BH também vai dizer não ao projeto do senador Azeredo!

A Internet é uma rede de comunicação aberta e livre. Nela, podemos criar conteúdos, formatos e tecnologias sem a necessidade de autorização de nenhum governo ou corporação. A Internet democratizou o acesso a informação e tem assegurado práticas colaborativas extremamente importantes para a diversidade cultural. A Internet é a maior expressão da era da informação. A Internet reduziu as barreiras de entrada para se comunicar, para se disseminar mensagens. E isto incomoda grandes grupos econômicos e de intermediários da cultura. Por isso, se juntam para retirar da Internet as possibilidades de livre criação e de compartilhamento de bens culturais de conhecimento.

No Brasil, um projeto substitutivo sobre crimes na Internet aprovado e defendido pelo Senador Azeredo está para ser votado na Câmara de Deputados. Seu objetivo é criminalizar práticas cotidianas na Internet, tornar suspeitas as redes P2P, impedir a existência de redes abertas, reforçar o DRM que impedirá o livre uso de aparelhos digitais. Entre outros absurdos, o projeto quer transformar os provedores de acesso em uma espécie de polícia privada. O projeto coloca em risco a privacidade dos internautas e, se aprovado, elevará o já elevado custo de comunicação no Brasil.

Nós, que somos mineiros, temos uma responsabilidade a mais em combater este projeto, por ser de autoria de um senador do nosso estado. Gostaríamos assim de convidá-lo a participar do Ato Público que será realizado no dia 1o de junho, às 19h30, e contará com um debate entre:

Sérgio Amadeu

Professor da pós -graduação da Faculdade de Comunicação Cásper Líbero em São Paulo.

Militante do Software Livre e do Movimento Mídia Livre.

www.samadeu.blogspot.com

Idelber Avelar

Professor na Tulane University, em Nova Orleans – EUA

Mantém o blog Biscoito Fino e a Massa

www.idelberavelar.com

Local: Teatro da Cidade

Rua da Bahia, 1341

Centro - Belo Horizonte

España, en el 'eje del mal' de la piratería en Internet

El Congreso de EE UU afirma que el fenómeno ha alcanzado "un nivel epidémico"

EFE / ELPAÍS.com - Washington / Madrid - 21/05/2009

El Congreso estadounidense advirtió de que la piratería por internet en España ha alcanzado "un nivel epidémico" y colocó al país en un grupo de cinco naciones donde este delito informático es especialmente preocupante. En un informe publicado este jueves en su página web, el Caucus contra la Piratería Internacional del Congreso estadounidense dijo que este año vigilará de forma especial la situación en China, Rusia, Canadá, España y México.

* EE UU abronca a España por "pirata"

El dictamen del Congreso de EE UU sobre piratería en Internet DOCUMENTO (PDF - 90,34Kb) - 21-05-2009

En el caso español, los congresistas estadounidenses afirmaron que los autores "carecen de las herramientas necesarias para hacer valer sus derechos en internet, lo que socava el desarrollo del comercio legítimo por internet y daña el sector tanto en Estados Unidos como en España".

Con respecto a México, el Caucus dijo que aunque el país latinoamericano está mejorando su lucha contra la piratería por internet, "el nivel absoluto de piratería en México y la escasez de medidas que lo disuadan están diezmando este mercado".

El Caucus también valoró que la piratería P2P en España "es percibida como un fenómeno cultural aceptable" y solicitó al Gobierno español que adopte medidas para proteger a los autores.

Este dictamen se suma a un informe (el llamado informe 301) del Departamento de Comercio y la Oficina de Presidencia de EE UU en el que se acusa a España de ser demasiado permisiva y de no haber tomado ninguna medida contra la descarga de archivos con derechos de autor. Ese informe, además, insta a España a ilegalizar los programas de intercambio de ficheros tipo p2p, tales como eMule, BitTorrent o Ares.

http://schiff.house.gov/antipiracycaucus/

http://www.elpais.com/elpaismedia/ultimahora/media/200905/21/cultura/20090521elpepucul_1_Pes_PDF.pdf

