Rethinking the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age: A Developmental Perspective

Olwan, Rami M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27907-2_5

Rethinking the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age: A Developmental Perspective

Rami M. Olwan²

Chapter
First Online: 22 October 2012

2033 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses copyright law in Jordan from a developmental perspective. It shows how, in practical terms, a development-oriented approach may be implemented in the copyright laws of developing countries. While a case study is made of Jordan, similar considerations could apply to other jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their copyright laws. There should be a careful consideration of the local situation of each developing country and full compliance with obligations under international copyright treaties to which they are signatories. This chapter examines the provisions of Jordanian copyright law, especially those related to the Internet and provides specific recommendations for policymakers and legislators when copyright laws are being updated. This pro-development approach would serve better the social and economic developmental needs of Jordan and its citizens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
John Barton et al., Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (September 2002), <http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf>.
2.
Jordan is the 136th member of the WTO, see WTO, Jordan and WTO <http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/jordan_e.htm>; Ghadeer Taher, ‘Jordan’s WTO Accession Bid Held up by Needed Reforms, Business Opposition’, Jordan Times (online), 14 April 1999 <http://www.jordanembassyus.org/041499005.htm>.
3.
The other three Arab countries that singed FTAs with the US are Bahrain (2004), Morocco (2004), and Oman (2006). The US is also pursuing an FTA with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Kuwait.
4.
See WIPO, Summary Table of Membership of the WIPO and the Treaties Administered by WIPO, plus UPOV, WTO and UN <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/summary.jsp>.
5.
Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended (Copyright Law), Official Gazette No. 3821, 16 April 1992 (Jordan) , arts 45-55.
6.
The Law of the Accession of Jordan to the WTO, 24 February 2000, Official Gazette of Jordan No. 4415/2000.
7.
Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) <http://www.mit.gov.jo>.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Patent Law No. 32 of 1999 (Patent Law), Official Gazette No. 4389, 1 November 1999.
10.
Trademark Law No. 34 of 1999, Official Gazette No. 4389, 1 November 1999.
11.
Industrial Design and Model Law No. 14 of 2000, Official Gazette No. 4423, 2 April 2000.
12.
Plant Varieties Law No. 24 of 2000, Official Gazette No. 4443, 2 July 2000.
13.
Geographical Indication Law No. 8 of 2000, Official Gazette No. 4423, 2 April 2000.
14.
Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Law No. 15 of 2000 (Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Law), Official Gazette No. 4423, 2 April 2000.
15.
The Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuit Law No. 10 of 2000,Official Gazette No. 4423, 2 April 2000.
16.
Some 160 laws have been promulgated in Jordan. See Nail-Biting, Jordan’s Fairly Election, Economist, 21 June 2003. One commentator noted that having these laws is good for economic linearisation in the country in the absence of Parliament. See Bashar Malkawi, Jordan and the World Trading System–A case Study Submitted for Arab Countries (PhD thesis, American University, 2005) 232.
17.
For more information, see Bashar Malkawi, ‘The Intellectual Property Provision of the United States- Jordan Free Trade Agreement: Template or not Template’ (2006) 2 Journal of World Intellectual Property 213-229; Marwa Al Nasa’a et al., The Jordan-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: Eight Years Later (21 March 2008) University of Michigan, 3-4 <http://www.umich.edu/~ipolicy/Policy%20Papers/jordanusfta.pdf>; James Cassing and Anna Maria Salameh, Jordan-United States Free Trade Agreement Economic Impact Study: Searching for Effects of the FTA on Exports, Imports and Trade Related Investments, Achievement of Market-Friendly Initiatives and Results Program, (June 2006) University of Pittsburgh <http://www.econ.pitt.edu/papers/James_10.JUSFTA__Economic_Impact_Study_2006.pdf>.
18.
Since 2003, Jordan’s total assistance package has averaged over $762 million per fiscal year. See Jeremy M. Sharp, The US Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends and the FY 2008 Request (2010) Federation of American Scientists <http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32260.pdf>; Paul Rivlin, Arab Economics in the Twenty First Century (Cambridge University, 2009) 155-73; Al Nasa’a et al., above n 17, 2-6.
19.
For further explanation of the TRIPS model in Jordan and the Arab World, see Hamed EL Said and Mohammed El Said, ‘TRIPS-Plus Implication for Access to Medicine in Developing Countries: Lessons from Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement’ (2007) 10 (6) Journal of World Intellectual Property Review 438-475; Mohammed El Said, The Development of Intellectual Property Protection in the Arab World (The Edwin Mellen, 2008) ch 4-6; David Price, The Development of Intellectual Property Regimes in the Arabian Gulf States (Routledge, 2009) ch 4-6.
20.
Jordan United States Free Trade Agreement (JUSFTA), art 4, 10-16, signed on 24 October 2000 (entered into force 17 December 2001) <http://www.mfa.gov.jo/uploads/textagrusjofta.pdf>.
21.
JUSFTA, above n 20, art 4, 6-9.
22.
JUSFTA, art 4, above n 20, arts 17-20.
23.
JUSFTA, art 4, above n 20, arts 24-28.
24.
JUSFTA, The Memorandum of Understanding on Issues Related to the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (MOU) The Jordan–US Free Trade Agreement <http://www.jordanusfta.com/documents/memo_property.pdf>.
25.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 (entered into force 1 January 1995, Annex 1C Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
26.
JUSFTA, above n 20, art 4, 1.
27.
Rohhit Malpani from Oxfam International’s access to medicine campaign argues that USJFTA has created a public health crisis in Jordan. He notes that there were no benefits from signing the USJFTA as claimed by US officials in relation to the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Jordan. He explains:

