Techdirt. Stories filed under "philippines"

Philippine Record Labels Get Government To Play Whac-A-Mole With Kickass Torrents

Timothy Geigner — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:32:48 PDT

Around and around we go, when the futility will stop, nobody knows. I'm referring, of course, to a large swath of government and industry groups around the world that apparently just love to play whac-a-mole with torrent sites, which don't host infringing files. If you're not familiar with the carnival game of the same name, it goes something like this. A mole pops out of a hole and you bludgeon that little bastard with a man-hammer. Then another one pops up from another hole. After bashing that one, another one pops out elsewhere. This goes on for exactly as much time as it takes the person playing to decide it would be much more productive to consume thirty corn dogs and puke all over themselves.

The face that launched a thousand mallets
Image source: CC BY 2.0

The latest challenger in this stupid, stupid game? The Philippines. At the request of the Filipino record industry, with some help from their US counterparts, the government seized infamous torrent tracker site Kickass Torrents. The government notes that they're only following the lead of the United Kingdom, who similarly censored KAT back in February. So, once again, we have private industry managing to get government to act as their knee-cap hit squad. Rather, that would be a decent description if the mole wasn't able to simply pop back up out of another hole, which it did.

Local record labels and the Philippine Association of the Recording Industry said that the torrent site was doing “irreparable damages” to the music industry and following a formal complaint the authorities resorted to seize of the main domain name. The torrent site hasn’t given up and is operating as usual under a new domain name.

In other words, this was a pointless exercise in parlor game futility. Instead of finding new ways to compete, the recording industry would rather whack away at those pesky moles. My advice? Well, I suggest, as always, corn dogs.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Philippine Government Ignores Public Concerns, Continues To Push Extreme 'Cybercrime' Law

Glyn Moody — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:28:00 PST

One of the striking -- and depressing -- features of the Internet today is the almost universal desire of governments around the world to rein it in through new laws. We wrote about one such attempt in the Philippines a couple of months ago, where the government is trying to bring in some particularly wide-ranging and troubling legislation. Although the Philippine Supreme Court put a temporary restraining order on the law, the Philippine government is not softening its stance, and has asked the court to lift the order. Its arguments are pretty worrying:

"there is always a presumption of validity that attaches to every legislative act"

Oh, really? It also said the law only "regulates and penalizes" acts defined as cybercrimes like hacking, and does not prevent the petitioners from using the Internet and expressing their thoughts.
Well, that rather depends on how you define cybercrimes, of course. The government said "traffic data" referred to in the Cybercrime Law is "non-content data" that consists of the origin, destination, route, time and date of the communication. It said that unlike content data, which is considered private, traffic data is an "auxiliary to the communication and is necessarily shared with a service provider who is a third party."
That is exactly the same erroneous argument used by the UK government to justify its Snooper's Charter. The problem is that some traffic data -- like destination Web addresses -- give considerable information about the content being viewed. For example, if people are visiting Web sites that are critical of the Philippine government, it's pretty clear what they are reading about.

The GMA News piece quoted above lists many other dubious arguments given by the Philippine government in favor of lifting the ban. Ironically, the way it dismisses or ignores the important issues raised by petitioners to the Supreme Court only serves to confirm the impression that the government is not really interested in achieving a fair and balanced solution here, but intends to push through its plans regardless.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Philippines' Awful New 'Cybercrime' Law Put On Hold -- For Now

Glyn Moody — Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:51:53 PDT

Last week Tim Cushing wrote about the hugely-worrying new "cybercrime" law passed in the Philippines that seemed likely to criminalize all kinds of everyday online activities. As an article on Radio Australia's site reports, the Philippines' highest court has now stepped in after being petitioned to block the legislation:

The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended a controversial cybercrime law, amid huge online protests over fears it would impose enormous curbs on Internet freedoms.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said a "temporary restraining order" was issued by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Such an order stops Philippine laws from taking effect until further orders from the court, while making no immediate judgement on their legality.

The same article reports on the widespread protests the new law has provoked: Human rights groups, media organisations and netizens have voiced their outrage at the law, with some saying it echoes the curbs on freedoms imposed by dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s.

