The legislative history of amendments to the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293)

Share:

Below is the history of how amendments to Republic Act 8293 became law in the 15th Congress. And who supported it.

This is another law that has been over 10 years in the making.

I am now writing Part 2 and am being guided by your questions and  comments.

Thanks.

 

50 Responses to “The legislative history of amendments to the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293)”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 12
    duquemarino says:

    Off topic: Binays’ flight to Rome was delayed due to the “hold departure order” issued by the Sandiganbayan to Elenita Binay (wife of the VP).

    Pwede naman pala tawag-tawag lang at lifted na ang HDO issued ng Sandigangbayan.

    VP Binay should have gone ahead, and then Mrs. Binay ask the court to temporarily lift the HDO and catch up with VP Binay in another flight. Tapos sabihin ni Mrs. binay sa Pope, “Papa, sorry nadelay ako dahil may hold departure order ako. Inayos ko muna ang lifting.”

    We still have the tendency to bend the rules just to accommodate a VIP, e kung ordinary traveler kaya yun? Just asking.

  2. 11
    Mel says:

    OFF Topic, but well within the Category of ‘Filipinos Abroad’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1UgKhkHLKc&feature=player_embedded

  3. 10
    netty says:

    I hope this video and c/p link help.

    http://youtu.be/kQTONXs_N-A

    This is a warning for all US internet users: Starting this coming week, the majority of all US Internet users are going to be subject to a new copyright enforcement system that may force them to complete educational programs, and may even slow their Internet speeds to a crawl for continued copyright violations.

    A source with direct knowledge of the Copyright Alert System (CAS), who asked to not to be named, has told the Daily Dot that the five BIG participating Internet service providers (ISPs) will start the highly controversial program on Monday.

    The ISP’s, including industry monsters AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon are going to be launching their versions of the ‘Copyright Alert System’ on different days throughout this coming week. Comcast is expected to be the first, beginning on Monday.

    How does this new Copyright Alert System work?

    It’s going to be an automated “graduated response” system, which means that it will slowly ramp up upon your punishments each time it thinks that you are pirating files. The first two times, you will just receive an email and a voicemail saying that you have been caught. The third and fourth times, you’ll be redirected to “educational” material, and you’ll have to click that to let them know that you understood the material. The fifth and sixth times, it will get much more serious: Your Internet connection may be slowed to a crawl for several days.

    What do you think will happen after that?
    Well, after you’ve ‘passed those courses with flying colors”, you’ve “graduated” from the system! No more alerts. Congratulations! The Copyright Alert System won’t hamper you any more! Except, you’ll now be labeled a ‘serial pirate’ and the content companies might then try to sue you as a serial pirate. The fact that you have already been cited six times for copyright infringement will more than likely be used in court against you.
    I say BRING IT ON! MOLON LABE, BABY! The content companies CAN ALL BE SHUT DOWN by WE THE PEOPLE if we so choose, they truly must remember who pays their bills: US!
    Read more about the Copyright Alert System here.
    Source for this story can be found here.

  4. 9
    Rod Vera says:

    Hi all,

    Thank you for quoting my article in the comments section. First my disclaimer, I wrote that piece in the literary fashion which some might consider quirky. My intention was to highlight a proposed law that is flawed somehow.

    Before we get into semantics or statutory construction, I wanted to point out the increased (yet toothless) power of the Bureau of Customs. Even if the text is controlling, the Customs is now empowered to “prevent” the importation of INFRINGING materials.

    I submit that infringement is a conclusion of law and not of fact. A work under copyright protection is only infringing if the owner complains against the holder of the material. So, how will the Customs guy at the airport know if the estate of JRR Tolkien has filed an infringement claim against a returning resident? Would the Customs guy know what is in the public domain?

    The IPO is NOT an agency that enforces Copyright law. It only protects the same by settling infringement claims quasi-judicially. As it looks, the amendments makes the Customs official the prosecutor and judge in concluding what is “infringing” or not.

    Lastly, PD 49 is specifically repealed in Sec. 239. “All ACTS … more particularly…. PD No. 49… are hereby repealed.”

    Thank you.

    • 9.1
      Rene-Ipil says:

      Rod Vera @ 9

      I think you can help me on this. 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 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. Thank you.

      • 9.1.1
        Rod Vera says:

        I submit that PD 49 is repealed in its entirety. RA 8293 is a codification of all the IP laws. What you read at the end of a provision quoting PD 49 is just in reference to the similar provision of the former law. The cycle of codification would be moot if we insist that PD 49 is not yet repealed.

        • 9.1.1.1
          Rene-Ipil says:

          Rod Vera @ 9.1

          Codification or otherwise, repeal by implication is proscribed. Repeal of any law must be unequivocal and not subject to any doubt. Please look at Section 239.1of PD 49, to wit:

          “Section 239. Repeals. – 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.”

          To my understanding, the phrase “All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, . . . more particularly PD 49 . . . ., are hereby repealed” would mean only the repeal of old laws that are entirely inconsistent and also those parts of the same laws that are inconsistent with the new law. And many parts of PD 49 are consistent with RA 8293.

          But I must admit that you have a good point. Maybe the deliberation during the formulation of RA 8293 can help. Meanwhile, I submit that those parts of PD 49 NOT inconsistent with RA 8293 are effective for legal and practical reasons.

          • 9.1.1.1.1
            Rene-Ipil says:

            Rod Vera @ 9.1

            One of the CPMers, @Tray, pointed out the case of Berris vs. Abyadang, G.R. No.183404, insofar as the repeal of RA 166 is concerned. RA 166 is one of the laws which in your opinion was repealed in its entirety together with PD 49. The said supreme court decision of October 13, 2010 declares:

            “Interestingly, R.A. No. 8293 did not expressly repeal in its entirety R.A. No. 166, but merely provided in Section 239.1[16] that Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with it were repealed. In other words, only in the instances where a substantial and irreconcilable conflict is found between the provisions of R.A. No. 8293 and of R.A. No. 166 would the provisions of the latter be deemed repealed.”

            • Rod Vera says:

              The IP Code (RA 8293) stated categorically what are the economic rights of a copyright holder. Hence, any INCONSISTENT provisions of law that stated any economic rights of a copyright holder are now repealed.

              The proposed amendment allowed the Customs to prevent the importation of “infringing” materials. And since only RA 8293 expressly dictated what are the rights of a copyright holder, only acts that violate those rights listed are considered as infringing (Sec. 216).

              I submit, with due respect, that what is copyright infringement under the law is ONLY under RA 8293.

