DOCSLIB.ORG

WT/TPR/M/331/Add.1 9 May 2016 (16-2529) Page

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WT/TPR/M/331/Add.1 9 May 2016 (16-2529) Page WT/TPR/M/331/Add.1 9 May 2016 (16-2529) Page: 1/247 Trade Policy Review Body Original: English/French/Spanish 15 and 17 March 2016 anglais/français/espagnol inglés/francés/español TRADE POLICY REVIEW TURKEY MINUTES OF THE MEETING Addendum Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Atanas Atanassov Paparizov (Bulgaria) This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO Members, and replies provided by Turkey. Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 15 et 17 mars 2016 EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES TURQUIE COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION Addendum Président: S.E. M. Atanas Atanassov Paparizov (Bulgarie) Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses fournies par Turquie. Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 15 y 17 de marzo de 2016 EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES TURQUÍA ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN Addendum Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Atanas Atanassov Paparizov (Bulgaria) En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por Turquía. WT/TPR/M/331/Add.1 - 2 - QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED BY TURKEY AUSTRALIA TRADE POLICY REVIEW – TURKEY Questions by Australia (March 2016) Questions on Report by Turkey (WT/TPR/G/331) 2.1 Fiscal Policy (Page 3, paragraph 2.7) Question 1 Australia notes the prioritisation of spending programs in education in the Turkish Government’s medium to long-term fiscal strategy. Could Turkey please outline the opportunities for foreign firms wishing to set up education institutions or provide education services on a cross-border basis in Turkey? Turkey’s Answer : Provision of education services is very much related to public service provision in Turkey, whereby private education institutions are required to provide education services on a non-profit basis. Concerning the provision of education services except for higher education, foreign natural or juridical persons, either directly or by forming partnerships with Turkish citizens, may establish “international educational institutions” including vocational and technical schools, only for foreign students and upon the approval of Council of Ministers. With respect to supply of higher education services, “non-profit foundation higher education institutions” may be founded by the enactment of a specific Law, and can only be established by foundations constituted in accordance with Turkish Civil Code. Turkish nationality requirement exists for the administrative board and the president of the non-profit foundation higher education institution. In addition, Turkish citizens are free to obtain diplomas from foreign universities through online education programs. The equivalence of such diplomas are approved by the Council of Higher Education; and, among other criteria, it is required that an equivalent Turkish online education program exists to obtain diploma equivalence for the foreign online education program. Question 2 Does Turkey see a need to increase competition in education services through removing foreign investment restrictions in this sector? Turkey’s Answer : Currently, there are no plans to alter the above-mentioned requirements for the supply of educational services by foreigners. 3 TRADE POLICIES 3.1.1 Doha Development Agenda (Page 8, paragraph 3.10) Question 3 We note that Turkey says it will ratify the Agreement on Trade Facilitation very soon. Can Turkey outline when it is expected to ratify the Agreement on Trade Facilitation? Turkey’s Answer: The ratification process of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation has already been finalized through a Council of Ministers Decree published on 5th March, 2016. The instrument of acceptance will be conveyed to the WTO this week. WT/TPR/M/331/Add.1 - 3 - Questions on Report by Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/331) SUMMARY Foreign Direct Investment (Page 10, paragraph 5 and Page 40, para. 2.57) Question 4 Australia notes that Turkey has a number of initiatives in place for encouraging FDI and that Turkey maintains a relatively open FDI regime in most sectors. However, as the Secretariat Report notes, Turkey continues to impose restrictions in the education, mining, broadcasting, aviation, maritime transport, port services, fishing, accounting, financial, real-estate and electricity sectors. Could Turkey please explain if it plans to take any steps towards removing investment restrictions in these sectors? Turkey’s Answer: As overall assessment of the Turkish Foreign Investment Regime indicates, Turkey has a fairly open FDI regime based on equal treatment of domestic and foreign investors. However there are certain national legislations and regulations relevant to licensing processes and regulations in some sectors, as summarized in Secretariat Report (S331, page 195, Table A2.3). Some of these requirements and restrictions are applied both for foreign and domestic investors such as permission requirements of financial sector and electricity sector. Currently, there is no work carried out regarding further liberalization in these sectors. State-owned Enterprises (Page 11, paragraph 12 and Page 101, paragraph 3.3.4.2) Question 5 Australia notes that state-owned enterprises continue to be involved in a number of sectors of the Turkish economy, including: mining, oil and gas, agriculture, manufacturing, transport and banking. Australia welcomes improvements in terms of transparency and accountability and notes the progress made in Turkey’s privatisation policy, especially in the electricity distribution and power generation industries. Could Turkey please provide an update and any further information on its privatisation program