1172_167198 and http://www.chanrobles.com/legal7copyright.htm#.USJyAWcltS8). This is not unique to the IPC as you will find this also in other laws like the Family Code where the articles that replaced provisions in the Civil Code also indicate at the end of the said articles the article numbers of the civil code provisions they replaced. (See this link for reference: http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno209.htm#.USKG1GcltS8)

                Now if Section 190.1 of the IPC was enacted to replace Section 30 of PD 49, then it would be moot to discuss if they are inconsistent because the new provision will effectively supersede the old provision. In any case, I already explained in detail in my previous comments my position that the first paragraph of Section 30 is inconsistent with Section 190.1 because they provide different and inconsistent rules on when importation will require or not require the authorization of the copyright owner. If your position is that there is no substantial and irreconcilable conflict then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

                By the way, just curious, do you think the alarming title of the article is justified?

              • Thursday says:

                My response is still pending review by the administrator. Just wanted to clarify that what I wanted to ask at the end of that comment is if you agree with the title of the article. I am interested in your opinion because you obviously did not just read the article. You also researched the issues.

        • 111.2.1.2
          Tray says:

          Thursday, I think Rene-Ipil is referring to the case of Berris v. Abyadang GR 183404. In it the SC said that its interpretation of Sec 239.1 is that RA 8293 did not expressly repeal R.A. 166 entirely (TM) only parts inconsistent. Now, granted that we are talking of PD49 here, the question is should this case be applied since PD49 is mentioned together with RA166?

          • 111.2.1.2.1
            Thursday says:

            Tray, please see my explanation above. So what do you think of the title of the article?

            • Tray says:

              I agree with your observation that the title does no reflect the correct interpretation of Sec. 190. Sec 190 did not bestow any right to import. It is, in fact, a limitation on the right to import. Thus, the new law did not remove a right but removed a limitation on the right. Put it in another way, the government does not give us a list of what we can import. Instead, it tells us what we cannot import and the exceptions. Consequently, what was removed was the “not to import” rule.

    • 111.3
      Rene-Ipil says:

      Thursday@111

      Let’s assume that PD 49 does not exist.

      I think the new title of Article 190 is inappropriate because it appears limited to infringing materials only, without reading the text. It is a cardinal rule that headings or titles should be brief enough to cover the idea imputed in the text which concerns in this case imported or exported copyrighted works, whether infringed or legitimate, personal or commercial. So the title should have been”Importation and Exportation of Copyright Materials” or to that effect.

      Besides, the title is more apt in the penal clause portion because it focuses on the unpleasant aspect. Yes, you are correct. It unnecessarily raises alarm.

      • 111.3.1
        Thursday says:

        Actually, Section 190.1 is really problematic for me. First, it starts with the qualification “Notwithstanding the provision of Subsection 177.6″) which does not make sense since Section 177.6 deals with the “public performance of a work”. How is the right of a copyright owner to authorize the public performance of his work relevant to the importation rule? The qualification should have referred to Subsection 177.3 which deals with the “first public distribution right” of copyright owners.

        Second, if you examine Section 190.1 (a)(ii), the importation by an individual for personal purposes may be allowed without the consent of the copyright owner provided no copy is available in the Philippines and the importation is by the authority of AND for the use of the Philippine government. How do you reconcile the “for personal purposes” and “for the use of the Philippine Government” requirements in that exemption?

        Personally, I think Section 190.1 should be deleted because it gives confirmation, or at least the impression, that we follow the “national exhaustion rule” in interpreting or enforcing the “first public distribution right” of copyright owners. Since we follow the “international exhaustion rule”, the first sale abroad of a copy of a copyrighted work should already exhaust the “first public distribution right” of the copyright owner in the Philippines.

  17. 110
    letlet says:

    I am so perflexed with these laws ( cybercrime law and IP code) enacted by the senators JUST BEFORE ELECTION, that I wonder if there’s a sinister motive behind their actions. This is another THEORY of mine. We are fully aware that after the lawmakers’ enactment of these laws, they go to PNOY for signing as the final stage. If PNOY just signed them, the BLAME FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION would land into PNOY’s lap/ shoulder. The flabbergasted voters would turn their ire to the LP senators by not voting them, therefore, NO MORE DAANG MATUWID FOR PNOY. as It’s the DERAILMENT the author senators are more after for.

    PNOY has been the leading trumpeter for the LP candidates saying that they have to win, be in the senate and work with him for the full crystallization of daang matuwid, in which majority of the senators would not want to happen because it means their pangungurakot/ pangangamkam would be coming to its end.

    So to the author senators and their cohorts, the best way to halt PNOY of his daang matuwid is by enacting these bloody laws and put PNOY in a very hot water, well, actually a boiling water.

    • 110.1
      alrick13 says:

      good take on the situation, it seems this is a political conspiracy intended for the May 2013 election

    • 110.2
      Arsenio Reyes says:

      Yes Ms. letlet. I think it’s a tricky world out there in politics. Those who lay traps are trapped themselves.
      It’s dirty politics at the expense of the people. A series of tactics and strategies for political purposes. Everyday, we see the news how the present politicians play their games.

      A recent example is the major repairs along EDSA. Secretary Sison announces a major rehab to start
      in May. The President backtracks and says “Wait!”… Sison and Tolentino (MMDA) join and align in the
      Presidential announcement. Ha ha ha. The repairs could wreck havoc on the LP votes since people
      would be cursing everyday on the resulting monster traffic situations. If his LP candidates doesn’t get
      into the Senate or a majority of the 12 candidates at least, its a political problem. Again at the expense
      of us people. The President would have rough sailing in the next 3 years before his term ends.

      There’s something wrong with our system and process of government and there’s something wrong with the people who run it. And everyday, politicians play games which affects the lives of ordinary people like us. It’s a complex matter but you can see the big picture. As a noted jurist said “We test a rule by its results…” I forgot the name but I read it once in a Philippine Supreme Court decision.

  18. 109
    Mary anne says:

    Ahh so si senator villar ba may pakana netong bill na to at xa ang main sponsor? Hindi man lang ba nya inisip yung mga OFW na matagal ng nsa abroad at nakapundar na ng gamit dro. So panu eto iuuwi kung bawal ng ipasok sa pinas! Correct me of im wrong, db nung lumalabam xang presidente i think ang nililigawan nyang botante mga OFW?! Wag ng iboto asawa nya sa senado!

    • 109.1
      nong says:

      tama ka miss… marami sa ofsw more than 20 years nang naimbak ang mga kopyang dvd’s.. songs, games, movies, emails etc..at marami na nasave sa cds at dvds….pampaalis homesick..personal gamit nga nila.. doon sa work place nila….

      hindi na ba nila …pwede iuwi ito sa pinas parang remembrance sa ilang taon nila mag ofw o para naman sa personal gamit nga nila sa pinas.. ?? sa dami nito..kaya ba nga authoprities sa pinas imonitor

      try nila mag work sa ganoon katagal na walang libangan na tulad nila
      may matira pa ba silang dolar na maipadala sa pinas?
      di kaya sila mabuwang? magbibilang na lang ng mga nagtatakbuhan ng ipis sa kisame
      lol

  19. 108
    letlet says:

    Before going to pinas for a visit, I usually send my stuff including cds, dvds (music, movies, exercise) and books through balikbayan boxes door to door delivery so I carry little with my luggages. Would these boxes be subjected to IP?

