Ipwatchlist 2012 Indonesia

8/2/2019 Ipwatchlist 2012 Indonesia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ipwatchlist-2012-indonesia 1/8

IP Watchlist 2012April 2012 a2knetwork.org/watchlist

This year’s results

Top 5 Bottom 5

1. Israel 3 1. Jordan 2

2. Indonesia 5 2. Argentina 6

3. India = 3 3. United Kingdom = 3

4. New Zealand 5 4. Thailand 15. United States 2 5. Brazil 4

*

*

*

*2010 Result

Shown here are this year’s ve best and worst countries atpromoting access to knowledge or consumers, rom amongst30 nations covered in this year’s survey o IP laws and policiesaround the world. The table also notes the position in whicheach country was placed in the last list in which it appeared,either in 2011 (i available) or 2010. The changes to this year’squestions and their weightings have made little dierenceto the rankings o these countries, which continue to hoveraround the same level as in previous lists.

Interestingly, the top and bottom countries are neighbours.Israel is almost unique in the world or its adoption o abroadly-interpreted, US-style ‘air use’-right or consumers ocopyright works.3 Conversely, Jordan has always had muchmore narrowly-crated limitations to copyright. In act, in2000 Jordan signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the USrequiring it to increase its IP protection to still more stringentlevels than required by the Agreement on Trade RelatedAspects o Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, o the WorldTrade Organisation (WTO).4

Shameully, the least developed world regions – Arica and

Latin America – were those with the harshest IP laws orconsumers, whereas the most developed regions – NorthAmerica and Oceania – had those most avourable toconsumers.5 This is largely because Arican and Latin Americancountries based their IP laws on those o the colonial powers,

and have since only continued to strengthen them in avouro IP owners without introducing concomitant fexibilities orconsumers as developed countries have done. Examples othis are given in the reports rom two rst-time entrants onour list this year: Malawi and Costa Rica.

Malawi is a politically-troubled, least-developed country wheremore than hal o the population lives below the internationalpoverty line o $1.25 per day.6 One would have thought that

IP enorcement should take a back seat in such a country, inavour o measures designed to ensure the satisaction o thepopulation’s basic needs o ood, water, clothing, shelter, andmedical care.

Yet Malawi was one o our poor countries in which Interpolchose to conduct an anti-countereiting campaign in 2009,7 and in which the local police oten join IP-holder organisationsin conducting copyright raids against local traders.8 Is this no-holds-barred, developed-country model o IP protection andenorcement truly the most appropriate model or countrieslike Malawi?

Costa Rica was one o ve developing countries that signed

the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States FTA(DR-CAFTA) under pressure rom the Bush Administration,ratiying it in 2007. This required it to signicantly overhaul itsIP laws, to provide extended periods o protection, strongerpenalties, and, most recently (as reported by our CostaRican Watchlist contributor), the opening o a new buildingdedicated to IP protection.

Just like Jordan and many other countries, Costa Rica waspromised that its economy would receive a major boost on theback o increased trade with the US ollowing its entry intothe FTA. Indeed, Costa Rican consumers deserve a substantialbenet in exchange or their loss o access to public domain

works or another 20 years, and their submission to digitallock rules and astronomical new penalties. Whilst it is dicultto assess the benet actually received, i any, the World Bankhas acknowledged that the FTA “by itsel is unlikely to lead tosubstantial developmental gains”.9

IntroductionThe past ew months have capped o a year o consumerrevolt against overreaching copyright laws and enorcementpractices. In February 2012, thousands o protesters tookto the streets o Europe to voice their outrage against theAnti-Countereiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an instrumentprivately negotiated by rich countries in an eort to raisethe baseline o intellectual property (IP) protection andenorcement once again.1

On 18 January 2012, large portions o the World WideWeb, including Wikipedia’s English language site, weretaken ofine in protest against proposed US legislation thatwould have authorised censorship measures against websites

accused o harbouring copyright-inringing content.2 BothACTA and SOPA were negotiated in secret and raised widerissues about how large copyright owning corporations drive

copyright policy while the interest o consumers and creatorsare ignored.

Such discontent could have been avoided i only governmentpolicy-makers and big business had paid more attention tothe legitimate needs o consumers or access to knowledge.A global survey o national IP laws and enorcement practices,rating them according to how well they promote consumers’interests, could be an invaluable tool or such policy-makers.Thankully, such a survey exists, and you are reading it now.Consumers International (CI) is proud to present its ourthannual IP Watchlist.



