effectiveness of copyright laws: Comparison between copyright protection in the USA and Saudi Arabia

please write it and don’t copy it from anywhere and paste it because it is a copyright class
find any topic under copyright law and compare it between Saudi Arabia and united states and all the paper have to be specific about this topic I mean the one u will find it

Answer

Comparison between copyright law in the USA and Saudi Arabia

29pg, 5 sources, essay, law, college 1, MLA

SUGGESTED TOPIC: effectiveness of copyright laws: Comparison between copyright protection in the USA and Saudi Arabia

Outline

Introduction

Conclusion

Copyright laws in Saudi Arabia

The Saudi government has in recent years made considerable progress in addressing issues relating to intellectual property rights (IPRs) in general and copyright in particular. For instance, it has set up a department to deal with matters relating to copyright. This department addresses the issue of copyright protection from two perspectives: computer programs and works of art. To operate effectively, the department has put in place structures for control and investigation as well as cooperation with international organizations.

ORDER A PAPER LIKE THIS NOW

Despite these efforts, the problem of piracy in the country continues to grow by the day. This is because Saudi courts have traditionally been reluctant to impose hefty penalties that can act as a deterrent to offenders. To address this problem, Saudi Arabia enacted a new copyright law in 2003. Although this law proposes high penalties, weaknesses in the realm of enforcement remains a major challenge. In fact, Saudi Arabia may be said to have the worst record in the Middle East in terms of enforcing copyright laws and regulations. This has led to trade losses amounting to millions of dollars. Failure to impose deterrent penalties has had serious consequences for those who trade in books, music, business software, video games, and computer programs.

The 2003 copyright law

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia enacted the 2003 Copyright Law through a Royal Decree. The law provided a more elaborate framework for copyright protection specifically in the area of computer databases and software. It also contains provisions on how to protect audio-visual works from pirates; it explicitly guarantees artists that their works of art are protected from pirates for 50 years starting from the day they first displayed in public or published. The 2003 Copyright Law is compatible with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) by virtue of providing clarifications on how foreign works can be used legally in the country.Additionally, the law is compatible with the Berne Convention, which stipulates the length of time in which literary works and works of art should be protected.

The 2003 Copyright Law covers a wide range of works of art, including music, computer programs, theatrical works, cinematographic works, photography, video tapes, topographical maps, radio and EV programs, and speeches. According to this law, artists and other owners of works that fall in the category of copyright protection do not need to register or subscribe to any organization or platform to qualify for the copyright protection. However, it gives these artists the right to publish, amend, assign or even delete their works.

Enforcement is a problematic area for this law. Nevertheless, the drafters of this law made a brave attempt at imposing punitive penalties on those who perpetuate copyright infringements, thereby violating the intellectual property rights of individuals and organizations. For instance, a person who is convicted of copyright infringement may be imprisoned for six months; risk offenders risk having the sentence doubled. The offenders can also be subjected to a fine of up to 250,000 Saudi Riyal, equivalent to about US$ 66500 under current exchange rate. Furthermore, violators may be compelled to compensate litigants for damages in accordance with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.

Currently, copyright law in Saudi Arabia provides a broad-based platform which, if enforced in the right way, can greatly help in the objective of IPR protection. For instance, it is compatible with Article 9 of the Berne Convention, which addresses reproduction rights, including those relating to digital production. It is also contains a provision for the protection of foreign works that are yet to enter the public domain in their countries of origin. Some of the aspects of digital production that are elaborately covered in the law in accordance with the Berne Convention include foreign sound records, broadcasting rights, as well as exported and imported intellectual property.

Infringement

Saudi copyright law is also elaborate in terms of defining what constitutes infringement. Infringement occurs whenever an individual violates the rights of owners of works through unauthorized use, alteration, reproduction, and distribution. According to this law, it is imperative for authors of a work to be notified and to have their consent obtained before any amendment can be made on their work, whereby such amendment is being made by a distributor, publisher, or producer. Similarly, it is unlawful for a work to be reprinted without the copyright owner’s consent. Those seeking to reprint the work should obtain all the relevant documents before moving ahead with the reproduction process.

A person is said to have infringed into the copyright protection of an owner of a work if he removes electronic or written information that leads to the forfeiture of such protection. Infringement may also occur through the removal or cracking of protective code that is meant to ensure that only original copies of that work are available for distribution and sale. Removal of such electronic code through cracking is a common problem in Saudi Arabia mainly through optical disk piracy. Unscrupulous businesspeople crack original works such as video games, business software, music, published materials, and movies and provide them retail sale across the country. Some of the pirated music being sold in the country originates from other countries, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Dubai, and Malaysia.

The country’s policymakers are also aware of the problem use of intellectual works for commercial purposes through deception. This is demonstrated in the recurrence of clauses in the country’s copyright law that address this problem. The law stipulates that such use of intellectual works amounts to infringement. People who use unauthorized copies of original software or illegally-acquired broadcasting programs for commercial purposes are deemed to have infringed on the rights of the owner of these works. The same case applies to those who exploit works in ways other than those defined by the owner. Another type of infringement, which is common in Saudi Arabia involves photographing or copying books without first seeking authorization from the copyright owners. Exceptions for this rule are provided in Chapter 15 of the 2003 Copyright Law. These exceptions include work that is copied for personal use, quotation of passages in a work, use of the work for educational purposes, citation within published articles, and the playing of music, after publication, by public corporate entities, government, or school theatre.

Even in the context of these exceptions, the 2003 Copyright Law provides conditions under which an exception can be deemed valid. For example, it excludes computer software and audio-visual works from the category of works that can be copied for personal use. Similarly, it excludes quotations provided in situations where such use is not justified by the intended objective. In educational purposes, an infringement may still be said to have occurred if the work has been used for commercial gain or coping does not abide by the requirements of specific educational activities. The same situation may occur if the use of the work leads to the impairment of the material benefits of the intellectual work or the said work is damaged or lost.

Provisions of Penalties

The 2003 Copyright Law, which was promulgated through a Royal Decree on August 30, 2003, is punitive in terms of the penalties it imposes on violators. Other than the maximum fine of 250000 riyals, the law also provides for the closure of the entity that commits an infringement, confiscation of the copies of pirated works and equipment used to reproduce them, and imprisonment for a maximum of 6 months. Those who continue to violate the law may be subjected to the doubling of maximum penalties and fines. Moreover, cases of violation where fines imposed exceed 100000 riyals are required to be taken to a Committee, which can decide on whether to determine the amount of compensation that is commensurate with the level of damage incurred by the complainant or to refer the matter to the Minister of Culture.

The creation of the Board of Grievances is also provided for under the 2003 Copyright Law. This Board is responsible for addressing grievances arising from the decisions of the Committee. The objective is to ensure that all parties to the dispute are given a fair hearing. A similar approach is provided for in the process of investigating violations, whereby provisions for protecting evidentiary proofs have been put in place. To ensure fairness and justice to all parties, the Ministry of Culture is required to established regulations that all its officers must adhere to during investigation.

Saudi Arabia’s Membership to the Berne Convention and the Compatibility Challenge

Saudi Arabia’s membership to the Berne Convention is a major boost for the fight against copyright infringement and piracy. Article 18 of the 2003 Copyright Law stipulates that all works that are protected under international treaties and agreements to which Saudi Arabia is a signatory shall be accorded the same level or protection in the country. The only condition that this law imposes for this protection is that the works must comply with Sharia’a or Islam law as well as Saudi laws and regulations.

The Saudi government made a formal application to accede to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on December 11, 2003 and was admitted to the Convention on March 11 2004. During its application, the country requested to be exempted from offering copyright protection to works that contravened Islamic law. However, the Notification of Accession by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) did not mention this exemption. This is simply because the organization had already made an official announcement indicating such an exemption was prohibited under the Berne Convention. The basis of the prohibition is that the Berne Convention does not contain any clause that allows states to refuse to recognize the rights of entire categories of works that must be offered copyright protection under the Convention. Such an exemption would also be incompatible with TRIPS. Thus, Saudi Arabia’s refusal to protect the copyright of works that contravene the Islamic law is an indication that the country offers copyright protection in a manner that to a certain degree is incompatible with both TRIPS and the Berne Convention.

ORDER A PAPER LIKE THIS NOW

In the Special 301 Report by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Saudi Arabia was categorized in the list of the countries with the least transparent copyright protection systems. For this reason, it was put on the USTR Watch List, meaning that it was implementing its copyright law in a manner that could not guarantee sufficient protection of US works. This negative perception of the country’s legal regime for protecting intellectual property may have been influenced greatly by the incompatibility with the Berne Convention arising from non-compliance of certain US works with Islamic law.