Philippine social media has been alight with protests, while hackers have attacked government websites and petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court calling for it to overturn the law.
It's great to see the Supreme Court recognizing that there might be a problem here, but it's too early to assume victory. The law might still go into operation -- with what looks like dire consequences for the Internet and civil rights in the Philippines.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Philippines' New 'Cybercrime' Law Aims To 'Protect' Citizens By Going After Filesharing, Online Libel

Tim Cushing — Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:15:01 PDT

About a year ago, the Philippines pushed through a completely unneeded anti-counterfeiting bill at the behest of the WIPO (itself working at the behest of the US government). Despite the evidence that counterfeiting isn't a big problem, the bill was pushed through and defended with a bit of doublespeak by the Philippines IP office, who claimed that the bill had nothing to do with various corporate interests applying pressure... except for the ones that have "lost a lot of profits due to piracy." To quote Glyn Moody: "Indeed." [Wryly raised eyebrow emoticon]

The Filipino government has now moved past that, enacting a so-called Cybercrime Prevention Act that goes well beyond dealing with hackers and fraudsters. As Mike pointed out earlier, the new law contained some very broad wording that outlawed "cybersex," subjecting violators to some very harsh punishments (up to six years in jail and fines up to $25,000). That, in and of itself, would be worrying. But the law goes even further, recasting former civil offenses as criminal acts. As Patrick Villavicencio at InterAksyon points out, the legislation bears a lot of resemblance to the failed SOPA/PIPA bills, aiming at taking down filesharing rather than protecting citizens from online attacks.

“What SOPA and PIPA aimed to do, the Cybercrime Law has done,” Acero said, referring to the objective of the two bills to curb the rampant sharing and downloading of movie and music content online, as lobbied by firms in Hollywood.

Under Section 6 of the law, all crimes “defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws” can be punishable under the Act if they are committed with, using, and through a computer system.

Among the country’s special laws, the Intellectual Property Code penalizes, among others, illegal distribution and consumption of copyrighted content.
University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini, meanwhile, said that because of Section 6, the law essentially made all crimes a form of cybercrime when committed through a computer or Internet system.

Rather than infringement being a civil issue or a minor crime at best, the additional wording drags this activity under the heading "cybercrime," allowing law enforcement to collect real-time traffic data on filesharers. It also contains a "takedown clause" which gives the Department of Justice "sweeping powers to issue a block or restrict order against websites." This puts the power in the hands of content producers, allowing them to have a site blocked or taken down simply by filing a request with the DOJ. One needs only look at the average legacy industry "rogue site" list to see how this provision could result in the muting of several legitimate sites.

Beyond this aspect lay some very disturbing new limits on speech. GMA News has a wrap-up of ten of the most chilling new limitations on expression, most of which stem from some very generous additions to libel laws.

Your tweet about the barangay captain who loves San Miguel more than his job? That could be classified as libel, which is defined in the Revised Penal Code as "the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person..." Take note of the part where it says "real or imaginary." You're damned if you're lying and you're damned if you're telling the truth.

That's just a small part of it. People can no longer "blacken the memory of one who is dead," no matter how terrible a person they were. It also does away with the requirement of criminal intent for cybercrimes. Instead, simply performing anything defined as a criminal act, no matter your intentions, could get you arrested.

Then there's this bit of nastiness:

In an InterAksyon.com article written by Patrick Villavicencio, University of the Philippines College of Law Professor Atty. JJ Disini said that under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 the so-called "victims" and their lawyers "could argue in court that old libelous posts [that are] still live today can be charged with online libel." The report further quoted Disini, who explained, "Kasi pwede nilang sabihin na (Because it could mean) by keeping it there today, you’re still publishing it now. So if you’re still publishing it after the law took effect, then you’re liable for its publication today."

There's nothing like having previously legal activity "grandfathered in" by new laws. Not only will Filipinos need to be very careful what they say going forward, they're also going to take a long look at anything they've said in the past. Not only that, but they're going to need to be very careful with their responses to anything others say that veers towards libel.

Those who play a part in unwittingly or willfully encouraging the spread of libelous content shall be charged for abetting libel. That means the act of clicking the "Like" button of Facebook or retweeting posts on Twitter may be tagged as unlawful as well.

What else? "Ironic, suggestive or metaphorical language" can be considered libelous. And the penalties are incredibly harsh. Online libel can be punished with a prison term of 12 years and a ₱1,000,000 fine, far harsher than the penalties for offline libel.

Between the free speech limitations and the sweeping powers being granted to content creators and law enforcement, the new law is bad news all around. The DOJ will be meeting with stakeholders in October to ensure that the IRR (implementation of rules and regulations) "will not stifle basic human rights, not the least of which is internet users' freedom of speech and expression."

Well, we'll see how that goes. Most "stakeholder" meetings seem to be long on listening to concerns but short on actually addressing them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Philippines Outlaws Cybersex

Mike Masnick — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:26:44 PDT

The EFF points us to the news of the Philippines signing into law the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which has a number of interesting and worrisome provisions. The EFF, quite rightly, focuses on the fact that it makes online libel a criminal rather than civil offense, which could lead to jail time. They note that this provision appears to violate the UN's Human Rights Council, which claims that criminal sanctions against libel are a problem. Also troubling: that section was added by one Senator, Vicente Sotto III, without any public hearing, after Sotto claimed "introducing Internet libel laws would make people more cautious online." Hello, chilling effects.

But what caught my eye, was a couple sections up from the libel part. It appears that Cybersex is now a crime in the Philippines too. In the section that lists out "content-related offense," number one on the list is:

Cybersex. -- The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.

That wording seems a bit awkward, but it certainly seems to suggest that even willing cybersex is now illegal if it's done "for favor or consideration." People in the Philippines are quite reasonably worried that the language here is quite broad. And what's the punishment? It seems a bit on the harsh side:

Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhPl,000,000.00) or both.

Prision mayor appears to mean at least six years in prison. 200,000 Philipine pesos is about $5,000. So... basically cybersex is a crime in the Philippines that could net you more than six years in jail... and fines of between $5,000 and $25,000.

That seems a bit... harsh.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Philippines IP Office: Anti-Counterfeiting Meeting Isn't About Kowtowing To Corporate Interests... Except That It Is

Mike Masnick — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:30:00 PDT

Earlier this year, the US government admitted that it was funding special programs in conjunction with WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) to help push anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts around the globe, despite tons of evidence that counterfeiting isn't a big problem, and actually is massively smaller than the industry makes it out to be. That US funding led directly to a secretive meeting in the Philippines, that was entirely one-sided, focusing solely on companies and their desire for greater enforcement against counterfeits.

Over the weekend, however, Cory Doctorow called WIPO out on this meeting, noting that it wasn't even on WIPO's website, and appeared to go against WIPO's own agenda concerning recognizing the "broader societal interests." This resulted in WIPO giving a weak defense of the event -- while also distancing itself from the event (saying it was only part of the first two days -- and the rest were from the Philippines government).

That, in turn, resulted in this somewhat hilarious attempt at a defense of the event from the Philippines IP Office. The IP Office first denies that this is a one-sided event designed to help big sponsoring companies... and then goes on to admit that's exactly what it was about in the very next sentence:

“Strictly speaking, the workshops sponsored by these corporations will, of course, teach our law enforcement officers how to act in the interest of those business entities,” observed Ricardo R. Blancaflor, Director General of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL). “However, it is also true that these brands are the most pirated in the country. They have lost a lot of profits due to piracy.”

That's very convincing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Officials In The Philippines Want To Criminalize Downloading

Mike Masnick — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:52:00 PDT

We're seeing crazier and crazier ideas for copyright laws lately. First, we had politicians in Brazil looking to criminalize ripping a CD and, now, Richard points us to the news that there's an effort underway in the Philippines to make direct downloading of unauthorized works a criminal offense. Apparently, this is being driven by a government agency, in association with an industry "anti-piracy" group (of course). I'm curious if even our usual critics can defend why direct downloading should be a criminal issue, rather than a civil issue? Do you really think putting people in jail for listening to music will get more people to buy your product?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Our Eight-Legged Friends

Michael Ho — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:00:00 PDT

Spiders are tough little invertebrates, and some of them have pretty amazing adaptations to their environments. Here are just a few more interesting links on these eight-legged creatures.

The little Argyroneta aquatica spider is the first known spider to live its entire life under water. It still needs to breathe air, so it creates a little diving bell that also seems to act like a gill. [url]
It might not be so cruel to pull a couple legs off of spiders... since spiders can survive just fine on 6 legs. Five-legged spiders, though, are definitely handicapped. [url]
About 40 new species of spiders were found in the Philippines -- along with a lot of other new species of invertebrates and fish. Apparently, "the Philippines has more diversity on land and sea than any other place on earth." [citation needed?] [url]
Here's a quick fact/fiction summary about the camel spider. First fact: the camel spider isn't really a spider. Thanks for playing. [url]
To discover more interesting biological curiosities, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Filipino Gov't Loses Court Case Because It Relied On Wikipedia

Mike Masnick — Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:28:11 PDT

A few years back, we discussed whether or not it was appropriate for judges to cite Wikipedia, noting that some were against the idea. Now, Slashdot points us to a case over in the Philippines, where the Filipino government has lost a recent lawsuit, in large part due to relying on Wikipedia to counter claims, rather than bringing in an expert witness.

However, what's odd, is that the judge in the case seems upset about the use of Wikipedia itself, with no specific attempt to determine if the citation was accurate or credible. It appears that the government was really using Wikipedia to call up the infamous psychologists' bible DSM-IV, in order to explore whether or not one of the participants in the case had a real personality disorder. While citing Wikipedia might not be the wisest of decisions, it still seems a bit harsh to dismiss it entirely because of the source, without any effort to determine if the content itself was legitimate.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story