              Sec 5 of PD 49 is inconsistent with Sec. 177 of RA 8293; Sec. 28 of PD 49 is inconsistent with Sec. 216 of RA 8293.

              See: NBI vs. Hwang, G.R. No. 147043. June 21, 2005 & Levis vs. Vogue Traders G.R. No. 132993. June 29, 2005 where in the Court expressly stated the wholesale repeal of PD49 and not RA 166.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Rod Vera @ 9.1

                First, I was asking inconsistencies in Section 30 of PD 49 but you wrote about other sections, particularly sections 5 and 28 of PD 49.

                Second, I cited a Supreme Court decision of later vintage (2010) which specifically and clearly discussed how to interpret Article 239.1 of RA 83293. In other words holding the bull by the horn. But you cited two cases decided in 2005 which citations appear as mere foot notes or references. Being mere references, they are not part of the decision. Although I must admit that it helps in understanding the issues involved.

                Third, I learned a lot in our exchanges because I did exert extra effort in studying the matter. Not to mention that an IP practitioner is on the other side. Thank you for your time.

    • 9.2
      Victin Luz says:

      Ha ha @Rod Vera ,,….No offend sir, we want your answer on @Rene’s QUERRY , people on this BLOG are watching Your’s and Rene’s comments/ interactions… We none lawyers on this Blog were inclined to the explanations of Rene… please answer for the benefit for all of us.

      • 9.2.1
        LawStudent says:

        Hi Rene and Victin Luz,

        Rod Vera is correct.

        The inconsistent parts of PD 49 have already been repealed by RA 8293. The repealing clause of RA 8293, specifically, Sec. 239.1 provides for that. Thus, what is written under Sec. 190 of RA 8293 was (yes, I write it in the past tense) the LATEST version of the law during its effectivity. You CANNOT summon back Sec. 30 of PD 49 into existence since it has already been repealed by the “newer” version of the law–and I’m referring to Sec. 190 under RA 8293.

        …UNTIL RA 10372 was signed into law last February 28, 2013.

        Thus, we now have the LATEST of all the versions–the new standard. And this latest of all versions, has already removed Secs. 190.1-190.2.

        THIS IS NOW THE LAW.

        With the removal of Secs. 190.1-190.2, Rod is correct that we have ALREADY veered away from the three-copy limitation rule. Thus, we could now bring home 20 copies of whatever movie we want–for as long as it is NOT an infringing copy. What Sec. 190 now prohibits is the importing–and a new addition–the exporting of infringing materials.

        The FAQs of the Official Gazette website confirms this:

        “Q: Am I still allowed to import books, DVDs, and CDs from abroad?

        A: Yes. In fact, the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code have removed the original limitation of three copies when bringing legitimately acquired copies of copyrighted material into the country. Only the importation of pirated or infringed material is illegal. As long as they were legally purchased, you can bring as many copies you want, subject to Customs regulations.”

        • 9.2.1.1
          LawStudent says:

          Rene,

          You mentioned earlier about statutory construction. I wonder if you have ever encountered the rule that if a new provision of law does NOT reproduce the old one, then there is already an implied repeal?

          This is the ruling in Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriquez. According to Ruben Agpalo’s Statutory Construction Book (p.408): “The Court ruled that Sec. 18 was repealed, in accordance with the well-settled rule of statutory construction that provisions of an old law that were not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed repealed and discarded.”

          I hope this clarifies the issue. :)

          • 9.2.1.1.1
            Rene-Ipil says:

            Lawstudent@9.2

            I always have a healthy respect for law students, more especially for Bar reviewees. I do honestly believe that they know more about law than veteran trial lawyers whose specialization is outside the law subject of contention.

            Having said that, may I remind you that my argument with Rod Vera concerns PD 49 vis-a-vis RA 8293. The new IP code – RA 10372 – was not factored yet. Hence, your contention that Sections 190.1 and 190.2 of RA 8293 had been repealed by the new IP Code is correct. In fact said provisions were expressly “deleted”.

            But RA 8293 did not repeal Section 30 of PD 49 or the entirety of PD 49, impliedly or expressly. Only the inconsistent parts of PD 49 was repealed by RA 8293. Thank you for finding time to post your comment. I appreciate it very much. Hope you concentrate on laws given greater weight in the BAR exams unless you intend to specialize on IP law practice.

            • LawStudent says:

              Thank you Rene for replying despite the lapse of 1 month.

              I am well aware of your argument with Rod Vera with regard to PD 49 and RA 8293–in fact, that is my point of contention in my first comment (see 9.2). You argued in your comment (8.1) that CURRENTLY there is still the three-copy limitation due to Sec. 30 of PD 49:

              “Atty. Rod Vera said that the limitation to 3 copies only was removed in the new IP law. I don’t think so. It is still limited to 3 copies as provided for in Section 30 of PD 49, which provision of the law has not been amended or repealed. Please note that the old and would be new IP law, specifically Article 190, carries the same provision of the last paragraph of Section 30 of PD 49″

              However, this comment is misleading that is why I felt the urge to correct it.

              First, Sec.30 of PD 49 HAS already been impliedly repealed by Sec. 190 of RA 8293. The reason for this? Statutory construction and Sec. 239.1 of RA 8293. If the legislature intended Sec. 30 of PD 49 to be retained in its entirety, then it would have reproduced all its parts in Sec. 190. HOWEVER, please note that this does not mean that the the three-copy limitation has been abandoned by RA 8293. In fact, it is still retained under Sec. 190.1 (a) (iii) of RA 8293.

              What I am correcting is your idea that PD 49 and RA 10372–or what you refer to as the “new law” in your comment in 8.1–would stand together. Clearly, the legislature has already abandoned the three-copy limitation under Sec. 190 of RA 8293. And we not argue on this further since you have already agreed to this. Thank you so much for your time too! :)

              P.S.: Despite the dream of every law student to pass the BAR exam, it is not the be all and end all. Besides, statutory construction is NOT something peculiar to IP Law. One need not specialize in IP Law to know this. In fact, this is just taught in first year. :)

              • LawStudent says:

                *Correction: Clearly abandoned the three-copy limitation under Sec. 190 under RA 10372. Sorry for the mistake. :)

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Lawstudent@9.2

                You are damn right on your P.S.

        • 9.2.1.2
          raissa says:

          the key there is “subject to customs regulations” – THAT is the limitation.

          It can change ANYTIME.

          Whereas the unamended IPR clearly states one can bring up to THREE COPIES.