The gist of the matter is that Saudi Copyright protection regime has a long way to go before it reaches the international standards stipulated by WIPO, TRIPS, and the Berne Convention. There are numerous examples that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Saudi copyright law. For example, the raids that have been conducted since the enactment of the 2003 Copyright Law have not done much to deter pirates in the country. Moreover, right holders and complainants rarely receive enough information regarding the raids. At the same time, no framework exists to enable them to cooperate with officers from the Ministry of Culture in investigating cases of copyright infringement. In many cases, the right holders are denied the opportunity to identify and dispose of seized copies of their works. The failure by the courts to impose maximum penalties also contributes significantly to the weakness of the enforcement system.

In many residential areas, it is common to find pay TV services being distributed illegally, without authorization from the holders of distribution rights. Despite raids having been conducted in many areas, leading to the seizure of equipment being used to distribute the services, no penalties have been imposed on the pirates. The same problem persists in regards to book piracy. Although the new copyright law has strengthened the penalties that courts can impose on pirates, it fails to meet the international standards stipulated by WIPO, TRIPS Agreement, and the Berne Convention. Since the world is increasingly becoming globalized, it is imperative that the judicial and administrative system is strengthened in a manner that makes it compatible with emerging international standards and norms of copyright protection.

One area where adequate copyright protection is lacking is musical works and sound recordings especially those of foreign artists. Although the Saudi government insists that its copyright law protects all sound recordings made by foreigners, it is yet to issue regulations that are compatible with TRIPS as a confirmation of this protection. This indicates that Saudi Arabia faces an uphill task of ensuring that its copyright protection regime lives up to international standards in terms of both the formulation of punitive laws and enforcement. This issue was being pointed time and again whenever Saudi Arabia asserted its desire to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Areas of Ineffectiveness in the Enforcement of Copyright Law in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia continues to face numerous challenges relating to the enforcement of its copyright law. For the most part, lack of transparency within the judicial and administrative system has contributed immensely to this situation. Other than conducting raids on warehouses, distributors, and other establishments promoting authorized works that violate copyright law, not much has been done to end the infringement menace affecting the country. Following these raids, many violators have simply gone underground. Moreover, the raids have only been conducted following complaints by rights holders. It is rare for government officials to initiate raids on their own volition. Furthermore, such operations are often conducted on a small-scale basis, thus render them ineffective in dealing with major shipments of pirated works into the country.

The application of deterrent penalties can go a long way in bringing about the reforms that are urgently needed in the country. Many reforms aimed at facilitating the application of these deterrent penalties are yet to be undertaken. For example, a culture of cooperation with right holders in all enforcement activities is yet to be inculcated into the Saudi Judicial system. At the same time, right holders rarely send experts to work in cooperation with authorities in the identification, inspection, cataloguing, and analysis of pirated products seized during raids. Amendments to the 2003 Copyright Law to compel the copyright holders to send these experts may an appropriate move aimed at promoting an effective enforcement framework.

The copyright law is not strict enough in terms of provisions for the destruction of copies of works that have been reproduced and distributed in a manner that infringes on the rights of right holders. The same thing may be said regarding the penalties and fines provided for in the new law. Imposition of deterrent sentences within the existing laws and regulations may be an appropriate move in lieu of future amendments. Indeed, it may be appropriate to amend the law to address the global dimension, whereby much of the unauthorized works originate from other countries.

In today’s age of globalization, international cooperation in efforts to fight copyright infringement should be a priority area. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia continues to neglect this frontier based on the misguided notion of maintaining its conservative society. The secretive manner in which shipments of unauthorized works are intercepted speaks volumes about the government’s objective of keeping a low profile as far as enforcement of copyright laws and regulations is concerned. Nevertheless, the reality of the matter is that the far-reaching impacts of globalization and the attendant challenges of copyright infringement cannot be kept under wraps forever. In many cases, the government is reluctant to provide compensation to holders of copyrighted works that seem to contravene the Sharia’a. By so doing, the government would been seen to be paving way for the takeover of the Saudi society by foreign culture.