    I’m pretty sure that when these senators go abroad for a holiday/vacation with their families, they would not allow themselves to be subjected to IP searches as they are EXEMPTED from that. These IP searches and IP laws are applicable ONLY to the common Flipinos who are working/ living abroad. Definitely, 1000 %, this law is not for the common good of the people

    Mr Villaflor is pulling a wool over our eyes, us the common people. What he says is exactly different from what is going to happen when this law becomes implementable. There are already loopholes in what he is saying. Tell that to marines, Mr Villaflor.

  20. 107
    letlet says:

    In my case, before going to pinas for a visit I usually send my stuff including cds, dvds (music, movies, exercise), pasalubongs and books through the balikbayan boxes door to door delivery so I have very little to carry, so I wonder now what will happen to my boxes. Are they also subjected to IP? With 3 books that I carry with me to read in the plane, I suppose I have nothing to worry about them, as they are for personal use.

    The senators, for all that matter, would have nothing to worry about this IP because they won’t be subjected to any luggage searches. WOULD THE SENATORS ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE SUBJECTED TO LUGGAGE SEARCHES FOR IP STUFF? A big NO and a capital NO. They will use their power of position and influence. Ang ordinary OFW and permanent Filipino residents living abroad lang ang targets. To these seantors, what do you think of us, just milking cows.

    • 107.1
      letlet says:

      correction Mr Villaflor should be Mr Blancaflor.

      Whaevert Mr Blancaflor is saying has already lots of loopholes. He is pulling a wool over our eyes. Tell that to marines.

    • 107.2
      pinay710 says:

      @mam letlet kung yung asawa ni lapid ilang beses nakapaglabas ng $$$$$$$$$$$$ nirikisa ba ng immigratiion ng Pilipinas? HINDI!! KAYA NAILABAS AT NAIDIPOSITO SA AMERICA. pero kapag PANGKARANIWANG PILIPINO pati kaloobloobang bahagi ng katawan kakapkapan. KAAWA AWANG PANGKARANIWANG MAMAMAYAN PILIPINO. PANGULONG PINOY ALAM MO BA ANG GINAGAWA NG MGA ALIPORES MO SA MGA BOSS MO?lalo na sa sinasabi mong MAKABAGONG BAYANI,OFW, KUNO, SABI MO?

  21. 106
    Viva says:

    Sucks that the senate SOLD us!!!

  22. 105
    leona says:

    Mr. Blancaflor said ““The greater good has to be served.” What does he mean by this remark? If it was a ‘one time ‘meeting’ of only some people mostly in the gov’t and not quite a number from the general public was invited, how can he say the greater good has to be served?

    How greater of the general public audience was invited by Sen. Villar on March 9, 2011? Zero? Is zero a greater good number? His ‘greater’ plays a lot in the air! This is my size up of this remark or answer to Raissa

  23. 104
    Albert_n30 says:

    We Filipino’s are fond of bringing something for our friends and relatives. specially books and movies that are not available here or if its available here the price is too high. . . Our Politicians should focus on creating a law to ban product from our neighboring country “China” because all their products have a very low quality, and sometimes has some poisonous substance on them. So please this coming election choose wisely, know what this law those re-electionist has written and pass. . . Law that would make the life of Filipinos easier not a burden for us to carry….

    • 104.1
      leona says:

      @Albert, with the proofs already so clear, in the past and present, my plan is not to vote for any re-electionist, Liberal or UNA no but only NEW candidates who have no political record, of corruptions, etc. and who are not to serve or to put a political dynasty situation. Period!

      No ‘kingdoms’ of whatever forms should ever be in our political system. It runs counter to democracy and republican system of government.

      That is why the Constitution prohibits political dynasty in SEC. 26 Article II. The next Congress must enact a law defining what is covered and prohibited under an anti-political dynasty law. If or when more re-electionists are brought back, naturally and practically, no such law will ever possibly be enacted.

    • 104.2
      whoah says:

      Whoah. Chill a bit about banning everything with a “made in China”

      If that happens. Practically 95% of any technological equipment would either have to be rebranded or not sold here at all.

      Oh, and don’t forget “everything else” like appliances, etc.

  24. 103
    rolnico says:

    If the “for personal use” privilege for bringing in gadgets, books, or other electronic goods by OFWs like me will be deleted or further restricted by these IP amendments, then this is really bad for us pinoys as it cuts off personal enjoyment of the things we buy for sweating it out abroad….What a way to reward OFWs by our “honorable” lawmakers!!!.. If you are not aware yet, Sen. Manny Villar was foremost proponent of the “Oil Deregulation Law”. I still remembered him appearing in TV and saying once passed, this law will encourage competition and bring down the price of gasoline/petrol..the result as you all well know has been the ever increasing price of gasoline, because the big oil companies are now calling the shots and pegging the price of petrol at their will….Pahirap talaga sa Pinoy…..Now Sen. Villar was at it again, endorsing a law that will make life difficult for OFWs like me…This law is not good for everybody…this law is good for the big media companies who lobbied to our politicians and gov’t agencies to pass these amendments to the IP law…..Surely, I will NOT VOTE for Villar and all signatories of these amendments.

    • 103.1
      raissa says:

      Thanks for reminding us.

      If Sen. Villar comes to your neck of woods, pls ask him why.

    • 103.2
      nong says:

      si villar cpa.. accountant auditor pa

      sa impeachment.. siya ang akala kong magexplain o elaborate ng mga bank accounts ni cj para maintyendihan ng mga senador at taong bayan..lalo na ang mga accounting terms..
      nabubulol tulong ang mga senador pag yoon na ang tema
      nakakatawa..

      pero.. quiet lang siya..
      parang ayaw niyang me maapakan syang kabaru niya..
      heto sya ngayon

      tapos na ang term niya .. si mrs naman
      hanep sa trabajo..
      tutoo ba??

  25. 102
    Ferdee says:

    Kung ganyan ang gagawin nila.. half ng pinoy population (or more) ay either mag mumulta or makukulong.. maryosep naman…me bago na namang lalabas na sistema ng pangongotong.. sabihin na nating me problema talaga sa copyrights.. at sa salitang kanto.. pagnanakaw din ang pag da download ng mga movies and songs sa internet kase di mo naman binili.. kaya lang matanong ko lang.. eto kayang nag pasa ng bill na ito eh ni minsan hindi gumamit ng mga pirated mp3 songs.. or nanood ng pirated DVD’s o kaya nag download sa internet or pinanood sa internet ang mga bagong movies, ang mga anak ba nila.. pati na rin siguro kasambahay nila eh gumamit na din ng mga pirated stuffs na namention ko. Ang hirap nito baka sila pa itong nangunguna sa ganitong kalokohan eh.

