What would be the liability of service providers for libelous acts committed by clients ?

Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as the

Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person acting as a service provider incurs no civil or criminal liability
in the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of libelous material if: a) the service provider
does not have actual knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent
that making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful or infringes any rights;
b) the service provider does not knowingly receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity; c) the service provider does not directly commit any infringement or other unlawful
act and does not induce or cause another person or party to commit any infringement or other unlawful
act and/or does not benefit financially from the infringing activity or unlawful act of another person or
party (Section 30, in relation to Section 5, E-Commerce Law)

Hence, a service provider should not be held liable if he has no actual knowledge of the libel, does not
benefit financially from the unlawful act or does not directly commit the libelous act or induce someone
to do so. Of course, once the service provider gains actual knowledge of the libel, timely steps must be
taken, within the service provider’s authority, to remove the offending material by warning the
perpetrator and, if all else fails, terminating the offender’s account. By acting speedily on the matter,
the service provider shows good faith and that it does not condone the libelous acts.

A fundamental sense of fairness and simple good manners and right conduct is usually enough to keep
you, a good netizen, out of trouble.

Technorati Tags: libel

http://thewarriorlawyer.com/2007/03/04/libel-on-the-internet-under-philippine-law-part-ii/

INQUIRER.NET navigation

A List of Mocha Uson’s Fake News Posts

Jacqueline Arias

12 months ago
Mocha Uson’s fake news hearing in the Senate had some quotable remarks from the blogger-slash-
PCOO head. One of them was that she was also a victim of fake news. All the while trying to defend why
she posted multiple falsehoods and photos on her social media accounts, and claiming that she merely
shared them from other websites. Which raises the question on whether or not she verifies facts.

Although Mocha has apologized and took down many of her posts, there are still receipts. Because you
can’t hide everything from the Internet. So let’s look back on some of the times that Mocha, or
whoever’s running her page, was caught sharing and posting fake news.

#1 A dead body from Brazil

Screengrab from Ignore Rants’ Facebook page

Mocha shared a post of a Duterte supporter which claimed that a young girl was murdered due to the
drug problem in the Philippines. She was reportedly outraged as to why the Commission on Human
Rights didn’t focus on the incident. However, the photo was of a nine-year-old Brazilian girl who was
raped and murdered in 2014. BBC called her on it and she later took down the post.

#2 Attacking students of St. Scholastica’s College

When the Supreme Court gave a greenlight to the Marcos burial, protests started from across the nation.
The high school students from St. Scholastica’s College were also part of it. Mocha then shared a post,
accusing the school of forcing the students to rally. This was then disproved by the college and the
students who were part of the protests.
#3 “When will you visit this policeman’s burial?”

This happened a year ago. Can’t believe our taxes go to a comms official who peddles fake news. We
don’t deserve this. #FireMocha pic.twitter.com/NUA8Bk2uHB

— ¡Oy Ruperto! (@rupertnotholmes) August 22, 2017

In the middle of the controversy on Kian Delos Santos’ shooting, Mocha shared an Inquirer.net article on
a policeman’s burial. She asked Vice-President Leni Robredo, senators Bam Aquino, Antonio Trillanes,
and Risa Hontiveros on when they plan on visiting him. This is in light of the fact that policemen were
accused of murdering Kian under the suspicion that he was a drug pusher. Turns out, the article was
posted a year ago.

#4 Getting the Constitution wrong

A netizen called out Mocha for citing “Article 263” of the Constitution, which allegedly states that a tax-
evading company will pay 10 times the amount once they settle in court. “Walang 263 articles and
Constitution. Hanggang XVIII (18) lang!” (The Constitution doesn’t have 263 articles. It only has 18!) the
netizen wrote.

#5 Honduran soldiers

Mocha recently asked for prayers for the soldiers fighting the Maute Group in Marawi. It seemed like a
sincere post of soldiers kneeling and praying. But netizens later pointed out that the soldiers in the
photo weren’t Filipino—they were from Honduras. When asked about it at the hearing earlier, Mocha
said that she was simply moved by the photo and didn’t claim that the soldiers were Filipino. (Yeah,
right!)

#6 Trillanes’ hidden wealth

Recently, Sen. Trillanes filed a cyberlibel case against Mocha because she accused him on her blog of
having alleged hidden wealth. Trillanes debunked this and filed the complaint to the office of the
Ombudsman, noting six criminal and one administrative offenses.

Art by Lara Intong

Follow Preen on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and Viber

Related stories:

Yes, It’s Real: Mocha Uson Joins Pres. Duterte’s Communications Team

Binibining Pilipinas-International Mariel De Leon Summed Up All Our Thoughts About Mocha Uson

Criticize Mocha Uson All You Want But Don’t Slut-Shame Her

Photographer Joseph Pascual Calls Out Mocha Uson On Bashing VP Leni Robredo

What Mocha Uson Could’ve Done Instead of Taking the MTRCB Post

READ NEXT

Explore the Cosmos and Artificial Intelligence Through These Sci-Fi Shows

INQUIRER.NET

Back to tophttps://www.google.com.ph/amp/preen.inquirer.net/58185/a-list-of-mocha-usons-fake-
news-posts/amp
News

Business

Sports

Opinion

Features

Life

BMPlus

Home News

NewsTop News

Cyber-libel cases rising, as friends turn into foes via online platforms

By Joel R. San Juan - March 19, 2018

WITH the proliferation of online platforms, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has to deal with the
increasing number of cyber-libel cases being filed with the agency, often with people familiar with each
other as opposing parties.

Records obtained by the Businessmiror from the DOJ-Office of Cybercrime showed that there are a total
of 127 cyber-libel cases filed before the agency last year.

Of the 127 cyber-libel cases, 38 have been dismissed for lack of evidence.

The number is almost 274 percent higher compared to the 34 cyber-libel cases filed in 2016. In 2015 80
cyber-libel cases

were lodged with the DOJ, 31 of these cases already dismissed.

Libel is one of the cybercrime offenses punishable under Republic Act (RA) 10175, or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 .

Section 4 (c) (4) of RA 10175 renders unlawful or prohibited acts of libel those mentioned under Article
355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, if such acts are committed through a computer
system or any other similar means that may be devised.