  5. 8
    clementejak says:

    Lets read an article in Yahoo news today regarding the amending of the RA 8293.

    Here is the article in toto.

    Bawal na ba ang pasalubong from your Tita in San Francisco?
    By Rod Vera, JD, Special to Yahoo! Philippines | Yahoo! Southeast Asia Newsroom – 5 hours ago

    There is some hoopla happening right now about that law saying balikbayans can’t bring in movies, TV shows and coloring books anymore when they return to the Philippines.

    That “law” would be House Bill No. 3841, 15th Congress, making some amendments to current Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.

    So, bawal na ba talaga to bring home your pabilin of the boxed set of Lord of the Rings from your Tita in San Francisco?

    To put it plainly: No, it’s not bawal. What is bawal now is how many your tita can bring home, and in fact this law says your tita or any balikbayan relatives can bring in more than they did before according to the change in law.

    Yes, more.

    Related story: Intellectual Property Code changes approved

    Don’t be scared, because I will now be posting some legal stuff in the next few paragraphs to illustrate this. Scroll down a bit if you want to skip it.

    The now-to-be-deleted provision reads like this:

    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:
    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).

    The soon-to-be-public provision will be like this:

    SEC. 190. Importation and exportation of infringing materials
    Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of articles, the importation or exportation of which is prohibited under this Act and under treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported or before they are exported.

    Stop scrolling here. Welcome back!

    Also read: Palace: Thou shall not fear cybercrime law

    Seriously, I believe that this proposed law actually made it easier for us. The old provision allowed us to import for “personal use” at most three (3) copies of a work.

    That means you can bring one (1) copy of ten (10) books. Or two (2) copies of five (5) movies and so on. The old provision gave us — balikbayans or returning residents to the Philippines an exemption.

    Now with the new law, the exemption has been removed. I submit that some dental extraction has happened.

    The Customs now has a weaker bite. Let me explain how the teeth fell off.

    First, this provision is titled: “The importation of INFRINGING materials”. (All caps mine)

    Under Copyright Law, only the owner of the work can declare what is infringing.

    As in only Peter Jackson can declare what DVD’s of his has been infringed, to violate the director’s copyright of the work he owns.

    Copyright is a private right and can only be enforced if there is a complaint lodged. (May nagreklamo ba na fake a kopya mo ng Lord of the Rings?)

    The Customs at the airport has NO knowledge of what is infringing or not.

    Will he have copy of all the complaints filed by every copyright owner in the world? How can he tell if it’s a copy or original?

    That is why the police can’t automatically confiscate or raid the DVDs in the stalls. There has to be a complaint filed by the movie owners.

    Secondly, the limit to three (3) copies has been removed.

    That means, I can bring in twenty (20) copies of “Glitter” as pasalubong to 20 friends, who will now be considering me an “ex-friend” because of my baduy taste. (Okay, hypothetical only!)

    But as long as they are not prohibited (non-infringing) under the IP Code, my name as a contact will hopefully not be deleted from twenty phones.

    Is this interpretation of the law strained? Maybe. But that’s what we lawyers do.

    If you have any doubts, take me with you next time you fly out and travel back, with bilins on hand. I am ok with the cheap fares. I don’t ask much

    Rod Vera is an attorney practicing intellectual property law. You may contact him at attyvera@ymail.com

    • 8.1
      raissa says:

      The law will make it easier for foreign copyright owners through the creation of CMOs – collective management organizations.

      Look it up.

      • 8.1.1
        Rene-Ipil says:

        Clementejak@8

        Atty. Rod Vera said that the limitation to 3 copies only was removed in the new IP law. I don’t think so. It is still limited to 3 copies as provided for in Section 30 of PD 49, which provision of the law has not been amended or repealed. Please note that the old and would be new IP law, specifically Article 190, carries the same provision of the last paragraph of Section 30 of PD 49, to wit:

        “The Commissioner of Customs, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation of articles the importation of which is prohibited under this Section and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported.”

        The last paragraph of Article 190 of the old IP law, which is Article 190.3, even specified Section 30 of PD 49, to wit:

        “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)”

        Same is true with Article 190 of the proposed IP law. Section 30 of PD 49 is also specified in the bicameral bill now in Malacañang. Indeed, the only paragraph of Article 190 of the bicameral bill has no substantial difference with Article 190.3 mentioned above.

        Since Section 30 of PD 49 is NOT inconsistent with Article 190 of the bicameral bill, the former provision of the law stays. In fact it is fortified by R.A. 8293, old or new. Please take note also that R.A. 8293, the IP law, did not repeal the whole of PD 49. Only inconsistent provisions thereof were deemed amended or repealed, to wit:

        “Section 239. Repeals. – 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.”

        • 8.1.1.1
          Tray says:

          They are not the same. The new law says it is limited it to “infringing articles,” This phrase is not found in pd 49 or RA 8293.

          • 8.1.1.1.1
            Rene-Ipil says:

            Tray@8.1

            In statutory construction (interpretation of law), the text is controlling. Besides, the title of the article merely refers to the text. Section 30 of PD 49 has no title. Article 190 of RA 8293 is titled “Importation for Personal Purposes” of copyrighted work. Meaning that such importation is not prohibited under certain conditions, i.e., 3 copies only. Otherwise, the act becomes importation of “infringing materials”. Article 190 of the proposed law is titled “Importation and Exportation of Infringing Materials” which means also that such importation is not prohibited if the material is not infringing or not violative of conditions imposed by law or regulations. Indeed, PD 49 limits the importation of copyrighted work or books to 3 copies only. So, there is no difference. Just matters of semantics.

            • Tray says:

              I’m sorry but it seems your version is not the one for signature by the President. This is the final version: Sec. 190: “Subject to the approval of the Sec. of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of infringing articles…”
              As you can see, the word infringing is in the text.

              I hope this whole controversy was not because the wrong version was read.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Tray@8.1

                Please read the bicameral bill submitted to the President for signature. You may access it through Baycas@76 “Congress erased every Filipino’s right . . .” The title of Article 190 is specified therein.

              • Tray says:

                I have, that is why I was able to post a portion of it above. But to put an end to this discussion, since you said that the text is controlling, will you confirm that the phrase “importation or exportation of infringing articles prohibited under Part IV of this Act” likewise appears in PD 49 and RA 8293.

                Your position is, if I may quote:

                Please note that the old and would be new IP law, specifically Article 190, carries the same provision of the last paragraph of Section 30 of PD 49, to wit:

                “The Commissioner of Customs, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation of articles the importation of which is prohibited under this Section and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported.”

