by: Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho, Sapalo Velez Bundang & Bulilan Law Offices

Karaoke is a significant and integral part of Filipino culture, synonymous with happiness and goodwill. Rain or shine, no true Filipino party is complete without Karaoke!

Shigeichi Negishi, the inventor of the world's first commercially-available karaoke machine, has died in Japan last January 26, 2024 at the age of 100 years old.

Negishi was in his 40s when he came up with the idea in 1967 of prototyping a mass-produced, coin-operated karaoke machine, branded "Sparko Box.”

The Sparko Box employed the wiring of a microphone, speaker and eight-track cassette tapes of commercially available instrumental recordings, with lyrics provided in a paper booklet. However, Negishi dissolved it in 1975 due to financial problems. He never secured a patent for his invention.

Filipino Roberto del Rosario is the known sole patent holder in the world of the karaoke machine who developed the karaoke's sing-along system in 1975 and is partially responsible for the popularity of karaoke in the Philippines today.

This was confirmed in the case of Del Rosario, v. Janito Corp. (G.R. No. 115106. March 15, 1996) wherein it ruled that there was a violation of Del Rosario’s patent rights as the models performed the same function, or accomplished the same result by identical or substantially identical means and the principle or mode of operation are substantially the same.

Cablecasting of karaoke channels is likewise considered an infringement of intellectual property rights, specifically copyright, as held in Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. vs Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, Inc./ Filscap (G.R. No. 188933, February 21, 2023).

Filscap monitored Home Cable and found that its members' musical compositions were being played on channels 22 and 32 without a license and later sued for copyright infringement under R.A.10372, or the Intellectual Property Code.

Home Cable’s defenses include, among others, (a) its re-transmission of channels 22 and 32 was not public performance under copyright law; (b); Filscap did not hold the communication to the public rights over its principals' musical compositions ( c) Filscap or its principals had already been paid for Home Cable's use of the copyrighted materials (d ) Home Cable, as a cable television systems operator, does not exercise financial or editorial responsibility over the content of programs it retransmits.

To uphold a copyright infringement claim, the following must be proved: first, the complainant’s ownership of a validly copyrighted material, and second, the defendant’s exercise of any the enumerated economic rights without the consent of the copyright owner or holder. For the second element, it must further be shown that the exercise of the economic right was inconsistent with any of the limitations on copyright and permissible unauthorized reproductions and importations.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Filscap that the unauthorized exercise of the copyright holders' communication to the public rights as a result of cablecasting the two karaoke channels is copyright infringement.

In a decision penned by my UP Law professor and SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Court ruled that when a cable television system operator transmits a musical composition fixed in an audiovisual derivative work over a channel they control and operate, the operator is making that work accessible to members of the public from a place or time individually chosen by them. This is the essence of the "communication to the public" right in the IP Code.

The Supreme Court in essence upheld FILSCAP’s argument that while Section 177 of Republic Act No. 8293 does not use the term "broadcasting right," its equivalent is either or both the "public performance" and "communication to the public" rights. Home Cable's retransmission of works through the simultaneous relay of broadcast signals exercised both these exclusive rights, without the consent or authority granted by the copyright holder over those works.

A later amendment to the IP Code further expanded the scope of "communication to the public" to include broadcasting, rebroadcasting, retransmitting by cable, and retransmitting by satellite.

All intellectual property rights are not mere economic exercises. The Constitution •and• laws recognize their social function and benefit to the common good. Copyright, in particular, is linked with culture.

To encourage the creation, proliferation, and innovation of literary, artistic, and scientific works, our laws have designed a regime of protection that balances the incentives to an individual for disclosing their works and the eventual benefit to the public once the protections lapse and these works become freely available. An essential component of this balance is certainty of enforcing creators' rights against unauthorized trespass.

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IPAP.