for other sectors? Turkey’s Answer: Please find below the relevant information. Milli Piyango (National Lottery) In accordance with Privatization High Council (PHC) decision, the privatization of national lottery operation will only include the license that transfers the rights to plan and organize the games of chance and execute draws and install systems of games of chance and operation activities. Any asset and liability of National Lottery Administration will not be subject to privatization. The license will be granted to the bidder in the form of a profit sharing method and the duration of the license will be 10 years. The license includes passive drawing game, instant scratch card game, lotto and super lotto, numeric games and new games to be introduced. Regarding the privatization through licensing of National Lottery, Privatization Administration (PA) and General Directorate of the National Lottery Administration are still working on preparatory work in order to determine matters such as privatization method and the method of payment to be applied for the tender. The Port Sector The technical studies to privatize Izmir (operated by Turkish State Railways) and Tekirdağ (operated by TDİ-Turkish Maritime Inc.) Ports will be completed soon. The tender invitations for those ports will be made in 2016. General Directorate of Turkish Electromechanics Industry (TEMSAN) The Company is engaged primarily in the manufacturing of electromechanical parts used in the construction of hydropower dams. The entire shares (100%) of TEMSAN are fully owned by Turkish Privatization Administration. The technical studies to privatize TEMSAN’s shares are continuing. Turkey Petroleum Oil Distribution Co. (TPAO-Türkiye Petrolleri Petrol Dağıtım A.Ş.) Turkish Petroleum Oil Distribution Company which is recently taken into privatization portfolio is WT/TPR/M/331/Add.1 - 4 - engaged in the oil and gas distribution. The technical studies are continuing together with consultants. CH 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1.2 Trade facilitation (Page 48, Paragraph 3.18) Question 6 We note that Turkey has notified its Category A commitments under the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation and can implement all Articles fully except for Article 7.9 relating to perishable goods. Does Turkey have a timeframe when it believes it will be able to implement Article 7.9? Turkey’s Answer: Turkey has notified all the commitments of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement under Category A, with the exception of its commitments relating to perishable goods for which Category B notification has been made. Although there is not a specific timeframe for the implementation of the commitments under the Article 7.9 on perishable goods, Turkey considers that commitment a priority issue and intends to issue a legislative regulation as soon as possible. In the meantime, Turkey will continue to grant priority to perishable goods at the customs. 3.1.9.7 WTO and Bilateral Agreements (Page 75, paragraph 3.9.4) Question 7 Can Turkey clarify its policy on providing mutual recognition of conformity assessment bodies for Good Manufacturing Practice certification for manufacturers of human and veterinary medicines and medical products? Turkey’s Answer: The GMP certificate is a document required for obtaining the pharmaceutical product license. The objective of the relevant legislation on the issuance of the GMP certificates is to protect human health and safety through meeting effectiveness and safety criteria. Ministry of Health of Turkey has been conducting GMP inspections since 1995 in accordance with the GMP Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Products which comply with the relevant guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and in line with that of the EU. Until March 2010, in the applications
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Copyright 2018 4Th Edition a Practical Cross-Border Insight Into Copyright Law
    ICLG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Copyright 2018 4th Edition A practical cross-border insight into copyright law Published by Global Legal Group, in association with Bird & Bird LLP With contributions from: Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune KISCH IP Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP LexOrbis Bereskin & Parr LLP LPS L@w Bird & Bird LLP MinterEllison BROSS & PARTNERS PEREZ CORREA & ASOCIADOS, SC Daniel Legal & IP Strategy S. P. A. Ajibade & Co Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law Seow & Associates FRORIEP Legal SA SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Gorodissky & Partners (Ukraine) Vash Patent LLC Güzeldere & Balkan Law Firm Weisselberg Avocat HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER ZY Partners JIPYONG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Copyright 2018 General Chapter: 1 Communication to the Public: the Only Right Worth Talking About? – Will Smith & Phil Sherrell, Bird & Bird LLP 1 Contributing Editor Country Question and Answer Chapters: Phil Sherrell, Bird & Bird LLP 2 Australia MinterEllison: John Fairbairn & Emily Hawcroft 7 Sales Director Florjan Osmani 3 Brazil Daniel Legal & IP Strategy: Giovanna M. Sgaria de Morais Moulin & Account Director Hannah Vitória M. Fernandes 14 Oliver Smith Sales Support Manager 4 Canada Bereskin & Parr LLP: Jill Jarvis-Tonus 20 Toni Hayward 5 China ZY Partners: Zhou Qiang & Deng Huiqiong 26 Senior Editors Suzie Levy, Rachel Williams 6 France Weisselberg Avocat: Elise Weisselberg 32 Chief Operating Officer Dror Levy 7 Germany HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: Thomas H. Schmitz & Mathis Breuer 37 Group Consulting Editor Alan Falach 8 India LexOrbis: Dheeraj Kapoor & Aprajita Nigam 42 Publisher Rory Smith 9 Japan Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune: Masayuki Yamanouchi & Yuri Fukui 49 Published by 10 Korea JIPYONG: Seung Soo Choi & Seungmin Jasmine Jung 55 Global Legal Group Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Synthesis