— 2 —IP Watchlist 2012 a2knetwork.org/watchlist

Assessment

This year, countries were assessed against 49 criteria, eacho which received a ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘In part’ answer. (On ourwebsite, http://A2Knetwork.org/watchlist, these answersare colour-coded to make it easy to spot the problem areasat a glance.) The criteria were weighted according to howimportant they are in promoting access to knowledge orconsumers, and the weighted answers ed into a calculationwhich determined the country’s rating in the report.

In this summary report, the results are simplied still urtherby dividing the questions into our categories: scope andduration o rights; reedom to access and use (which isurther sub-divided into eight types o use); reedom to shareand transer; and administration and enorcement. For each

category, the country is awarded a grade: rom the top scoreo ‘A’ down to ‘D’, and ‘F’ or an abject ail.

An overall score is also given which averages out the scoresreceived in the our categories. As such no country received

an overall ‘F’ this year, but by the same token neither did anycountry perorm well enough to deserve an ‘A’.

Each country report contains an additional nine questionswhich do not have ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answers and do not refectdirectly in the country’s ranking, but are made availableon our website or your inormation; or example, whattreaties a country has signed, what maximum penalties orinringement apply, and – new this year – what changeshave been introduced (or are upcoming) since the last reportor that country.

The answers to some questions are somewhat subjective, sowe also provide reerences to the original sources such as

statutes and case law which you can check yoursel. I youdisagree with anything in the country reports, or simply havesomething to add, you can do so on the website.

Freedom to access and use Freedom AdminScope and By By In to share andduration home For By content By the By disabled public and enforce-

of copyright users education Online creators press libraries users affairs transfer ment Overall

Argentina D F D C F B F C A C D C-

Armenia D B C B C B A C A C F C

Australia D B B A C B B C F D C B-Belarus D B B B D C A A A F F C

Brazil F F F C A B F A A B D C-

Cameroon C D C A B D D C A F D C

Canada D C B B C C A A F D C B-

Chile D F B A A B A A D C C B-

China (PRC) C C A B C B B C A D C B-

Costa Rica F C B A B A B C C C C B-

Egypt D B B B F B B F A D F C-

France D B B C B B C A A D D B-

India B C B B A A B C B C C B

Indonesia C A A A C A A A A D D B

Israel C C A B B A B C A B C B

Japan F C B C F B B A B C D CJordan D D B C F B C F C F F D

Lebanon D B C A B A B C A C C B-

Malawi F B A B F B B F A C D C

Malaysia D C A D D A B C F B D B-

New Zealand B C C C C B B A B C B B-

Philippines C B D A F A B F A F D C

Romania D B C A C A D A B D D C

Slovenia F A D A B D C A B D D C

South Korea F C A C D B B C C C F C

Spain C B D A C C D C A C C B-

Thailand D A B F D A D F F D F C-

Ukraine F B D B C C A C A F C C

UK D F D A C C D A D D F C-USA C B C A B C A A A C D B-




New questions

Two other new questions this year deserve mentioning. The rstis whether libraries are required to pay public lending rights ees(PLR). These are ees that libraries in some countries are requiredto pay to compensate authors or the supposed loss in sales otheir books that occurs when libraries lend them to borrowers.In some countries the ees are part o copyright law, and inothers they have an independent legal basis.

Do lending libraries operatewithout incurring PLR fees?

Yes

No

In part

As the graph illustrates, most countries do not impose these

ees, but they are widespread in Europe, as well as in severalother countries covered by the Watchlist: Australia, NewZealand, Israel and Canada.

The motivation or the imposition o public lending rightsees is economically dubious, ater all, libraries are the mainpurchasers o certain types o book and periodicals, especiallyin academia, and authors are the direct beneciaries othis.10 But apart rom that, the simple act is that librariesare increasingly cash-strapped, and that a urther impost onlending o existing books is likely to come at the expense onew book acquisitions.

This is why the International Federation o Library Associations

opposes PLRs, particularly their extension to developingcountries – a position with which CI has to agree.11

The second new question in this year’s IP Watchlist concernswhether the public can raise an objection to the grant o apatent beore the patent is issued. Such pre-grant oppositioncan be an eective way o screening out low-quality orobvious patents that have slipped through the net o thepatent oce examiners. As the graph shows, the number orespondents to our survey that do or do not have a pre-grantopposition procedure are about equal.