************

2009 Special 301 Report April 30, 2009 Prepared by the Office of the United States Trade Representative Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 SECTION I. DEVELOPMENTS IN IPR PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................ 3 Initiatives to Strengthen IPR Internationally .............................................................................. 3 Trends in Counterfeiting ............................................................................................................. 4 Internet and Digital Piracy .......................................................................................................... 5 Government Use of Software...................................................................................................... 6 Intellectual Property and Health Policy ...................................................................................... 6 Supporting Pharmaceutical Innovation ....................................................................................... 7 Implementation of the WTO TRIPS Agreement ........................................................................ 8 WTO Dispute Settlement ............................................................................................................ 9 Positive Developments.............................................................................................................. 10 SECTION II. COUNTRY REPORTS.................................................................................................... 13 Priority Watch List CHINA .............................................................................................................................. 13 RUSSIA ............................................................................................................................ 16 ALGERIA ......................................................................................................................... 16 ARGENTINA ................................................................................................................... 17 CANADA ......................................................................................................................... 17 CHILE ............................................................................................................................... 18 INDIA ............................................................................................................................... 18 INDONESIA ..................................................................................................................... 19 ISRAEL............................................................................................................................. 19 PAKISTAN ....................................................................................................................... 21 THAILAND ...................................................................................................................... 21 VENEZUELA ................................................................................................................... 22 Watch List BELARUS ........................................................................................................................ 22 BOLIVIA .......................................................................................................................... 22 BRAZIL ............................................................................................................................ 23 BRUNEI ............................................................................................................................ 23 COLOMBIA ..................................................................................................................... 23 COSTA RICA ................................................................................................................... 24 CZECH REPUBLIC ......................................................................................................... 24 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................... 24 ECUADOR ....................................................................................................................... 25 EGYPT .............................................................................................................................. 25 FINLAND ......................................................................................................................... 26 GREECE ........................................................................................................................... 26 GUATEMALA ................................................................................................................. 26 HUNGARY....................................................................................................................... 26 ITALY............................................................................................................................... 27 JAMAICA ......................................................................................................................... 27 KUWAIT .......................................................................................................................... 27 LEBANON ....................................................................................................................... 28 MALAYSIA ..................................................................................................................... 28 MEXICO ........................................................................................................................... 29 NORWAY......................................................................................................................... 29 PERU ................................................................................................................................ 29 PHILIPPINES ................................................................................................................... 30 POLAND .......................................................................................................................... 30 ROMANIA ....................................................................................................................... 30 SAUDI ARABIA .............................................................................................................. 31 SPAIN ............................................................................................................................... 31 TAJIKISTAN .................................................................................................................... 31 TURKEY .......................................................................................................................... 32 TURKMENISTAN ........................................................................................................... 32 UKRAINE......................................................................................................................... 32 UZBEKISTAN ................................................................................................................. 33 VIETNAM ........................................................................................................................ 33 Section 306 PARAGUAY .................................................................................................................... 34 SECTION III. NOTORIOUS MARKETS .............................................................................................. 35 ANNEX 1. STATUTORY BACKGROUND ON SPECIAL 301 ................................................................ 39 ANNEX 2. THE WIPO PERFORMANCE AND PHONOGRAMS TREATY (WPPT) AND THE WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATY (WCT) .......................................................................................................... 40 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The “Special 301” Report is an annual review of the global state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement, conducted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994). This Report reflects the Administration’s resolve to encourage and maintain effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide:  The report highlights positive accomplishments, such as sustained efforts by trading partners such as the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan, both of whom have been removed from the Watch List, and a positive outcome in a U.S. World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement case against China.  The report notes continuing serious concerns in countries such as China and Russia. But it also credits positive steps by those trading partners, such as Russia’s accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties.  The report identifies growing concerns with some trading partners, such as Algeria, Canada, and Indonesia, and with some key challenges, such as Internet piracy. In the year ahead, USTR looks forward to working with our trading partners to address emerging and continuing concerns and build on the positive results achieved thus far. The Special 301 designations and actions announced in this Report are the result of close consultations with affected stakeholders, foreign governments, and Congressional leaders, as well as interagency discussions within the United States Government. USTR requested written submissions from the public through a notice published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2009. Submissions were made available to the public at www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2009-0001. The 2009 Special 301 review process examined IPR protection and enforcement in 77 countries. Following extensive research and analysis, USTR designates the following 46 countries in this year’s Special 301 Report in the categories of Priority Watch List, Watch List, and/or Section 306 Monitoring status: Priority Watch List: China, Russia, Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Chile, India, Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, Venezuela Watch List: Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam Section 306 Monitoring: Paraguay 1 Out-of-Cycle Reviews In 2009, USTR will conduct a number of Out-of-Cycle Reviews (OCRs) to monitor progress on IPR protection and/or enforcement and to consider the placement of these trading partners in the Special 301 Report.  