If properly enforced, the 2003 Copyright Law can bring about numerous benefits to right holders. For instance, the practice of doubling fines and penalties can greatly help to reduce recidivism. Moreover, the concept of enumerated exclusive rights can be used to entrench a culture of exclusivity of rights holders. Such a move would pave way for the adoption of practices that make the law more compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. Other aspects of the law that must be streamlined in terms of enforcement include temporary closure of businesses that copyright perpetuate infringement, retroactive protection dating back to the 1990 copyright law, award of costs in all civil cases involving copyright infringement, the introduction of civil search orders.

Proposals on Amendments to the Saudi Copyright Law

There are several ways in which the Saudi copyright law can be amended to render it more effective in protecting intellectual property rights of individuals. One of them is the introduction of cross-border enforcement. In its current form, Saudi copyright law contains no provisions on cross-border enforcement. This means that Saudi authorities are incapable of suspending the release of works that are suspected to contain copyright infringement or ordering the destruction of infringing works. The government needs to enact statutes aimed at addressing this deficiency.

Moreover, Saudi copyright law is hostile to the emergence of electronic commerce. For e-commerce to thrive, new standards of protection need to be introduced by amending existing copyright laws. It is foolhardy to expect new copyright problems of the digital era to be addressed by traditional laws and regulations. This challenge can be avoided by embracing the so-called “digital treaties” developed by WIPO: WPPT (WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty) and WCT (WIPO Copyright Treaty). On the surface, the 2003 Copyright Law seems to address the provisions of WPPT and WCT. However, beneath the surface, the law leaves out most of the clauses that are essential for making the law compatible with the main provisions of the treaties.

One area where incompatibility with WPPT and WCT is evident is the right to communicate works to the public. Although the 2003 Copyright Law expands this right to cover digital communications, it fails to include the right to “make the works available”, which is essential for the encompassment of the notion of uploading a work to different media via the internet. In today’s digital era, the right to upload works to the internet should be expressly stated in law because it an important component of day-to-day amendment, reproduction, distribution, and commercial exploitation of copyrighted works.Similarly, the practice of protecting temporary reproductions has not been expressly stated as one of elements that make up the production right of the works’ owner. The concept of reproduction right should be extended to include express production right as well as coverage of all categories of temporary productions.

In today’s digital age, a lot of emphasis in copyright law should be on technological protection. Through such emphasis, many pirates who continue to adopt new technologies to avoid detection will be held back by provisions on unlawful circumvention. If this circumvention is deemed to constitute an infringement, such pirates will be liable for prosecution under the law. The Saudi government should be vigilant when addressing the issue of exceptions to ensure that infringers do not exploit them for commercial gains, thereby denying the right holders a genuine opportunity to make a living through the sale of their works.

Religious and cultural factors are a major setback in the efforts by the Saudi government to fight copyright infringement. It is disappointing that the country is reluctant to join treaties that entrench the copyright protection of all musical works and sound recordings. Saudi Arabia remains opposed to this form of protection for religious reasons. It is for this same reason that the phrase “musical work” does not appear at all in the 2003 Copyright Law. The use of the terms “audio works” and “works meant to be broadcast” creates the impression that the issue of musical work has been satisfactorily addressed. As long as Saudi copyright laws continues to be vague and ambiguous on the issue of musical works, the fight against piracy and copyright infringement will not be won.

Copyright Laws in the USA

Rampant piracy in recorded music, video games, computer software, and motion pictures is a major challenge in the United States. The US remains a major victim of copyright infringement because many of the largest companies that deal primarily on intellectual property are headquartered in America. Consequently, the US government at all levels loses a lot of tax revenue due to copyright violations. Unfortunately, the scope of this problem is not yet well understood, mainly because of a dearth of reliable information on the economic implications of weaknesses in intellectual property protection. This is an indication that the US government is not always making the right decisions in efforts to balance the importance of IPR enforcement against other priorities. Due to the far-reaching consequences of copyright infringement, the US has been compelled to develop enact numerous copyright laws. These laws are intended to protect right holders, fulfil its legal obligations under international treaties, and contribute to a framework for international cooperation on matters of copyright protection.

The Copyright Act 1976 is the foundational legislation governing copyright issues in the USA. It is the primary piece of legislation on which the current copyright legislation is based. Prior to the enactment of this law, individuals who wanted to secure federal copyright were require to give notice of copyright, which was secured through the act of publication. According to the Copyright Act 1976, any work that was created from the first day of 1978 automatically qualifies for copyright protection from the moment it is created, and this copyright endures the author’s life as well as 70 years more after his death. In the case of pseudonymous and anonymous works as well as works made exclusively for hire, the copyright stands for 120 years from the date of creation or 95 years from the date of publication. The law also accords federal copyright protection to all works that were created before the first day of 1978 even though they had not been registered or published by that day.

