Tag Archives: copyright

Students’ Take: Contacts viz RA 10173, Competing advertising in sponsored events, and Direction of Copyright Reform

For first semester of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) Contacts viz RA 10173 (6 July 2013); (2) Competing advertising in sponsored events (30 August 2013); (3) Direction of Copyright Reform (18 October 2013). These are their opinions on the subject matters:

No verifiable post(s): Cortes (1), Diaz (1), Nones (1); Non-compliant post as to provider: Delos Reyes (1); Withdrawn: Imperio

Batch 15’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

Advertisements

HB3841 and SB2842 #RepublicAct10372


Licensed under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Philippine license.
[ Download PDF of original article ]


Senate Bill 2842,[1] and its counterpart House Bill 3841,[2] were passed by Congress. It would appear that the consolidated bill [3] was transmitted to the President on 29 January 2013. [4] The consolidated bill has not been signed into law yet, as of writing, [5] [6] but sentiments against the legislation were made public on 14 February 2013,[7] and responded to by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office. [8]

Update: The consolidated bills were signed into law (Republic Act 10372) on 28 February 2013.


I. Development
II. Organizational matters: Sections 6, and 7; and proposed Section 9-A, RA 8792
    A. Warrantless Search
III. Definitions: Sections 171.3, and 171.9; and proposed Sections 171.12 and 171.13, RA 8792
    A. Communication to the public
    B. Reproduction
    C. Technology Measures, and Rights Management Information
IV. Assignment, Licensing, and Transfer: Sections 180, 181, and 183, RA 8792
    A. Statement of Accounts under the proposed Section 180.5
    B. Collecting Society accreditation
V. Limitations of copyright: Sections 184, 185, 188, and 190, RA 8792
    A. Limitation for the benefit of the blind, visually or reading-impaired persons
    B. Fair Use
    C. Reprographic reproduction of copies for libraries
    D. Removal of the allowance of limited importation under Section 190.1, RA 8293
    E. Rules relevant to importation and exportation
VI. Deposit: Section 191, RA 8792
VII. Term of Moral Rights: Section 198, RA 8792
VIII. Neighboring Rights: Sections 203, 204, 208, and 212, RA 8792
    A. Performers’ Rights
    B. Rights of Producers of Sound Recordings
C. Limitations on other rights (Section 212)
IX. Infringement and Institution of Actions: Sections 216, 217, 218, and 226; and the proposed Section 220A, RA 8792
    A. Technology Circumvention as Aggravating circumstance (Sections 216 and 217)
    B. Safe harbor (Sections 216 and 217, RA 8293; in relation to Sections 30 and 33, RA 8792)
    C. Disclosure of Information (Section 220A)
        1. Valid search and seizure; reasonable suspicion
        2. Public funds for public purpose, not for private gain
X. IP Policies for academic institutions: Proposed new Section 230
XI. Conclusion


Continue reading

A test of the Senate’s ethical standards

The issue on the alleged plagiarism of Philippine Senators have been lingering for months now. Complaints have been filed with the Senate’s Ethics Committee recently. Will the Senate deemed the Senators’ acts as acceptable, else justifiable, within the Senate’s ethical standards? Will the Senate assert a standard more lenient than what is required in the academe, else less than the norms under Republic Act 6713?


I. Background
    A. Senator Sotto’s “Turno en contra” speeches
    B. Senator Pia Cayetano’s Breast Cancer-awareness speech
II. Implications of one’s articulation (Plagiarism viz Copyright infringement)
    A. Plagiarism
        1. Definition of plagiarism
        2. Academic Standards, and the determination of academic plagiarism
        3. Outside of academe: Judiciary
        4. Outside of acadame: Others
    B. Copyright infringement
        1. Copyright and copyright infringement
        2. The mechanics of Philippine copyright
    C. Plagiarism and Copyright infringement differ
III. Parliamentary immunity
    A. “No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place”
    B. Rationale of parliamentary immunity
    C. Relevant Senate Rule on Unparliamentary Acts and Language
    D. When no Rule applicable to a specific case
IV. Public’s continuing reservations in the conduct of public officials


Continue reading

Students’ take: Fan Art, File Downloads, and Data Privacy Act of 2012 +Case Digests (1S, SY12-13)

For the first semester of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing the legal implications of (1) the Data Protection Bill, (2) Fan Art, and (3) File Downloads. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Data Protection Bill (21 July 2012); (2) Fan Art (1 September 2012); (3) File Downloads (17 September 2012)

No verifiable post(s): Pante (3), Torres (2,3)

Note: Four days after the deadline of task #1, the consolidated bill (Senate Bill No. 2965 and House Bill No. 4115) was passed as Republic Act 10173.

Batch 13’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Ten cases in the class syllabus were also required to be summarized. These are the students’ case digests of said cases:

Case Digests (End of First Semester, SY 2012-2013).

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

The blog and understanding how works are shared herein

This provides an introduction to this website, its collection of articles and documents, and how they are shared.


I. The Blog
    A. How it started
    B. Content transition
    C. Host transition
II. Content and its default protection
    A. What I do not purport to own
    B. What I claim, and its basis
    C. What rights are exercised by a copyright owner
    D. The period of exercising such rights
    E. Remedies and penalties for infringement
    F. Reason for the protection under law
III. Shared under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 PH license
    A. Why I share my work
    B. Details of the permission provided under the license terms
    C. If you need additional permission


Continue reading