Fiji – Several public submissions raised concerns regarding large-scale commercial enterprises engaged in retail distribution of pirated optical discs (CDs and DVDs). USTR will conduct an OCR to examine Fiji’s efforts to address this problem.  Israel – The United States will continue the OCR that was started last year, in order to continue positive discussions with Israel regarding potential amendments to Israel’s laws that affect IPR protection for pharmaceutical products.  Philippines – The United States will conduct an OCR to monitor the Philippines’ progress on IPR protection and enforcement initiatives.  Poland – The United States will conduct an OCR to examine whether Poland continues to make progress on IPR enforcement, including through implementation of its National IPR Action Plan.  Saudi Arabia – To build on the successful launch of the United States-Saudi Arabia IPR Working Group, the United States will conduct an OCR to monitor progress by Saudi Arabia on IPR enforcement and transparency objectives. New Format of the Special 301 Report USTR has restructured the Special 301 Report, which now has three main sections and two Annexes.  Section I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Enforcement discusses broad global trends and issues in IPR protection and enforcement that USTR works to address on a daily basis.  Section II: Country Reports includes narrative descriptions of issues of concern in particular countries.  Section III: Notorious Markets is a listing of Internet markets and physical markets of concern.  Annex I provides the statutory background for the Special 301 Report.  Annex II provides a list of contracting parties to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (i.e., the WIPO Internet Treaties). 2 SECTION I. DEVELOPMENTS IN IPR PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Innovation and creativity are pillars of global economic development. Key to any nation’s economic success is the ability to trade intellectual property – including the goods and services that flow from new ideas – in a rules-based system around the world. An important part of the mission of the Office of the United States Trade Representative is to ensure that U.S. creators and innovators benefit from adequate and effective protection and enforcement of their IPR in markets around the world. IPR infringement causes significant financial losses for rightsholders and legitimate businesses around the world. In its most pernicious forms, it can also endanger the public. Counterfeiting of some products, such as car parts and medicines, poses a real risk to health and safety. Trade in counterfeit and pirated products often fuels organized criminal networks and hinders sustainable economic development in many countries. Initiatives to Strengthen IPR Internationally The United States has worked to promote adequate and effective protection and enforcement of IPR through a variety of mechanisms, including the following initiatives:  World Trade Organization (WTO): The multilateral structure of WTO agreements provides opportunities for USTR to lead engagement with trading partners on IPR issues in several contexts, including accession processes for prospective members like Russia; the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); and dispute settlement.  Bilateral and Regional Initiatives: The United States is pleased to have worked together with many countries to strengthen IPR protection and enforcement through the provisions of bilateral and regional agreements, including free trade agreements (FTAs). In addition, Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) between the United States and several countries, including many in the Middle East and Asia, have facilitated discussions on enhancing IPR protection and enforcement.  Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): The goal of the ACTA initiative is to work with trading partners in favor of strong IPR enforcement to achieve an agreement that raises the international standard for the enforcement of IPR. On April 6, 2009, USTR and its ACTA partners released a detailed summary of the issues under negotiation.  Trade Preference Program Reviews: USTR reviews IPR practices in connection with the implementation of trade preference programs such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). USTR will continue to review IPR practices in Russia, Lebanon, and Uzbekistan under ongoing GSP reviews. As part of its bi-annual review of the operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, USTR will review the IPR practices of beneficiaries, including The Bahamas, to assess compliance with the preference 3 program’s eligibility criteria, which include the extent to which a country prohibits its nationals from broadcasting U.S. copyrighted materials without permission.  Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum: The United States encourages APEC members – some of whom have significant IPR enforcement challenges – to put in place legal regimes and enforcement systems to better combat counterfeiting and piracy. In the past year, the United States led efforts to ensure effective implementation of previously agreed-upon initiatives on IPR protection and enforcement, including the APEC Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Initiative and the APEC Cooperation Initiative on Patent Acquisition Procedures. In 2008, APEC Leaders and Ministers underscored the importance of continuing and building upon this work in 2009 by addressing areas such as satellite and cable signal theft, and patent examination practices in the region. The United States will work with the other APEC economies on these efforts.  Expanded International Cooperation: USTR, in coordination with other agencies, is looking forward to continuing engagement with trading partners in bilateral, regional, and multilateral fora to improve the global IPR environment. In addition to the work listed above, we anticipate engaging with our trading partners in initiatives such as the G-8, the U.S.-EU Summit, our trilateral cooperation with Canada and Mexico, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and other multilateral and regional fora. Trends in Counterfeiting Counterfeiting has evolved in recent years from a localized industry concentrated on copying high-end designer goods to a sophisticated global business involving the mass production and sale of a vast array of fake goods, including items such as counterfeit toothpaste, shampoos, razors, electronics, batteries, food and beverages, chemicals, sporting goods, automobile and airplane parts, medicines, and health care products. Counterfeiting affects the profits of legitimate producers and impacts consumers whose lives and safety are at risk when they purchase fake goods. It also damages the economies of the countries in which it occurs by decreasing tax revenue and deterring investment. Counterfeiters generally pay no taxes or duties, and they often disregard basic standards for worker health and safety, and product quality and performance. Industry reports trends in counterfeiting including:  A greater diversification in the types of goods that are being counterfeited, as well as the production of labels and components for these fake products. Exploiting free trade zones (FTZs), counterfeiters are establishing a global trade in these items, shipping them separately to FTZs to be assembled and distributed in another country.  Piracy of copyrighted products in virtually all formats, as well as counterfeiting of trademarked goods, has grown rapidly because these criminal enterprises offer enormous profits and little risk. Counterfeiters and pirates require little up-front capital investment, and even if caught and charged with a crime, the penalties imposed in many countries are so low that they offer little or no deterrence. 