Numerous amendments have been made to the Copyright Act 1976, one of them being the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (DCMA). The DCMA was intended to serve the critical role of enacting two “digital treaties” developed by WIPO: WCT and WPPT. It also served as an amendment to the Copyright Act 1976 by introducing additional provisions aimed at addressing emerging copyright-related issues. For example, DCMA made it a criminal offence for a person to circumvent any anti-piracy technologies embedded on commercial software. It also made it an offence for anyone to manufacture, sell, or distribute code-cracking devices that pirates use to make illegal copies of software. However, the law provided an exception, whereby copyright-protection devices could be used for security testing, product interoperability tests, and computer science research.

The timing of DCMA was set to coincide with the onset of the digital age, meaning that the United States, unlike Saudi Arabia, was adequately prepared to address new copyright issues characteristic of the new era. For instance, it limited the activities of online service providers in activities that could easily lead to copyright infringement. Under DCMA, the role of online service providers is restricted to the transmission of information via the internet. The Act also requires the removal of all materials from websites that infringe copyrights. Like the 2003 Copyright Act of Saudi Arabia, DCMA provides exemptions for the use of copyrighted works for educational uses. This means that archives, libraries, and educational institutions may not be targeted by the anti-circumvention provisions of DCMA. Similarly, DCMA also imposes restrictions regarding the circumstances under which the exemptions may be granted.

Article 1 of the United States Constitution provides for the respect of copyright. It confers upon Congress the power to promote scientific and artistic progress through the promotion of the exclusive rights of inventors and authors to their discoveries and writings. Under American laws, which are compiled under the United States Code, copyright law is covered in Title 17. Title 17 provides a detailed description of all US laws relating to copyright protection and amendments that have been made to these laws. Some of these laws include the Copyright Act 1976, the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act 1984, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA) 1998, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 1998, and the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act 2010. Other laws outlined in Title 17 include Copyright Fees and Technical Amendments Act 1989, Visual Artists Rights Act 1990, Computer Software Rental Amendments Act 1990, and Copyright Renewal Act 1992.

Unlike Saudi copyright law, US copyright law provides an explicit mention of “musical work”. This indicates that religious constraints do not pose a barrier to the enforcement of copyright protection laws. Other categories of copyright protection that are explicitly mentioned under American copyright law include literary works, dramatic works, choreographic works, sound recordings, sculptural works, and architectural works. Derivative works and compilations are also been included in this copyright protection as long as the pre-existing material has been used legally. On other hand, under US copyright law, right holders who use pre-existing material to develop compilations cannot claim to have exclusive right to this preexisting material.

Saudi Arabia

Implementing Regulations of Copyright Law

Select Language▼

IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS of Copyright Law Issued by The Minister of Culture and Information’s decision No. (1688/1) dated 10/04/1425H (29 May 2004) and amended by His Excellency’s decision No. (1640) dated15/05/1426H (22 June 2005) Unofficial Translation

IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS

of Copyright Law

Issued by

The Minister of Culture and Information’s decision no. (1688/1) dated 10/04/1425H (29 May 2004)

and amended by

His Excellency’s decision no. (1640) dated

15/05/1426H (22 June 2005)

Unofficial Translation

Article 1: Definitions

The following words and phrases, whenever mentioned in the articles of these Regulations, shall have the meanings stated next to them:

(1) Proprietary right of the author: Aggregate material and immaterial interests vested in the person to his work.

(2) Author: Every person who innovates by his own effort, any of the literary, artistic or scientific works such as the man of letters, the poet, the painter or the musician or any other artist, according to the form of expression.

(3) Innovation: The personal style displayed by the author in his work, which makes the work distinctive and novel and presents the work through the elements of the concept displayed or the method employed to present the concept.

(4) Infringement of copyright: Any use of the work unauthorized by the copyright owner and conflicting with the instructions of usage determined by the copyright owner, or committing one or more of the violations provided for in the Law and these Regulations.

(5) Work: It is the literary, scientific or artistic production irrespective of its type, importance, form of expression or purpose.

