BUSINESS GIVES MIXED REVIEWS TO TURKEY'S IPR

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