Under Article 355 of the RPC, the crime of libel is committed when a person makes, against another, a
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, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

In an interview, Office of Cybercrime-OIC Director Jed Sherwin Uy acknowledged that prior to the
enactment of RA 10175, the DOJ is getting only few libel complaints.

“But with the enactment of the Cybercrime Law with specific provision on cyber libel, the number of
complaints being filed either with the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police
[PNP] increased,” Uy said.

While the DOJ does not entertain

cyber-libel cases, Uy noted that the gover-nment prosecutors are still the ones tasked to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute such cases.

He pointed out that complainants of cyberlibel belong to different social status in life, with no age group
in particular. However, usual suspects in cyber-libel cases are those known to the complainant.

“Usually complainants suspect that authors of these libelous posts are people they somehow know
because the information is so nonpublic, in a sense that only people close to them or known to them
would have such information,” Uy noted.
Uy said one of the challenges that the investigators encounter pertains to the identification or
attribution and authentication of the online account that is the subject of the complaint.

“If there is specific denial, it requires authentication. So either we request the platform concerned like
Facebook or Twitter, we request for information with respect to the subscriber who uploaded the

supposed article, or we apply for search warrants depending on the IP address of the uploader,” Uy
explained.

But it the offense is committed through online platform based in the United States, Uy admitted this
would make the investigation more difficult owing the First Amendment under the US Constitution,
which prohibits Congress “from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the
free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to
peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress or grievances.”

In this case, Uy said prosecutors would rely on other forms of evidence, such as testimony from
witnesses attesting or authenticating that the respondent is the real owner of the account.

When asked whether the cyber-libel provision is still relevant considering calls from various sectors to
decriminalize libel, Uy said it has been the position of the DOJ Cybercrime Office that the said provision
should have not been included anymore in the Cybercrime law.

“We want the cybercrime law to focus on heinous crimes, such as online child abuse, to be part of cyber
offenses under the law,” he said. “With respect to libel being a crime, there have been different schools
of thought and different positions wherein it would be better to decriminalize libel, either because it is
easier to prosecute the civil action or it is somehow better in a sense it would declog the dockets of the
courts,” he added.

But, Uy advised netizens to be responsible in posting anything online even if libel will be eventually
decriminalized in the future.

“Whether it is considered a crime or be decriminalized, it is the social responsibility of every individual

to respect the right of the people. We need to strike the balance between the freedom of expression
and the right of individuals. So if you think the context would be harmful and not true, we should not be
writing such thing even if we may not be liable civilly or criminally,” Uy said.

Suntrust banner2

House Manila Leaderboard

ECA 728×90 Leaderboard

Suntrust banner2

House Manila Leaderboard

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestTumblrGoogle GmailWhatsAppKindle ItViberYahoo

MailEvernoteInstapaperLinkedInSMSPrintFriendlyShare80

mm

Joel R. San Juan

A UST journalism graduate, has been working as a reporter for more than 20 years.

related articlesmore from author

Top News

‘Economy stable despite lower growth forecasts’

Top News

Task Force Boracay warns resorts: Don’t cheat on compliance

Top News

Inflation busters just short-term fix; farms need govt help–experts

LEAVE A REPLY
Comment:

Name:*

Email:*

Website:

POST COMMENT

BM Subscription

today’s paper

today’s weather

MANILA

Scattered Clouds

32 ° C

32 °

32 °

62% 6.2kmh 40%

TUE

27 °
WED

27 °

THU

28 °

FRI

29 °

SAT

28 °

a year ago today

two years ago today

bm social media presents

Video Player

00:00

00:00

archives

Archives
BusinessMirror

about us

The BusinessMirror provides readers with a broader look at the nation’s business in these challenging
times. It covers not just economies or industries or companies or markets, but all the people and
elements whose dynamics influence developments, movements and trends.

Contact us: news.businessmirror@gmail.com

follow us

Home Contact Us Advertise with us Privacy Policy Cookie Policy

© Copyright 2018 BusinessMirror

https://businessmirror.com.ph/cyber-libel-cases-rising-as-friends-turn-into-foes-via-online-platforms/

CONSULT

REVIEWS

ATTORNEYS

PRACTICES

FEATURES

INTEGRAL

CAREERS

LOGIN

CONTACT US

RESPICIO & CO.

Fight Online Libel

By Lawyers at Respicio & Co. Law Firm in the Philippines•10 Jun, 2018

Online libel can be prosecuted in our local courts pursuant to the Cybercrime Act.
Provided that the post is accessible in the Philippines

Philippine courts have jurisdiction over online libel

Respicio & Co. represents a client who is a victim of online defamation.

Internet postings are subject to Philippine jurisdiction. Under Section 21 of the Cybercrime Prevention
Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements of the libel was
committed within the Philippines. One of the elements of libel is the publication of the charge. If the
posts are published and accessible in the country, Philippines has jurisdiction.

Philippine laws punish libel:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

x x xx

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means, shall be punished.

(Revised Penal Code of the Philippines [Act No. 3815 {1930}])

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:

x x xx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

x x xx

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised
in the future.

(Cybercrime Prevention Act)

Jurisprudence simplified the elements of libel:

An allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

Publication of the charge;

The identity of the person defamed; and

Existence of malice. (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 238 [1999])

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person (M.H. Newell, The Law on Slander
and Libel in Civil And Criminal Cases 175 [1924]). What is material is that a third person has read or
heard the libelous statement (Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 [1995]).

To satisfy the element of identifiability, one must show that at least a third person or a stranger was
able to identify the subject as the object of the defamatory statement (Kunkle v. Cablenews-American,
42 Phil 757 [1922]).

The law provides for a presumption of malice from the defamatory character of a statement (L. Boado,
Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law 403-404 [2d ed. 2007]), even if the statement is true. The law says:

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if
it be true...

(Revised Penal Code)

Philippine libel laws are stricter than those of the US. Under US laws, the truth of the allegations is an
absolute defense to defamation. Also, statements made to warn others about harm or danger is a
qualified privilege.

The Respicio & Co. team is led by Partner Atty. Melosino Respicio and supported by Harold Respicio.