(6) Literary works: Works which are expressed in words whatever their content may be, whether written or oral.

(7) Artistic works: Works which appeal to the sense of beauty of the public, such as painting, coloring, movement, sound, picture, viewing or music.

(8) Performers: Actors, players of musical instruments, singers, dancers, reciters and others who perform an artistic activity of other literary or artistic works in one way or another.

(9) Publication: Transmittance or communication of the work directly or indirectly to the public or making copies or photo copies of it or of any part of it which may be read, viewed, listened to or performed.

(10) Producer: A natural or corporate person who undertakes to transform the artistic, audio or audio-visual work into a material means for the purpose of displaying it to the public under its financial responsibility.

(11) The Law: Copyright Law.

(12) Regulations: The implementing regulations of the Copyright Law.

(13) General Department of Copyright: The competent department in the Ministry which exercises the powers granted to the Ministry by the provisions of the Law and these Regulations, including the technical and administrative tasks necessary for implementing their provisions.

(14) Ministry: Ministry of Culture and Information.

(15) Minister: Minister of Culture and Information.

Chapter One

Protected Works and the Rights of Public Performance

Article 2: Protected Works

A- The Following shall be among the protected works:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

7- News Reports. Daily News Facts are excluded of this protection.

Article 3: Folklore

(1)

(2)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(3)

Article 4: Provisions Governing Circulation of Documents

Authors shall observe the provisions governing circulation of official documents issued in the Kingdom and shall obtain official approvals for their publication or translation, including the provisions of laws, regulations, judicial judgments and decisions of administrative agencies.

Article 5: Rights of Acting and Public Performance

Authors of dramatic works, musicals and musical works or their representatives shall have the right to authorize the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Article 6: Right of Tracing

Authors of original plastic art and of original musical manuscripts shall have the right to share by a percentage in the returns of any sale transaction of these works, even if they have assigned the ownership of the original copy of their works. This shall not apply to works of architecture nor to works of applied art.

Article 7: Protection of Performers, Producers of Sound Recordings,

and Broadcasting Organizations

First: Performers and Producers of Sound Recordings

Performers and producers of sound recordings shall enjoy the exclusive right to authorize the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(1)

Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to prohibit any of the following acts if undertaken without their authorization:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Article 8: Claiming Rights

(1)

(2)

Article 9: Rental Rights

Copyright owners may rent them in the Kingdom in coordination with the Ministry, upon obtaining its prior approval and its taking the necessary precautions, such as:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Article 10: Protection of Data Bases

The original data bases shall be protected by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents as intellectual creations. This protection shall not extend to the data or the materials themselves.

Chapter Two

Violations and Procedures of Detection

Section One

Violations and Liability for Copyright Infringement

Article 11: Infringement Liability

First: Any person who obtains an original copy of any intellectual work and exploits it by means of renting, adaptation or permitting others to copy or reproduce it or any other acts which affect or obstruct the author from exercising his rights shall be deemed to have infringed the Copyright.

Second: Firms shall be deemed liable for any violations committed by an employee against any intellectual work if their knowledge or negligence is established, such as keeping forged or copied computer programs, audio or visual tapes, or conducting maintenance on an electronic equipment loaded with forged programs, decoded or similar works.

Third: Anyone who reproduces, sells, imports, exports, transports, publishes or rents protected works with knowledge of the violation shall be deemed to be committing an infringement of copyright and in violation of the provisions of the Law and these Regulations.

Article 12: Infringement of Literary Works

First: It shall be deemed within the scope of personal use any use of intellectual works for personal use only, such as reproducing the work for the purpose of preserving the original copy, for writing on the reproduced copy, for translating some paragraphs or writing comments expressing personal opinion. Any use beyond these purposes shall not be deemed personal use.

Second: Any use beyond the scope of personal use shall be deemed an infringement, such as the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

fourth: Reproducing the work to make copies available for commercial exploitation or for selling them to students, to educational institutions or to others is deemed an infringement of copyright.

Fifth: An employer’s ownership of the original copy of the work does not grant him the right to reproduce and distribute it among his employees, under the pretext of personal use.