    • 102.1
      leona says:

      @Ferdee…No. 102, parehas lang ito sa pag bawal ng illegal gambling. Nag lagay ng legal CASINO. Na alis ba ang JUETENG? Hindi. Ang MASYAO sa Visayas? Hindi.

      Ang IP isang Batas para protektahan ang mga artists, inventors, atbpa. Kung hihigpitan ng Batas pati yun hindi dapat katulad ng ordinaryong users, gamit or bibili lang ng mga legitimate gadgets, music, books, atbpa, ipag bawal lahat ang mga ito, ano pa ang KALIGAYAN NG ORDINARYONG PILIPINO, OFW atbpa?

      E di wala na! Walang PASALUBONG na galing ABROAD! Malungkot ang BUHAY NG MGA PILIPINO!

    • 102.2
      nong says:

      pag neremodel ng nanay ko ang pantalon ko para magamit ni totoy,,,bawal din yon piracy?

      ang sinoto wala ngang silang sinabi e.. dagdagan pa nila itong ip bill

  26. 101
    Propeta says:

    bad trip tong mga congressman or sino man nagpasa sa batas na yan…..SINO BA SILA PARA DIKTAHAN KUNG ANO ANG GUSTO SA ISANG INDIVIDUAL….walang kwenta…..daming walang trabaho sa pinas…yan pa inatupag….

  27. Leon says:

    My only question is that what ever happened to Sec. Ronald Llamas. Did he get some spanking already from buying pirated dvd’s. So how can Pnoy sign this in to Law if he cannot also control his men from being the first to violate this.
    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/133563/aquino%E2%80%99s-man-no-poster-boy-for-antipiracy-drive

    • raissa says:

      It turns out we have no law punishing people who buy pirated DVDs.

      However, we NOW have a law punishing punishing people who DOWNLOAD the same movies and songs available as pirated DVDs with the amended Intellectual Property Code.

  28. Radiogirl says:

    I just want to ask if im studying abroad and im going on vacation sa pinas. I cant bring my own books to study while having my vacation?

  29. agot says:

    The Intellectual Property Code defines the rights of owners of intellectual properties, such as patents, trademarks and copyrights. With respect to patents, the Code expressly grants to the patent owner the exclusive right to import products covered by his patent, thus:

    SEC. 71. Rights Conferred by Patent. – 71.1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following exclusive rights:
    (a) Where the subject matter of a patent is a product, to restrain, prohibit and prevent any unauthorized person or entity from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing that product,
    (b) Where the subject matter of a patent is a process, to restrain, prevent or prohibit any unauthorized person or entity from using the process, and from manufacturing, dealing in, using, selling or offering for sale, or importing any product obtained directly or indirectly from such process.
    71.2. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign or transfer by succession the patent, and to conclude licensing contracts for the same. (See. 37, R.A. No. 165a)

    SEC. 76. Civil Action for Infringement. – 76.1. The making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing a patented product or a product obtained directly or indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patentee, process without the authorization of the patentee constitutes patent infringement.

    No similar provision expressly granting copyright owners exclusive right to import is found in the Code with respect to copyrighted materials. However, the now repealed Section 190 of the Code provides that:

    SEC. 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.
    190.3. 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 of articles the importation of which is prohibited under this Section 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. (Sec. 30. P.D. No. 49)

    With Section 190 , there was in effect a restriction on the right to import copyrighted materials notwithstanding that there is no provision granting the copyright owner any exclusive right to import copyrighted materials. There is basis, consequently for the view that anyone may now freely import into the Philippines copyright materials (but not the fake ones, of course).

  30. b4tist4_911 says:

    this law will kill the mobile phone technicians profession whose livelihood was mostly based on phone unlocking… bago sana pirmahan ni pres noynoy ang batas na yan.. may nakahanda na syang work para sa mga mobile phone technician sa pilipinas…

    • Tray says:

      Good example. Unlocking phones per se won’t penalise them. But unlocking it so they can put in it pirated music that they sell will get them in hot water.

  31. Lion girl says:

    I agree with the law that held the space owner must be liable for illegal that happen within his property/building.

    Therefore, If you happen to be leasing out space must know what type of business will be set up and what are the reflection of that towards society.The goods, products, or brand must not be FAKE, INFRINGING, or COUNTERFEIT plus assurance of customers on buying genuine goods, and customer education to purchase genuine goods.

    In conclusion; it is just fair that mall owners are held LIABLE for copyright infringers who rent in their malls. Same way na dapat liable sila for people who get mugged or children who get snatched inside the mall.

  32. mike santos says:

    I was browsing the net to check out what’s new. I saw a link from one of my friends. It was about Congress erasing the rights to bring books, music and movies from abroad. I decided to read it, since I was quite curious. There, I saw that the blog pointed on the changes about RA 8293. The first one mentioned was about jailbreaking being considered as a crime. This is not true, since you must be found guilty of copyright infringement. Jailbreaking just increases the penalty if one is found guilty the penalty, and it won’t really send you to jail because you did that.

    Speaking of gadgets, file sharing also seems to be under fire. It is understandable, since many local artists are being affected by music piracy. Besides these people actually work hard for their music. If we buy albums and digital copies from international artists, why cant we do the same? For other Asian acts such as J-Pop and K-Pop, fans actually buy their albums so they would get an edge at countdown shows and it shows how much the fans are willing to support their idols. BTW, most of the songs which could be legally downloaded are priced cheap. Since the business also knows that your money also goes to other commitments in life, not just by buying albums.

    Eh, speaking of which.. some people were also asking if it’s still legal to bring media into the Philippines from another country. Well, the answer is a big fat YES! In fact, you can bring more than three copies! Isn’t that awesome or what? For me, it is good news since I would be able to bring a ton of books, games, albums and DVDs. It is also fantastic since I would be able to play my games even before it is released. And for me to also spaz over the latest K pop albums.

    • raissa says:

      Hooray for you.

      You read the law that way.

      Wait until the restrictions start trickling in, citing the amended IP Code as the basis.

      For instance, let’s take the “awesome” new right of OCWs to bring home more than three copies of legitimately bought software abroad.

      Once the amended IP Code comes into full force and once the IRRs are set up, let’s see you bring in ONE HUDNRED LEGITIMATELY BOUGHT MICROSOFT PRODUCTS through NAIA.

      Let’s test the waters, shall we.

      • Victin Luz says:

        Wait for the IRR of the new amended Law on IP and read first the REPEALING CLAUSE so as the SEPARABILITY CLAUSE@ mike santos …

        Of course we can always take refuge at Supreme Court , but why WAIT THERE . It will be better if the law will be VETOED by PNOY and further review and public hearing’s ( TRUE ) will be conducted first.

        • Arsenio Reyes says:

          Presidential veto is not absolute. The veto can be over-ridden by I think 2/3 votes of the members of each chamber. I don’t know exactly the procedure but it can be over-ridden. Finally there is a remedy for the over-ride, i.e., take the matter to the Supreme Court for infirmities or unconstitutional provisions.

          But that’s not the important point. Usually they will try to rectify any perceived error for the sake
          of what is called as parliamentary courtesy. Wala naman sigurong bastusan between co-equal
          departments. The President in practical terms need Congressional support for his programs.