← Older PostNewer Post →

Share

Privacy Policy

Careers

Contact

https://www.respicio.ph/features/fight-online-libel

What is Defamation, Libel and Slander?

What is defamation, libel and slander?

Whether you are the victim of internet defamation or being wrongfully accused of internet defamation,
you need to understand the law. In order for a comment, post or article to constitute internet libel, the
following elements must typically be met:

The first thing you must prove is that the statement constitutes a false statement of fact. A fact is
different than an opinion. A fact can be proven true or false. Opinions are typically not actionable as
defamation.

The false statement of fact must harm your reputation. There are many false statements posted across
the internet. In order to constitute libel, a statement must not only be false but must harm you or your
company’s reputation and cause harm.
The false statement of fact causing harm must be made without adequate due diligence or research into
the truthfulness of the statement. Alternatively, plaintiffs often attempt to prove that the false
statement of fact was made with full knowledge of its falsity.

If the person who is the subject of the false statement of fact is a celebrity or public official, the plaintiff
must also prove “malice.” Malice is proven when the person posting the information on the internet
intended to do harm or acted with reckless disregard of the truth in making the statements.

There is often confusion about the differences between defamation, libel and slander. In many ways,
courts treat defamation on the internet similar to off-line defamation. But there are differences which
you need to understand when the false statements are made on-line.

Defamation: An unprivileged false statement of fact which tends to harm the reputation of a person or
company. This is a catch-all term for both libel and slander.

Libel: Defamation which is written such as on a web site. Most on-line defamation occurs through libel
by posting a web page, comment, bulletin board post, review, rating or blog post.

Slander: Defamation that is spoken such as through an transcribed video, podcast or audio file.

https://www.traverselegal.com/defamation-libel-slander/

First, the disclaimer. This is not intended as lawyerly advice. Neither does it refer a specific case or
circumstance. Much less can this be considered as an offer to provide legal services or to advocate
anything. It’s just one person’s opinion on a matter of increasing interest to bloggers and other denizens
of cyberspace: what constitutes internet libel in the context of Philippine laws.

How is libel defined under Philippine laws ? Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as “a
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, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead”.

For an imputation then to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: (a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.

If you call someone a scum-sucking, slimeball, swindling pimp, even if this is fairly accurate, and post it
online, you may be sued for making libelous statements.
Defamatory words are those calculated to induce the hearers or readers to suppose and understand
that that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are
sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public
ridicule. Philippine law also presumes every defamatory imputation to be malicious, even if true, if no
good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown (Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code).
Malice exists when there is an intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause.

The libel must be given publicity, circulated or publicized. Postings in a forum, message board or blog
can certainly be considered as publication. Lastly, the victim or offended party must be identifiable.

Continue Libel on the Internet Under

Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between persons over the Internet, often involving the use
of profanity. It can also be the swapping of insults back and forth or with many people teaming up on a
single victim. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of Internet forums, Internet Relay Chats (IRC),
Usenet, e-mail, game servers such as Xbox Live or PlayStation Network, social media services, and video-
sharing websites such as YouTube. It is frequently the result of the discussion of heated real-world issues
such as politics, religion, and philosophy, or of issues that polarize sub-populations, but can also be
provoked by seemingly trivial differences.

Deliberate flaming, as opposed to flaming as a result of emotional discussions, is carried out by

individuals known as flamers, who are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in
flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation. In modern Internet parlance, this
term has been almost entirely superseded by the term “trolling.”

Purpose Edit

Many social researchers have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the
phenomenon.[1] These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings
(online disinhibition effect),[2][3][4] conformance to perceived norms,[5][6] miscommunication caused
by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication,[7][8][9] and antiprocess.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)https://startuplivingchina.com/list-websites-apps-
blocked-china/
internet-censorship-freedom-of-expression-right-iran

The Iranian government claims that it is filtering and monitoring the Internet to provide a safe
environment for its people, but is this the real intention?

Our evidence indicates strongly that, in reality, this filtering is nothing more than censorship designed to
stop people accessing any areas which the Government does not want them to see and learn from and
to prevent open communication, both inside Iran and with the outside world. Based on the evidence,
the regime authorities are, in fact, doing everything they can to maintain a safe environment solely for
themselves so that they can keep their grip on power.

With this aim, the Internet filtering and monitoring is focused on trying to stop people from:

Learning about their human rights.

Arranging protest gatherings and rallies

Reporting local news and events to the rest of the world.

accessing information providing the truth about Iranian and world history

Learning about other countries.

Learning about other cultures, music, films, food and dress.

Learning about other faiths.

Having a different opinion on politics.

They even delay the streaming of broadcasts such as world sporting events so that they can censor some
of the scenes and images which, according to them, are “inappropriate”.This manipulation of the truth is
designed to keep Iranian people closed-minded about western countries.

The image below is a familiar one to anyone in Iran trying to surf the Internet for anything interesting,
informative, or uplifting.internet-censorship-iran

Below is an elaboration on some of the reasons listed above for why and how the Iranian regime
prevents people accessing information relating to activities they wish to suppress:
Stopping people from learning about their human rights

The Iranian government routinely blocks access to human rights websites and resources. The Iranian
people, especially the Ahwazi Arabs, have very few human rights. From the Iranian government’s
perspective, letting people learn about human rights is a huge threat to their survival, as each person
who learns about their rights increases the chances of uprisings against their oppressors.

Stopping people from gathering to protest

The Iranian government has often used blocking to try and stop protests. For example, in 2009 after the
results of the Iranian election were posted, the people decided to protest in outrage at what they
considered a rigged outcome. However, hours before they could organise a proper protest the Iranian
government showed how fearful it was of the prospect of people gathering that it blocked all forms of
communication including the Internet, and mobile phones. In the event, these measures only delayed
the inevitable and widespread protesting did take place until, it was eventually crushed by Iranian
security forces.

Stopping people from reporting local news and events to the rest of the world

The Iranian government uses its filtering and monitoring systems to identify and prevent anybody
reporting local news and events to others, especially foreigners.. It is very quick to arrest and torture
anybody it identifies who is letting the rest of the world know what is happening to them especially
when it comes to human rights violations. There are many people in Iran who use a Virtual Private
Network (also known as VPN) to spread news around the world as its end to end encryption preserves
their anonymity However, there is always the risk of reprisals against the VPN provider itself.