Article 13: Infringement of Audio, Visual and Broadcasting Works

Any use beyond that specified by the owner of audio, visual and broadcasting works shall be deemed an infringement of copyright, such as the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Article 14: Infringement of Rights of Performance

(1)

(2)

Article 15: Decoding of Electronic Equipment

It shall be an infringement of copyright any act resulting in removal of the original precautionary information from the electronic equipment produced by the manufacturer, and any person who facilitates this is deemed to be committing an act of infringement, such as:

(1)

(2)

Article 16: Infringement of Computer Programs

First: Considered as literary works, computer programs and games shall enjoy protection whether in the source code or in the object code.

Second: It shall be deemed an infringement of copyright any use of the programs different from that specified by the owner of the right, such as:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Article 17: Liability of Maintenance Centers

Workshops that provide maintenance service for display and receiving electronic equipment are deemed liable for and in infringement of copyright if detected to have in their possession decoded equipment or equipment loaded with forged programs, or to use forged programs in maintenance works.

Section Two

Procedures of Detection and Investigation of Violations

Article 18: Detection of Violations

Detection of violations of provisions of the Law and the Regulations shall be carried out in any of the following cases:

(1)

(2)

Article 19: Procedures of Detection and Inspection

When performing detection and inspection, detecting officers shall follow these procedures:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Article 20: Detection Tasks

First: The officials of the General Department of Copyright in Riyadh and its branches in the Kingdom’s provinces or the departments and offices of printed materials in provinces where there are no branches for the Department shall be responsible for the task of detecting violations and securing the evidence proving the existence of an infringement of copyright, such as equipment, works or commodities.

Second: A record for detecting the violation shall be drafted and signed by the drafter, and it shall contain the following information:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Article 21: Analysis of Evidence

The General Department of Copyright or the competent branch shall, immediately upon receiving the evidence, take the following procedures:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Article 22: Report of Evidence Analysis

The competent department which detected the works whose copyright is proved to be infringed shall prepare a report containing the following detailed information:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Article 23: Investigation of Violations

(1)

(2)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

Article 24: The Right to Claim Compensation

The copyright owner or his representative is entitled to claim compensation for damages incurred as the result of the infringement of any of his rights protected by law, and shall submit a written memorandum to the competent department, if he desires, in which he explains in detail the damages incurred as a result of this infringement and how they occurred, as well as the estimated amount of compensation claimed by him and the basis for such estimation. In all cases, he shall present the evidence and documents supporting his statements. The officer investigating the violation shall cross-examine him regarding such evidence and documents and check the gravity of the violation, and inform the defendant of what is brought against him, and grant him the ability to present his views and answers in this respect, and then refer the claim to the violation review committee for decision.

Article 25: Procedures and Rules of the Violation Review Committee

The committee shall exercise its jurisdiction in reviewing all violations of the provisions of the Law and these Regulations and shall determine the punishments according to what is stipulated in Article (22) of the Law in proportion to the gravity of infringement and the number of violations recorded with the committee against the violating party, and compensate owners of copyrights for the damage incurred by them, subject to the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Article 26: Restrictions on the Execution of Punishments

(1)

(2)

(3)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

Section Three

Protective Seizure

Article 27: Provisional Protective Measures

(1)

(2)

(3)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Article 28: Measures at Borders

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Article 29: Precautionary Protective Seizure

The Ministry’s office at the point of entry at the border may stop the procedure for release of works upon having prima facie evidence proving existence of copyright infringement, after coordination with the customs department at the point of entry. The office shall immediately notify the General Department of Copyright to take the necessary measures, in coordination with the committee.

Chapter Three

General Provisions

Article 30: Mandatory Licenses

The provisions regulating the procedures of issuing mandatory licenses shall apply to works published for the first time in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and licenses shall not be granted before the expiration of three years from the publication date of the edition in question, in accordance with the following procedures:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Article 31: Public Property

First: All unprotected works by Saudi authors or whose period of protection has expired in accordance with the provisions of the Law and these Regulations shall become public property, and the Ministry shall act as the copyright owner thereon.

Second: Copyrights in this law applies to all foreign works which, as of the date of entry into force of this law, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of term of protection.

Article 32: Nature of Protection

(1)

(2)

(3)

Article 33: Calculation of Protection Period

(1)

(2)

(3)

Article 34: Expiration of Protection Period

The author may object to reproduction or sale of his works or making a work derived from his original work upon expiry of financial rights and protection period, in case of damage to his honor and reputation or distortion and alteration of the work.

Article 35: Effectiveness of the Regulations

These Regulations shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall be effective after two months from the date of publication.

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now