                My position is the text is different due to the phrase above.

            • Victin Luz says:

              @sirRene ,…the controlling factor will be the IRR of RA 8293 .

              If it can not harmonize with PD 49 , particularly section 20……THEN ….RA 8293 will prevail over PD 49……TAGILID ATA TAYO NITO SIR….. pweding wala nang COPY ang balikbayan pag dumating dito sa PINAS dipoba…

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Tray@8.1

              I mentioned also that “the only paragraph of Article 190 of the bicameral bill has no substantial difference with Article 190.3 mentioned above.” And Article 290.3 was lifted fom Section 30 of PD 49. To my understanding the difference is in the form, not substance or meaning. I stand corrected if you could specify the substantial difference.

              • Tray says:

                The substantial difference is the phrase “under part IV of this Act and under related treaties and conventions.” There are at least two implications here. The first is, under the old law, the word “infringing” does not appear. This means that the copyright owner can prevent importation even if non-infringing if it exceeds the allowable number. The second is, under the new law, it is specified “Part IV” and “related” as the intention here is to limit the term “infringing” to copyright. This means that you cannot use trademark or patent infringement to stop importation. You may have heard a few months ago that the store Datablitz was able to secure a warrant to raid a rival software store on the ground that Datablitz is the only authorized distributor based on Article 168 of the trademark provisions. Also, patent owners have been suing people importing patented products because they have a special provision in the patent law to authorise importation. With these terms, the importation of legitimate products cannot be blocked based on patent and TM laws- at least thats how I see it as no being a substantial difference.

              • raissa says:

                Hi,

                You got your facts all wrong and backwards.

                IT WAS DATABLITZ THAT WAS RAIDED.

                It was not Datablitz which caused another establishment to be raided.

                And accordiing to the CIDG spokesman Kim Gonzales –

                CIDG information officer Snr. Insp. Kimberly Gonzales also said that the raids were officially conducted on grounds of “unfair competition” as Datablitz was found to be selling original software but without an official license to do so.

                This is what Prof Disini was saying – that once the amended law is passed the official licensees can go to the IPO and Customs and block even returning overseas Filipinos from bringing home their products, even though these were legitimately bought abroad.

                Ask the iPO if once the amended law is passed the IPO will no longer support such raids similar to that of Datablitz that was selling legitimate software but was not the official licensee of NBA games.

                And how will Datablitz thrive under the amended IP Code?

                You can read the Datablitz story here –
                http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/281019/scitech/technology/cidg-raids-gaming-store-selling-unauthorized-software

                http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/06/12/x-play-speaks-raid-datablitz-stores

                http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/07/12/datablitz-fights-back-calls-raid-harassment

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Tray@8.1

                Thank you for your time.

              • Tray says:

                Thank you for correcting that it was datablitz that was raided. This was what I was saying. Unfair Competition is Article 168 of the Trademark laws. That is why it was important and a substantial change to insert the phrase under Part IV of this this Act (referring to copyright). This will prevent another Datablitz situation from preventing legitimate copies using unfair competition provisions.

              • Tray says:

                Let me expound on the last line. This will prevent trademark owners from using the new Section 190 in applying trademark laws on the ground that infringing should be based on copyright. This will of course not prevent them from using 168 or 169 on their own, but at at least they wont be able to use 190. If the goal is to prevent the datablitz scenario, then I submit that the change be in the trademarks provisions since this was the law applied in that case

      • 8.1.2
        clementejak says:

        They already did, now matter how stringent they will or came up how they protect their clients they will be one to suffer so long as China is there.

        Was America successful in prodding China stop making counterfeit DVD’s and computer software? Heck no! So long as there is demand there will be supply.

        An example; why should I go and watch a movie the will cost me almost P300 where in fact I can buy a pirated DVD for P35 and will watch it at my comfort at home with my 45inch LED TV.

  6. 7
    X says:

    DRM – Don’t Rob Me.

    Laws should be drafted WITH the people.

  7. 6
    Martial Bonifacio says:

    Off-topic:
    Maraming salamat and congratulations to Raissa at David Valencia for exposing the fake globe’s, national bookstore have started to pull out the anomalous globe that is made from china. I hope they check the contents of map as well.

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/14/13/national-bookstore-pulls-out-chinese-made-globes

    Sana sumunod na din yung mga small stores (divisoria, sari sari stores) if they ever have globes or maps like that as well.

    • 6.1
      moonie says:

      tama ka dyan, martial bonifacio. glad we have people like raissa and alan and david valencia who keep us all informed. I hope the makers of those globes will give us the correct version, recall all the incorrect ones and destroy them.

      now, this IP thing might ba damaging to team PNoy. Manny Villar’s wife, Cynthia, is in PNoy’s line up. this might be wrong time for this bill to turn up, election is coming. if PNoy vetoed the bill, it might be seen as rebuff to Cynthia. and if Cynthia cannot gain seat, she has her husband to thank for. many people of voting age are music and book affectionados, collecting and exchanging books and CDs among them. they may take revenge on her husband through her.

  8. 5
    manilamac says:

    Ah Raissa, I despair. I want so to wake up one day & discover we have legislators who even bother to understand what they’re voting on—that this copy-cat corporate protectionist stuff has all been a bad dream. Many parts of this act will do little more than provide new avenues for corruption while depriving the majority of opportunities for cultural & educational growth and the expansion of ideas…something out educational system (& our public media) have done a less than stellar job of providing. Truth to tell, even I am beginning to suffer from “idiot legislation fatigue.” Where, amongst all the life-&-death issues we face as a nation, will we ever find the energy to fend off all this ill-thought-out crap? Kudos for your seemingly tireless engagement!

  9. 4
    macatbongblues says:

    The Philippines is the world’s biggest country club.

  10. 3
    Riley says:

    If the President signs this, the Supreme Court can still overturn this right?

    • 3.1
      raissa says:

      Dunno.

    • 3.2
      clementejak says:

      @Riley #3

      Here is the flow of a bill approved by the Congress and senate.

      9. TRANSMITTAL OF THE BILL TO THE PRESIDENT

      Copies of the bill, signed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and certified by both the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary General of the House, are transmitted to the President.

      10. PRESIDENTIAL ACTION ON THE BILL
      If the bill is approved the President, the same is assigned an RA number and transmitted to the House where it originated.
      If the bill is vetoed, the same, together with a message citing the reason for the veto, is transmitted to the House where the bill originated.

      11. ACTION ON APPROVED BILL

      The bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the Official Gasette Office for publication and distribution to the implementing agencies. It is then included in the annual compilation of Acts and Resolutions.

