|
gilly@tstt.net.tt
lack
of copyright Enforcement
-
Copyright law was sup-posed to send powerful message
about breaches.
-
Upgrade of law has done little to make those in breach
fear repercussions.
-
No proper enforcement of laws so flagrant disregard continues.
The
point is often made that the breakdown in law and order
has more to do with the lack of implementation of existing
laws rather than the need to pass draconian legislation.
Case in point is the copyright law that was supposed to
send the powerful message that breaches of copyright will
not be tolerated yet the streets remain filled with pavement
vendors plying their trade of pirated products just a stone’s
throw from police stations.
That this unlawful business continues to flourish means
that something is wrong with the system because despite
the best intentions, nothing significant has been achieved
in ensuring compliance with the law.
The problem seems to be that there is no political will
to drive the process. The end result is that much of our
laws are strong on paper but weak in practical terms.
At times it seems that the position of unenforceability
with respect to the law is an orchestrated attempt to leave
the status quo as is without ruffling the feathers of those
who will be affected if the legislation is put into effect.
The passage of the law in that case is therefore nothing
more than a mechanical process meant to shut the mouths
of those who accuse the Government of delinquency in the
Parliament.
Giving feedback
We are a country that knows little about follow-up and even
less about feedback.
With the passage of the copyright law, has anything been
done on a scientific basis to determine whether the legislation
has had the desired effect?
Is there any body that has been established to monitor the
process of implementation and assess the efficacy of the
law?
Will the provisions of the Act ever enjoy the benefit of
meaningful implementation?
The fact is that in a nation that already shows little regard
for the law and certainly no fear of the consequence of
its breach, it seems rather useless to pass laws, however
draconian or relevant, if there is no system to independently
determine if the law is achieving its stated objective.
In the case of copyright, it is clear that the so-called
upgrade of the law has done little to make those in breach
afraid of the repercussions of violation of the provisions.
The reason for the dismissal of the law must be attributed
to the confidence had by the public that the Copyright Act
will never be effectively enforced and so no sanction will
ever be imposed.
If the mindset is to be changed then those involved in law
enforcement must lead the charge. The law is not difficult
to understand and guidance could be sought from members
of the relevant state departments who possess the requisite
knowledge and experience in this specialised area of the
law.
Unless the public believes that laws will be given their
full effect, the provisions will continue to be disregarded.
One solution is a widespread and intense crackdown on all
who are in breach of copyright laws and a simultaneous campaign
to persuade citizens to refrain from encouraging the illegal
trade by purchasing the pirated product.
Is it necessity?
When it comes to copyright infringement there are many who
advocate that there be indulgence given to the business
of piracy because it enables the consumers of the product
to buy the items at a much cheaper price than the legitimate
original.
If one were to place this justification into a category
of defence, necessity would be perhaps the most applicable.
Necessity is usually raised in instances in which defendants
are faced with committing a crime or allowing themselves
or others to suffer or be deprived in some way.
The defence, however, does not envisage profit being made
by the perpetrator of the crime as is the situation with
local pirates who are obviously not doing too badly. And
in any event, those who participate in the illegal trade
and consider themselves the beneficiaries of great savings
from buying pirated items are actually fuelling the illegal
trade and aiding and abetting the commission of the crime.
There is the temptation to test the strength of the existing
law by charging individuals who have purchased the pirated
product for the specific aiding and abetting offence but
many would consider the suggestion far too draconian although,
obviously, very effective in sending the message of zero
tolerance.
So whilst expressing sympathy for those who will be deprived
of entertainment through an illicit source, the justice
of the situation demands that the defence of necessity remains
for circumstances of imminent danger in order to preserve
life.
Bother with copyright
You might well be asking the reason for the discussion of
this topic in light of so many other issues, such as the
increase in the commission of serious crimes involving guns
and other matters of urgent public importance.
Whilst the breach of copyright pales in significance to
those subjects which affect the right of quiet enjoyment
of our property and our personal peace and security, the
golden thread that connects this subject with the other
high-priority matters is the fact that there is no proper
enforcement of our laws and so the flagrant disregard for
law and order continues to plague our nation.
Perhaps we need an entire change in strategy, one that calls
for law enforcement officers to show zero tolerance for
all crimes, whether major or minor infractions.
Maybe if the public is awoken to an entirely strict approach
to the adherence of law the point will be made in the strongest
of terms.
Whatever approach is adopted, a law must never be viewed
as too onerous to enforce and so the challenge with respect
to copyright legislation is to hold those in breach accountable
for their actions.
Fortunately, there are organisations that are trying to
educate the public and sensitise it on the matter of compliance
but at the end of the day, this administration has to step
up to the plate and provide the resources for the implementation
process to commence.
In the final analysis, those who cannot hear will have to
feel.
|
