Internet as a medium of Free Expression
The Internet has enabled and accelerated new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking. Online shopping has boomed both for major retail outlets and small enterprises and traders. Business-to-business and financial services on the Internet affect supply chains across entire industries. Through internet, we can easily transfer data from one point of destination to another point of destination. In short, people nowadays consider the internet as a basic essential to their day-to-day activities.
File sharing is an example of transferring large amounts of data across the Internet. A computer file can be emailed to customers, colleagues and friends as an attachment. It can be uploaded to a website easy download by others. It can be put into a "shared location" or onto a file server for instant use by colleagues. The load of bulk downloads to many users can be eased by the use of "mirror" servers or peer-to-peer networks. In any of these cases, access to the file may be controlled by user authentication, the transit of the file over the Internet may be obscured by encryption, and money may change hands for access to the file. The price can be paid by the remote charging of funds from, for example, a credit card whose details are also passed usually fully encrypted across the Internet.
Streaming media is the real-time delivery of digital media for the immediate consumption or enjoyment by end users. Many radio and television broadcasters provide Internet feeds of their live audio and video productions. They may also allow time-shift viewing or listening such as Preview, Classic Clips and Listen Again features. These providers have been joined by a range of pure Internet "broadcasters" who never had on-air licenses. This means that an Internet-connected device, such as a computer or something more specific, can be used to access on-line media in much the same way as was previously possible only with a television or radio receiver. The range of available types of content is much wider, from specialized technical webcasts to on-demand popular multimedia services. Podcasting is a variation on this theme, where,usually audio material is downloaded and played back on a computer or shifted to a portable media player to be listened to on the move. These techniques using simple equipment allow anybody, with little censorship or licensing control, to broadcast audio-visual material worldwide.
Internet activities:Might lead to Copyright Infringement
Copyright infringement is the unauthorized use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's "exclusive rights", such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, spread the information contained within copyrighted works, or to make derivative works. It often refers to copying "intellectual property" without written permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator.
"downloading copyrighted works, shared by others who are not copyright owners of such works, is an act of copyright infringement on the part of the downloader."
Since the web is open to the public, many users think that copying or downloading some information, movies, music and the like from the internet is okay. They are not aware that copying, distributing, downloading and uploading of these works on the internet may infringe the rights of the copyright owner. Generally speaking, every audio, visual or written work has copyright protection unless that protection has expired or the creator places it in the public domain. The work does not have to have a copyright notice or a copyright symbol to be protected by copyright. If you cannot determine whether or not a work is copyrighted assume that it iscopyrighted.
downloader if he will not get permission before doing the download from the copyright owner.
On the other hand, you may use all or part of a copyrighted work legally if you have the copyright owner's permission or be qualified for a legal exception that is called "FAIR USE" stated in
section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.
AGREE OR DISAGREE: Let's Hear the Other Side
Several countries around the world have already laws that are being implemented to protect people's Intellectual property. To start with, we have the " Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the "Protect IP Act" (PIPA).These are bills in the U.S. House of Representatives and the the U.S. Senate, respectively.These bills are presented as effort to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign websites. Similar to this, we have the New Zealand's"Three Strike Rule" wherein illegal downloaders who will be caught three times will be fined and the United Kingdom's "Digital Economy Act 2010".This act establishes a system of law which aims to first increase the ease of tracking down and suing persistent infringers, and after a minimum of one year permit the introduction of "technical measures" to reduce the quality of, or potentially terminate those infringer's Internet Connections.
It is a fact that these laws will certainly protect the copyright owners and will apparently be benefited. But, did they consider the impact of these laws to all internet users? The people and Institutions that were affected and will be affected by the said laws? Let's hear the other side of the story. SOPA and PIPA would put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek out funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Some foreign sites would be prevented from showing up in major search engines. An example of this is the Wikipedia wherein it would be threatened in many ways. In its current form, SOPA could require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content.
People don't want websites they like to be taken offline, as that tactic could be abused to suppress whistleblowers, competitors, or free speech. There must be some alternative legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the internet. To sum it up, we can definitely conclude that, any legislation intended to combat online piracy should be scrutinized if it would really work without harm.
It is good to know that, there's already a proposal for a bill to combat online piracy in the Philippines. It's also quite good that the congress and the senate are taking this into consideration. But what's not good to hear is that they would pass a bill similar to SOPA or PIPA of the United States. If you're going to read some articles related to these Acts, you will realize that majority of the writers who voiced out their opinions are against these acts because of the negative impact to the internet users as well as to website owners. The congress and the senate must first consider the impact of this, before the proposal will be enacted into a bill. They should also consider the monetary fund that will be used to implement this. Thus, I'm opposing the passage of this bill similar to SOPA and PIPA. But, I'll support a bill that would definitely benefit the majority, meaning, copyright owners can claim damages against illegal downloaders and parties illegally lifting their copyrighted works. On the other hand, Allow internet users or website owners to enjoy their freedom and privacy through the internet. In line with this, should the Philippines get involve with the so- called "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)? The agreement was signed by 8 countries in October 2011 and another 24 countries in 2012. As we can see, there's quite a large number of signatories of this agreement, but we can also notice that none of them have ratified it. This agreement would come into force after ratification by six countries. I don't think the Philippines will enter and ratify the ACTA treaty, to remedy online piracy.
If we're going to analyze the current status of the ACTA treaty, no countries have ratify it yet. We can conclude that majority of the people opposed the convention since it adversely affects fundamental rights including freedom of expression and privacy. Also, according to a British national, the intended benefits of this International agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Thus, I will strongly disagree with the passage of the bill as well as the participation of the Philippines with the said ACTA treaty.
If we're going to analyze the current status of the ACTA treaty, no countries have ratify it yet. We can conclude that majority of the people opposed the convention since it adversely affects fundamental rights including freedom of expression and privacy. Also, according to a British national, the intended benefits of this International agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Thus, I will strongly disagree with the passage of the bill as well as the participation of the Philippines with the said ACTA treaty.
SOURCES.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/
https://infosec.uga.edu/sate/dmca.php
