Cablegate: Business Gives Mixed Reviews to Turkey's Ipr
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 007296
SIPDIS
DEPT PASS USTR FOR JCHOE-GROVES, LERRION
DEPT PASS USPTO FOR JURBAN AND EWU
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/CRUSNAK
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD KIPR TU USTR
SUBJECT: BUSINESS GIVES MIXED REVIEWS TO TURKEY'S IPR
ENFORCEMENT
REF: ANKARA 6899
This information is sensitive but unclassified. Please
protect accordingly.
1. (SBU) Summary: Representatives of Turkish music,
film, and publishing industries give mixed reviews to
the GOT's latest IPR enforcement efforts. While they
agree that the 2004 IPR enforcement law is a welcome
improvement, they argue that poor enforcement due to
lack of training and knowledge, and slowly-changing
public perceptions prevent the GOT from effectively
prosecuting IPR violators. Turkey will continue to
benefit from USG-hosted IPR-enforcement training, but,
due to GOT constraints, alternative funding is crucial
to Turkey's continued participation. End summary.
2. (SBU) Istanbul-based Mu-Yap (Turkey's chapter of the
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry)
representatives say they are happy with the 2004 IPR
enforcement law, but the GOT's current enforcement
efforts are insufficient. They told us in early
December that lack of training, ignorance, and lack of
will are the main impediments to successful IPR
enforcement in Turkey. General Secretary Ahmet Asena
said that while laws to convict IPR infringers now
exist, violators are not being sentenced, and repeat
offenders are not being prosecuted. For example, even
thought the 2004 law provides a financial penalty of
between 50,000 and 150,000 YTL (approximately USD 37,000
to 111,000), prosecutors and judges are not using this
provision and enforcing the payment of this fine. Asena
was also surprised to hear from us about draft
legislation that would remove the penalties for pirates
who trade in goods produced outside of Turkey (reftel)
that is in the Parliament's Justice Commission.
3. (SBU) AMPEC (which focuses on copyright infringement
of motion pictures and internet games) General Manager
Nilufer Sapancilar, however, was more positive about the
GOT's IPR enforcement efforts. Sapancilar has
accompanied Turkish police on raids of centers known to
trade in pirated materials that she called "successful."
She also argued that the judges and prosecutors working
in the special IP Courts, especially in Istanbul, are
quickly becoming more knowledgeable and working to
enforce the 2004 legislation. She added, however, that
training was still very important for these individuals
and asked for any assistance available. Like Asena, she
was shocked when we told her about the proposed
legislative changes, but pledged to educate her
membership about the law and do what she could to
discourage its passage.
4. (SBU) Representatives of the publishing industry were
also bleak about Turkey's IPR enforcement. As Emrah
Ozpirinci of Oxford Publishing put it, "Turkey is still
a haven for pirates." While they too felt that the new
law was an improvement, they argued that changes in the
law subsequent to its passage in 2004 left it without
much enforcement capability. For example, while the
legislation makes the sale of pirated material a "public
crime" and allows police to confiscate the material
immediately without charges from the right holder,
changes in the requirements for placing authenticating
holograms on published documents have made it almost
impossible for the police to determine what is
legitimate and what is pirated. (Note: Currently,
holograms are not required for books with less than 90
pages. End note.) In addition, they emphasized that
because the GOT has been slow to write the implementing
regulations for the law, agencies responsible for
enforcement are left without the authority or guidelines
for doing so. Finally, they shared the others' view
that the prosecutors and judges responsible for fighting
pirating were still in need of training and experience.
They also were unaware that draft legislation was
currently in the Justice Commission and said they would
publicize it to their membership.
5. (SBU) Comment: With the 2004 legislation, Turkey
took a major step toward combating pirating.
Enforcement remains an issue, however, and training is
important during this crucial time. The USG has
provided such training for prosecutors and judges, but,
given limited GOT resources and the extent of its needs,
additional and alternative funding must be found in
order to send Turkish participants to the training. As
the potential passage of legislation that would remove
penalties for goods produced outside of Turkey
highlights, there are still many officials in Turkey who
do not take IPR-enforcement seriously. End comment.
Wilson