      A new Republic act # will become effective 15 days after its publication to a leading newspaper. The Supreme court will not do anything unless a concerned citizen/s will file a motion requesting a TRO be issued against the new law questioning its legality like what happened to the Cybercrime law which an indefinite TRO was issued while being heard by the SC.

    • 3.3
      Raice says:

      The Supreme Court may only overturn the law upon filing of a case (questioning the law’s constitutionality), same with the anti-cybercrime law. Without anyone filing, then the SC’s hands are tied.

  11. 2
    duquemarino says:

    Only 17 senators were present during the approval in third reading, none against and no abstention, asan kaya yung anim?

  12. 1
    Alexius08 says:

    BUHAY party list representatives supporting harsher DRM, as usual.

    And why did the Senate unanimously approve this?

  13. Mel says:

    OFF Topic, but well within the Category of ‘Filipinos Abroad’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1UgKhkHLKc&feature=player_embedded

  14. netty says:

    I hope this video and c/p link help.

    http://youtu.be/kQTONXs_N-A

    This is a warning for all US internet users: Starting this coming week, the majority of all US Internet users are going to be subject to a new copyright enforcement system that may force them to complete educational programs, and may even slow their Internet speeds to a crawl for continued copyright violations.

    A source with direct knowledge of the Copyright Alert System (CAS), who asked to not to be named, has told the Daily Dot that the five BIG participating Internet service providers (ISPs) will start the highly controversial program on Monday.

    The ISP’s, including industry monsters AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon are going to be launching their versions of the ‘Copyright Alert System’ on different days throughout this coming week. Comcast is expected to be the first, beginning on Monday.

    How does this new Copyright Alert System work?

    It’s going to be an automated “graduated response” system, which means that it will slowly ramp up upon your punishments each time it thinks that you are pirating files. The first two times, you will just receive an email and a voicemail saying that you have been caught. The third and fourth times, you’ll be redirected to “educational” material, and you’ll have to click that to let them know that you understood the material. The fifth and sixth times, it will get much more serious: Your Internet connection may be slowed to a crawl for several days.

    What do you think will happen after that?
    Well, after you’ve ‘passed those courses with flying colors”, you’ve “graduated” from the system! No more alerts. Congratulations! The Copyright Alert System won’t hamper you any more! Except, you’ll now be labeled a ‘serial pirate’ and the content companies might then try to sue you as a serial pirate. The fact that you have already been cited six times for copyright infringement will more than likely be used in court against you.
    I say BRING IT ON! MOLON LABE, BABY! The content companies CAN ALL BE SHUT DOWN by WE THE PEOPLE if we so choose, they truly must remember who pays their bills: US!
    Read more about the Copyright Alert System here.
    Source for this story can be found here.

  15. Rod Vera says:

    Hi all,

    Thank you for quoting my article in the comments section. First my disclaimer, I wrote that piece in the literary fashion which some might consider quirky. My intention was to highlight a proposed law that is flawed somehow.

    Before we get into semantics or statutory construction, I wanted to point out the increased (yet toothless) power of the Bureau of Customs. Even if the text is controlling, the Customs is now empowered to “prevent” the importation of INFRINGING materials.

    I submit that infringement is a conclusion of law and not of fact. A work under copyright protection is only infringing if the owner complains against the holder of the material. So, how will the Customs guy at the airport know if the estate of JRR Tolkien has filed an infringement claim against a returning resident? Would the Customs guy know what is in the public domain?

    The IPO is NOT an agency that enforces Copyright law. It only protects the same by settling infringement claims quasi-judicially. As it looks, the amendments makes the Customs official the prosecutor and judge in concluding what is “infringing” or not.

    Lastly, PD 49 is specifically repealed in Sec. 239. “All ACTS … more particularly…. PD No. 49… are hereby repealed.”

    Thank you.

    • Rene-Ipil says:

      Rod Vera @ 9

      I think you can help me on this. 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 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. Thank you.

      • Rod Vera says:

        I submit that PD 49 is repealed in its entirety. RA 8293 is a codification of all the IP laws. What you read at the end of a provision quoting PD 49 is just in reference to the similar provision of the former law. The cycle of codification would be moot if we insist that PD 49 is not yet repealed.

        • Rene-Ipil says:

          Rod Vera @ 9.1

          Codification or otherwise, repeal by implication is proscribed. Repeal of any law must be unequivocal and not subject to any doubt. Please look at Section 239.1of PD 49, to wit:

          “Section 239. Repeals. – 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.”

          To my understanding, the phrase “All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith, . . . more particularly PD 49 . . . ., are hereby repealed” would mean only the repeal of old laws that are entirely inconsistent and also those parts of the same laws that are inconsistent with the new law. And many parts of PD 49 are consistent with RA 8293.

          But I must admit that you have a good point. Maybe the deliberation during the formulation of RA 8293 can help. Meanwhile, I submit that those parts of PD 49 NOT inconsistent with RA 8293 are effective for legal and practical reasons.

          • Rene-Ipil says:

            Rod Vera @ 9.1

            One of the CPMers, @Tray, pointed out the case of Berris vs. Abyadang, G.R. No.183404, insofar as the repeal of RA 166 is concerned. RA 166 is one of the laws which in your opinion was repealed in its entirety together with PD 49. The said supreme court decision of October 13, 2010 declares:

            “Interestingly, R.A. No. 8293 did not expressly repeal in its entirety R.A. No. 166, but merely provided in Section 239.1[16] that Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with it were repealed. In other words, only in the instances where a substantial and irreconcilable conflict is found between the provisions of R.A. No. 8293 and of R.A. No. 166 would the provisions of the latter be deemed repealed.”

            • Rod Vera says:

              The IP Code (RA 8293) stated categorically what are the economic rights of a copyright holder. Hence, any INCONSISTENT provisions of law that stated any economic rights of a copyright holder are now repealed.

              The proposed amendment allowed the Customs to prevent the importation of “infringing” materials. And since only RA 8293 expressly dictated what are the rights of a copyright holder, only acts that violate those rights listed are considered as infringing (Sec. 216).

              I submit, with due respect, that what is copyright infringement under the law is ONLY under RA 8293.

              Sec 5 of PD 49 is inconsistent with Sec. 177 of RA 8293; Sec. 28 of PD 49 is inconsistent with Sec. 216 of RA 8293.

