Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sept 17 Assignment completion

In this modern society where the use of internet is considered by almost everyone as a necessity for it provides quick access to information regarding almost everything from all over the globe. Dissemination of ideas come in handy through the internet, through this means we are able to know whats hot and trending in the music industry, sports, and fashion. Almost everyone among us from the time we first learned how to use the internet for sure have downloaded a music or movie clip,does this act of downloading copyrighted works,shared by others who are not copyrighted owners of such works constitute as an act of copyright infringement on the part of the down loader? The Intellectual property states: Sec. 177. Copy or Economic Rights. - Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following acts: 177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work. We might reason out that the prohibition only refers to the one who is reproducing thus the one who is downloading is not covered by the prohibition against copyright infringement furthermore we might justify the act on the ground of "fair use" as long as our act of downloading is for personal use alone there is no infringement, besides it would not make a difference at all but if we look into the intent of the law with regards to copyright the mere of act downloading copyrighted works shared by others who are not copyrighted owners which is usually for free should be prohibited and reasonably penalized for the simple reason that it is a copyrighted work already. Before a work is placed under the protective mantle of copyright it has to be registered.A step has already been taken by its author to protect his rights mainly for the purpose of deriving profit in its dissemination, he is expecting profit from an individual who will be interested in his work and will then in its desire to have a copy pay him money. Thus downloading a copyrighted work in the internet for me would already constitute an infringement for the purpose which its author seeks to be avoided is already committed one way or the other. An individual who is supposed to pay him already procures and enjoy his work for free. First world countries are now adopting laws and treaties such as: SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act);PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act); three strike rule of New Zealand; and,ACTA (Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in order to better protect copyrighted works against infringement for me the Philippines should likewise adopt said laws or ratify such treaty. The Philippine movie and music industry is suffering a backdrop because of piracy I believe that stiffer laws should be imposed in order resolve such problem. The constitutional right to privacy and communication compared to property rights, the former should be considered supreme. With regards to the idea that the imposition of SOPA, PIPA, three strike rule, and ACTA in the Philippines should not be considered outright as a violation against the constitutional right to privacy and communication. The quickness and easy access the internet provides might give the impression that the right to privacy and of expression is violated but in reality it is not we might compare it to a scenario wherein a property which is known to be stolen by someone who found it and knows who is its true owner is can already appropriate it and consider such stolen property as his own. The constitutional right of freedom of expression and privacy is not limitless and the state is not without authority to suppress such right when it violates the rights of another. A copyrighted work springs from the original idea of its owners the tangible outcome of his expression and his desire to communicate it and be attributed as his own of course there are also instances wherein such work can be appropriated but downloading it in its entirety to be use by an individual is certainly not one.


( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Jecy Tantoco-Briones
Oct. 4th, 2012 01:53 pm (UTC)
ACTA is substantially reasonable and valid. however, there is material impact on the website owners whose intention is actually to provide easiest way of connecting people. leaving to them the responsibility of detecting and policing infringement exposes them to uncertain and significant liabilities because of theirs users’ acts.
Frnz Palacio
Oct. 5th, 2012 02:47 am (UTC)
Punish the "sharer", not the "downloader"
I share your view that the Philippine movie and music industries are suffering losses because of piracy; however, with all due respect I do not agree that downloading copyrighted material shared by others should be prohibited and penalized for the main reason that any material shared over the Web have already been made public and therefore subject to appropriation, especially if the same is done only for personal consumption. On this point we should compromise. The only viable solution, I believe, is to provide severe penalties for those who without authority share or make copyrighted material available to the public, which would redound to minimal or no downloading of protected works.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

October 2012
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel