TO BLOCK OR NOT TO BLOCK Thats the

TO BLOCK OR NOT TO BLOCK? That’s the question! 37 th APEC IPEG Meeting, Medan, Indonesia June 28 -29, 2013

Chinese Taipei’s Effort on Legislation 2003 International Standard 2006 P 2 P Amend our Copyright Act 2009 ISP Clarify the liability of Keep the copyright protection in accordance with the international standard (WCT/WPPT) P 2 P software providers Lay the legal foundation against online-piracy Introduce the “Noticeand-Takedown” system Encourage the ISPs to cooperate with rights holders on combating online piracy 2

Chinese Taipei’s Effort on Enforcement 2000 1500 • 1, 188 trademark infringement cases 22%↑ 1000 1342 1632 500 • 444 copyright infringement cases • 947 online infringement cases 0 2011 2012 IPR Infringement Cases Source of the material: IPRP 3

Satisfying Results on Take-Down Rate • C&D Letters Sent and Take-Down (2012) JAN RIT MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV C&D Letter 876 1259 1051 1147 1133 1539 1002 1028 1339 1012 Take Down 797 1133 1051 1008 1028 1018 RATE TISF FEB 837 91% 90% 100% 73% 1447 982 1012 89% 94% 98% 100% 76% 100% DEC TOTAL 1000 1003 13389 940 1003 12265 94% 100% 91% C&D Letter 14 16 11 32 3 35 66 68 4 4 206 155 613 Take Down 14 16 11 32 3 18 15 68 4 4 206 155 545 100% 100% 51% 23% 100% 100% 89% RATE 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% TISF Rate RIT Rate 4 Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Progressive Challenges Site Blocking? Beyond our jurisdiction ISP Legislation P 2 P Legislation • Right holders call for timely procedure • For the blocking of foreign infringing website • Take-Down rate reached 90% high in average • Right holders expressed their appreciation to local ISPs • Clarifying the responsibility of P 2 P software provider • FOXY case Within our jurisdiction Physical Piracy • Physical piracy has been decreased • Internet piracy becomes popular 5

To Block Foreign Websites? Concerns Raised Is there any ‘Definition’ for “a foreign infringing website shall be blocked”? ? Under the existing legal system, by our court or administrative agency could issue an blocking order on foreign websites? How to block an infringing websites uncostly and efficiently? If not the court, then which government body shall be empowered to issue such an order? 6

Who could Issue the Blocking Order? Judicial Authority Administrative Authority • only court could decide whether a foreign website is serious enough to be blocked • U. K, Spain, Ireland, Chile, Columbia • the administrative authority is empowered to make the decision • Korea, India, Malaysia Who’s the Decision Maker? Our Research on International Legislation & Practice 7

How to Issue an Blocking Order ? ISPs brought up their concerns: 1. No certain criteria on determining which infringing websites shall be blocked. 2. Blocking would be Costly and difficult : “Distributing Framework” in Taiwan. RIGHT HOLDERS claimed for timely and efficient procedures: 1. Accept feasible blocking technique i. e. IP Address or DNS technique, 2. Yield to limited execution of the most notorious websites. 8

TIPO’s Initial Idea Foreign Infringing Websites Intellectual Property Court Application Primary Decision • The websites which right holders lodged for action • Right holders present the evidence and activate the whole procedure Judicial Review • TIPO sets up a committee includes expert, right holders, ISPs, judicial authority, and telecommunication authority, etc. • TIPO takes the Committee opinion of reference on the decision of blocking or not • The blocking order would be sent to the ISPs for execution • The blocking order shall be sent to the IP court for review immediately • IP court should make a prompt review of the blocking order • IP court’s decision shall be sent back to TIPO and shall be followed by, which means if the order is decided not proper, TIPO shall notify the ISPs to resume the access to the website 9

Seeking for Public Opinions 2012. 9 ~ 2013. 4 TIPO held consultation meetings with ISPs, right holders, distinguished experts, judicial authority and competent authority of telecommunication. 2013. 5. 21 TIPO announced an initial idea of considering the possibility for the competent authority to decide whether the infringing websites which right holders lodged is serious enough to be blocked. Thousands of opposing feedbacks received, addressing the concern of the over-expansion of the administration power and impairment of basic human right to freedom of speech and information access. 2013. 6. 3 9 To relieve doubt from the public, TIPO made an announcement to alter the abovementioned idea. However, the issue of “how to protect copyright on the Internet” will stay on the agenda to be discussed. 10

Thank You For Your Attention