              See: NBI vs. Hwang, G.R. No. 147043. June 21, 2005 & Levis vs. Vogue Traders G.R. No. 132993. June 29, 2005 where in the Court expressly stated the wholesale repeal of PD49 and not RA 166.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Rod Vera @ 9.1

                First, I was asking inconsistencies in Section 30 of PD 49 but you wrote about other sections, particularly sections 5 and 28 of PD 49.

                Second, I cited a Supreme Court decision of later vintage (2010) which specifically and clearly discussed how to interpret Article 239.1 of RA 83293. In other words holding the bull by the horn. But you cited two cases decided in 2005 which citations appear as mere foot notes or references. Being mere references, they are not part of the decision. Although I must admit that it helps in understanding the issues involved.

                Third, I learned a lot in our exchanges because I did exert extra effort in studying the matter. Not to mention that an IP practitioner is on the other side. Thank you for your time.

    • Victin Luz says:

      Ha ha @Rod Vera ,,….No offend sir, we want your answer on @Rene’s QUERRY , people on this BLOG are watching Your’s and Rene’s comments/ interactions… We none lawyers on this Blog were inclined to the explanations of Rene… please answer for the benefit for all of us.

      • LawStudent says:

        Hi Rene and Victin Luz,

        Rod Vera is correct.

        The inconsistent parts of PD 49 have already been repealed by RA 8293. The repealing clause of RA 8293, specifically, Sec. 239.1 provides for that. Thus, what is written under Sec. 190 of RA 8293 was (yes, I write it in the past tense) the LATEST version of the law during its effectivity. You CANNOT summon back Sec. 30 of PD 49 into existence since it has already been repealed by the “newer” version of the law–and I’m referring to Sec. 190 under RA 8293.

        …UNTIL RA 10372 was signed into law last February 28, 2013.

        Thus, we now have the LATEST of all the versions–the new standard. And this latest of all versions, has already removed Secs. 190.1-190.2.

        THIS IS NOW THE LAW.

        With the removal of Secs. 190.1-190.2, Rod is correct that we have ALREADY veered away from the three-copy limitation rule. Thus, we could now bring home 20 copies of whatever movie we want–for as long as it is NOT an infringing copy. What Sec. 190 now prohibits is the importing–and a new addition–the exporting of infringing materials.

        The FAQs of the Official Gazette website confirms this:

        “Q: Am I still allowed to import books, DVDs, and CDs from abroad?

        A: Yes. In fact, the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code have removed the original limitation of three copies when bringing legitimately acquired copies of copyrighted material into the country. Only the importation of pirated or infringed material is illegal. As long as they were legally purchased, you can bring as many copies you want, subject to Customs regulations.”

        • LawStudent says:

          Rene,

          You mentioned earlier about statutory construction. I wonder if you have ever encountered the rule that if a new provision of law does NOT reproduce the old one, then there is already an implied repeal?

          This is the ruling in Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriquez. According to Ruben Agpalo’s Statutory Construction Book (p.408): “The Court ruled that Sec. 18 was repealed, in accordance with the well-settled rule of statutory construction that provisions of an old law that were not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed repealed and discarded.”

          I hope this clarifies the issue. :)

          • Rene-Ipil says:

            Lawstudent@9.2

            I always have a healthy respect for law students, more especially for Bar reviewees. I do honestly believe that they know more about law than veteran trial lawyers whose specialization is outside the law subject of contention.

            Having said that, may I remind you that my argument with Rod Vera concerns PD 49 vis-a-vis RA 8293. The new IP code – RA 10372 – was not factored yet. Hence, your contention that Sections 190.1 and 190.2 of RA 8293 had been repealed by the new IP Code is correct. In fact said provisions were expressly “deleted”.

            But RA 8293 did not repeal Section 30 of PD 49 or the entirety of PD 49, impliedly or expressly. Only the inconsistent parts of PD 49 was repealed by RA 8293. Thank you for finding time to post your comment. I appreciate it very much. Hope you concentrate on laws given greater weight in the BAR exams unless you intend to specialize on IP law practice.

            • LawStudent says:

              Thank you Rene for replying despite the lapse of 1 month.

              I am well aware of your argument with Rod Vera with regard to PD 49 and RA 8293–in fact, that is my point of contention in my first comment (see 9.2). You argued in your comment (8.1) that CURRENTLY there is still the three-copy limitation due to Sec. 30 of PD 49:

              “Atty. Rod Vera said that the limitation to 3 copies only was removed in the new IP law. I don’t think so. It is still limited to 3 copies as provided for in Section 30 of PD 49, which provision of the law has not been amended or repealed. Please note that the old and would be new IP law, specifically Article 190, carries the same provision of the last paragraph of Section 30 of PD 49″

              However, this comment is misleading that is why I felt the urge to correct it.

              First, Sec.30 of PD 49 HAS already been impliedly repealed by Sec. 190 of RA 8293. The reason for this? Statutory construction and Sec. 239.1 of RA 8293. If the legislature intended Sec. 30 of PD 49 to be retained in its entirety, then it would have reproduced all its parts in Sec. 190. HOWEVER, please note that this does not mean that the the three-copy limitation has been abandoned by RA 8293. In fact, it is still retained under Sec. 190.1 (a) (iii) of RA 8293.

              What I am correcting is your idea that PD 49 and RA 10372–or what you refer to as the “new law” in your comment in 8.1–would stand together. Clearly, the legislature has already abandoned the three-copy limitation under Sec. 190 of RA 8293. And we not argue on this further since you have already agreed to this. Thank you so much for your time too! :)

              P.S.: Despite the dream of every law student to pass the BAR exam, it is not the be all and end all. Besides, statutory construction is NOT something peculiar to IP Law. One need not specialize in IP Law to know this. In fact, this is just taught in first year. :)

        • raissa says:

          the key there is “subject to customs regulations” – THAT is the limitation.

          It can change ANYTIME.

          Whereas the unamended IPR clearly states one can bring up to THREE COPIES.

  16. clementejak says:

    Lets read an article in Yahoo news today regarding the amending of the RA 8293.

    Here is the article in toto.

    Bawal na ba ang pasalubong from your Tita in San Francisco?
    By Rod Vera, JD, Special to Yahoo! Philippines | Yahoo! Southeast Asia Newsroom – 5 hours ago

    There is some hoopla happening right now about that law saying balikbayans can’t bring in movies, TV shows and coloring books anymore when they return to the Philippines.

    That “law” would be House Bill No. 3841, 15th Congress, making some amendments to current Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.

    So, bawal na ba talaga to bring home your pabilin of the boxed set of Lord of the Rings from your Tita in San Francisco?