Stopping people from accessing information regarding Iranian and world history

The true history of my people, the Ahwazi Arabs, has been altered to make the present regime look
good. When I was growing up I never learnt about Al-Ahwaz history in the Iranian school history books,
they taught me nothing about where we are from or what happened in the past. Even the great Sheikhs
and Kings such as Khazal Khan al-Kaabi, Genghis Khan and Sultan Mohammad Shah were removed from
the pages of our school histories.

Stopping people from learning about other faiths and cultures

There are many websites that are being blocked because they are promoting different religions. The
Iranian authorities have also blocked websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and
even Wikipedia. Internet censorship has been increasing every year especially since 2005 when
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. Reporters Without Borders called Iran’s online censorship
the ‘twelve enemies of the Internet’. Freedom House described Iran’s internet as the “least free”
country after China which has the most blocked websites in the world.

internet-censorship-iran2

Here are a few ranges of topics that have been blocked by the Iranian censorship:

Religion

Human Rights

Health

Science

News

Online Shopping
Sport

Iran introduced Smart Filtering a few years ago which enabled them to block just part of a website
instead of having to block the whole site. Nowadays there are many websites that use Hyper Text
Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) which means that all communications between a user’s browser and
the website are encrypted and secure. So, when it comes to HTTPS the “Smart Filtering” become just
another lie from President Hassan Rouhani and the Iranian regime as the site security and encryption
means that the Iranian authorities have no way of finding out which specific pages a user has accessed.

However, the Iranian ISPs have implemented content control software which can capture exactly what
the users are doing on the Internet if the communication is not encrypted. This information can be
accessed at any time by The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC or Sepāh-e Pāsdārān-e Enqelāb-e
Eslāmi Iran) orThe Ministry of Intelligence of the Islamic Republic of Iran (also known as Vezarat-e
Ettela’at Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran). Such information can also be gathered by The Iranian Cyber Police
(also known as FATA) then passed to Sepah or Ettelaat.The Internet is mostly under the Islamic regime’s
close control and there is no let-up in the persecution of people for their online activities. With Sepah
and Ettelaat constantly monitoring people’s Internet use, they eventually find evidence to use against
them and many political human rights bloggers have been arrested and tortured by Sepah and Etelaat.
The Iranian regime cracks down on any cyber criticism, accusing the Ahwazis and others of spreading
propaganda via the internet. It seeks to impose a complete blackout on the plight of the Ahwazis but
fails to keep a lid on the evidence as the internet has played a major role in raising awareness of the
situation overseas.

A few trusted sources have been established by Ahwazi people where you can read more about the
human rights violations against the Ahwazi Arabs by the Iranian
regimehttp://www.ahwazmonitor.info/articles/iranian-censorship-and-internet-filtering/

Filtering and Censorship

Information is powerful stuff. The world has been enthralled by the power which the Web, the universe
of accessible information, gives to people and to groups working and playing together.

Information about information is powerful not just as information, but because it allows one to leverage
one's use of information, to benefit from that which is relevant, accurate, stylish, unbiased, or timely, --
whatever one regards as being of "quality" -- without being enmired in that which is not.

Powerful tools are often usable for constructive or destructive purposes just as paper and ink be used
for truth or lies, and metal for ploughshares or swords. The Web's power stems from its universality - for
example that a hypertext link an point to any information out there, not just a subset. People have
asked whether I regret that the Web has been used for some uses, but I have to reply that if somehow it
had been built to control the material which was placed in it, then that would be the technology
controlling society, rather than the other way around as it should be.

True, one could take the view that our society is not strong enough to be trusted with a powerful
information system. One could take the view that society does not currently have the wherewithal to
prevent the Web from being abused by destructive forces to an extent that the overall pain is greater
than the gain. I do not believe this is true. In the western developed world, at least, I believe that the
democratic process will have sufficient control over governments and the judicial process sufficient
control of criminals, to continue to defend the health of the evolving society.

We should be very careful, by constant inspection, to ensure that this continues to be the case.

Filtering and Censorship

One of the threats which posed itself in 1994 was of government censorship over information on the
Web. In general, there are information acts which societies regard as legal, and those which are illegal
(such as fraud). The problem which arose was that in the very subjective question of what information
is deemed suitable for children, there was a threat that, in order to "protect" children, seeing no other
alternative, governments were contemplating making draconian legislation for example prohibiting the
transmission of "indecent" material. The problems here were many.

First of all, the concept of "indecent" was being enforced as a central single concept, quite against the
distributed subjective nature of its definition in society. The Web works as a decentralized system, with
no hierarchical or other structure to force society into a shape imposed by technology. This works.
Centralization of such an idea would [prevent the Web from being an accurate mirror of society itself.

Secondly, the problem being solved was the reading of such information by children, not its
transmission. Thirdly, the question of "transmission" seemed to include intermediate parties who were
not responsible for the content in an editorial or authorship sense. And one could list other problems,
but this is enough for the present.

Information Quality

The basic problem being addressed was that of subjective information "quality". This is the same
problem reported by newcomers to teh web who find (typically after a search engine search) too much
"junk".

It is unreasonable to ask for information delivered from the web to be of consistently high "quality" if
you can't define what "quality" is. There is a need, then, to be able to represent "quality" in a
completely subjective way.

This is what the PICS project was all about. PICS was specifically aimed at demonstrating that individuals
could obtain their own subjective notion of quality without the government having to try to "protect"
them by enforcing some centralized notion. Politically, PICS is a system necessary for the preservation
of free speech on the Internet.
The system needed a few different sorts of documents

a "rating system"

which defines a scale or scales on which one might judge a document. The fact that anyone can create
one of these is a strong force allowing decentralization of concept, breaking the problem of the global,
centralized definition of for example "indecency". PICS allows communities of any size (from one up) to
establish their own criteria. Agreement over a large community enhances global harmony, but
threatens diversity. Agreement over a small community does the reverse. So in fact some balance is
necessary

a "label"

which is a statement about something in terms of the schema. This can be made by any party, not just
author or reader, and certainly not just central government. These can be created and exchanged in all
manner of ways, so the PICS standard for interoperability is essential.

