[Mirror] Reginio, Florina
SY 2012-2013, First Semester
Senate Deliberates Data Protection Act
PRIVACY LAW—PHILIPPINES
October 18, 2011The Philippines Senate has begun deliberations on the proposed Data Privacy Act, which includes monetary fines and jail terms for data breaches, unauthorized disclosure of data to a third party and disclosure of sensitive personal information, reports Business World. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Edgardo J. Angara, said the country lacks “the over-arching policy framework that upholds privacy laws and penalizes individuals for overstepping them.” The Senate committee has approved the creation of a National Privacy Commission to implement the regulations once enacted. A Business Processing Association representative lauded the effort, saying, “a data privacy law will pave the way to increased client or investor confidence as it solidifies our commitment of data security to our foreign clients.”
Pros and Cons:
The bill will protect the privacy as it will somehow eliminate unauthorized dissemination of data without or consent of a person. Although the bill does not contain cross-border data transfer restrictions, the law will apply to certain foreign processing of personal information about Philippine residents. In an apparent effort to protect the domestic outsourcing industry, however, the law will not apply to “personal information originally collected from residents of foreign jurisdictions in accordance with laws of those foreign jurisdictions, including any applicable data privacy laws, which is being processed in the Philippines.
Legal Basis:
Specific provisions concerning the right to privacy over information are found in: Republic Act no. 1405, as amended (Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law)
- National Internal Revenue Code 1997 in relation to the power of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to obtain information from certain taxpayers.
- Constitutional guarantees :
- The right to privacy :
- Against unreasonable searches and seizures (section 2, Article III, Constitution).
- For privacy of communications and correspondence (section 3, Article III, Constitution).
References:
- https://www.privacyassociation.org/publications/2011_10_18_senate_deliberates_data_protection_act/
- http://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2012/03/articles/philippines-passes-omnibus-data-protection-law/
Fan art or fanart is unsolicited artwork that is based on a character or property that the artist did not create. It is commonly produced to express enthusiasm and admiration for the original creator and/or creations, and sometimes as a way for young or inexperienced artists to practice and improve their artistic skills.
A stricter definition of “fan art” would include only art inspired by visual media, such as comics or movies, which make use of existing artwork – as opposed to “book illustration”, which uses no visual reference but the artist’s imagination of characters described by an author. Thus, artwork depictingWolverine from the X-Men (either the comic or the movie) or Orlando Bloom as Legolas would be fan art, while a picture featuring a non-movie-inspiredLegolas would be called a “book illustration”.
Derivative Works. – 173.1. The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright:
(a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgments, arrangements, AND OTHER ALTERATIONS OF LITERARY OR ARTISTIC WORKS;
Making a fan art-based picture therefore constitutes copyright infringement. It is creating a new work based on copyrighted work. The law is clear that such derivative works are protected by copyright, in which copyright belongs to the owner of the original work.
If a person thrives on using materials from the original imagination of others, then that person who created the fan art infringes the moral and economic rights of the original creator, hence illegal. Creation on the other hand involves hardwork and wisdom , so why would allow others to use the fruits of your ideas and works. The original creator also has a right to profit from their works.
The first item currently on the U.S. Senate’s agenda for 2012 pits Hollywood against Silicon Valley. It is a procedural vote on PIPA — a bill originally called the Protect IP Act. The bill is meant to stop the copying of “intellectual property” online — movies, music, books and so forth — but opponents call it nothing less than Internet censorship.
In October 2007, the United States, the European Community, Switzerland, and Japan simultaneously announced that they would negotiate a new intellectual property enforcement treaty the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA. Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Canada have joined the negotiations. Although the proposed treaty’s title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines) what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope and in particular will deal with new tools targeting “Internet distribution and information technology”
Downloading: Legal or Not?
Downloading is illegal if it has copyright and the one downloading did not pay to copyright owner or did not even get permission to the copyright holder. It is tantamount to copyright infringement and it is punishable under the Intellectual Property Law.
The free flow of information on the Internet would mean more chance for innovations and enhancements of information technology as regards level of economic development of a developing country such as the Philippines.
However, If these Internet Service Providers should be encouraged to remove allegedly infringing material from the Internet then the copyright holder that stands to be directly affected would be deprived of their moral and economic rights.
PIPA and a similar bill in the House — the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA — have been presented as a way to protect movie studios, record labels and others. Supporters range from the Country Music Association to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
But major players in the online world, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, say the bills could require your Internet provider to block websites that are involved in digital file sharing. And search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Bing could be stopped from linking to them — antithetical, they say, to the ideal of an open Internet.
What is ACTA?
In October 2007, the United States, the European Community, Switzerland, and Japan simultaneously announced that they would negotiate a new intellectual property enforcement treaty the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA. Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Canada have joined the negotiations. Although the proposed treaty’s title might suggest that the agreement deals only with counterfeit physical goods (such as medicines) what little information has been made available publicly by negotiating governments about the content of the treaty makes it clear that it will have a far broader scope and in particular will deal with new tools targeting “Internet distribution and information technology”.
Legal Bases:
Section 171.1 -Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, copyright is defined as a right over literary and artistic works which are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of creation.
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)
Section 217. Criminal Penalties. – 217.1. Any person infringing any right secured by provisions of Part IV of this Act or aiding or abetting such infringement shall be guilty of a crime punishable by:
(a) Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plus a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) for the first offense.
(b) Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) years plus a fine ranging from One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) for the second offense.
(c) Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to nine (9) years plus a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) to One million five hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,000) for the third and subsequent offenses.
(d) In all cases, subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency.
Conclusion:
Internet distribution and information technology play a significant impact on consumers and internet innovation. If the Philippines would adopt above mentioned treaty/bill , the citizens that be greatly affected should be given the opportunity to express their views on it and without restricting on their rights to free speech, due process and infringing their rights.
Piracy has the power to cripple the internet, and i believe that it would be minimized or eventually eliminated if there would be a significant changes in our existing law as regards piracy that will be brought forth by legislation.
References:
AUSL Tech & Law 
Pingback: Students’ take: Fan Art, File Downloads, and Data Privacy Act of 2012 +Case Digests (1S, SY12-13) | Berne Guerrero