Does the patent system allow for pre-grant opposition?

Yes

No

In part

Because pre-grant opposition procedures make things harderor would-be patent owners, the US government has criticisedcountries that oer them in its annual Special 301 Report, andhas sought to outlaw them in its recent FTAs such as thosewith South Korea and (according to reports) the orthcomingTrans-Pacic Partnership Agreement.12

The motivation for the imposition of publiclending rights fees is economically dubious

Why is this relevant to access to knowledge or consumers?One o the reasons is that low-quality patents over the

sotware that runs on computers, smartphones and websitescan impede access to those technologies. Oten the patentowners do not even exploit their patents until someone elsecomes along and commercialises the same ideas, at whichtime the patent owner will cash in by threatening to shut thecompetitor down unless royalties are paid.

This issue reached mainstream attention last year, withcoverage on US National Public Radio13 and in the Economist 14 and Forbes15 examining how sotware patents are actuallystifing innovation, reducing competition and raising prices orconsumers. Whilst limited patent reorms did make it throughthe US Congress last year, these are too narrow to preventthe continued issuance o such trivial patents as “System andmethod or providing and displaying a web page having anembedded menu”.16 Pre-grant opposition may be a betterapproach, and or this reason countries that have such aprocedure will do better in our IP Watchlist.

Reading in the Digital Age, Matt Katzenberger: fickr.com-photos-matthileo-5448890428




Best and worst practices

As well as rating countries’ IP laws and policies according to

how well they serve consumers’ interests, in each year’s IPWatchlist we also like to pick out some o the best (and worst)practices in areas that the survey covers. This year we haveselected two best and two worst practices, illustrated by theresults o particular questions rom the Watchlist.

Best: Consumer protection law

Are rights holders prohibited from excludinguser rights under copyright law?

Yes

No

In part

The rst best practice is the use o consumer protection lawagainst the abuse o IP rights. There are a ew questions thattouch on this in the ‘Scope and duration o rights’ section oour IP Watchlist.

In this section we ask whether a court or tribunal has everlimited the exercise o IP rights under competition law, orunder a bill o rights or similar human rights instrument. Wealso ask whether rights holders are prohibited rom excludinguser rights under copyright law, or example, by using the neprint o a licence agreement to take away your legal right to

make backup copies or quotations.

The results o this last question, shown in the graph, revealthat in most countries there is no or only partial protectionagainst such abuses. Published in early 2011, the UK’s

Hargreaves Review o IP and Growth recommended thatall copyright limitations be immunised rom contractualoverride.17 We hope that this will soon become the case in theUK, and that other countries will ollow suit.

As this is a serious problem which deserves more attention,CI recently commissioned an international expert on IP

abuse, George Yijun Tian, to write a research report on it.18

His conclusions were that the TRIPS agreement, which setsminimum standards o IP protection that all WTO membercountries must meet, also provides ample scope or thosecountries to curb the abuse o IP rights using consumer law.

He also reveals that some countries, such as Australia andBrazil, already possess consumer laws that would enablethem to act against big companies that use their IP toinringe upon consumers’ rights. For example, such lawsmight nulliy unair terms o use or disclaimers, or prohibitthe use o Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology tostop consumers rom making lawul backup or personal usecopies. Tian writes:

It is imperative that each country, particularly developing

countries, should adopt more exible approaches at both

international and domestic levels to address IP abuse

issues and to protect legitimate rights o their citizens in

using new technology products and services.19

Increasingly, the importance o protection against suchabuses through consumer law is now being recognised at apolitical level. The European Greens/European Free Alliance(Greens/EFA), which holds 57 seats in the EU Parliament,released a position paper last year stating: “It must always belegal to circumvent DRM restrictions, and we should consider

introducing a ban in the consumer rights legislation on DRMtechnologies that restrict legal uses o a work.”20

Beyond the EU, CI wants to see better protection orconsumers’ access to knowledge embedded in a global

C h i l d r e n ’ s L e n d i n g L i b r a r y ,

G i n i g a s m u

l l a ,

M a t a r a ,

L K ,

U r b a n g a r d e n : f i c k r . c o m - p h o t o s / u r b a

n g a r d e n / 3 6 4 1 3 9 9 9 9

XO laption, One Laptop Per Child, Wayan Vota: fickr.com/photos/dcmetroblogger/3875947429




instrument. It is or this reason that we have proposed newprovisions to the United Nations Guidelines or ConsumerProtection to promote the interests o consumers in the

digital age.21

Best: Alternatives to DRM

Must the effect of TPMs distributed with copy-right works be disclosed to consumers?