A "profile"

which describes for a given person the particular rating systems and levels on those scales which
represent "quality" information at a given time and in a given context. This sort of information can
either be input by a person using a graphic interface (such as a set of sliders in a dialog box), or can
simply be transferred from someone they trust, whether family, organization, or friend. Inability to
transfer this would prevent people from building their own communities with common standards of
trust: hence the importance for this (picsrules) as a standard.

These are all subsets of a general metadata language, designed to be easy for people to use. In
particular, by being limited in their power, they allow graphic interfaces to be built.

On social responsibility of technologists

The argument has been made that PICS technology should be suppressed as the power it gives may be
abused by governments. (There are even those who have suggested that the whole scheme is a
government inspired plot to promote censorship and limit free speech. This is certainly not the case, as
neither in the idea, the funding nor the intent.) Whereas most readers may find this far fetched, it is
worth a response on principle.

As I pointed out when closing the first International World Wide Web conference, speaking to (then a
mere 350) geeky web enthusiasts, I firmly believe it is the task of scientists and technologists to be
aware of and responsible for the social implications of their work. This cannot just be left to
"professional socially responsible people", as each engineer and scientist is often best aware of the
potential of the work. Uttered in the auditorium at CERN, whose particle physicists trace their roots
through nuclear physics, I don't think the message went unheard, even though it may have sounded
strange in such a new field. Now, (1997) the World Wide Web Consortium has one of its three domains
dedicated to the relationship between Technology and Society.
So what about PICS?

The question basically is whether the potential danger of the technology outweighs the freedom and
positive good it accords. You can certainly argue this for nuclear fission, and you can certainly argue it
for the wide distribution of firearms in populous countries. Can you argue this for PICS and metadata? Is
there anything about PICS specifically or metadata in general which makes it more of a danger than a
boon?

The specific types of document in PICS are very general. As a system, it is quite generalist, and extremely
decentralized. It does as good a job as it can of leaving policy up to others to set, although it does
(compared with other systems one could imagine) tend to favor by its nature cultural diversity, and
freedom of speech, including freedom to endorse other's work.

The specifications of communication protocols enable, but do not enforce, what manufactured
software will or will not be able to do. One cannot, therefore, at this level say what individuals will be
able to do. The technology can leave the policy up to others, which leaves other groups to ensure that
the values which they hold dear are not lost in new legislation, industry practices, or public apathy.

A metainformation system allows one to talk about information. It enables all kinds of uses of
information

finding information

talking about information

making laws about information

breaking laws about information

It is not the place of a technical metadata system to try to limit the statements one can make with
metadata, or the laws if any which are made. That is the role of the democratic process and whatever
government the people trusts. The W3C as an industry consortium can act for industry in promoting
standards, but cannot act to create laws. What we can do is explain to lawmakers and others the effect
and intention of technology. That is what this article attempts to do.

Conclusion

ORANGE AND LEMONS’ BIG HIT

The accusation: The Pinoy band has been accused of copying the melody and musical arrangement of an
obscure single, "Chandeliers," by 1980s New Wave group, Care, and then using it for their breakout hit,
"Pinoy Ako." Their song was used as the theme for Pinoy Big Brother.
The response: When asked about the issue in an interview with Manila Bulletin, the group said, "It
saddens us because it’s unfair." They have denied all accusations of plagiarism.

The aftermath: As far as we know, the band has never been sued for the alleged offense. The band
members have since gone their separate ways. Lead guitarist/vocalist Clem Castro got kicked out of the
band. Thus, he started his own band. He’s now identified as the "frontman" of the three-piece indie pop
group The Camerawalls signed under his own label, Lilystars Records. The three remaining band
members-Mcoy Fundales, JM Del Mundo, and Ace Del Mundo-formed a new band called Kenyo.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO DEL CASTILLO’S REHASHED DECISION

The accusation: In July 2010, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo was the subject of an exposé done by
Newsbreak. They alleged that numerous parts of Del Castillo’s decision on the case involving World War
II comfort women were copied from three materials written by legal experts abroad and that the said
authors were not properly attributed. According to an ABS-CBNNews.com report, Del Castillo allegedly
lifted quotes and footnotes from "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens" by Ivan Criddle and Evan Fox-
Descent (2009) published in the Yale Journal of International Law, "Breaking the Silence on Rape as an
International Crime" by Mark Ellis (2006) published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International
Law, and "Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law" by Christian Tams (2005).

The response: An ABS-CBNNews.com article noted: "One former justice said it was possible that Del
Castillo or his staff may have researched the same materials as cited in the alleged plagiarized articles.
Another reputable source hinted that judges and justices are aided by legal staff for research,
considering the volume of their work and it is here that the lapse or gap may have occurred."

The aftermath: Though his plagiarism was exposed, Del Castillo was not charged with any crime. He is
still one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court.

MANUEL "MANNY" V. PANGILINAN’S SECONDHAND SPIELS

The accusation: In April 2010, businessman Manuel V. Pangilinan tendered his irrevocable resignation as
chair of the Ateneo de Manila University (AdMU) board of trustees after it was found that portions of
the commencement speeches that he delivered at the school’s graduation rites in March that year were
copied from the speeches of celebrities like J.K. Rowling, Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, and Conan
O’Brien. To be fair, Pangilinan was not directly at fault. His speechwriters were responsible for the
plagiarism.

The response: An ABS-CBNNews.com article reported: "In an April 3, 2010 letter to AdMU President Fr.
Bienvenido Nebres, S.J. posted on the AdMU website, Pangilinan apologized to the university and to the
2010 graduating class for giving a speech that had been borrowed from certain other graduation
speeches." Pangilinan had also written: "Fr. Ben, this has been a source of deep personal
embarrassment for me. I am truly regretful for it. I already have too many battles to fight, and some of
them I wish not to have to fight. In this instance, I do not want to, and would seek only the honorable
and principled way out. The matter at hand may rest after this public apology, but it gives me a lot of
personal discomfort to continue to be closely involved with Ateneo affairs after this incident."