    To put it plainly: No, it’s not bawal. What is bawal now is how many your tita can bring home, and in fact this law says your tita or any balikbayan relatives can bring in more than they did before according to the change in law.

    Yes, more.

    Related story: Intellectual Property Code changes approved

    Don’t be scared, because I will now be posting some legal stuff in the next few paragraphs to illustrate this. Scroll down a bit if you want to skip it.

    The now-to-be-deleted provision reads like this:

    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:
    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).

    The soon-to-be-public provision will be like this:

    SEC. 190. Importation and exportation of infringing materials
    Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of articles, the importation or exportation of which is prohibited under this Act and under treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported or before they are exported.

    Stop scrolling here. Welcome back!

    Also read: Palace: Thou shall not fear cybercrime law

    Seriously, I believe that this proposed law actually made it easier for us. The old provision allowed us to import for “personal use” at most three (3) copies of a work.

    That means you can bring one (1) copy of ten (10) books. Or two (2) copies of five (5) movies and so on. The old provision gave us — balikbayans or returning residents to the Philippines an exemption.

    Now with the new law, the exemption has been removed. I submit that some dental extraction has happened.

    The Customs now has a weaker bite. Let me explain how the teeth fell off.

    First, this provision is titled: “The importation of INFRINGING materials”. (All caps mine)

    Under Copyright Law, only the owner of the work can declare what is infringing.

    As in only Peter Jackson can declare what DVD’s of his has been infringed, to violate the director’s copyright of the work he owns.

    Copyright is a private right and can only be enforced if there is a complaint lodged. (May nagreklamo ba na fake a kopya mo ng Lord of the Rings?)

    The Customs at the airport has NO knowledge of what is infringing or not.

    Will he have copy of all the complaints filed by every copyright owner in the world? How can he tell if it’s a copy or original?

    That is why the police can’t automatically confiscate or raid the DVDs in the stalls. There has to be a complaint filed by the movie owners.

    Secondly, the limit to three (3) copies has been removed.

    That means, I can bring in twenty (20) copies of “Glitter” as pasalubong to 20 friends, who will now be considering me an “ex-friend” because of my baduy taste. (Okay, hypothetical only!)

    But as long as they are not prohibited (non-infringing) under the IP Code, my name as a contact will hopefully not be deleted from twenty phones.

    Is this interpretation of the law strained? Maybe. But that’s what we lawyers do.

    If you have any doubts, take me with you next time you fly out and travel back, with bilins on hand. I am ok with the cheap fares. I don’t ask much

    Rod Vera is an attorney practicing intellectual property law. You may contact him at attyvera@ymail.com

    • raissa says:

      The law will make it easier for foreign copyright owners through the creation of CMOs – collective management organizations.

      Look it up.

      • Rene-Ipil says:

        Clementejak@8

        Atty. Rod Vera said that the limitation to 3 copies only was removed in the new IP law. I don’t think so. It is still limited to 3 copies as provided for in Section 30 of PD 49, which provision of the law has not been amended or repealed. Please note that the old and would be new IP law, specifically Article 190, carries the same provision of the last paragraph of Section 30 of PD 49, to wit:

        “The Commissioner of Customs, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation of articles the importation of which is prohibited under this Section and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported.”

        The last paragraph of Article 190 of the old IP law, which is Article 190.3, even specified Section 30 of PD 49, to wit:

        “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)”

        Same is true with Article 190 of the proposed IP law. Section 30 of PD 49 is also specified in the bicameral bill now in Malacañang. Indeed, the only paragraph of Article 190 of the bicameral bill has no substantial difference with Article 190.3 mentioned above.

        Since Section 30 of PD 49 is NOT inconsistent with Article 190 of the bicameral bill, the former provision of the law stays. In fact it is fortified by R.A. 8293, old or new. Please take note also that R.A. 8293, the IP law, did not repeal the whole of PD 49. Only inconsistent provisions thereof were deemed amended or repealed, to wit:

        “Section 239. Repeals. – 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.”

        • Tray says:

          They are not the same. The new law says it is limited it to “infringing articles,” This phrase is not found in pd 49 or RA 8293.

          • Rene-Ipil says:

            Tray@8.1

            In statutory construction (interpretation of law), the text is controlling. Besides, the title of the article merely refers to the text. Section 30 of PD 49 has no title. Article 190 of RA 8293 is titled “Importation for Personal Purposes” of copyrighted work. Meaning that such importation is not prohibited under certain conditions, i.e., 3 copies only. Otherwise, the act becomes importation of “infringing materials”. Article 190 of the proposed law is titled “Importation and Exportation of Infringing Materials” which means also that such importation is not prohibited if the material is not infringing or not violative of conditions imposed by law or regulations. Indeed, PD 49 limits the importation of copyrighted work or books to 3 copies only. So, there is no difference. Just matters of semantics.

            • Tray says:

              I’m sorry but it seems your version is not the one for signature by the President. This is the final version: Sec. 190: “Subject to the approval of the Sec. of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of infringing articles…”
              As you can see, the word infringing is in the text.

              I hope this whole controversy was not because the wrong version was read.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Tray@8.1

                Please read the bicameral bill submitted to the President for signature. You may access it through Baycas@76 “Congress erased every Filipino’s right . . .” The title of Article 190 is specified therein.

              • Tray says:

                I have, that is why I was able to post a portion of it above. But to put an end to this discussion, since you said that the text is controlling, will you confirm that the phrase “importation or exportation of infringing articles prohibited under Part IV of this Act” likewise appears in PD 49 and RA 8293.

                Your position is, if I may quote:

                Please note that the old and would be new IP law, specifically Article 190, carries the same provision of the last paragraph of Section 30 of PD 49, to wit:

                “The Commissioner of Customs, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation of articles the importation of which is prohibited under this Section and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported.”

                My position is the text is different due to the phrase above.

            • Victin Luz says:

              @sirRene ,…the controlling factor will be the IRR of RA 8293 .

              If it can not harmonize with PD 49 , particularly section 20……THEN ….RA 8293 will prevail over PD 49……TAGILID ATA TAYO NITO SIR….. pweding wala nang COPY ang balikbayan pag dumating dito sa PINAS dipoba…

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Tray@8.1

              I mentioned also that “the only paragraph of Article 190 of the bicameral bill has no substantial difference with Article 190.3 mentioned above.” And Article 290.3 was lifted fom Section 30 of PD 49. To my understanding the difference is in the form, not substance or meaning. I stand corrected if you could specify the substantial difference.