Yes

No

In part

As noted above, DRM (or Technological ProtectionMechanisms (TPMs) or ‘digital locks’) are oten used bycontent owners to prevent consumers rom having ullaccess to content or all o the purposes that copyrightlaw allows. This is a consumer protection issue, particularlywhen the eect o these digital locks is not ully explained toconsumers. The graph shows the number o countries thatrequire DRM restrictions on digital products to be disclosedto consumers beore purchase, and here the proportion o‘No’ answers is worryingly high.

This is another area in which stronger consumer protection isneeded. The EU has recognised this by including a provisionin its 2011 Consumer Rights Directive22 that requires

consumers o digital content to be provided with inormationabout its unctionality, including any applicable TPMs,and interoperability inormation. One o the suggestedamendments that we are putting orward to update theUnited Nations Guidelines or Consumer Protection has beenmodelled on this clause o the Directive.

Research published in 2011 reveals that removal oDRM restrictions can actually decrease music piracy. Theresearchers ound that while these restrictions make piracymore costly and dicult, the restrictions also have a negativeimpact on legitimate users who have no intention o doinganything illegal.23

One o the main problems with digital locks or consumers isthat they oend the deeply-ingrained notion that when wepurchase a book, album or movie – whether as a physicalproduct or a download – we should own it and use it however

we wish within our social and amily circles, without theoversight o the copyright owner. We eel this way and, atthe same time, respect the right o the copyright owner o a

protected work to control its distribution outside our circle oamily and riends.

This insight underlies the mission o the IEEE P1817 WorkingGroup, which is creating a Standard or Consumer-ownableDigital Personal Property (DPP), that will allow consumerscomplete reedom to lend, copy, sell, or give away the digitalworks that they have purchased, whilst inhibiting them romsharing with strangers. In order to achieve this, the work isencrypted – which is just what DRM does.

But unlike with DRM, the encryption does not prevent thework rom being copied, nor does it allow its use to be trackedor controlled by the copyright owner. It simply enorces twosimple unctions o every DPP-protected work: a ‘give’ buttonand a ‘take’ button. The ‘give’ button ensures that every DPP-protected work can be shared, both by the original purchaserand by everyone with whom it has already been shared. The‘take’ button ensures that each and any o those individuals cantake the work back rom all the others, ‘collapsing’ it into thesingle unit that it was when purchased.

More detail o this intriguing proposition is given in a paperby Paul Sweazey, chair o the IEEE Working Group, that waspresented this year at the same CI global meeting, Consumersin the Inormation Society: Access, Fairness and Representation,at which Tian presented his own paper.24

Worst: Copyright term extension

Moving on to worst practices, CI deplores the EU’s extensiono the term o protection o the rights o perormers andrecord producers rom 50 to 70 years.25 Although colloquiallyspoken o as a type o copyright, the rights o remunerationo perormers and producers is more strictly a ‘related’ or‘neighbouring right’, as opposed to an ‘author’s right’.

The term extension makes little sense except as a measure tobolster the fagging balance sheets o big record companies.Certainly, very little o the benet will fow to perormers,

CDR, Lending Library, The Netherlands, Jan Waller: fickr.com/photos/jenwaller/2828936574




most o whom are paid a xed ee or their perormances,and never see a penny o royalties. Music recordings thatwould have allen into the public domain and been ree or

consumers to use in home recordings, mix tapes and amateurlms, will now remain locked away or two more decades.

This latest term extension ollows on the heels o the 1993Directive that lengthened the exclusive rights o authors totheir lietime plus 70 years.26 On the other side o the Atlantic,the inamous ‘Sonny Bono Act’ in 1998 brought the US intoparity with this term. Since then, many other countries aroundthe world have ollowed suit in increasing their own copyrightterms, usually as part o an FTA deal with the US in whichaccess to knowledge is traded o as a quid pro quo or tradeconcessions on agricultural or manuactured goods.