The aftermath: The AdMU board of trustees initially didn’t want to accept Pangilinan’s resignation.
However, they had no choice but to let him go. To this day, everyone’s still wondering who exactly
wrote those plagiarized speeches. For his sake, we hope Pangilinan fired those lazy speechwriters.
THE "PILIPINAS KAY GANDA" LOGO

The accusation: In November 2010, barely a week after the Department of Tourism (DOT) unveiled its
"Pilipinas kay ganda (Philippines so beautiful)" campaign, people were enraged by its logo. It didn’t help
that the slogan had already been slammed by the public. Things just got worse when netizens, like
blogger Spanky Hizon Enriquez, pointed out that the logo was similar to the one used in Poland’s
tourism campaign. It wasn’t clear who was to blame for the copied logo, as Campaigns and Grey, the
advertising agency involved in the project said their role was only "in an advisory capacity." It was
implied that perhaps the ideas they suggested were modified (directlyor indirectly) by government
officials who wanted to be involved in the so-called creative process. Anyone who has worked for the
government knows that many such endeavors often get bogged down by "too many cooks." So, it’s very
likely that the ad agency got trapped in the said scenario.

The response: DOT Undersecretary Vicente "Enteng" Romano III was in charge of the agency’s planning
and promotions section. He took full responsibility for the "Pilipinas kay ganda" fiasco and subsequently
resigned from his post.

The aftermath: The "Pilipinas kay ganda" campaign was replaced by the "It’s more fun in the Philippines"
campaign, which had its own share of controversy.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW DEAN ATTY. MARVIC LEONEN’S LACK OF ATTRIBUTION

The accusation: In December 2010, UP College of Law Dean Atty. Marvic Leonen submitted his
resignation letter to UP Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao after he was accused of plagiarizing parts of an
article he wrote for the Journal of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. A group of lawyers-who called
themselves the Philippine Social Justice Foundation (Philjust)-claimed that the article, which was
published in 2004, had segments that "used original source material without proper attribution."

The response: A GMA News Online report noted: "Leonen acknowledged that he failed to supply at least
two attributions in the article titled ’Weaving Worldviews: Implications of Constitutional Challenges to
the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.’ The materials that Leonen borrowed were from the
American law professor Owen Lynch’s dissertation and "friend of the court" brief co-written with
Romina Picolotti." At the time, Lynch was a visiting professor at the UP College of Law.

The aftermath: Leonen’s students and colleagues lauded him for owning up to his supposedly
inadvertent plagiarism. He went on to serve as Dean of UP College of Law until June 2011. In November
2012, Leonen was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court, the youngest appointee since
1938. Leonen was then just 49 years old.
THE KRIP YUSON SITUATION

The accusation: In a blog entry posted on April 6, 2011 sports blogger Jaemark Tordecilla compared
veteran writer Krip Yuson’s article on the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) published in Rogue
magazine and a GMA News Online article by sportswriter Rey Joble on the late PBA commissioner Rudy
Salud. Tordecilla observed, "Almost the whole middle section of Yuson’s article was lifted directly from it
(Joble’s article). Whole paragraphs were copied, with very minor changes made."

The response: Shortly after the blog entry was published, Yuson sent an email to Tordecilla which the
latter posted on his blog. Yuson wrote, "I may have mistakenly thought that since I had rewritten Rey
Joble’s draft for GMA News Online, I was at least part-author of it. While that is moot, I should at the
very least have credited Rey for the original draft. Again, my fault. I own up to it."

The aftermath: While there were some members of the Filipino writing community members who were
mad as hell about Yuson’s plagiarism, there were also those who said he should be forgiven because he
owned up to it anyway. Tordecilla likewise said that he found Yuson’s apology sincere.
Share

THE "IT’S MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES" SLOGAN

The accusation: By January 2011, the Department of Tourism (DOT) "It’s more fun in the Philippines"
campaign had replaced the battered "Pilipinas kay ganda" campaign. But, it wasn’t long before people
were also slamming it for ripping off a 1951 Swiss tourism slogan that read, "It's more fun in
Switzerland."

The response: DOT Secretary Ramon Jimenez, Jr. was unfazed by controversy over the slogan or tagline.
He said it was "purely coincidental." Instead, he and his team worked to make the campaign viral. For
some reason, people were more forgiving with this fun campaign. Or maybe they were still weary from
getting enraged over "Pilipinas kay ganda."

The aftermath: "It’s more in the Philippines" is DOT’s the current tourism campaign. For a time, it fueled
a meme frenzy.
SENATOR TITO SOTTO’S SERIAL PLAGIARISM

The accusation: In August 2012, Senator Tito Sotto’s chief of staff, Atty. Hector Villacorta, "admitted that
they copied the work of an American blogger in the lawmaker’s turno en contra speech on the
reproductive health (RH) bill." An ABS-CBNNews.com report quoted the message that Villacorta posted
on the Facebook page of Sarah Pope: "I understand you felt slighted that your blog was not attributed to
you which became part of the speech of the senator. Let me say that after asking my staff, indeed, your
blog was used but only in quoting also from the same book of Dr. Campbell-Mcbride." Villacorta further
covered up for Sotto by adding: "What have we done to deserve your incriminating words. The senator
did not lift it himself, we did. Did you want us to tell him to admit what he did not do? Who would you
like to crucify for this oversight?"

The response: Sotto and his staff remained adamant that they had done nothing wrong. They stuck to
their battlecry even when it was revealed that they had also plagiarized the posts of at least two more
bloggers (Peter C. Engelman and Janice Formichella), as well as the late U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy.
Throughout it all, Sotto remained unapologetic. Whatever apology he issued didn’t ring true and
netizens gave him hell for it. As Pope told him, "A thief is a thief, Mr. Senator. Denying it won't get you
off the hook. It just makes you a lying thief."

The aftermath: There were groups who signed petitions to have Sotto removed from the Senate, but
their wish wasn’t granted. As Sotto pointed out, plagiarism wasn’t considered a crime. He even implied
that everyone else was doing the same thing anyway. Soon enough, there were plagiarism rumors that
involved the likes of Sen. Pia Cayetano and Sen. Miriam Santiago.
MARK JOSEPH SOLIS AND HIS STOLEN SHOTS

The accusation: In September 2013, The Philippine Star reported that amateur photographer Mark
Joseph Solis apologized and withdrew his participation in the 2nd Calidad Humana National Essay
Photography Competition organized by the embassy of Chile "after it was found that the entry that won
him the top prize belonged to Brazil-based social worker Gregory John Smith." According to the report,
Solis submitted an entry "supposedly depicting a boy from Zamboanga City helping his father gather
seaweed." In reality, the photo was actually Smith’s "Neptune of the Sea," which was taken in 2006 in
Rio de Janeiro.