4 Stronger and more effective criminal and border enforcement is required to stop the manufacture, import, export, transit, and distribution of pirated and counterfeit goods. Through bilateral consultations, FTAs, and international organizations, USTR is working to maximize the deterrent effects of remedies, including stronger penalties and requirements for the seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit goods, and the equipment used in their production. The manufacture and distribution of counterfeit pharmaceuticals is a growing problem that poses special concerns for consumer health and safety. The United States notes its concern with the proliferation of the manufacture of counterfeit pharmaceuticals in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Russia, and the sale and distribution of counterfeit pharmaceuticals in many countries. A significant contributing factor in this problem is the unauthorized use of bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) to manufacture counterfeit pharmaceuticals. For instance, in China, domestic chemical manufacturers that produce APIs can avoid regulatory oversight by not declaring that the bulk chemical is intended for use in pharmaceutical products. While China has acknowledged that this loophole must be addressed and has committed to expanding its regulations to control bulk chemicals used as the underlying source of many counterfeit drugs, we continue to urge China to adopt policies that will in fact reduce the manufacture and distribution of unauthorized APIs. Internet and Digital Piracy The increased availability of broadband Internet connections around the world has made the Internet an extremely efficient vehicle for disseminating copyright-infringing products. Internet piracy is a significant concern in a number of trading partners, including Canada, China, Greece, Hungary, Korea, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Vietnam. Unauthorized retransmission of live sports telecasts over the Internet continues to be a problem in many countries, particularly in China. In addition, piracy using new technologies is an emerging problem internationally. For example, U.S. copyright industries report growing problems with piracy using cellular telephones, palm devices, flash drives, and other mobile technologies. In some countries these devices are being pre-loaded with illegal content before they are sold. In addition to piracy of music and films using these new technologies, piracy of ring tones, games, and scanned books also occurs. Countries with significant problems of piracy using these new technologies include China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The United States will work with these governments to combat these increasing problems. The United States urges governments to ratify and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties, which provide for the tools necessary to protect copyrighted works in the digital environment. Although Internet piracy is rapidly supplanting physical piracy in many markets around the world, production of and trade in pirated optical discs remains a major problem in many parts of the world. In recent years, some countries, such as Brazil, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Ukraine, have made progress toward implementing controls on optical media production. Other countries still need to adopt and implement legislation or improve existing measures to combat illegal optical disc production, including Bangladesh, China, India, Russia, and Thailand, which have not made sufficient progress in this area. The United States continues to urge its trading partners 5 who face illegal optical media production within their borders to pass effective legislation to counter this problem and aggressively enforce existing laws and regulations. Government Use of Software Under Executive Order 13103 issued in September 1998, United States Government agencies maintain procedures to ensure the authorized and legitimate use of business software. Pursuant to the same directive, USTR has undertaken an initiative to work with other governments, particularly in countries that are modernizing their software asset management systems or where concerns have been raised, to stop governmental use of illegal software. Considerable progress has been made under this initiative, leading to numerous countries and territories mandating that only authorized, legitimate software may be used by government ministries. Further work on this issue remains with certain countries such as Belarus, China, Peru, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine. The United States looks forward to the adoption by these governments of effective and transparent procedures to ensure legitimate use of software. Intellectual Property and Health Policy As affirmed in the 2001 WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the United States respects a country’s right to protect public health, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all and supports the vital role of the patent system in promoting the development and creation of new and innovative lifesaving drugs. Consistent with these views, the United States respects our trading partners’ rights to grant compulsory licenses in a manner consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, and encourages our trading partners to consider ways of addressing their public health challenges while maintaining stable intellectual property systems that promote investment, research, and innovation. The United States is firmly of the view that international obligations such as those in the TRIPS Agreement have sufficient flexibility to allow countries to address the serious public health problems that they may face. We strongly support the TRIPS/health solution concluded in August 2003, in which members are permitted, in accordance with specified procedures, to issue compulsory licenses to export pharmaceutical products to countries that cannot produce drugs for themselves. The General Council adopted a Decision in December 2005 that incorporated this solution into an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement, and later that month the United States became the first WTO member to formally accept this amendment. The United States hopes to see at least two-thirds of the WTO membership accept this amendment by the December 31, 2009 deadline, at which point the amendment will go into effect for those members that accept it. The August 2003 waiver will remain in place and available until the amendment takes effect. The United States will work to ensure that the provisions of our bilateral and regional trade agreements are consistent with these views, and do not impede the taking of measures necessary to protect public health. In addition, USTR will continue its close cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, which contributed to the negotiation of the recently adopted Global Strategy on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property and the agreed 6 parts of its Plan of Action at the World Health Organization, to ensure that public health challenges are addressed and the patent system is supported as a mechanism to promote research and innovation. Supporting Pharmaceutical Innovation USTR has sought to eliminate market access barriers faced by U.S. pharmaceutical companies in many countries and to provide for both affordable health care today and support for the innovation that assures improved health care tomorrow. For example, this year’s Special 301 Report highlights concerns regarding market access barriers affecting pharmaceuticals in Algeria and Indonesia. Other types of measures have the potential to affect market access in this sector, even where a country’s IPR regime is adequate. For example, price controls and regulatory and other barriers can discourage the development of new drugs. These barriers may include unreasonable regulatory approval delays, linkages between dispensing and prescribing, and reference pricing or other potentially unfair reimbursement policies. The criteria, rationale, and operation of such measures are often nontransparent, or not fully disclosed to patients or the pharmaceutical companies seeking to market their drugs. The United States also is seeking to establish or continue dialogues with Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) members and other developed economies to address concerns and encourage a common understanding on questions related to innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. For example, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, once in force, would improve access to innovative products and ensure the transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory pricing and reimbursement of innovative and generic pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and biologics. U.S. industry has expressed concerns regarding the policies of several industrialized trading partners, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and Taiwan, on issues related to innovation in the pharmaceutical sector and other aspects of health care goods and services. With respect to Japan, pharmaceutical and medical device issues are an integral part of the bilateral regulatory reform discussions. While progress has been made, the United States continues to press for improved transparency, including by ensuring meaningful opportunities for interested stakeholders to provide input into important regulatory, reimbursement, and pricing matters, facilitating the introduction of innovative new pharmaceuticals and medical devices into Japan’s market. The United States remains concerned about Poland’s enactment in 2006 of a regulation establishing wholesale and retail processes for drugs, which appears to reduce the official maximum wholesale and retail prices for imported drugs by 13 percent while generally leaving unchanged the prices for drugs of Polish origin. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry reports that this regulation has had a significant impact by reducing prices for numerous products manufactured outside Poland. Poland is in the process of drafting such implementing legislation. The United States shares the EC’s concerns over this regulation and will continue to monitor the situation in Poland throughout the coming year. 7 The United States continues to urge China to add, on a regular basis, new drugs to its national formulary, which controls access to medicines for China. The United States also urges China to adopt regulatory and reimbursement policies for medical devices that support innovation and increase transparency and predictability in that market. The United States shares policy goals and concerns related to health care with other industrialized countries, including challenges surrounding aging populations and rising health care costs. The United States also shares the objective of continued improvement in the health and quality of life of its citizens and delivering care in the most efficient and responsive way possible. The United States hopes these dialogues will help to address specific concerns related to price controls and regulatory and transparency issues, as well as to develop a constructive dialogue with these countries on health policy issues of mutual concern. Implementation of the WTO TRIPS Agreement The TRIPS Agreement requires all WTO members to provide certain minimum standards of IPR protection and enforcement, and was one of the most significant achievements of the Uruguay Round. The TRIPS Agreement is the first broadly-subscribed multilateral IPR agreement that is subject to mandatory dispute settlement provisions. Developed country members were required to implement TRIPS fully as of January 1, 1996. Developing countries were given a transition period for many obligations until January 1, 2000, and in some cases, until January 1, 2005. Nevertheless, certain members are still in the process of finalizing implementing legislation and many are still engaged in establishing adequate IPR enforcement mechanisms. The United States will continue to work with WTO members and expects further progress in the near term towards completing their TRIPS implementation process. However, in those instances in which additional progress is not achieved, the United States will consider other means of encouraging implementation, including the possibility of recourse to dispute settlement consultations. Recognizing the particular challenges faced by least-developed countries, in 2005 the United States worked closely with them and other WTO members to extend the implementation date for these countries from January 2006 to July 2013. The least-developed country members in turn pledged to preserve the progress that some have already made toward TRIPS compliance. In addition, the least-developed country members have until 2016 to implement their TRIPS obligations for patent and data protection for pharmaceutical products, as proposed by the United States at the Doha Ministerial conference of the WTO. The United States looks forward to the successful completion of this transition. The United States participates actively in the WTO TRIPS Council’s scheduled reviews of WTO members’ implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, and also uses the WTO’s Trade Policy Review mechanism to pose questions and seek constructive engagement on issues related to TRIPS implementation. Additionally, the United States continues to work with other WTO 8 members, including the European Communities, Japan, and Switzerland, to encourage a discussion within the WTO TRIPS Council on implementation of the enforcement-related provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. The United States hopes that the TRIPS Council can generate a useful sharing of experiences related to IPR enforcement, in the interest of ensuring effective implementation of enforcement obligations. WTO Dispute Settlement The United States will continue pursuing the resolution of WTO-related disputes announced in previous Special 301 reviews and determinations. The most efficient and therefore preferred manner of resolving our concerns is through bilateral dialogue. Where these efforts are unsuccessful, the United States will consider utilizing the dispute settlement process. In April 2007, the United States requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China over deficiencies in China’s legal regime for protecting and enforcing copyrights and trademarks on a wide range of products. After those consultations failed to resolve the matter, the United States requested the establishment of a WTO panel. A WTO panel was established to examine this matter on September 25, 2007. On March 20, 2009, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted a panel report ruling in favor of the United States that (1) China’s denial of copyright protection to works that do not meet China’s content review standards is impermissible under the TRIPS Agreement; and (2) China’s customs rules cannot allow seized counterfeit goods to be publicly auctioned after only removing the infringing mark. With respect to the third claim concerning China’s thresholds for criminal prosecution and conviction of counterfeiting and piracy, while the United States prevailed on the interpretation of the important legal standards in Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement, including the finding that criminal enforcement measures must reflect and respond to the realities of the commercial marketplace, the panel found that it needed additional evidence before it could uphold the overall U.S. claim that China’s criminal thresholds are too high. The United States looks forward to working with China to implement the Dispute Settlement Body’s (DSB) recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In addition, the United States requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China concerning certain other Chinese measures affecting market access. These measures appear to be inconsistent with various WTO obligations of China. This consultation request focuses on a Chinese legal structure that denies foreign companies the right to import publications, movies, music, and videos, that severely impedes the efficient and effective distribution of publications, music, and videos within China, and that disadvantages imported publications, movies, and music vis-à-vis their domestic counterparts in their distribution. As the United States and China were unable to resolve this dispute in these consultations, the United States filed a request for the establishment of a WTO panel. A WTO panel was established to examine this matter on November 27, 2007, and was composed on March 27, 2008. The panel proceedings are currently underway. Following the 1999 Special 301 review, the United States initiated dispute settlement consultations concerning the European Union’s (EU) regulation on food-related geographical 9 indications (GIs), which appeared to discriminate against foreign products and persons – notably by requiring that EU trading partners adopt an “EU-style” system of GI protection – and appeared to provide insufficient protections to trademark owners. On April 20, 2005, the DSB adopted a panel report ruling in favor of the United States that the EU GI regulation is inconsistent with the EU’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. The DSB found that the EU’s GI regulation impermissibly discriminates against non-EU products and persons and that Europe could not, consistent with WTO rules, deny U.S. trademark owners their rights. The DSB ruled that, under the regulation, any exceptions to trademark rights for the use of registered GIs were narrow, and limited to the actual GI name as registered. On March 31, 2006, the EC published a revised GI Regulation that is intended to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings. There remain some concerns, however, with respect to this revised GI Regulation, which the United States has asked the EC to address, and the United States intends to continue monitoring this situation. Positive Developments Several countries made significant positive progress on IPR protection and enforcement in 2008 and early 2009. For example:  Korea – USTR is pleased to announce that Korea is being removed from the Special 301 Watch List in recognition of the significant improvements it has made during the past year, and the Korean Government’s policy direction of continuing to place a priority on improving its IPR regime. This marks the first time in the history of the report that Korea has not appeared on either the Watch List or the Priority Watch List. USTR will, however, continue to monitor closely the ongoing problem of Internet piracy in Korea, and will be prepared to consider returning Korea to the Watch List in the future if it does not respond effectively to this challenge through its implementation of newly enacted legislation and other steps.  Taiwan – In January 2009, USTR announced the removal of Taiwan from the Watch List following an OCR. During this period of review, Taiwan established a Specialized IPR Court and made progress implementing the Ministry of Education Action Plan for Protecting IPR on School Campuses, and, in April 2009, Taiwan prosecutors initiated a significant prosecution involving a peer-to-peer (P2P) network under the 2007 amendments to Taiwan’s copyright law. On April 21, 2009, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan enacted a new law to provide limitations on Internet Service Provider (ISP) liability if ISPs establish and follow certain procedures, including an expeditious notice-and- takedown regime.  China – During the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese Government went to unprecedented lengths to launch a coordinated crackdown on the unauthorized retransmission of sporting events as well as online activities related to the Olympic Games. These efforts reportedly resulted in 453 online infringement cases, through which 192 sites were shut down, 173 sites were required to remove infringing content, 88 sites received administrative punishment, and infringing activities related to 10 sites were transferred 10 for criminal prosecution. This experience shows that when the Chinese Government chooses to exercise its political will to deal with an IPR problem, it can yield results.  Russia – Russia acceded to the WIPO Internet Treaties, and has made progress combating software piracy. In addition, the Moscow City Government banned DVD/CD kiosks in the public transport system and pedestrian spaces, thus eliminating one major nexus of retail trade in pirated videos and music.  Chile – Chile acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Chile also created a specialized brigade within the Chilean police force to handle IPR crimes.  Egypt – In 2008, Egyptian courts issued the first jail sentences for IPR, in several criminal cases against defendants for software piracy.  India – Due to the serious problem posed by counterfeit medicines, India passed the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act 2008 that will increase penalties for spurious and adulterated pharmaceuticals. Additionally, India introduced an e-filing system for trademark and patent applications.  Indonesia – A longstanding trademark dispute was resolved in 2008 after years of litigation.  