Imperialism, Intellectual Property and Free Trade

For a primer on how the First World is using free trade as a carrot to force strong IP protection in the rest of the world, see Prof. Charles Nesson’s article entitled “IP Imperialism.” I blogged about this as part of a class I took with him. It was the first time I blogged and surprisingly, I found it difficult to do that despite the fact that we had free broadband access. 

Book Piracy: Whose Problem Is It?

In an INQ7.Net story, Chairman Edu Manzano of the Optical Media Board cites book piracy as the culprit behind the Philippines being put on the U.S. Trade Representative’s Special 301 Priority Watchlist. What he means is that book piracy is more prevalent in this country than optical disk piracy.

Well, that’s an eye-opener.

I can’t remember the last time I saw a pirated book for sale. I can’t remember the last time the media reported a crackdown on book pirates either printing or selling those materials. I can’t remember the last time someone approached me on the street asking me to buy a copy of a pirated book. In fact, I’m not even aware of any place that sells pirated books. But pirated software, music and movies contained in optical disks are available in most shopping places (not counting those door-to-door merchants going through offices). Although my data is anecdotal, I’ll bet Mr. Manzano’s conclusion is wrong..

On the one hand, his statement can be dismissed as being entirely self-serving. By diverting attention away from optical disk piracy, he’s relieving himself of the obligation to fight it more vigorously. After all, this kind of piracy doesn’t contribute so much to piracy overall.

But this position leads to the following questions: (a) If optical disk piracy isn’t such a priority in the fight against infringement, then why didn’t Congress pass a law on book piracy (say, one that regulates xerox copiers instead of optical disk duplication)? and, (b) Why must taxpayers fund the Optical Media Board when it won’t contribute as much to removing the Philippines from the Special 301 Watchlist? Given our meager resources, shouldn’t we instead fund a body designed to combat book piracy?

If he’s correct, then the policy response should be: “Let’s leave the optical disk pirates for now while we combat the larger problem of book piracy.” (more…)

Piracy of Optical Media Piracy Report

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.