    7 | SYNTHESIS CHAPTER 1. SYNTHESIS This chapter provides the rationale and context for Enquiries into Intellectual Property’s Economic Impact and highlights its most significant findings. In doing so, the chapter presents the major themes of the overall report, which are 1) the importance of various types of intellectual property as sources of growth and innovation in today’s economies; and 2) the effects on IP systems and stakeholders of major developments such as content digitisation, the growth of the Internet, and globalisation. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities or third party. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. It should be noted that statistical data on Israeli patents and trademarks are supplied by the patent and trademark offices of the relevant countries. ENQUIRIES INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY'S ECONOMIC IMPACT © OECD 2015 8 | SYNTHESIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key challenges • Copyright appears to be the type of IP that has been attracting business investment at the highest growth rate and it is undergoing statutory review in many countries, yet there are fewer empirical studies about copyright than about patents. Encouraging and enabling the collection and availability of more data on copyright would facilitate data-driven copyright policy. In fact, robust evidence on the use of IP rights generally and on their economic and social impacts is essential for sound IP systems. Presently, however, relatively little concrete evidence is available to support the common assumption that IP rights encourage greater innovation and creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding Against Abuse: the Costs of Excessively Long Copyright Terms
    GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE: THE COSTS OF EXCESSIVELY LONG COPYRIGHT TERMS By Derek Khanna* I. INTRODUCTION Copyrights are intended to encourage creative works through the mechanism of a statutorily created1 limited property right, which some prominent think tanks and congressional organizations have referred to as a form of govern- ment regulation.2 Under both economic3 and legal analysis,4 they are recog- * Derek Khanna is a fellow with X-Lab and a technology policy consultant. As a policy consultant he has never worked for any organizations that lobby or with personal stakes in copyright terms, and neither has Derek ever lobbied Congress. He was previously a Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow. He was featured in Forbes’ 2014 list of top 30 under 30 for law in policy and selected as a top 200 global leader of tomorrow for spear- heading the successful national campaign on cell phone unlocking which led to the enact- ment of copyright reform legislation to legalize phone unlocking. He has spoken at the Con- servative Political Action Conference, South by Southwest, the International Consumer Electronics Show and at several colleges across the country as a paid speaker with the Fed- eralist Society. He also serves as a columnist or contributor to National Review, The Atlan- tic and Forbes. He was previously a professional staff member for the House Republican Study Committee, where he authored the widely read House Republican Study Committee report “Three Myths about Copyright Law.” 1 See Edward C. Walterscheld, Defining the Patent and Copyright Term: Term Limits and the Intellectual Property Clause, 7 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Copyr1ght.S
    SIXTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYR1GHT.S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1966 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IL.C. Card No. 10-36017 This report is reprinted from the Annual Report of the Libdnof Congreee for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT OFFICE ............................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ......................... 2 Official publications .............................. 4 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress ................ 4 Administrative Developments ........................... 4 Problems of Registrability ........................... 5 Organizational Problems ............................ 5 Notices of Intention To Use ...................... : ... 5 Legislative Developments ............................ 6 Judicial Developments ..............................8 Performing Rights and Community Antenna Systems ............... 8 Rights of Exhibition and Copying ....................... 10 Author's "Moral Right" ........................... 11 Subject Matter of Copyright ......................... 13 Publication ................................. 16 Notice of Copyright ............................. 17 Copyright Registration ............................ 19 Ownership. Assignment. and Renewal of Copyright ............... 21 Infringement and Remedies .........................23 Other Judicial Developments .........................26 International Developments .......................... 28 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United States as of December
    [Show full text]
  • USTR 2021 Special 301 Report
    2021 Special 301 Report Office of the United States Trade Representative ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this Report. United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai gratefully acknowledges the contributions of staff to the writing and production of this Report and extends her thanks to partner agencies, including the following Departments and agencies: State; Treasury; Justice; Agriculture; Commerce, including the International Trade Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office; Labor; Health and Human Services, including the Food and Drug Administration; Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center; and the United States Agency for International Development. USTR also recognizes the contributions of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, as well as those of the United States Copyright Office. In preparing the Report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. embassies around the world, from U.S. Government agencies, and from interested stakeholders. The draft of this Report was developed through the Special 301 Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection, Enforcement, and
