Nearly 15 years after the European Commission received a complaint from IFPI that the European recording industry was suffering from the rampant infringement of its members' IP rights in Thailand, the Commission has finally closed its files on Thai infringement. This is not to say that piracy has stopped: what has happened is that the Commission has recognised that there are better ways of dealing with it than by conducting formal examination procedures and then by bringing its finding to the attention of the Thai authorities. As the notice in the Official Journal says:
"Despite these initiatives, piracy of sound recordings (international repertoire) remains a serious problem in Thailand, and substantial numbers of pirated sound recordings continue to be exported to the European Union. These continuing problems can, however, better be addressed in other contexts than an investigation under Regulation 3286/94".
Have the Thais been employing counterfeit steamrollers in their campaign against infringing products?
The IPKat thinks this goes to show that, where the infringement of private rights such as IP rights is concerned, the forces of diplomacy will almost always act against the swift and efficacious resolution of infringement problems. Merpel adds:
"But it's good to get officialdom, such as governments and the Commission, involved. for one thing, it makes them feel they're doing something useful; for another, even if Thai piracy continues, at least our own side get to learn about the harmful effects of infringement of which they might otherwise have remained ignorant".
Thailand's most hated film here
BOOK CLOSES ON THAI PIRACY
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, July 01, 2005
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html