"There ain't no such thing as free lunch" - TANSTAAFL, and for copyright owners:movies; music; and; other items downloaded in the internet are of no exception.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution Article 3 Sec. 1 provides that: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws". This constitutional provisions, along with the provisions provided by the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and the controversial U.S. proposed bill, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), are the bases of copyright owners to insists and fight for their proprietary rights.
This is the reason why the proposed US bills SOPA and PIPA were drafted. These acts aims to mandate the internet service providers to shutdown websites containing copyright infringement material. However,because of issues on the constitutional violation of freedom of speech and information, these acts earned numbers of negative feedbacks and resulted to a simultaneous website service blackout on January 18, 2012. Up to this date, the SOPA and PIPA remains to be a US proposed bills. Thus, it is submitted that like the US, the Philippines is likewise not ready for a similar SOPA and PIPA law. Considering the hunger and yearning of every Filipino for knowledge and information, similar protests may likewise be experienced by a similar SOPA and PIPA bills in the Philippines.
This is the reason why the proposed US bills SOPA and PIPA were drafted. These acts aims to mandate the internet service providers to shutdown websites containing copyright infringement material. However,because of issues on the constitutional violation of freedom of speech and information, these acts earned numbers of negative feedbacks and resulted to a simultaneous website service blackout on January 18, 2012. Up to this date, the SOPA and PIPA remains to be a US proposed bills. Thus, it is submitted that like the US, the Philippines is likewise not ready for a similar SOPA and PIPA law. Considering the hunger and yearning of every Filipino for knowledge and information, similar protests may likewise be experienced by a similar SOPA and PIPA bills in the Philippines.
However, who can blame the copyright owners for insisting their proprietary rights? Economic rights of every copyright holders are infringed for every pirated DVD sold to an individual. In short, obtaining a copy of their work for free or for less than the supposed price is stealing the opportunity from the copyright holder to enjoy the benefits or fruits of their creation.
There is no question that selling pirated DVDs infringes the rights of the copyright holders. However, could the mere downloading of movies, music or other downloadable material available in the internet be an act of copyright infringement too?
Under the E Commerce Law or Republic Act 8792 Section 33, downloading through the use of telecommunication networks, such as, but not limited to the internet, in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights and which is made available to the public, or broadcasting of protected material is penalized. However, the mentioned law provides that the act being penalized is the downloading of the material if made available to the public. Now, the question would be... how about downloading the same for personal use only? Would it still be an infringement? Assuming that it is an infringement, would it not be a violation of the Constitutional provision provided in: Section 4. "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."
The E Commerce Law did not include penalizing individuals downloading materials from the internet for personal use. Thus, it is submitted that individuals downloading materials (i.e. movies, music etc.) from the internet, even in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights should not be penalized as long as the downloaded material will only be used for their personal entertainment.
Copyright holders and beneficiaries of downloadable materials in the internet are both protected by the constitutional law. The former, his proprietary rights, and the latter, his freedom of communication. Both rights are protected by the constitution and existing laws...it is just a manner of enforcing that right.
Perhaps, one may conclude that there might be such a thing as free lunch after all... that is: (1) if the copyright holders would just sit back and not enforce their proprietary right; or (2) until a law has been passed specifically penalizing down loaders of materials from the internet, which for sure, will be a question of law as to whether or not it would be a violation of the constitutional right of freedom of communication and information. Until then, down loaders may still enjoy what most would call "free lunch".
While downloading of copyrighted works may be considered as “free lunch” for now, the copyright holders are still entitled to their economic rights as aptly stated in the aforesaid blog and provided by law under Section 177.1 of Republic Act No. 8293. Hence, the infringers may very well think twice in violating said rights as they will be penalized for it. Nonetheless, prior restraint on free speech and information must not be tolerated since it is a fundamental right that every person is entitled to have and enjoy.
ReplyDeleteAgree. Again, the issue here would be a battle between proprietary rights as against one's right to information and expression.
Delete