    [Show full text]
  • Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: the Protection of Electronic Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 18, Issue 4 1994 Article 9 Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention Robert A. Cinque∗ ∗ Copyright c 1994 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Making Cyberspace Safe for Copyright: The Protection of Electronic Works in a Protocol to the Berne Convention Robert A. Cinque Abstract This Note discusses the prevalence of copywrited material on the internet, and the increasing access to said material. The Berne Convention is the leading international agreement to protect this type of material, though its reach and efficacy are limited. Provisions of the Convention are not stringently enforced. The Note explores the costs and benefits of enforcement, and potential protocols or policies to be adopted. NOTES MAKING CYBERSPACE SAFE FOR COPYRIGHT: THE PROTECTION OF ELECTRONIC WORKS IN A PROTOCOL TO THE BERNE CONVENTION Robert A. Cinque* It is... in the nature of things that the work of man's genius, once it has seen the light, can no longer be restricted to one country and to one nationality. That is why... the imperative necessity has been shown of protecting [authors' rights] in international relations.** INTRODUCTION Telecommunications1 and the "information superhighway"' facilitate instantaneous mobility of literary and artistic works in the form of text, video, and audio recordings.' With the click of a mouse or the tap of a key, virtually anyone with a computer and a telephone can obtain vast quantities of information from almost anywhere on the globe.' These conditions pose a * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of the Patentability of Computer Software Under the Trips Agreement: the U.S., the E.U., and Turkey
    Ankara Law Review Vol.4 No.1 (Summer 2007), pp.43-81 A Comparative Analysis Of The Patentability Of Computer Software Under The Trips Agreement: The U.S., The E.U., And Turkey Talat KAYA1 ABSTRACT The question of how to protect new intellectual creations, which emerged as a consequence of the developments in information technologies, brings about substantial debate. Undoubtedly, one of the most controversial issues in this area is the matter of which form of intellectual property protection is appropriate for computer programs. Although copyrights and patents are the two possible intellectual property forms under which computer programs might be protected, countries take different attitudes in this field depending on their level of advancement in the sector. The current international consensus on this subject is that copyright protection provided under TRIPS Agreement is most appropriate. Nevertheless, since there is no provision in the TRIPs agreement that prevents the patentability of computer programs, these creations could also be a subject matter of patents. ÖZET Bilgi teknolojilerinde yaşanan gelişmeler sonrasında ortaya çıkan yeni bir takım fikri ürünlerin nasıl korunacağı sorusu bir takım tartışmaları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu alanda en çok tartışılan konulardan bir tanesi şüphesiz bilgisayar 1 Foreign Trade Expert, Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministry for Foreign Trade. Graduated from Ankara University School of Law in 1998 and received a Master of Laws (LL.M.) Degree from Vanderbilt University, USA in 2005. Currently, working as a Junior Counsel under the Secondment Programme for Trade Lawyers of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law (ACWL). This article is an updated version of the author‟s Master‟s thesis that had been available online under the name “Patentability of Computer Software under the TRIPS Agreement and its Applications in the U.S., the EU, and Turkey.” 44 Ankara Law Review Vol.4 No.1 programlarının hangi fikri mülkiyet çeşidi altında korunacağı hususudur.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Fr.S
    Published monthly Annual subscription : fr.s. 130.— Each monthly issue: Copyright fr.s. 13.— 22nd year — No. 1 Monthly Review of the January 1986 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Contents MEMBERSHIP Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). States Party on January 1, 1986 3 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. States Party on January 1, 1986 6 States Party to Other Treaties in the Field of Copyright and Neighboring Rights Administered by WIPO on January 1, 1986 International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phono- grams and Broadcasting Organizations 9 Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms 10 Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Trans- mitted by Satellite 10 Multilateral Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Copyright Royalties 11 Vienna Agreement for the Protection of Type Faces and their International Deposit 11 Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol 11 States Party to Treaties in the Field of Copyright and Neighboring Rights Not Admi- nistered by WIPO on January 1, 1986 Universal Copyright Convention 12 European Agreement concerning Programme Exchanges by means of Television Films 13 European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts 13 European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories 13 Member States of the Governing Bodies and Other Organs of WIPO, of the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of the Rome Convention and of the Universal Copyright Convention, and Director General and Deputy Directors General of WIPO on January 1, 1986 14 © WIPO 1986 Any reproduction of official notes or reports, articles and translations of laws or agreements, ISSN 0010-8626 published in this review, is authorized only with the prior consent of WIPO.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress
    ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT TO CONGRESS March 2020 * * * UNITED STATES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR IPEC ANNUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT TO CONGRESS: This report is submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §8114. During the past three years, President Trump and his Administration have worked to promote strong intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, both domestically and abroad. As part of an integrated approach, the Trump Administration views our intellectual property strategy, policy and enforcement efforts, together, as key to helping secure the future of our innovative economy and to maintaining our competitive advantage. The Trump Administration’s Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress, developed by the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, brings together the combined and coordinated efforts of the White House, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, Defense, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Copyright Office. This report was originally mandated to be submitted by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator over a decade ago by the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, and builds upon that framework to provide an overview of the Trump Administration’s intellectual property enforcement strategy and policy efforts. For the United States’ approach to intellectual property and innovation policy to be successful, it must continue to be a combined effort that includes all branches of government, the private sector, and our international partners. The Trump Administration continues to build on past strategic efforts in all areas of intellectual property policy, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, both domestically and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement
    ANNEX – SHORT COUNTRY SUMMARIES INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE (IIPA) 2017 SPECIAL 301 REPORT ON COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT The following countries were identified in the U.S. Trade Representative’s 2016 Special 301 Report. In prior years, the IIPA filed separate country reports for some of the countries listed in this Annex. This year, because IIPA members did not have sufficient new information on these countries to justify preparation of a full country report, we instead provide these short country summaries. For each of these countries, IIPA does not recommend any change in 2017 from the current (2016) Special 301 status. The countries in this Annex are either currently on the U.S. Government’s Watch List or Priority Watch List. Argentina In its April 2016 Special 301 Report, the U.S. Government noted long-standing deficiencies in IPR protection, and especially the lack of effective enforcement by the national government. The report noted that Argentine police do not take ex officio actions, prosecutions can stall, and cases may languish. In addition, it observed that “even when a criminal investigation reaches final judgment, infringers do not receive deterrent sentences.” The U.S. Government cited several open-air markets in Buenos Aires, which persist because city officials “received little assistance from the national government” and hard copy (optical disc) piracy lingers (witnessed by several successful warehouse raids). The U.S. Government said that Internet piracy rates approach 100% in several content areas, citing the example of the Argentine-run notorious market Cuevana, which offers pirated movies and TV shows and has expanded to include a mobile streaming application.
    [Show full text]
  • Application to Other Countries) Order 2013
    Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). UK Statutory Instruments are not carried in their revised form on this site. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2013 No. 536 COPYRIGHT RIGHTS IN PERFORMANCES The Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) Order 2013 Made - - - - 13th March 2013 Laid before Parliament 15th March 2013 Coming into force - - 6th April 2013 Her Majesty is satisfied, to the extent this Order relates to a country which is neither a Convention country nor another member State of the European Union, that provision has been or will be made under the law of that country, giving adequate protection to the owners of copyright in respect of works under Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988(1) and to the owners of rights in respect of British performances. Accordingly, Her Majesty, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by sections 159 and 208 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988(2) and by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(3), makes the following Order: Introductory 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Copyright and Performances (Application to Other Countries) Order 2013 and shall come into force on 6th April 2013. (2) In this Order— “Act” means the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; “Berne Convention” means the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works adopted in Berne in 1886 and its revisions(4); “first published” has the meaning ascribed to it by section 155(3) of the Act; “Part I” means Part I of the Act (copyright); (1) 1988 c.48.
    [Show full text]