          Even based on jurisprudence, the Supreme Court is duty-bound to sustain the acts of the Executive and/or the legislative in case of doubt. It is expected they will be careful because after the Supreme Court, there is no more remedy except perhaps a showdown with the people. Hehehe

          • Victin Luz says:

            Yes @Arsenio it is not really absolute , the Congress can overide it so as every Department respecting their Co-Equal Department’s but the Most PARAMOUNT of all or firstl RESPECT our BASIC RIGHTs .

            I believe that the amended Law on I.P. was a Curtailment of some of our Constitutional Rights ,guaranted under the Constitution. WHY wait , if the prevention of that curtailment is the non signing of PNOY on the amended law on IP sir…. He he ngayon na , habang isinusulat pa nila ang IRR ng BAGONG batas.

            • Arsenio Reyes says:

              Correct me if I am wrong. Normally IRRs are practically prepared “after” the law is passed. I have never come across a law with an IRR before it is approved/passed or lapsed into law.

              How can there be an IRR when it is not a law yet? I don’t know, probably a draft. Probably I’m wrong. But it should be that way logically that there is a draft already. If ganun sila kasipag and diligent in their work, maraming salamat po.

              As an example, if you remember there was that amendment to the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) increasing the amounts of personal exemptions and other amendments. The IRR was issued I think 6 months after the amendments were passed and signed into law. They didn’t how to interpret it and I remember the then Senator Roxas filing a complaint or appeal of some sort that the B.I.R. was interpreting the law and not implementing it. Meaning he was claiming that the B.I.R. were making rules which were not in the law or the intent of the law. Probable reason, political expediency to pass the law without planning how to correctly implement. In the end, we never knew what the outcome of the Roxas action. In the end, the B.I.R. rules were followed because the questioned transitory nature of the issues transpired already. What followed was a series of 2 extensions for all taxpayers to file the related and affected annual reports. Meanwhile, while the IRR was pending, it could not hold pending related transactions such as refund of taxes. And if I am not wrong, Roxas was either the author/proponent or co-author of the bill.

              Yes, only in the Philippines.

              Just like the existing IPP laws, there are some provisions there which at a certain point of time were not yet implemented and there were on-going cases already. I remember it concerned the creation of a Board to implement fines and sanctions.

              • Victin Luz says:

                YES Arsenio@ ….KAYA NGA KAKO NAKAKATAKOT that PNOY will sign now the amended Law on I.P. It is because of so many inconsistencies between or against RA. 8293 and also against PD # 49.

                Those inconsistencies can be harmonize by the IRR . Like section 30 of PD 49 , last paragraph, that 3 copies of books allowed by a balikbayan in bringing in home in the Philippines. And other’s said to be defined not crystal clear on the amended Law on IP.

                Kaya sabi ko , with the express provision of the law authorizing the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Finance to reduced into writings the Rules and Regulation of the amended Law on I.P. , the provisions thereat which are not clear and DISADVANTAGEOUS for US , can become clearer if written under the Whims and Caprice of the B.C. and D.F.

                Pag naprmahan ang batas , IRR will follow and our remedy now is to go to the Supreme Court for our redress….. WHY WAIT? If it can be send back to Congress for further review and public hearing thru the VETO of PNOY, anyway our Basic Rights as Guaranted in the Constitution we now feel are goingnto be violated with some provisions of the new amended Law on Intelectual Property.

              • Victin Luz says:

                The IRR or the Implementing Rules and Regulations has the EFFECT of a LAW itself so that under the REPEALING CLAUSE of the IRR, if it was stated that Presidential Decrees , Laws, Presidential Orders and Rules and Regulation or part thereof which are inconsistent with the NEW Republic Act are hereby repealed….. Vested Rights and Privileges granted/acquired on the old Laws,PD,PO etc., are no longer available if repealed.

              • Victin Luz says:

                Correction…Executive Orders not P.O.

            • Victin Luz says:

              In fact the SEPARABILITY CLAUSE and REPEALING CLAUSE of an Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Law will play an important part of the amendatory Law and the IRR itself .

              I know that an IRR of a LAW comes after signing of the Law itself , SO , Much More that with the existence of infirmities in the new amendatory Law, WHY NOT CORRECT FIRST WHAT IT IS CLOUDY BENEATH THE LAW BEFORE …..PNOY signed that LAW.

              • Victin Luz says:

                Sa IRR dyan sila minsan nagtatago ng BOMBA o LENIENCY o FAVORABLENESS at ang NASA isip ng PROPONENTs so as sa MAMBABATAS na nag hain ay BAKA MAKALUSOT….. E KUNG MAKALUSUT , PAPANO NAMAN si Juan de laCruz @Arsenio .

              • Arsenio Reyes says:

                Yes I agree, the laws may seem to be fair but the the implementation are practically done in favor of the privileged few.

                Swerte lang pag nakatsamba ang ordinary tao tulad natin. Then we say it’s fair.

                For those not lucky enough to benefit from the actual intent, sorry na lang walang kang “K” whatever that means.

                The rules must not only seem fair, reasonable or justified. They must be actually and in reality be fair, reasonable and justified. Give everyone his/her due regardless of station in life. Kaya nga probably ang “dare” ni Raissa is “let’s test the waters”. She is not fully convince with words of opinion or advices only. The law or rules must be crystal clear in the most possible way.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Yes, Victin. They should first repeal the entire PD 49 categorically. Say, “PD 49 is hereby expressly repealed” without any qualifications such as inconsistent parts thereof. So that the IRR would be controlling and without PD 49 co-existing with the new IP Code.

  33. Arsenio Reyes says:

    “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase is meant to exemplify the “unalienable rights” with which all human beings are endowed for the protection of which they institute governments.

    The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.[2] The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads,
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
    (Source : Wikipedia)

    The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is found in other Constitutions including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is a quite a massive response to Ms. Raissa’s blog because it appears these rights are being threatened. Also, the right to property of the common people like us vs. the right to property of intellectual proprietors.

    Government is basically entrusted to protect the interests of its citizens, their happiness although with due
    regard for the rights of others. In the hierarchy of values, can we say that the right to life, liberty and pursuit
    of happiness is higher than the right to property. Well, I think so. Laws are made to attain order and give
    justice. Primarily, it should protect the weak. Otherwise, it is not “for the people”.

    So where is the “Gusto ko happy ka, or happy kayo?”. Many are confused as I am confused with some of the
    arguments here which are technical in nature. Why? Because the government lacked the actual sincerity to explain the proposed law. Ms. Raissa brought the issue to the people because she is also worried about
    what it actually means for the people. She is probably not satisfied with the answers she was getting.

    In other words, goverment efforts to explain the proposed law is lacking the necessary perseverance or
    zeal or enthusiasm (Sigla in Tagalog). Will the people just leave it to the lawyers to act on the matter. The answer is a resound “NO!”.

    Benefit of the doubt is therefor unacceptable. I think this is what Ms. Raissa is telling in her blog and
    certainly we are affected.