Lebanon – In 2008, Lebanon made significant progress on the long-standing problem of cable signal piracy, resulting in at least 80 percent of the 600-800 pirate cable operators signing licenses to become legitimate cable providers.  Saudi Arabia – In 2008, Saudi Arabia established a website for its Violations Review Committee that provides information about copyright prosecutions and court cases and increases transparency for rightsholders.  Sweden – In April 2009, a Swedish court convicted four defendants in connection with the PirateBay website, which was previously listed in the 2008 Special 301 Report as a notorious virtual market on the Internet. In addition, a new measure in Sweden permitting rightsholders in civil proceedings to obtain the identities of individuals implicated in the unauthorized exchange of digital content from ISPs entered into force.  Vietnam – As part of its efforts to meet its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, Vietnam passed a circular in 2008 to criminalize commercial scale copyright and trademark infringement. The United States commends this positive progress by our trading partners. The United States will continue to work with these and other countries to achieve further improvements in IPR protection and enforcement during the coming year. 11 SECTION II. COUNTRY REPORTS PRIORITY WATCH LIST CHINA China will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2009 and will remain subject to Section 306 monitoring. China’s enforcement of IPR and compliance with its TRIPS Agreement obligations remain top priorities for the United States. The United States looks forward to working with China to implement the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s recommendations and rulings in the China – Measures Related to the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights dispute. While the Chinese Government continues to provide increased attention to the IPR environment, the shared goal of significantly reducing IPR infringement throughout China has not yet been achieved. China’s IPR enforcement regime remains largely ineffective and non-deterrent. The United States also remains concerned by reports that officials, apparently motivated by the financial crisis and the need to maintain jobs, are urging more lenient enforcement of IPR laws. The United States believes that, consistent with the rule of law, IPR enforcement actions should be initiated, cases should be decided, and remedies should be granted based on the merits of the case and in accordance with the law. Moreover, a strengthened approach to IPR protection and enforcement in China would contribute to a more robust and innovative economy in the longer term. Of particular concern is the rise of Internet piracy in China, especially given its emergence as a leading nation in terms of the number of Internet, broadband and mobile device users. Strong action to curb trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on the Internet is critical to the future of IPR protection in China. China should significantly increase criminal prosecutions and other enforcement actions against Internet-based piracy and counterfeiting operations through a coordinated, national effort backed by appropriate resources. During the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese Government went to unprecedented lengths to launch a coordinated crackdown on the unauthorized retransmission of sporting events as well as online activities related to the Olympic Games. These efforts reportedly resulted in 453 online infringement cases, through which 192 sites were shut down, 173 sites were required to remove infringing content, 88 sites received administrative punishment, and infringing activities related to 10 sites were transferred for criminal prosecution. This experience shows that when the Chinese Government chooses to exercise its political will to deal with an IPR problem, it can yield results We urge the Chinese Government to demonstrate this resolve generally when fighting piracy and counterfeiting on the Internet. Retail and wholesale trademark counterfeiting in China continues to be a major source of frustration for international brand owners. In spite of significant attention and resources from brand owners, administrative supervision, civil lawsuits, agreements with landlords, and attention from China’s central Government and foreign governments, counterfeiting remains pervasive in many retail and wholesale markets. It appears that additional measures, including 13 criminal sanctions, will be necessary to bring this problem under control. While rightsholders reported that they were encouraged by the innovative protocol brokered by the Beijing municipal courts between brand-owners and the landlord of the notorious Silk Market, they are disappointed that the settlement protocol is not being enforced. We encourage the appropriate authorities to take the actions necessary to ensure that this protocol can be adequately enforced. Despite the crackdowns during the Olympics and an increasing number of IPR cases in Chinese courts, overall piracy and counterfeiting levels in China remained unacceptably high in 2008. The share of IPR-infringing product seizures at the U.S. border that were of Chinese origin was 81 percent in 2008, and that share rose in terms of value by 40 percent over 2007. Chinese counterfeit products include pharmaceuticals, electronics, batteries, auto parts, industrial equipment, toys, and many other products that pose a direct threat to the health and safety of consumers in the United States, China and elsewhere. The U.S. copyright industries estimate that losses due to piracy in China were approximately $3.5 billion for the music recording and business software industries alone. While Internet piracy continues to grow, trade in illegal optical discs also continues to thrive, supplied by both licensed and unlicensed factories and by smugglers. Small retail shops continue to be the major commercial outlets for pirated movies and music and a wide variety of counterfeit goods. Piracy of books and journals and end-user piracy of business software also remain key concerns. Inadequate IPR enforcement is a key factor contributing to these shortcomings, and there are a number of legal obstacles to effective enforcement that result in limited deterrence provided by Chinese law. These impediments include high value and volume thresholds that must be met before criminal prosecution of IPR infringement is possible as well as difficulties in initiating or transferring cases to the criminal authorities that do meet China’s thresholds for criminal prosecution. Rules designed to promote the transfer of cases to criminal authorities do not appear to have solved the problem. Moreover, the vast majority of enforcement is channeled to administrative authorities. U.S. trademark and copyright industries continue to point out that administrative fines are too low and irregularly awarded to provide an effective deterrent, and as a result infringers continue to consider administrative seizures and fines as a cost of doing business. Civil damages for infringement are also low. IPR enforcement at the local level is hampered by poor coordination among Chinese Government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes. In addition, rightsholders report that in the eight years since China’s current Copyright Law was adopted, China has yet to set a rate under Article 42 of that law for the remuneration of rightsholders for the use of their works by radio or television broadcasters. As in the past, the United States will continue to review the policies and enforcement situation in China at the sub-national levels of Government. In 2009, USTR will conduct a review to assess the strengths, as well as weaknesses and inconsistencies, in and among the specific jurisdictions of provincial and municipal Governments’ IPR protection and enforcement regimes. Apart from longstanding concerns over IPR enforcement, the United States recognizes U.S. industry concerns about the possibility that laws or policies in a variety of fields might be used to unfairly favor domestic intellectual property (IP) over foreign IP. Such concerns are especially 14 acute in light of Chinese Government policies that appear to establish a procurement preference for domestically innovated products. The Chinese Government is currently considering legal and/or policy changes in areas such as the scope of compulsory licensing of patented inventions, the treatment of IPR in setting standards, and other areas that have the potential to affect IPR protection and market access for IPR-reliant goods and services. The United States will monitor these developments closely to ensure fair and equitable treatment for U.S. rightsholders. China also maintains market access barriers, such as import restrictions and restrictions on wholesale and retail distribution, which can discourage and delay the introduction of a number of legitimate foreign products that rely on IPR into China’s market. These barriers create additional incentives for infringement of products like movies, video games, and books, and inevitably lead consumers to the black market, again compounding the severe problems already faced by China’s enforcement authorities. The United States has initiated WTO dispute settlement on several market access barriers affecting U.S. copyright industries. The treatment of IPR in standards-setting processes has garnered continuing attention in China and elsewhere. The United States understands that the Standards Administration of China is expected to issue revised draft regulations regarding the treatment of patents and other IPR in national standards. Earlier draft regulations, issued in 2005, prohibited the incorporation of patents in mandatory national standards. U.S. stakeholders continue to have concerns about these issues, due in part to recent Chinese Government officials’ public comments suggesting that patent holders might be required to share their patented technologies on a royalty-free basis or meet other mandatory requirements such as participation in patent pools, in order to participate in the standards development process. China enacted the Third Amendment to its Patent Law in 2008. These changes will go into effect on October 1, 2009. While many areas of the Patent Law were clarified and improved, rightsholders have raised a number of concerns about the new law. For example, the requirement to disclose the origins of genetic resources has led to concerns regarding whether a patent application can be rejected or whether the validity of a patent can be challenged if the disclosure requirements are not met. Also, there are concerns regarding the inadequacy of a two year statute of limitation for filing a patent infringement case and about the scope and role of compulsory licensing under the new law. In addition, while the United States welcomes proposals in China’s 2008 Action Plan on IPR Protection to more closely coordinate patent grants with pharmaceutical marketing approval, the United States continues to have concerns about the extent to which China provides effective protection against unfair commercial use for undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products. The United States believes that continued bilateral dialogue and cooperation can lead to further progress in these and other areas. The United States will continue to put serious efforts into its joint work with China on IPR enforcement and protection strategies, innovation policies, and the range of other important IPR-related matters in our bilateral economic relationship, including through the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) and other fora. 15 RUSSIA Russia will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2009. While Russia has made some progress in improving IPR protection and enacting necessary legislation, concerns remain, particularly with respect to Russia’s slow implementation of some of its commitments in the November 2006 bilateral agreement on IPR (“IPR Bilateral Agreement”). The United States urges Russia to provide stronger enforcement against piracy and counterfeiting, which remain major concerns. The U.S. copyright industries estimate a loss in excess of $2.7 billion in 2008 due to copyright infringement, especially through online piracy, which has become an acute problem. Despite having closed down some illegal websites offering pirated music, many more have sprung up in their place. Complicating this situation are certain rogue “collecting societies” that negotiate “licenses” with these Internet sites, despite not having any authority to issue such licenses. We continue to urge the Russian Government, as part of its efforts to reform the legitimate collecting societies, to shut down those that are fraudulent. In addition, to help combat Internet piracy, we have urged the Russian Government to fully empower the Computer Crimes Unit of the Ministry of the Interior (“Department K”) to combat copyright infringement that occurs on the Internet by providing investigation and prosecution guidelines for these crimes. In the IPR Bilateral Agreement, Russia committed to fight optical disc and Internet piracy, protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products, deter piracy and counterfeiting through criminal penalties, strengthen border enforcement, and bring its laws into compliance with WTO and international IPR norms. Russia’s implementation of these IPR commitments will be essential to completing the final WTO accession process. While Russia has made some progress in implementation, additional work remains for Russia to fully implement its commitments under the IPR Bilateral Agreement. Specifically, the United States looks to Russia to make further progress by ensuring that the Russian Customs Code, Civil Code and Law on Medicines comply with the IPR Bilateral Agreement and the relevant TRIPS Agreement obligations that will take effect upon Russia’s accession to the WTO. On the positive side, Russia recently acceded to the WIPO Internet Treaties, and has made progress combating software piracy. In addition, the Moscow City Government has recently banned DVD/CD kiosks in the public transport system and pedestrian spaces, thus eliminating one major nexus of retail trade in pirated videos and music. Amendments to the Civil Code and Customs Code have been introduced into the Duma and are under active consideration. The United States-Russia Bilateral Working Group on IPR met in March 2009. The United States Government looks forward to future collaborative meetings to discuss how both governments can work to strengthen the protection and enforcement of IPR. ALGERIA Algeria will be added to the Priority Watch List in 2009. The United States is troubled by a law that took effect in Algeria on January 1, 2009 that bans numerous imported pharmaceutical products and medical devices in favor of local production in Algeria. This import ban prevents 16 market access by U.S. companies that rely on intellectual property, and is a serious concern. In addition, the United States remains concerned about the lack of protection in Algeria against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test and other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products. Industry has also noted concern over the granting of marketing approval in recent years to unauthorized copies of drugs protected by Algerian patents, and the lack of effective judicial remedies to enable rightsholders to challenge in court the granting of such marketing approvals. Enforcement against piracy and counterfeiting is weak. The United States looks forward to working with Algeria to address these IPR concerns, including through Algeria’s bid for accession to the WTO, the bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, and other bilateral mechanisms. ARGENTINA Argentina will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2009. Although cooperation between Argentina’s enforcement authorities and U.S. copyright industries remains positive, and the Argentine Customs authority and law enforcement have taken steps to improve enforcement at the border and Argentina’s most significant illegal market, respectively, the United States encourages stronger IPR enforcement actions to combat the widespread availability of pirated and counterfeit products. Copyright piracy remains a significant problem in numerous industry sectors. Civil damages are ineffective and the judiciary is apparently reluctant to impose deterrent-level penalties in criminal cases. The United States notes that Argentina continues to make progress in decreasing its backlog of patent applications and commends their implementation of a patent recordation and alert system. However, Argentina still does not provide adequate protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test and other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products. The United States also urges Argentina to implement an effective system to prevent the issuance of marketing approvals for unauthorized copies of patented pharmaceutical products. The United States will continue to monitor Argentina’s efforts to address these IPR concerns. CANADA Canada will be added to the Priority Watch List in 2009. The United States appreciates the high level of cooperation between our two governments in many important bilateral and multilateral IPR initiatives. The United States also welcomed the Government of Canada’s reaffirmation earlier this year of its 2007 and 2008 commitments to improve IPR protection and enforcement. However, the Government of Canada has not delivered on these commitments by promptly and effectively implementing key copyright reforms. The United States continues to have serious concerns with Canada’s failure to accede to and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties, which Canada signed in 1997. We urge Canada to enact legislation in the near term to strengthen its copyright laws and implement these treaties. The United States also continues to urge Canada to improve its IPR enforcement system to enable authorities to take effective action against the trade in counterfeit and pirated products within Canada, as well as curb the volume of infringing products transshipped and transiting through Canada. Canada’s weak border measures continue to be a serious concern for IP owners. The United States hopes that Canada will implement legislative changes to provide a stronger border enforcement system by giving its customs officers the authority to seize products suspected of being pirated or counterfeit without the need 17 for a court order. The provision of additional resources and training to customs officers and domestic law enforcement personnel would enhance IPR enforcement. The United States will continue to follow Canada’s progress toward providing an adequate and effective IPR protection and enforcement regime, including near term accession to and implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties and improved border enforcement. CHILE Chile will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2009. Chile has made some positive efforts to improve its IPR regime, including the creation of a specialized brigade within the Chilean police force to handle IPR crimes. In addition, Chile recently opened a National Institute for Industrial Property to oversee administrative actions related to industrial property, including patents and trademarks. Chile also acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty, thus fulfilling a commitment under the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Nevertheless, Chile’s IPR performance continues to fall well below expectations of a U.S. free trade agreement partner. The United States remains concerned about inadequate enforcement against copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting

Depois do The Pirate Bay, agora Pablo Soto, criador do Blubster, MP2P y Piolet, é processado.

A partir desta terça-feira, 19 de maio, acontece um julgamento inédito na Espanha. A Promusicae (Asociación de Productores de Música de España) com as gravadoras Warner, Universal, Emi e Sony BMG exigem 13 milhões de Euros do criador dos programas Blubster, Mp2p e Piolet. São softwares de compartilhamento de arquivos. chama a atenção a ofensiva das gravadoras, no mesmo sentido do processo contra o The Pirate Bay. contra o legítimo direito de compartilhar. Confira abaixo. Em que pese alguns não serem softwares livres, o seu último software Omemo, é classificado pelo autor como software livre, licenciado sobre a GNU GPL (http://www.omemo.com/es/).

**************

ciberderechos: Comienza el juicio contra el creador de software P2P Pablo Soto

El próximo martes 19 de mayo comienza en Madrid el juicio que enfrenta al madrileño Pablo Soto, creador de software P2P, con Promusicae (Asociación de Productores de Música de España) y con las discográficas Warner, Universal, Emi y Sony BMG. Estas últimas exigen 13 millones de euros al creador de los programas Blubster, MP2P y Piolet. La cantidad reclamada fue obtenida basándose en un cálculo de los usuarios que han descargado los programas hechos por su empresa, MP2P. El creador madrileño cree que «pedir esa cifra busca publicidad» y añade: «Interponer una demanda mediática como ésta ya deja en el subconsciente que crear software P2P es una actividad delictiva». ¿Qué opinión tenéis sobre que se trate de criminalizar de esta forma al creador de una tecnología, haciéndolo responsable del uso que realizan de la misma los usuarios?