              • Tray says:

                The substantial difference is the phrase “under part IV of this Act and under related treaties and conventions.” There are at least two implications here. The first is, under the old law, the word “infringing” does not appear. This means that the copyright owner can prevent importation even if non-infringing if it exceeds the allowable number. The second is, under the new law, it is specified “Part IV” and “related” as the intention here is to limit the term “infringing” to copyright. This means that you cannot use trademark or patent infringement to stop importation. You may have heard a few months ago that the store Datablitz was able to secure a warrant to raid a rival software store on the ground that Datablitz is the only authorized distributor based on Article 168 of the trademark provisions. Also, patent owners have been suing people importing patented products because they have a special provision in the patent law to authorise importation. With these terms, the importation of legitimate products cannot be blocked based on patent and TM laws- at least thats how I see it as no being a substantial difference.

              • raissa says:

                Hi,

                You got your facts all wrong and backwards.

                IT WAS DATABLITZ THAT WAS RAIDED.

                It was not Datablitz which caused another establishment to be raided.

                And accordiing to the CIDG spokesman Kim Gonzales –

                CIDG information officer Snr. Insp. Kimberly Gonzales also said that the raids were officially conducted on grounds of “unfair competition” as Datablitz was found to be selling original software but without an official license to do so.

                This is what Prof Disini was saying – that once the amended law is passed the official licensees can go to the IPO and Customs and block even returning overseas Filipinos from bringing home their products, even though these were legitimately bought abroad.

                Ask the iPO if once the amended law is passed the IPO will no longer support such raids similar to that of Datablitz that was selling legitimate software but was not the official licensee of NBA games.

                And how will Datablitz thrive under the amended IP Code?

                You can read the Datablitz story here –
                http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/281019/scitech/technology/cidg-raids-gaming-store-selling-unauthorized-software

                http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/06/12/x-play-speaks-raid-datablitz-stores

                http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/11/07/12/datablitz-fights-back-calls-raid-harassment

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Tray@8.1

                Thank you for your time.

              • Tray says:

                Thank you for correcting that it was datablitz that was raided. This was what I was saying. Unfair Competition is Article 168 of the Trademark laws. That is why it was important and a substantial change to insert the phrase under Part IV of this this Act (referring to copyright). This will prevent another Datablitz situation from preventing legitimate copies using unfair competition provisions.

              • Tray says:

                Let me expound on the last line. This will prevent trademark owners from using the new Section 190 in applying trademark laws on the ground that infringing should be based on copyright. This will of course not prevent them from using 168 or 169 on their own, but at at least they wont be able to use 190. If the goal is to prevent the datablitz scenario, then I submit that the change be in the trademarks provisions since this was the law applied in that case

      • clementejak says:

        They already did, now matter how stringent they will or came up how they protect their clients they will be one to suffer so long as China is there.

        Was America successful in prodding China stop making counterfeit DVD’s and computer software? Heck no! So long as there is demand there will be supply.

        An example; why should I go and watch a movie the will cost me almost P300 where in fact I can buy a pirated DVD for P35 and will watch it at my comfort at home with my 45inch LED TV.

  17. X says:

    DRM – Don’t Rob Me.

    Laws should be drafted WITH the people.

  18. Martial Bonifacio says:

    Off-topic:
    Maraming salamat and congratulations to Raissa at David Valencia for exposing the fake globe’s, national bookstore have started to pull out the anomalous globe that is made from china. I hope they check the contents of map as well.

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/14/13/national-bookstore-pulls-out-chinese-made-globes

    Sana sumunod na din yung mga small stores (divisoria, sari sari stores) if they ever have globes or maps like that as well.

    • moonie says:

      tama ka dyan, martial bonifacio. glad we have people like raissa and alan and david valencia who keep us all informed. I hope the makers of those globes will give us the correct version, recall all the incorrect ones and destroy them.

      now, this IP thing might ba damaging to team PNoy. Manny Villar’s wife, Cynthia, is in PNoy’s line up. this might be wrong time for this bill to turn up, election is coming. if PNoy vetoed the bill, it might be seen as rebuff to Cynthia. and if Cynthia cannot gain seat, she has her husband to thank for. many people of voting age are music and book affectionados, collecting and exchanging books and CDs among them. they may take revenge on her husband through her.

  19. manilamac says:

    Ah Raissa, I despair. I want so to wake up one day & discover we have legislators who even bother to understand what they’re voting on—that this copy-cat corporate protectionist stuff has all been a bad dream. Many parts of this act will do little more than provide new avenues for corruption while depriving the majority of opportunities for cultural & educational growth and the expansion of ideas…something out educational system (& our public media) have done a less than stellar job of providing. Truth to tell, even I am beginning to suffer from “idiot legislation fatigue.” Where, amongst all the life-&-death issues we face as a nation, will we ever find the energy to fend off all this ill-thought-out crap? Kudos for your seemingly tireless engagement!

  20. macatbongblues says:

    The Philippines is the world’s biggest country club.

  21. Riley says:

    If the President signs this, the Supreme Court can still overturn this right?

    • raissa says:

      Dunno.

    • clementejak says:

      @Riley #3

      Here is the flow of a bill approved by the Congress and senate.

      9. TRANSMITTAL OF THE BILL TO THE PRESIDENT

      Copies of the bill, signed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and certified by both the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary General of the House, are transmitted to the President.

      10. PRESIDENTIAL ACTION ON THE BILL
      If the bill is approved the President, the same is assigned an RA number and transmitted to the House where it originated.
      If the bill is vetoed, the same, together with a message citing the reason for the veto, is transmitted to the House where the bill originated.

      11. ACTION ON APPROVED BILL

      The bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the Official Gasette Office for publication and distribution to the implementing agencies. It is then included in the annual compilation of Acts and Resolutions.

      A new Republic act # will become effective 15 days after its publication to a leading newspaper. The Supreme court will not do anything unless a concerned citizen/s will file a motion requesting a TRO be issued against the new law questioning its legality like what happened to the Cybercrime law which an indefinite TRO was issued while being heard by the SC.

    • Raice says:

      The Supreme Court may only overturn the law upon filing of a case (questioning the law’s constitutionality), same with the anti-cybercrime law. Without anyone filing, then the SC’s hands are tied.

  22. duquemarino says:

    Only 17 senators were present during the approval in third reading, none against and no abstention, asan kaya yung anim?

  23. Alexius08 says:

    BUHAY party list representatives supporting harsher DRM, as usual.

    And why did the Senate unanimously approve this?

  24. -->

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>