[S]ince the FTA was signed, FDI, in the words of most generics manufacturers and government officials, has been a ‘disappointment’. From 1995 to 2000, there was hardly any investment in Jordanian pharmaceutical manufacturing, and following the passage of the FTA, despite claims by United States Trade Representative (USTR) that FDI would flow to Jordan, it never materialised. Furthermore, local generics companies complained that multinational pharmaceutical companies neither signed more licensing agreements nor transferred technology to local manufacturers. Thus, most new medicines are imported rather than produced locally. According to the Jordanian Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, most licensing agreements that are in effect today were signed before 1999.

Rohhit Malpani, ‘All Costs, No Benefits: How The US–Jordan Free Trade Agreement Affects Access to Medicine’ (2009) 6 (3) Journal of Genetic Medicines 206, 213.
28.
JUSFTA, above n 20, art 4,1.
29.
Malkawi, above n 17, 221.
30.
Ahmed Abdel Latif noted that:

It is not always clear if these TRIPS-Plus obligations in national laws are the result of a conscious and deliberate choice by legislators and policy-makers, or are more the result of inadequate legislative advice given to these Arab countries in the process of modernization of their IP laws by certain bilateral donors and international organizations with a vested interest in promoting higher IP standards.

See Ahmed Abdel Latif, ‘A Perspective on Reform in Arab Countries’ in Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz and Pedro Roffe (ed), Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Development Agenda in a Changing World (Edward Elgar, 2010) 51, 56.
31.
The Bahrain United States Free Trade Agreement (BUSFTA), art 14, signed on 14 September, 2004 (entered into force 1 August 2006) <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/bahrain-fta/final-text>. The Morocco United States Free Trade Agreement (MUSFTA), art 15, signed on 15 June 2004 (entered into force 1 January 2006) <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/morocco-fta/final-text>. The Oman United States FTA (OUSFTA), art 15, signed on 19 January 2006 (entered into force 1 January 2009) <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/oman-fta/final-text>.
32.
Article 14.4.4 of the BUSFTA provides that:

Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated: (a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death; and (b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be (i) not less than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the creation of the work, performance or phonogram, not less than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram

BUSFTA, above n 31, art 14.4, 4.
Article 15.5.5 of the MUSFTA provides that:

Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated: (a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death; and (b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be (i) not less than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or (ii) failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than 70 years from the end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram.

MUSFTA, above n 31, art 15.5.5
Article 15.4.4 of the OUSFTA provides that:

4. Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated:(a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death; and (b) on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term

shall be (i) not less than 95 years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or (ii) failing such authorized publication within 25 years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than 120 years from the end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram.

OUSFTA, above n 31, art 15.4.4.
33.
See, for TRIPS plus provisions, art 14.3 of the BUSFTA provides that:
1. 1.
  Each Party shall require that the management of its country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), in order to address the problem of trademark cyber-piracy.
2. 2.
  Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information for domain-name registrants.
BUSFTA, above n 31, art 14.3.
Article 15.4 of the MUSFTA provides that:
1. 1.
  In order to address the problem of trademark cyber-piracy, each Party shall require that the management of its country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) provide an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.
2. 2.
  Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information for domain name registrants.
MUSFTA, above n 31, art 15.4.
Article 15.3 of the OUSFTA also provides that:
1. 1.
  In order to address the problem of trademark cyber-piracy, each Party shall require that the management of its country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) provide an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy.
2. 2.
  Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information for domain-name registrants.
OUSTA, above n 31, art 15.3.