The reponse: Solis reasoned that "the sheer amount of the prize, the stiff competition, and the unique
opportunity to be abroad blinded me from undertaking what is supposed to be an honest and a rightful
conduct." However, it was later discovered that this wasn’t the first time Solis took a photo and passed
it off as his own competition entry. Solis, a graduate student at UP’s National College of Public
Administration and Governance (NCPAG), has committed the same offense at least six times before.
Despite these revelations, he went on TV and shared a sob story about his family being in need.
However, people who know him personally say that the "emotional interview" was just staged to make
it look like Solis was poor. They said he actually had trendy gadgets at his real home in Las Piñas.
The aftermath: UP’s NCPAG is conducting an inquiry on Solis. His former co-worker, Maricris Valte has
also come forward to reveal to the public that Solis has, indeed, made a habit of lying about practically
everything. He may have also "padded" his resume. Valte disputed Solis' claims that he led the research
arm of the Philippine Society of Public Administration (PSPA). She explained: "He was contracted for my
project December 1, 2012 and unless this is where he spent those times that he was absent from work,
there is no way that he could have been 'leading' the research arm of PSPA. I recommended the pre-
termination of his contract effective March 8, 2013." Amid all this, Solis dares to say that he has made
an appeal to keep the prize money awarded to him for winning the 2nd Calidad Humana National Essay
Photography Competition.

Share

CDO’S HAM HEADACHE

The accusation: In September 2013, Victor Agustin (via his Cocktales column published on
InterAksyon.com) reported that Purefoods and CDO were at war over their Christmas hams. "Purefoods
had maintained that it had been using the Fiesta brand since 1980, way ahead of CDO. CDO, on the
other hand, countered that while it had started marketing its Yuletide ham under the Pista brand only in
2006, the names ’Fiesta’ and ’Pista’ are not only both generic but are also spelled differently," Agustin
revealed.

The response: Agustin said that "Director-General Ricardo Blancaflor of the Intellectual Property Office
released a decision which reversed a finding by his office’s legal affairs bureau that earlier cleared CDO
of the Purefoods complaint for unfair competition." Blancaflor added, "What tipped the case in favor of
Purefoods, according to Blancaflor, was CDO’s having launched in 2009 a ’Make Christmas even more
special’ advertising campaign that was eerily similar to Purefoods’ ongoing ’Dapat ganito ka-espesyal’
campaign." Plus, he also pointed out that "CDO has since packaged its ham in paper bags with
dimensions and colors that were "confusingly similar" to that of Purefoods."

The aftermath: Agustin noted: "Aside from ordering the seizure of the Pista ham labels, signs, prints,
cartons and wrappers, Blancaflor also fined CDO P100,000-rejecting as unsubstantiated the claim of
Purefoods that it lost at least P27. 6 million in unrealized income because of the copycat packaging-and
another P300,000 in lawyer’s fees.

Art by Warren Espejo, with photos from press releases, a screenshot of Yuson’s photo from
www.manasianliteraryprize.org, as well as other screenshots from various news video clips.

71 Shares

1 Comment

Tell us your #feels!

Win

Yum

Want!
2

LOL

Yuck

WTF

13 Total votes

Read more stories about

Markjosephsolis Titosotto Orange And Lemons Kripyuson Plagiarism

We Recommend

From the Summit Media Network

Sponsored Content

Comments

FEATURED STORIES

LOL

ENTERTAINMENT

The Internet Also Had Fun During the ABS-CBN Ball 2018

We round up the funniest reactions.

by Ida Aldana

WTF
NEWS + FEATURES

10 Random Photos to Start Your Week

What is witty?

Win

ARTS + CULTURE

The World Tour of The Phantom of the Opera Is Coming to Manila

You can already pre-register for tickets!

by Christa I. De La Cruz

ENTERTAINMENT

10 Catchy Commercial Jingles (2018 Edition)

Good luck getting these tunes out of your head.

by Mica Gonzalez

CREATED WITH SOLAIRE

Prost! Get Ready for Drink-All-You-Can German Beer at the Oktoberfest at Solaire

It’s as close to the Munich event as you can get.

MOST POPULAR

Win
ENTERTAINMENT

10 Most Attention-Grabbing Celebrities at ABS-CBN Ball 2018

Win

EAT + DRINK

10 Under-the-Radar Milk-Tea Shops You Should Know About

LOL

ENTERTAINMENT

The Internet Also Had Fun During the ABS-CBN Ball 2018

Want!

SHOPPING + SERVICES

Ready Your Wallets: Score Pieces for as Low as P99 at Forever 21's Mega Sale

Want!

EAT + DRINK
Cheap Eats: Discounts and Freebies From September 29 to October 5

LATEST STORIES

Win

ENTERTAINMENT

The Winner of the Venom Fan Art Contest Is a 22-Year-Old Student From Davao

He didn't think he was going to win.

by Ida Aldana

Want!

SHOPPING + SERVICES

This Pocketable Camera Can Print Your Photos in an Instant

It's definitely at the top of our wish lists!

by Jamie Sanchez

Want!

EAT + DRINK

Here's Where You Can Get Free Coffee Today

It's International Coffee Day!

Want!
SHOPPING + SERVICES

Wallets Out: K-Palette Is Putting Everything on Sale This Month

Makeup junkies, you wouldn't want to miss this!

by Jamie Sanchez

Win

ENTERTAINMENT

This Behind-the-Scenes Video of Exes Baggage Will Make You Swoon Over CarGel

Because we bet you can't get enough of them.

by Ida Aldana

Want!

SHOPPING + SERVICES

Top 10 Places for Foot Massage in Manila

For the next time you need a quick pick-me-up!

