Стана обичај на блогов да го закачувам делот од извештајот на ЕК за Македонија што се однесува на авторски права. Па еве го и за 2012 година.

4.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law
Some progress was made in the area of copyright and neighbouring rights. The amount of single equitable remuneration for reproduction for private use of written works, phonograms and videograms was regulated; the compliance with the acquis remains to be confirmed. The commission for mediation in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights is now the institution responsible to provide opinion on the tariff schemes of the collective rights management (CRM) societies that are to obtain licences. Two CRM societies are currently active. The cooperation of the unit responsible for copyright in the Ministry of Culture with the relevant institutions was limited. In this area, the country is advanced. Further progress was made in the area of industrial property rights. The London Agreement on the application of Article 65 of the European Patent Convention that aims at reducing the costs for patent translation was ratified. A license regime for chartered valuators in the area of industrial property was set up. Implementing legislation on registration of designation of origin and geographical indications of agricultural products was adopted. The State Office for Industrial Property (SOIP) continued the cooperation with the World Intellectual Property Organization, European Patent Office, European Patent Academy and other relevant bodies. Trainings and public wareness raising activities related to intellectual property rights (IPR) continued. In 2011, Academy for Judges and Prosecutors delivered 16 trainings on protection of IPR, including training of trainers, to 328 members of the judiciary as part of the continuous training. The National Strategy for intellectual property has yet to be updated. In the area of industrial property rights, the country remains well advanced.
Some progress can be reported as regards enforcement. The Law on customs measures for protection of IPR was amended to allow for processing of requests for such measures free of charge. The 2011-2013 Strategy for customs measures for protection of IPR was adopted. The increased competencies of the State Market Inspectorate (SMI) when seizing counterfeit items have had a positive impact. 49 police inspectors from the Ministry of Interior (MoI) deal with infringements of IPR. The Bureau on Pharmaceuticals (BP) seized counterfeit life-style medicines that were being sold in pharmacies, but there is no awareness as regards the threats posed by counterfeit medicines to the health and safety of the consumers. The Coordination Body for Intellectual Property (CBIP) undertook 12 coordinated actions in 2011, which is a drop by half compared to 2010. Cooperation of the CBIP with the Agency for Managing Confiscated Property continued, but the number of goods publicly destroyed decreased significantly in 2011. Competencies for IPR are spread across many law enforcement institutions (CBIP, SMI, MoI, BP, Customs administration, Ministry of Justice etc.) which creates a complex, rather than effective system IPR protection. In 2011, a total of 126 court procedures were initiated for violations of IPR. About 15 prison sentences and a number of fines on criminal offences were issued to individuals by the specialised IPR departments of the courts. Development of a methodology for collecting and exchanging statistical data on IPR is at an early stage; however the exchange of data between the law enforcement institutions is not systematic. Awareness that counterfeit affects also foodstuffs, cosmetics, hygiene products, medicines, toys, technical and electronic equipment is low and such goods are being sold in the streets and green markets. The trade in counterfeit medicines and fake products via the internet is still not subject of criminal prosecution. The cooperation between authorities to trace counterfeit channels and tackle the ‘counterfeit pyramid’ is limited, both at national and international level.

Conclusion
Some progress was made in the area of intellectual property regarding both the legislative framework and administrative capacity. Implementation remains a challenge and the collective rights management system is still underdeveloped. A solid track record on investigation, prosecution and trial of IPR-related cases has yet to be established, as violations of IPR continue. The level of awareness of IPR among the institutions and public remains low. Overall, preparations in the field of IPR are moderately advanced.

Целиот извештај е достапен на следнава врска: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/i...