A much more sensible voice in Europe is that o the Greens/ EFA, who, in their position paper last year, wrote:

Today’s protection times — lie plus 70 years — are

absurd. No investor would even look at a business case

where the time to pay-back was that long. We want

to shorten the protection time to something that is

reasonable rom both society’s and an investor’s point o

view, and propose 20 years rom publication.27

Such a suggestion may seem unthinkable, as it wouldmean rewriting the Berne Convention, which is otenseen as copyright’s Holy Grail. Yet, as we will see in theollowing section, such a prospect has recently been put

on the table, and not just by radical activists, but by amajor world government.

Worst: Intermediary liability

As alluded to in the introduction, urore erupted acrossthe Internet in January this year over the US government’sproposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IPAct (PIPA), which were directed against websites alleged tobe engaging in, enabling, or acilitating the inringemento copyright. To combat this, such websites could havebeen blocked rom the Internet at the level o the Internet’sDomain Name Service (DNS), as well as being removed rom

search listings, and blacklisted rom payment processorsand advertisers.

As history now tells, the SOPA and PIPA bills have both beenput on ice, ollowing a groundswell o opposition rom reeexpression activists, Internet technologists, and websites

hosting user-generated content, who together exposedthe scheme’s many faws. It was pointed out that to allowone country to tinker with the Internet’s plumbing in orderto suppress a particular type o undesired content couldonly open the door or other countries, including autocraticregimes, to do the same.28 It was also noted that holdingwebsites liable or the content they host would likely resultin the disappearance o online communities that host user-contributed content.29

Although not as well known as SOPA and PIPA, India’sInormation Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011also seek to make intermediaries such as website operators

and cybercaé owners directly liable or the content postedby users. But they go even urther in some respects: besidesIP-inringements, the Rules also target a wide range o othercontent, including content that is blasphemous, deamatory,harmul to minors, or threatening to the unity o the country.30

Russia would go still urther, and take the rest o the worlddown the same path. In an address that is by turns visionaryand horriying, the Russian President o the G20 outlined aplan or the amendment o the Berne Convention, stating:

I ound guilty, inormation intermediaries on the Internet (communications service providers, Internet website and domain name owners, etc) should be held responsible or

violation o copyright and neighbouring rights on general grounds, except or specifcally established cases (eg, i they were not aware or were not supposed to be awareo the illegality o content).31

This is a prospect that makes SOPA and PIPA look positivelyriendly to Internet intermediaries by comparison.

A slide or a talk in Karlsruhe at the LEARNTEC 2008, Martin Memmel:fickr.com/photos/pavel1998/2214276680

Brett Solomon, Executive Director o the NGO “Access” responds at Panel Discussion onInternet Freedom at the United Nations, Friday, March 4, 2011, US Mission Geneva:fickr.com/photos/us-mission/5496888619




Contributors

CI thanks all our contributors to this year’s IP Watchlist, who are listed below and whose ull biographies are available on

our website: http://A2Knetwork.org/watchlist. In addition, we thank Andrea Carter or the design o the Watchlist, B-Lingo

Communications or its translation into Spanish and French, and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) or nancially supporting

our work. This report was written by Jeremy Malcolm, who also updated the country reports that are not listed below.

Argentina – Consumidores Argentinos(Beatriz Garcia Buitrago)

Armenia – Sonya Vardanyan

Belarus – Darya Kirsanova

Brazil – IDEC (Guilherme Varella)

Cameroon – Dieunedort Wandji

Canada – Michael Currie

Chile – Claudio Ruiz

China (PRC) – Hong Xue

Costa Rica – Fundacion Ambio (Roxana Salazar)

Egypt – Bassem Awad and Perihan Abou Zeid

India – Centre or Internet and Society Bangalore

(Pranesh Prakash)Indonesia – YLKI (Istiana Sudardjat)

Israel – Nirmod Kozlovski and Uria Yarkoni

Japan – NCOS (Michelle Tan and Masaya Koshiba)

Jordan – Rami OlwanLebanon – Consumers Lebanon (Mohamad Al Darwish)

Malawi – Consumers Association o Malawi (John Kapito)

New Zealand – Cherry Gordon

Philippines – IBON (Jazminda Lumang-Buncan andRhea Padilla)

Romania – Bogdan Manolea

Slovenia – Intellectual Property Institute (Luka Virag)

South Korea – Oh Byoungil

Spain – Celia Blanco

Thailand – Noah Metheny

Ukraine – Oleksiy Stolyarenko

United Kingdom – Consumer Focus (Saskia Walzel)United States of America – Public Knowledge

(Rashmi Ragnath)

Conclusions

The Russian proposal, despite its scary implications overall,also contains one or two grains o good sense. ThePresident writes:

High Internet penetration inevitably aects [the]

mentality and expectations o web-users. Their majority

is not ready to accept ‘legal restrictions’ on access to the

Content that has become the main source o knowledge

or a big part o [the] population.

