Piracy of Optical Media Piracy Report

April 1, 2005

Last night, I happily played the role of a “hakot” for a good friend. I attended the delegates’ dinner for the First Regional Conference on Optical Disk Piracy. I was handed a CD copy of the Optical Media Board’s Report to the President on the state of (what else?) optical disk piracy in the Philippines. I haven’t opened the plastic wrapper just yet but I did notice that it contained a copyright notice that went like this: “(c) Optical Media Board. All rights reserved.”

Hmmm . . .

Maybe they forgot about Sec. 176.1 of the Intellectual Property Code which says: “No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines.”

At any rate, I’ll risk the ire of the Board and will post a copy of the report here later (I left it at home) without asking for their consent. If I’ve violated the notice by doing that, then I would have committed piracy of a report on piracy. I just love the irony.

And if you liked that one, the other irony of the night was that I actually testified in the Senate to oppose the passage of the Optical Media Law.  I even submitted a paper that detailed our objections. Needless to say, our proposed changes did not find their way to the enacted statute. 

But I wanted to see my friend and meet up with classmates.  Best of all, it was a great buffet dinner!  Thank you, OMB.

Quoting Blogs in News Stories

I ran into Erwin Oliva last night at the Innaugural Regional Optical Disk Piracy Conference at the EDSA Shang and he mentioned that he had quoted my post about VoIP in a story he wrote for INQ7.  It’s the first time my blog’s been quoted for a news item and I must say, I don’t know whether it’s good or bad.  On the one hand, I guess he has the right to do that since I did publish my opinion.  On the other hand, I know my blog has a limited readership and therefore I can say pretty much what I want without getting into trouble. 

Words and ideas travel at the speed of thought and like children, you can’t control them once they’re out there.  Oh well, that’s life on the Internet. So, Erwin, I’m both honored and scared out of my wits.

Mr. Mike’s MGM Gift

The Philippine Star reports GMA (Ginoong Mike Arroyo) as saying:

“I challenge anyone to call MGM. It was an accommodation fitting a dignitary, my stature as husband of a President. I don’t know, what’s the fuss all about? Masama ba yung libre (Is there anything wrong with free accommodation)?” Mr. Arroyo asked.

Mr. Arroyo claimed his friends originally wanted to pay for his room. But instead, he said, “MGM gave it to me (for free).”

I’m not an expert but does the following provision of Presidential Decree No. 46 apply? That law makes it punishable:

for any public official or employee, whether of the national or local governments, to receive, directly or indirectly, and for private persons to give, or offer to give, any gift, present or other valuable thing to any occasion, including Christmas, when such gift, present or other valuable thing is given by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for past favor or favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainments in honor of the official or employees or his immediate relatives.

It seems clear to me that the First Gentleman’s statement might implicate “his friends” who wanted to pay for the room since it may be viewed as indirectly giving a gift to the President. So those guys may be liable.

I wonder if MGM has violated the law by actually giving the gift to Mr. Arroyo. Maybe not since MGM can argue that Philippine criminal statutes do not apply in the US. Besides, how can Philippine courts enforce its conviction order against MGM and its employees? But the President may be liable for indirectly receiving the gift since it benefits her spouse in which case, she might be liable.

I seem to recall that Manny Pacquiao gave 4 tickets to Mr. Arroyo’s group to watch the fight. I wonder whether that gift may put Pacquiao into prison.

The bottom line is that Mr. Arroyo should refrain from receiving gifts of any kind from any person. While he may be personally insulated from criminal liability, he exposes his wife and the gift-giver to criminal prosecution. After all, he’s a lawyer and he knows the risk he’s putting himself through.