Win

NEWS + FEATURES

This Remarkable Taxi Service Is All About Paying It Forward

It's no small feat in a country where taxi horror stories are practically the norm.

by Pauline Lacanilao
Win

SHOPPING + SERVICES

For the Guys: 10 Closet Must-Haves That Will Hide Your Beer Belly

Don't let your gut get in the way of looking great.

by Jeremiah Capacillo

WTF

THINGS TO DO

Heads Up: Local Flights May Soon Have Higher Fares

And it may mean smaller discounts during seat sales.

by Pauline Macaraeg for Entrepreneur.com.ph

Win

ENTERTAINMENT

10 Most Attention-Grabbing Celebrities at ABS-CBN Ball 2018

They'll make you look twice!

by Ida Aldana

Win

ARTS + CULTURE
Tony Award-Winning Play Angels in America Comes to the Philippines

Atlantis opens 2019 with this Tony Kushner masterpiece.

by Christa I. De La Cruz

Want!

EAT + DRINK

Chuck's Deli Returns With a New Look But the Same Tasty Sandwiches

The Buffy is back!

by Henna Yu

Load More Stories

SUBSCRIBE TO

NEWSLETTER

Get the latest updates right in your inbox!

Enter email address

Subscribe

MOST SHARED

Win1

EAT + DRINK

Panda Express Is Coming to Manila

Yum2

EAT + DRINK

Mark Your Calendars: Subway Is Bringing Back Buy-One-Take-One Subs

Win3

EAT + DRINK

This Secret Soju Bar in Poblacion Is Worth the Search

Want!4

SHOPPING + SERVICES

Starbucks Has a Bunny-Themed Tumbler Collection and It's Too Cute for Words

Win5

THINGS TO DO

10 Best Places to Stay in Tagaytay

#InTheLoop

FROM OUR PARTNERS AT LAZADA

9 Deals to Look Forward To at Lazada's 9.9 Sale

FOLLOW US

Twitter

Instagram

Pinterest

Spot.ph

YouTube

Back to Top

Next

Now Reading:https://www.spot.ph/newsfeatures/54502/copycat-nation-10-high-profile-plagiarism-
cases-in-the-philippines

Criminalizing Plagiarism in the Philippines

Posted by Jonathan Bailey on Oct 8, 2012 1:00:00 PM

copyright plagiarism lockOn October 3rd, the Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) took
effect and, with it, the country instituted criminal penalties for a variety of online acts, including
spamming, identity theft and, most controversially, libel.
However, the law may have had a somewhat unintended side effect - criminalizing some forms of
plagiarism.

The reason is that the new law adds penalties to “special laws” under the the country’s legal code, one
of those special laws is the Intellectual Property Code, which the nation’s copyright law is under.

This, according to Department of Justice, means that plagiarism itself is not a crime but that plagiarism
that also amounts to copyright infringement is. Such plagiarism now carries a penalty of 3-6 years
imprisonment and a fine of P50,000 - P150,000 ($1,200 - $3,600), if prosecuted under the law.

However, Justice Secretary Lella de Lima was also quick to point out that this does not apply to copying
news items or to works created by the government.

The move comes shortly after a plagiarism scandal broke out involving Filipino Senate Majority Leader
Vicente Sotto who was accused of lifting from five bloggers, including at least two in the U.S. and from a
speech by Robert Kennedy.

Sotto’s speeches, which were part of a heated debate on new birth control legislation, became the
subject of national attention and criticism, which only grew after Sotto lashed out at his accusers, even
saying that plagiarism was not a crime in the Philippines.

Sotto was a supporter of the Cybercrime legislation.

Most nations have laws against plagiarism when it rises to the level of copyright infringement and many
have “moral rights” laws that can add penalties for plagiarism beyond copyright. However, those laws
are typically civil in nature and not criminal.

In most nations, criminal penalties in copyright matters are reserved for cases where the infringement is
of a massive commercial nature, such as with commercial counterfeit CD/DVD rings and high-profile
online piracy cases. Single allegations of plagiarism rarely qualify for criminal action.
Many have expressed concern that the new law could be used to stifle Internet freedoms in the country
and some have even likened the restrictions to those placed by Philippine Dictator Ferdinand Marcos in
the 1970s.

The bill was signed by the nation’s President on September 12th and took effect October 3rd.

Following the implementation of the bill, some 10 petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court in
the Philippines seeking to overturn the law. However, an earlier attempt to obtain a restraining order
barring the law from coming into effect was already denied.

Relatedhttp://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/bid/87800/Criminalizing-Plagiarism-in-
the-Philippines

What is Plagiarism?

Published May 18, 2017

Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work or borrowing someone else's original ideas.
But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

to use (another's production) without crediting the source

to commit literary theft

to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying
about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?

According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual
property and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression
fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer
file).

All of the following are considered plagiarism:

turning in someone else's work as your own

copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit

failing to put a quotation in quotation marks

giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation

changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you
give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain
material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that
source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how
to cite sources properly.

What about images, videos, and music?

Using an image, video or piece of music in a work you have produced without receiving proper
permission or providing appropriate citation is plagiarism. The following activities are very common in
today’s society. Despite their popularity, they still count as plagiarism.

Copying media (especially images) from other websites to paste them into your own papers or websites.

Making a video using footage from others’ videos or using copyrighted music as part of the soundtrack.

Performing another person’s copyrighted music (i.e., playing a cover).

Composing a piece of music that borrows heavily from another composition.

Certainly, these media pose situations in which it can be challenging to determine whether or not the
copyrights of a work are being violated. For example:

A photograph or scan of a copyrighted image (for example: using a photograph of a book cover to
represent that book on one’s website)

Recording audio or video in which copyrighted music or video is playing in the background.

Re-creating a visual work in the same medium. (for example: shooting a photograph that uses the same
composition and subject matter as someone else’s photograph)

Re-creating a visual work in a different medium (for example: making a painting that closely resembles
another person’s photograph).

Re-mixing or altering copyrighted images, video or audio, even if done so in an original way.

The legality of these situations, and others, would be dependent upon the intent and context within
which they are produced. The two safest approaches to take in regards to these situations is: 1) Avoid
them altogether or 2) Confirm the works’ usage permissions and cite them properly.

Related Resourceshttps://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism