November 2016

The conspiracy against the Republic reaches its climax

Submitted by Новица on

Tags: 

I am following the story about the warrant-less wiretapping in Macedonia carried out by the secret police since it was revealed by the opposition leader in February 2015. In the early days of this political, social, and moral crisis, I noted that the opposition party SDSM, specifically its president Zoran Zaev, frist implicated the telecommunications operators in Macedonia as collaborators in the warrant-less wiretapping, only to backtrack on that statement few weeks later.

In his early statements (12.02.2015) Zoran Zaev claimed that the wiretapping could not have happened without the knowledge of the operators, but just two weeks later (27.02.2015) Zaev said that the operators have no responsibility whatsoever at a press-conference for bombshell #5. -- from The silence of the telecom operators, June 4 2015.

The telecommunications operators also maintained that they worked and still work within the law.

All of these claims were proved wrong today, November 18 2016, when at the Special prosecutor press conference (link in Macedonian) it was revealed that:

„Тhe unlawful wiretapping of several thousands people that lived in the Republic of Macedonia in the period from 2008 to 2015 violated the privacy of their personal and family life, and the secrecy of communications"

The equipment that is installed in the operators' networks and is used for surveillance of communication in a way in which the secret police has 'direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted' access is allowed by law only in a part of the period from 2008 to 2015. This period includes 1. the months from June 2010 when the new law for electronic communications came into power, until December 2010 when the Constitutional Court canceled the articles regarding the equipment and access, and 2. the period since February 2014 when the new law for electronic communications came into power, that has the same canceled provisions (on which, this time, the Constitutional Court is silent for more than a year).

In fact, in the eight-year period from 2008 to 2015, direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted access was allowed by law in only 2.5 years. This means that the operators allowed conventional access (i.e. in a way that the secret police does not access their network autonomously at their will) knowing that there is no court order for such an access to peoples' communications, or that the equipment for direct, autonomous, and uninterrupted access was working during the entire period, even when there was no law allowing that. In the latter case it would mean that such access was made available to the secret police 2 years before the law allowing it was even discussed in Parliament.

Today's SPO press conference casts a serious doubt on the claims that operators worked according to prescribed laws. The law requires that telecommunications operators must cooperate with the SPO. Morality requires that their executives at least tender their resignations.

More on the topic (though not all of it is in English):
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/854
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/848
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/846
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/844
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/841
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/839
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/836
http://novica.discindo.org/mk/node/830

The European Commision 2016 report on Macedonia

Submitted by Новица on

Tags: 

I'm posting the EC report on Copyright and Industrial property rights in Macedonia every year for the past 7 years. Here is the latest. For the full text visit: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-3634_en.htm

4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law

The EU has harmonised rules for the legal protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), as well as rules for the legal protection of copyright and related rights. Rules for the legal protection of IPRs cover, for instance, patents and trademarks, designs, biotechnological inventions and pharmaceuticals. Rules for the legal protection of copyright and related rights cover, for instance, books, films, computer programmes and broadcasting.

The country is moderately prepared in this area. Some progress, although limited, was made during the reporting period. There is still no strategy on intellectual property. In thecoming year, the country should in particular:

  • improve consultation of the stakeholders when drafting legislation;
  • step up efforts to investigate and prosecute infringements of intellectual property;
  • reinforce capacity and coordination among the authorities in charge of implementing the intellectual property laws and raise public awareness of the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

On copyright and neighbouring rights, the law on copyrights was amended in February 2016 to regulate the functioning of collective management of rights and remuneration distribution and to abolish the cap to remunerations of right-holders, but the collective management system is still underdeveloped. The system for electronic recording of broadcast music works needs to be finalised. The Ministry of Culture revoked the licence of one of the collecting societies, with the result that certain fees are no longer collected, and subsequently (in July) licensed one more society in the areas of music rights. The capacity of the Ministry of Culture to deal with copyright and neighbouring rights remains insufficient.

As regards industrial rights, the State Office of Industrial Property concluded a bilateral cooperation agreement with the European Patent Office for 2016-18 and made its database available to the public. Challenges remain, in particular in providing services to the public.

The number of court cases on infringements of intellectual property rights is still low and there is no credible enforcement record. The Agency for Audiovisual Media Services conducted inspections and found certain irregularities by broadcasters. The functions of the Coordinative Body for Intellectual Property do not cover the coordination of policy-making and of legislative work. Its funding is insufficient and there is no budget for awareness-raising and education of right-holders and the public about the importance of intellectual property rights. Coordination between the enforcement authorities is insufficient.