    • Joe America says:

      Arsenio, thank you for nailing what I’ve tried to express in several blogs. The Philippine Constitution seems to me to be a legalistic document lacking soul. What is being expressed in this blog thread is that “soul”, the desire to live free and active and richly without having to report to this or that heavy-handed, authoritarian agency. In a way, Raissa’s blog is so valuable, not for the arguments about music CD’s, but because it represents the voice of Filipinos who would kindly like it’s government to allow them to live free and healthy and active lives, in search of opportunity and happiness. Bingo. Beautiful. Thanks.

      • Arsenio Reyes says:

        I think I got the idea from your comments and with a little knowledge of law, democratic principles and watching the movie National Treasurer over and over again in the past couple of years.

        Philippine laws are mostly copied from American laws (and jurisprudence) I think primarily because of their very high sense of fairness and easy to understand principles in relation to individual freedoms. Whenever there is a legal question with no precedence in the Philippines, US cases are cited in order to arrive at decisions. In the modern days they still appear to be consistently but sometimes overly democratic to a fault due to a high degree of respect for individuals even for those accused of crimes. That is the legacy of great American leaders like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and others and of course the American people to the world handed down to all peoples of the world from generation to generation.

        There will always be a lot to learn from reading excerpts from the Black Law Dictionary because legal and democratic principles are briefly explained and American jurisprudence is very rich, certainly a gift for all mankind to emulate and imitate. There is no other model or standard available.

        There lies the difference in leadership and service to the people. American leaders (I think mostly) would rather sacrifice their personal interests than damage democratic principles and ideals. Significant leaders here sometimes sacrifice personal but not “bank interests” when the time comes to make a choice.

        The “hurt” being experienced now being profusely and angrily expressed in this blog concerns those
        inalienable rights which may be imaginably or actually threatened, we don’t know exactly. The Filipino people especially the OFWs I think deserve better treatment from their leaders. In the American scenario, I would think the American people trust their leaders, systems and process to protect them in their shores or outside of it. In the Philippine setting , there is general distrust for our leaders, systems and actual practices. The citizens will now try to protect themselves.

        Thank you Mr. Joe America. God bless.

  34. Waray2ako says:

    Regarding landlord liability of mall owners and owners of establishment….I think it is only right that they will be held liable if they are allowing retailers in their malls to sell copycat items. Corporations like mall owners have corporate responsibilities and this should include respect for the right of others, i. e. copyright owners. If they continue to allow retailers in their mall to sell pirated products, it reflects on what kind of management is running the corporation.

  35. OFW wife says:

    Raissa you are misleading the public…..it is not true that the IP Code amendment erasedOFW’s right to bring home original CDs, DVDs and books. Since Section 190 was deleted, it means that they are now free to bring those personal stuffs to the country ( not limited na to 3 copies anymore) as long as what they are bringing in is not pirated. Ang husband ko OFW and lagi ako nagpapabili ng CD/DVD of foreign artists kasi mura lalo na pag sale, di naman nacoconfiscate dati how much more kung wala ng limit.

    • raissa says:

      The amendments have not yet been signed into law.

      But you want to wake up one day and see your rights diminished?

      Sinasabi lang nila na walang limit. Ang totoo, meron.

      • Victin Luz says:

        Let them bring out First the IRR of RA 8293 @ofw wife ,…. IRR may erase everything to conform the new law and become part of the law itself new . DANGEROUS FOR US.

        Any inconsistencies between RA 8293 and PD 49……….RA 8293 will prevail because it will be the latest sentiment of the Filipino people thru their representatives , member of the House and member of the Senate.

  36. lol. Dun kerr says:

    And on other news, I’ll still jailbreak the hell out of my ipod…. which I’m about to sell anyways. I’ll still end up DL-ing illegal crap from the net because no nation can control it (not that I would do it, but I’m saying they can’t really do anything about it. Kung yung mga pangkaraniwang kriminal di nila agad mahuli pano pa yung nakatanga lang sa bahay kakagamit ng gadget?) without killing free will outright.

    If they’re calling this an ingenious solution (to which, I’m not clear about anyways) you can trust people to make even more ingenious solutions. Specially for guys and gals coming home from the airports.

  37. nicoletski says:

    Jailbreaking DOES NOT NECESSARILY equate to copyright infringement! Are you fucking kidding me, Congress? Please do your research. Jailbreaking is even legal in America, because this allows the users to freely use the device they BOUGHT and OWN.

    Sure, the app piracy and iPhone unlocking (open line) part ARE forms of copyright infringement, but jailbreaking in it self IS NOT. Please do your fucking research.

    • raissa says:

      DG Blancaflor says jailbreaking is not illegal but the law is unclear on when it becomes illegal.

    • Tray says:

      Please read the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. You can simple google DMCA and jailbreaking. I think it will enlighten you a bit.

    • Victin Luz says:

      Nobody is fucking kidding you@nicoletski,… At the IRR of RA 8293, can determine when is jail breaking became ILLEGAL .

      FULL of LOOPHOLEs unless they lay to us the IRR, for scrutiny first before PNOY sign the RA 8293

  38. pinay ako says:

    Haay naku! That’s the government. They pretend to be doing something for the good of the many, but kidaw ka, they are doing something behind, and what they are doing is just to cover what they are doing that is not good for the many only for themselves. Kaya lumang tugtugin na yan. Para may ibang pagkaabalahan ang mga tao at di mapansin ang mga gawain nyo.

  39. Thursday says:

    The title is misleading.

    The article is essentially claiming that “Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad” because Congress included in the proposed amendments to the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) the deletion of Section 190.1 of the IPC. While the article correctly pointed out that the deletion of Section 190.1 will remove the “personal purpose exemption” in the importation of copyrighted works, it failed to consider or take into account that the deletion of the entire Section 190.1 will effectively remove not only the “exemption to the general rule” but also the “general rule” itself. In other words, by deleting the entire Section 190.1, Congress is effectively removing the rule that the importation of a copyrighted work must be authorized by the copyright owner. This is because if you examine our copyright law, there is no provision other than Section 190.1 which expressly or impliedly requires the authorization of the copyright owner before a copyrighted work may be imported into the Philippines. It should be noted that Section 30 of PD 49 which is being cited by others as the basis of the copyright owner’s right to authorize or prevent the importation of his work has already been expressly repealed by the IPC.

    Thus, it is not true that Filipinos will lose their right to import or bring home their music, movies, books and other copyright-protected properties if the amendment is signed into law. The truth is under the current copyright law, anyone who wishes to import or bring into the Philippines a copyright-protected work is required by Section 190.1 to secure the authorization of the copyright owner UNLESS the importation falls under the “personal purpose exemption”. Under the proposed amendment, anyone who wishes to import or bring into the Philippines a copyright-protected work will NO LONGER BE REQUIRED to secure the authorization of the copyright owner EVEN IF the importation is NOT for personal purposes.

    The right to import will of course not be absolute under the proposed amendment as it will still be subject to the economic rights of the copyright owner under Section 177 of the IPC. For instance, the importation of a book will not be allowed if it is a pirated copy since it violates the “reproduction right” of the copyright owner under Section 177.1 of the IPC.