To this end he urther suggests:

… to speciy directly in the Convention the quasi-ree

personal use by Internet users o any Content placed

on the Internet by any person. At present, in a number

o countries users are prosecuted or personal use o

the Content, which has been illegally published on the

Internet by third parties. This approach is too harsh.32

To this, CI says: “amen”. Too oten anti-piracy measuresdo no more than hurt innocent consumers, and may evenbackre on the industry itsel. For example, a ban on thesale o CDs at outdoor markets in Malaysia, introduced as ananti-piracy measure, is estimated to have caused a 30% dropin legitimate music industry revenue.33 It is also a misplacedpriority, particularly or developing countries with limited judicial and law enorcement resources.

Governments would do well to remember that what iscommonly called ‘content thet’ by industry is more correctly

known as copyright inringement, and is not really thetat all. A better analogy or such inringement is the act owalking through someone’s garden without permission.It’s technically an actionable inringement o their propertyrights, since i permission had been sought rst, the ownermight have been able to extract a small amount o moneyin exchange or allowing entry to their garden. However,it is not thet, either legally or in the common-sense usageo the word, ater all, they still have the garden. A newbook points out that such non-market sharing can even beseen as legitimate and useul, and need not threaten thesustainability o cultural industries.34

CI looks towards a uture in which creators and consumerssupport each other in a mutually benecial ecosystem ocontent production, consumption and reuse. Some o theinsights highlighted in this report – such as stricter measuresagainst IP abuse, the introduction o a consumer-riendlyalternative to digital locks, and a review o the BerneConvention – may play a part in that uture.

In any case, an important lesson rom the past year is thatconsumers will not take it lying down when their rights andinterests in access to knowledge are ignored in an obsessivequest to extinguish inringement. A rst step or governmentsto take towards better understanding these rights andinterests is to consult their country’s ranking on the IP

Watchlist, and to address the problem areas that it highlights.




References1 D Lee, ‘Acta protests: Thousands take to streets across Europe’, 11 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16999497.2 Wikimedia Foundation, ‘Wikipedia blackout arms overwhelming support or ree and open Internet’ [press release], 19 January 2012,

http://wikimediaoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikipedia_blackout_supports_ree_and_open_internet.3 N Kozlovski, J Klinger, U Yarkoni and N Davidi, ‘Fair Use in Israel’ In: J Malcolm (ed.) Access to Knowledge or Consumers: Reports o Campaigns and Research

2008-2010, Consumers International, 2010, p.141.

4 M Al Nasa’a, J, Chin, S Leonard, C Munoz and B Reilly, The Jordan-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: Eight Years Later , 21 March 2008,http://www.umich.edu/~ipolicy/Policy%20Papers/jordanusta.pd.

5 Seven world regions were given a percentile score, based on the average o the percentile ratings o the countries in that region, which were in turn based ontheir assessment against 49 criteria. A positive result to each criterion would have resulted in 100%, and a negative result to each, 0%. Arica’s percentile scorethis year was 43%, and North America and Oceania’s 56%.

6 World Bank statistics, http://data.worldbank.org/country/malawi.7 ‘Countereit medicine networks across Arica targeted in INTERPOL co-ordinated operations’, 13 November 2009,

https://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2009/PR2009106.asp.8 S Banda (Jr), ‘Cosoma pounces on Zomba pirates’, The Daily Times, 2 March 2012,

http://www.bnltimes.com/index.php/daily-times/headlines/arts/4728-cosoma-pounces-on-za-pirates.9 World Bank, DR-CAFTA: Challenges and Opportunities or Central America, 2006, 56,

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/LACEXT/Resources/258553-1119648763980/DR_CAFTA_Challenges_Opport_Final_en.pd.10 J Schneck, ‘Closing the Book on the Public Lending Right’, New York University Law Review , 63, 878, 198811 IFLA, ‘The IFLA Position on Public Lending Right’, 2010, http://www.ifa.org/en/publications/the-ifa-position-on-public-lending-right.12 Public Citizen, ‘Risks o the Trans-Pacic Free Trade Agreement or Access to Medicines’, 7 July 2011,

http://www.citizen.org/analysis-o-leaked-US-paper-on-eliminating-patent-pre-grant-opposition.13 NPR, ‘When Patents Attack’, 22 July 2011, http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack.14 W W, ‘Patents Against Prosperity’, 1 August 2011, http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property?src=rss.15 T Lee, ‘Google Should Publicly Oppose Sotware Patents’, 3 August 2011,

http://blogs.orbes.com/timothylee/2011/08/03/google-should-publicly-oppose-sotware-patents .16 US patent 5742768, http://www.google.com/patents/US5742768.17 I Hargreaves. Digital Opportunity: An Review o Intellectual Property and Growth, May 2011, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm.18 G Y Tian, ‘Consumer Protection and IP Abuse Prevention under the WTO Framework’. In: J Malcolm (ed.) Consumers in the Inormation Society: Access, Fairness

and Representation. Consumers International, 2012, 11.19 Ibid. 52.20 Greens/EFA, ‘Creation and Copyright in the Digital Era’, 5 October 2011, http://www.greens-ea.eu/creation-and-copyright-in-the-digital-era-4525.html.21 R Brown and J Malcolm, ‘Inormation and Communication and the Rights o the World’s Consumers in the 21st Century: Updating the UN Guidelines or

Consumer Protection ‘. In J Malcolm (ed.) Consumers in the Inormation Society: Access, Fairness and Representation. Consumers International, 2012, 93.22 Article 5 o the EU Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU).23 D Vernick, D Purohit and P Desai, ‘Music Downloads and the Flip Side o Digital Rights Management’, Marketing Science, November/December 2011, 30:1011.24 P Sweazey, ‘Introduction to Digital Personal Property’. In J Malcolm (ed.) Consumers in the Inormation Society: Access, Fairness and Representation. Consumers

International, 2012, 53.25 D Standeord, ‘EU Extends Copyright Protection From 50 To 70 Years’, IP Watch, 12 September 2011,

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/09/12/eu-extends-copyright-protection-rom-50-to-70-years.26 Council Directive 93/98/EEC o 29 October 1993 harmonising the term o protection o copyright and certain related rights.27 Greens/EFA, ‘Creation and Copyright in the Digital Era’, 5 October 2011, http://www.greens-ea.eu/creation-and-copyright-in-the-digital-era-4525.html.28 C Wong, ‘US Piracy Law Could Threaten Human Rights’, 18 November 2011,

https://www.cdt.org/blogs/cynthia-wong/1811us-piracy-law-could-threaten-human-rights.29 R MacKinnon, ‘Stop the Great Firewall o America’, 15 November 2011,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/rewall-law-could-inringe-on-ree-speech.html.30 India’s Inormation Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011, http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_les/dit/les/GSR314E_10511(1).pd.31 ‘Dmitry Medvedev’s message to the G20 leaders’, 3 November 2011, http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/3018.32 Ibid.33 International Intellectual Property Alliance, ‘IIPA Written Submission Regarding 2012 Special 301 Review,

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USTR-2011-0021-0011, 202.34 P Aigrain, Sharing: Culture and Economy in the Digital Age. Amsterdam University Press, 2012,http://www.oapen.org/search?identier=409602;keyword=Aigrain.

Consumers International24 Highbury CrescentLondon N5 1RX, UKemail: [email protected] @Consumers_Intwww.acebook.com/consumersinternational

About Consumers International

Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voiceor consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries we arebuilding a powerul international consumer movement to help protect andempower consumers everywhere.

Consumers International is a not-or-prot company limited by guarantee in theUK (company number 4337865) and a registered charity (number 1122155).

For more inormation, visit www.consumersinternational.org

This report is part o CI’s Access to Knowledge programme,or more inormation, visit: http://A2Knetwork.org

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012ISBN: 978-0-9569943-1-8

Published by Consumers International in April 2012

Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/3.0

Ipwatchlist 2012 Indonesia

Documents

Transcript of Ipwatchlist 2012 Indonesia