    • raissa says:

      This is part 1.
      Pls read Part 2. I’m posting it today.

      Thanks for elaborating on Section 190.

    • Rene-Ipil says:

      Thursday@111

      Please tell us how Section 30 of PD 49 was repealed, expressly or even impliedly.

      • Thursday says:

        Please see Section 239.1 of the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293) which expressly repealed PD 49. It reads:

        “239.1. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, more particularly Republic Act No. 165, as amended; Republic Act No. 166, as amended; and Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code; Presidential Decree No. 49, including Presidential Decree No. 285, as amended, are hereby repealed.”

        Note that one of the reasons why the IPC was passed was to consolidate all the laws on intellectual property including RA 165 which dealt with patents, RA 166 which dealt with trademarks and trade names, and PD 49 which dealt with copyright, moral rights and related rights. Thus the IPC now both covers patent, trademarks, copyright, moral rights and related rights. Note also that both Section 30 of PD 49 and Section 190.1 of the IPC regulate the same thing, i.e., the importation of copyrighted works.

        • Rene-Ipil says:

          Thursday@111.2

          To my understanding, only Acts (like PD 49) and parts of Acts (like Section 30 of PD 49) which are inconsistent with RA 8293 were repealed. Please specify to me the parts or portions of Section 30, PD 49 that RA repealed, or modified. And I will then point out the parts that remains consistent with RA 8293.

          • Thursday says:

            Congress clearly wanted to replace Section 30 of PD 49 (“Section 30”) with Section 190 of the Intellectual Property Code (“IPC”) since the provisions under Section 30 were not just incorporated but practically copied word for word with a few amendments under Section 190 of the IPC. Thus, Section 190.1 of the IPC corresponds to the first paragraph of Section 30, Section 190.2 corresponds to the second paragraph of Section 30 and Section 190.3 corresponds to the third paragraph of Section 30.

            Aside from the fact that Section 190.1 was enacted to replace and supersede the first paragraph of Section 30, it also changed the “importation rule” under Section 30 thereby making the said two provisions inconsistent. The rule under Section 30 is that the importation of copies of a work which are piratical copies or likeness of any work in which Philippine copyright subsists will need the authorization of the copyright owner unless (1) the copies of the work are not available in the Philippines subject to certain conditions, or (2) when the copies form part of libraries or personal baggage under certain conditions. The rule under Section 190.1, on the other hand, is that the importation of copies of a work (without qualification) will need the authorization of the author of, or other copyright owner in, the work unless it is made by a natural person for personal purposes and (1) copies of the work are not available in the Philippines subject to certain conditions, or (2) the copies form part of libraries or personal baggage under certain conditions.

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Thursday@111.2

              You wrote that in the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), the provisions of Section 30 of PD 49 were” practically copied word for word with a few amendments under Section 190 of the IPC. Thus, Section 190.1 of the IPC corresponds to the first paragraph of Section 30, Section 190.2 corresponds to the second paragraph of Section 30 and Section 190.3 corresponds to the third paragraph of Section 30.”

              My position is that the provisions of Section 30, PD 49 have NO substantial and irreconcilable conflict with Article 190 of the IPC. Both pertain to importation of copyrighted work for personal or non-commercial purposes. Both laws do not require any authorization from copyright owner if the importation is in prescribed quantity. The other requisites are similar, if not identical. The only difference is that Section 30 refers specifically to “Philippine” copyright while Article 190.1 concerns copyright in general.

              But for legal and practical purposes, Philippines laws cannot protect a copyright owner who has no local copyright counterpart, i.e., an authorized or licensed local manufacturer or distributor of a certain product. So we are here concerned practically with Philippine copyright. And the deletion of Articles 190.1 and 290.2 would in fact bring us back to square one, that is, Section 30.

              If the intention of the new IPC was to repeal Section 30 of PD 49 and replace it with the new Article 190, then by all means state it categorically to avoid confusion. For example:

              “Repealing clause – Section 30 of PD 49 is hereby expressly repealed.” Or “The entirety of PD 49 is hereby expressly repealed”.

              To my understanding Section 30 of PD 49 co-exists now with Article 190 of the IPC because, conformably with the supreme court decision in Berris vs. Abyadang, G.R. No. 183404, October 13, 2010, any amendments concerning both provisions have no “substantial and irreconcilable conflict”.

              • Thursday says:

                There is no more need for Congress to categorically state or express that “Section 30 of PD 49 is repealed” in the IPC given the language of Section 239.1. Obviously, when Congress provided in Section 239.1 of the IPC that “all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, more particularly … Presidential Decree No. 49… are hereby repealed”, it was aware that there are inconsistent provisions in the IPC and PD 49. Given the language of Section 239.1, all inconsistent provisions in PD 49 should therefore be deemed repealed even if Congress did not SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY the inconsistent sections and EXPRESSLY DECLARE that they are repealed since there is already a clear legislative intent in Section 239.1 to repeal all inconsistent provisions.

                Indeed, Section 5 of PD 49 (which specifies the exclusive rights of the copyright owner) was clearly repealed by Section 177 of the IPC (which now specifies the exclusive rights of the copyright owner) and yet there is no provision in the IPC which expressly provides that “Section 5 of PD 49 is hereby repealed”. Since there appears to be no section or provision in the IPC which expressly provides that a particular section in PD 49 is being repealed, does this mean therefore that the IPC had no intention to repeal any of the sections of PD 49?

                It should also be considered that when a provision in a new law is meant to incorporate (with or without amendments) and/or replace a provision in an old law, reference to the old provision would ordinarily be indicated immediately after the new provision. Thus, you will find “(Sec. 5, P. D. No. 49a)” at the end of Section 177 of the IPC and “(Sec. 30, P. D. No. 49)” at the end of Section 190 of the IPC in the text of the law. (See these links for reference: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129342#P1172_167198 and http://www.chanrobles.com/legal7copyright.htm#.USJyAWcltS8). This is not unique to the IPC as you will find this also in other laws like the Family Code where the articles that replaced provisions in the Civil Code also indicate at the end of the said articles the article numbers of the civil code provisions they replaced. (See this link for reference: http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorderno209.htm#.USKG1GcltS8)

                Now if Section 190.1 of the IPC was enacted to replace Section 30 of PD 49, then it would be moot to discuss if they are inconsistent because the new provision will effectively supersede the old provision. In any case, I already explained in detail in my previous comments my position that the first paragraph of Section 30 is inconsistent with Section 190.1 because they provide different and inconsistent rules on when importation will require or not require the authorization of the copyright owner. If your position is that there is no substantial and irreconcilable conflict then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

                By the way, just curious, do you think the alarming title of the article is justified?

              • Thursday says:

                My response is still pending review by the administrator. Just wanted to clarify that what I wanted to ask at the end of that comment is if you agree with the title of the article. I am interested in your opinion because you obviously did not just read the article. You also researched the issues.

        • Tray says:

          Thursday, I think Rene-Ipil is referring to the case of Berris v. Abyadang GR 183404. In it the SC said that its interpretation of Sec 239.1 is that RA 8293 did not expressly repeal R.A. 166 entirely (TM) only parts inconsistent. Now, granted that we are talking of PD49 here, the question is should this case be applied since PD49 is mentioned together with RA166?

          • Thursday says:

            Tray, please see my explanation above. So what do you think of the title of the article?

            • Tray says:

              I agree with your observation that the title does no reflect the correct interpretation of Sec. 190. Sec 190 did not bestow any right to import. It is, in fact, a limitation on the right to import. Thus, the new law did not remove a right but removed a limitation on the right. Put it in another way, the government does not give us a list of what we can import. Instead, it tells us what we cannot import and the exceptions. Consequently, what was removed was the “not to import” rule.

    • Rene-Ipil says:

      Thursday@111

      Let’s assume that PD 49 does not exist.

      I think the new title of Article 190 is inappropriate because it appears limited to infringing materials only, without reading the text. It is a cardinal rule that headings or titles should be brief enough to cover the idea imputed in the text which concerns in this case imported or exported copyrighted works, whether infringed or legitimate, personal or commercial. So the title should have been”Importation and Exportation of Copyright Materials” or to that effect.

      Besides, the title is more apt in the penal clause portion because it focuses on the unpleasant aspect. Yes, you are correct. It unnecessarily raises alarm.

      • Thursday says:

        Actually, Section 190.1 is really problematic for me. First, it starts with the qualification “Notwithstanding the provision of Subsection 177.6″) which does not make sense since Section 177.6 deals with the “public performance of a work”. How is the right of a copyright owner to authorize the public performance of his work relevant to the importation rule? The qualification should have referred to Subsection 177.3 which deals with the “first public distribution right” of copyright owners.

        Second, if you examine Section 190.1 (a)(ii), the importation by an individual for personal purposes may be allowed without the consent of the copyright owner provided no copy is available in the Philippines and the importation is by the authority of AND for the use of the Philippine government. How do you reconcile the “for personal purposes” and “for the use of the Philippine Government” requirements in that exemption?

        Personally, I think Section 190.1 should be deleted because it gives confirmation, or at least the impression, that we follow the “national exhaustion rule” in interpreting or enforcing the “first public distribution right” of copyright owners. Since we follow the “international exhaustion rule”, the first sale abroad of a copy of a copyrighted work should already exhaust the “first public distribution right” of the copyright owner in the Philippines.

  40. letlet says:

    I am so perflexed with these laws ( cybercrime law and IP code) enacted by the senators JUST BEFORE ELECTION, that I wonder if there’s a sinister motive behind their actions. This is another THEORY of mine. We are fully aware that after the lawmakers’ enactment of these laws, they go to PNOY for signing as the final stage. If PNOY just signed them, the BLAME FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION would land into PNOY’s lap/ shoulder. The flabbergasted voters would turn their ire to the LP senators by not voting them, therefore, NO MORE DAANG MATUWID FOR PNOY. as It’s the DERAILMENT the author senators are more after for.

    PNOY has been the leading trumpeter for the LP candidates saying that they have to win, be in the senate and work with him for the full crystallization of daang matuwid, in which majority of the senators would not want to happen because it means their pangungurakot/ pangangamkam would be coming to its end.

    So to the author senators and their cohorts, the best way to halt PNOY of his daang matuwid is by enacting these bloody laws and put PNOY in a very hot water, well, actually a boiling water.

    • alrick13 says:

      good take on the situation, it seems this is a political conspiracy intended for the May 2013 election

    • Arsenio Reyes says:

      Yes Ms. letlet. I think it’s a tricky world out there in politics. Those who lay traps are trapped themselves.
      It’s dirty politics at the expense of the people. A series of tactics and strategies for political purposes. Everyday, we see the news how the present politicians play their games.

      A recent example is the major repairs along EDSA. Secretary Sison announces a major rehab to start
      in May. The President backtracks and says “Wait!”… Sison and Tolentino (MMDA) join and align in the
      Presidential announcement. Ha ha ha. The repairs could wreck havoc on the LP votes since people
      would be cursing everyday on the resulting monster traffic situations. If his LP candidates doesn’t get
      into the Senate or a majority of the 12 candidates at least, its a political problem. Again at the expense
      of us people. The President would have rough sailing in the next 3 years before his term ends.

      There’s something wrong with our system and process of government and there’s something wrong with the people who run it. And everyday, politicians play games which affects the lives of ordinary people like us. It’s a complex matter but you can see the big picture. As a noted jurist said “We test a rule by its results…” I forgot the name but I read it once in a Philippine Supreme Court decision.

  41. Mary anne says:

    Ahh so si senator villar ba may pakana netong bill na to at xa ang main sponsor? Hindi man lang ba nya inisip yung mga OFW na matagal ng nsa abroad at nakapundar na ng gamit dro. So panu eto iuuwi kung bawal ng ipasok sa pinas! Correct me of im wrong, db nung lumalabam xang presidente i think ang nililigawan nyang botante mga OFW?! Wag ng iboto asawa nya sa senado!

    • nong says:

      tama ka miss… marami sa ofsw more than 20 years nang naimbak ang mga kopyang dvd’s.. songs, games, movies, emails etc..at marami na nasave sa cds at dvds….pampaalis homesick..personal gamit nga nila.. doon sa work place nila….

      hindi na ba nila …pwede iuwi ito sa pinas parang remembrance sa ilang taon nila mag ofw o para naman sa personal gamit nga nila sa pinas.. ?? sa dami nito..kaya ba nga authoprities sa pinas imonitor

      try nila mag work sa ganoon katagal na walang libangan na tulad nila
      may matira pa ba silang dolar na maipadala sa pinas?
      di kaya sila mabuwang? magbibilang na lang ng mga nagtatakbuhan ng ipis sa kisame
      lol

  42. letlet says:

    Before going to pinas for a visit, I usually send my stuff including cds, dvds (music, movies, exercise) and books through balikbayan boxes door to door delivery so I carry little with my luggages. Would these boxes be subjected to IP?

    I’m pretty sure that when these senators go abroad for a holiday/vacation with their families, they would not allow themselves to be subjected to IP searches as they are EXEMPTED from that. These IP searches and IP laws are applicable ONLY to the common Flipinos who are working/ living abroad. Definitely, 1000 %, this law is not for the common good of the people

    Mr Villaflor is pulling a wool over our eyes, us the common people. What he says is exactly different from what is going to happen when this law becomes implementable. There are already loopholes in what he is saying. Tell that to marines, Mr Villaflor.

  43. letlet says:

    In my case, before going to pinas for a visit I usually send my stuff including cds, dvds (music, movies, exercise), pasalubongs and books through the balikbayan boxes door to door delivery so I have very little to carry, so I wonder now what will happen to my boxes. Are they also subjected to IP? With 3 books that I carry with me to read in the plane, I suppose I have nothing to worry about them, as they are for personal use.

    The senators, for all that matter, would have nothing to worry about this IP because they won’t be subjected to any luggage searches. WOULD THE SENATORS ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE SUBJECTED TO LUGGAGE SEARCHES FOR IP STUFF? A big NO and a capital NO. They will use their power of position and influence. Ang ordinary OFW and permanent Filipino residents living abroad lang ang targets. To these seantors, what do you think of us, just milking cows.

    • letlet says:

      correction Mr Villaflor should be Mr Blancaflor.

      Whaevert Mr Blancaflor is saying has already lots of loopholes. He is pulling a wool over our eyes. Tell that to marines.

    • pinay710 says:

      @mam letlet kung yung asawa ni lapid ilang beses nakapaglabas ng $$$$$$$$$$$$ nirikisa ba ng immigratiion ng Pilipinas? HINDI!! KAYA NAILABAS AT NAIDIPOSITO SA AMERICA. pero kapag PANGKARANIWANG PILIPINO pati kaloobloobang bahagi ng katawan kakapkapan. KAAWA AWANG PANGKARANIWANG MAMAMAYAN PILIPINO. PANGULONG PINOY ALAM MO BA ANG GINAGAWA NG MGA ALIPORES MO SA MGA BOSS MO?lalo na sa sinasabi mong MAKABAGONG BAYANI,OFW, KUNO, SABI MO?

  44. Viva says:

    Sucks that the senate SOLD us!!!

  45. leona says:

    Mr. Blancaflor said ““The greater good has to be served.” What does he mean by this remark? If it was a ‘one time ‘meeting’ of only some people mostly in the gov’t and not quite a number from the general public was invited, how can he say the greater good has to be served?

    How greater of the general public audience was invited by Sen. Villar on March 9, 2011? Zero? Is zero a greater good number? His ‘greater’ plays a lot in the air! This is my size up of this remark or answer to Raissa

  46. Albert_n30 says:

    We Filipino’s are fond of bringing something for our friends and relatives. specially books and movies that are not available here or if its available here the price is too high. . . Our Politicians should focus on creating a law to ban product from our neighboring country “China” because all their products have a very low quality, and sometimes has some poisonous substance on them. So please this coming election choose wisely, know what this law those re-electionist has written and pass. . . Law that would make the life of Filipinos easier not a burden for us to carry….

    • leona says:

      @Albert, with the proofs already so clear, in the past and present, my plan is not to vote for any re-electionist, Liberal or UNA no but only NEW candidates who have no political record, of corruptions, etc. and who are not to serve or to put a political dynasty situation. Period!

      No ‘kingdoms’ of whatever forms should ever be in our political system. It runs counter to democracy and republican system of government.

      That is why the Constitution prohibits political dynasty in SEC. 26 Article II. The next Congress must enact a law defining what is covered and prohibited under an anti-political dynasty law. If or when more re-electionists are brought back, naturally and practically, no such law will ever possibly be enacted.

    • whoah says:

      Whoah. Chill a bit about banning everything with a “made in China”

      If that happens. Practically 95% of any technological equipment would either have to be rebranded or not sold here at all.

      Oh, and don’t forget “everything else” like appliances, etc.

  47. rolnico says:

    If the “for personal use” privilege for bringing in gadgets, books, or other electronic goods by OFWs like me will be deleted or further restricted by these IP amendments, then this is really bad for us pinoys as it cuts off personal enjoyment of the things we buy for sweating it out abroad….What a way to reward OFWs by our “honorable” lawmakers!!!.. If you are not aware yet, Sen. Manny Villar was foremost proponent of the “Oil Deregulation Law”. I still remembered him appearing in TV and saying once passed, this law will encourage competition and bring down the price of gasoline/petrol..the result as you all well know has been the ever increasing price of gasoline, because the big oil companies are now calling the shots and pegging the price of petrol at their will….Pahirap talaga sa Pinoy…..Now Sen. Villar was at it again, endorsing a law that will make life difficult for OFWs like me…This law is not good for everybody…this law is good for the big media companies who lobbied to our politicians and gov’t agencies to pass these amendments to the IP law…..Surely, I will NOT VOTE for Villar and all signatories of these amendments.

    • raissa says:

      Thanks for reminding us.

      If Sen. Villar comes to your neck of woods, pls ask him why.

    • nong says:

      si villar cpa.. accountant auditor pa

      sa impeachment.. siya ang akala kong magexplain o elaborate ng mga bank accounts ni cj para maintyendihan ng mga senador at taong bayan..lalo na ang mga accounting terms..
      nabubulol tulong ang mga senador pag yoon na ang tema
      nakakatawa..

      pero.. quiet lang siya..
      parang ayaw niyang me maapakan syang kabaru niya..
      heto sya ngayon

      tapos na ang term niya .. si mrs naman
      hanep sa trabajo..
      tutoo ba??

  48. Ferdee says:

    Kung ganyan ang gagawin nila.. half ng pinoy population (or more) ay either mag mumulta or makukulong.. maryosep naman…me bago na namang lalabas na sistema ng pangongotong.. sabihin na nating me problema talaga sa copyrights.. at sa salitang kanto.. pagnanakaw din ang pag da download ng mga movies and songs sa internet kase di mo naman binili.. kaya lang matanong ko lang.. eto kayang nag pasa ng bill na ito eh ni minsan hindi gumamit ng mga pirated mp3 songs.. or nanood ng pirated DVD’s o kaya nag download sa internet or pinanood sa internet ang mga bagong movies, ang mga anak ba nila.. pati na rin siguro kasambahay nila eh gumamit na din ng mga pirated stuffs na namention ko. Ang hirap nito baka sila pa itong nangunguna sa ganitong kalokohan eh.

    • leona says:

      @Ferdee…No. 102, parehas lang ito sa pag bawal ng illegal gambling. Nag lagay ng legal CASINO. Na alis ba ang JUETENG? Hindi. Ang MASYAO sa Visayas? Hindi.

      Ang IP isang Batas para protektahan ang mga artists, inventors, atbpa. Kung hihigpitan ng Batas pati yun hindi dapat katulad ng ordinaryong users, gamit or bibili lang ng mga legitimate gadgets, music, books, atbpa, ipag bawal lahat ang mga ito, ano pa ang KALIGAYAN NG ORDINARYONG PILIPINO, OFW atbpa?

      E di wala na! Walang PASALUBONG na galing ABROAD! Malungkot ang BUHAY NG MGA PILIPINO!

    • nong says:

      pag neremodel ng nanay ko ang pantalon ko para magamit ni totoy,,,bawal din yon piracy?

      ang sinoto wala ngang silang sinabi e.. dagdagan pa nila itong ip bill

  49. Propeta says:

    bad trip tong mga congressman or sino man nagpasa sa batas na yan…..SINO BA SILA PARA DIKTAHAN KUNG ANO ANG GUSTO SA ISANG INDIVIDUAL….walang kwenta…..daming walang trabaho sa pinas…yan pa inatupag….

  50. -->

Trackbacks

  1. [...] forced us to bend over and then raped us in the ass by passing a law amending Republic Act 8293. This law now prevents us to bring home music, videos, and books as well as stiffer penalties for copyright infringements. We already have a saner Copyright Law and [...]

  2. [...] and up to nine years in jail and P1.5 million pesos for the third and subsequent offenses. raissa robles | Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books f… Reply With [...]



Do share your thoughts:

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>