For TRIPS plus provisions, see also art 15.5.8 of the MUSFTA and art 14.4.7 of the BUSFTA that do not require knowledge in relation to the act of circumvention. See Gwen Hinze, Seven Lessons from a Comparison of the Technological Protection Measures Provisions, Electronic Frontier Foundation <http://www.eff.org/pages/seven-lessons-comparison-technological-protection-measure-provisions>.
34.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified in scattered sections of, inter alia, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–05 (2006).
35.
Professor Peter Yu explains:

The DMCA was designed specifically to deal with the threat created by digital technologies under conditions specific to the United States, including the stage of its economic development, the structure of its content and communications industries, the state of available technology, the overall market conditions, and the average living standards of local consumers. Because these conditions are unlikely to be present in less developed countries, the DMCA serves as an inappropriate model for the implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties.

Peter K. Yu, ‘Working Together in a Digital World: An Introduction: Article: Anticircumvention and Anti-anticircumvention’ (2006) 84 Denver University Law Review 13, 42.
36.
For critiques of DMCA, see the following: Fred Von Lohman and Wendy Seltzer, Death by the DMCA (June 2006) Ieee Spectrum <http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/death-by-dmca>; Pamela Samuelson, ‘Intellectual Property and The Digital Economy- Why the Anti Circumvention Regulation Needs to be Revised’ (1999) 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 519; Anne Hiaring, ‘What’s New in the Neighbourhood the Export of the DMCA in Post- TRIPS FTAs’ (2005) 11 (1) Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law 171; Dan L. Burk, ‘Anticircumvention Misuse’ (2003) 50 University of California Los Anglos Law Review 1095.
On appraisal of the DMCA, one Jordanian legal scholar noted that the DMCA is a model law for implementing the anti-circumvention provisions of the WCT and WPPT treaties; he further argued that it is a good example in achieving an appropriate balance between the legal rights of authors and users; see Fayad Al Qudah, ‘Legal Protection of Databases; a Study of Jordanian Law’ (2008) 22 Arab Law Quarterly 360,378, 381.
37.
This has also occurred in other countries such as China, which based part of its copyright law on the DMCA model. Professor Hong Yue notes:

A successful legal transplant should be based on the comprehensive study of the legal context of the transplanted law, deep understanding of the domestic need and correct assessment of the cost and benefit of the transplanting. Most importantly, transplanting the norms from the foreign law should be strategic rather than expedient, thoughtful rather than unperceptive, creative rather than plagiaristic. Only through the careful cultivation can the healthy, valuable and adaptive flowers bloom in the new legal system.

Hong Xue, ‘Les Fleurs Du Mal A Critique of the Legal Transplants Chinese Internet Copyright Protection’ (2007) 34 Rutger Computer and Technology Law Journal 168-210.
38.
See The US-Jordan Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, The Jordan–US Free Trade Agreement <http://www.jordanusfta.com/documents/joint_statement_on_e-commerce.pdf>. The Statement particularly requests Jordan to provide high protection for e-commerce, including business-method patents to which the Patent Law in Jordan does not currently give protection. Ibid.
39.
The Obama administration is not totally clear in its position in relation to IP policies in developing countries. One commentator was optimistic as he notes: ‘[w]ith the Obama administration being possibly more willing to listen to a diversity of voices on matters such as open source—as are many other governments throughout the world.’ Another commentator has also mentioned that:

[H]opefully we will find a broader vision that goes from President Obama down to USTR [the US Trade Representative‘s Office] and USPTO [US Patent and Trademark Office] negotiators that would allow us to see the US showing real engagement in WTO and WIPO negotiations and regaining a leadership already lost.

Professor Lawrence Lessig also was of the opinion the following opinion: ‘I don’t expect there will be a fundamental change in IP policy, unfortunately, but of course I believe there will be a strong press to realize change’. See Liza Porteus Viana, Obama Victory Draws Quick Reactions From IP Tech Communities, (2 November 2008) IP Watch <http://www.ip-watch.org/2008/11/05/obama-victory-draws-quick-reactions-from-ip-tech-communities/>; Liza Porteus and William New, Who Will Advise Obama on IP? Let The Name Games Begin, (6 November 2008) IP Watch <http://www.ip-watch.org/2008/11/06/who-will-advise-obama-let-the-names-begin/>.
40.
Jordan has also signed an FTA with Canada. See Jordan Canada Free Trade Agreement, signed on 28 June 2009, (entered into force 24 March 2010), SICE the OAS Foreign Trade Information System (SICE) <http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/CAN_JOR/Text_CAN_JOR_e/index_e.asp>.
41.
The first two Arab countries that signed an AA agreement with the EU were Tunsia (Decision 98/238/EC, entered into force on 1 March 1998) and Morocco (Decision 2000/204/EC entered into force on 1 March 2000). See Europa, Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement <http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/external_relations/relations_with_third_countries/mediterranean_partner_countries/r14104_en.htm>.
42.
The other three Arab countries that singed an AA with the EU after Jordan were Egypt (Decision 2004/635/EC, entered into force on 1 June 2004), Algeria (Decision 2005, 690/EC, entered into force on 1 September 2005), and Lebanon (2006/356/E.C, entered into force on 1 April 2006). Ibid.
43.
The first co-operation Agreement between Jordan and the EC was signed on 18 August 1977. See the Jordanian Ministry of Industry and Trade, Summary of the Provisions of the Jordan–EU Association Agreement <http://www.mit.gov.jo/portals/0/JORDAN%20AND%20THE.pdf>; Marwan A. Kardoosh, Jordan–EU Association Agreement: Passport to Export Prosperity or Open Cheque Book, Jordan Centre for Public Policy Research and Dalogue <http://www.jcpprd.org/Files/ResearchDatabase/Jordan-EU%20Association%20Agreement_1.pdf>.
44.
Europa, Jordan, <http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/bilateral/countries/jordan/index_en.htm>.
45.
The European Neighbourhood Policy (Press Release, RAPID 09/186, 23 April 2009) <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/186&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>.
46.
Jordan–EU Association Agreement (JEUAA), signed on November 1997 (entered into force on May 2002) EUR-Lex <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:129:0003:0165:EN:PDF>.
47.
Jordan has not been a signatory to the Rome Convention of 1961.
48.
JEUAA, Annex VII, above n 46.
49.
Compare art 4 of the JUSFTA with art 56 of the AA. See JEUAA, above n 46.
50.
EU/Jordan Action Plan, European Commission <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/march/tradoc_127735.pdf>. See also Abdel Latif, above n 30.
51.
ITU, Internet for the Arab World <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/papers/egypt2000/15-e.pdf>.
52.
Dubai Internet City <http://www.dubaiinternetcity.com/>.
53.
Dubai Media City <http://www.dubaimediacity.com/>.
54.
Jordan Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies (MICT) <http://www.moict.gov.jo/moict/en_index.aspx>.
55.
Jean-Eric Aubert, Promoting Innovation in Developing Countries, a Conceptual Framework (2004) World Bank Institute <http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/137729/0-3097AubertPaper%5B1%5D.pdf>.
56.
Triki Abdelhamid, Knowledge Based Economy in Tunisia Investment Tunisia <http://www.investintunisia.tn/document/295.pdf>.
57.
Aubert, above n 55.
58.
The list of countries include, in addition to the Arab countries, Israel and Iran; see Internet World States, Internet Usage Statistics <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>.
59.
Ibid.
60.
AME Info, DSL Forum Acclaim Middle East and Africa Broadband Growing Faster than any Region in the World <http://www.ameinfo.com/116548.html>. It is interesting to note that Facebook is among the most visited websites in the Middle East and North Africa, with nearly 2.5 million users (2009). See Wael Gouneim, Google Middle East, ‘Internet Use in the Middle East and North Africa’ (A presentation to Open Content Arabic Workshop, Abdul-Aziz City for Science & Technology (KACST), Riyadh (17-18 January, 2009).
61.
The Initiative for an Open Arab Internet (IOAI), Implacable Adversaries: Arab Government and the Internet (2006) <http://old.openarab.net/en/node/346>; Marc Lynch, Blogging the New Arab Public, IOAI (2007) Arab Media Society <http://www.arabmediasociety.org/articles/downloads/20070312155027_AMS1_Marc_Lynch.pdf>; Bruce Etling et al., Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent, (2009) Berkman Centre for Internet and Society <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf>.
62.
IOAI, above n 61.
63.
Open Net Initiative, Middle East and North Africa Regions (2006-2007) Open Net <http://opennet.net/research/regions/mena>; Rasha A. Abdullah, The Internet in the Arab world- Egypt and Beyond (Peter Lang, 2007) 33-39.
64.
Youtube <http://www.youtube.com>.
65.
Myspace <http://www.myspace.com>.
66.
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com>.
67.
Flickr <http://www.flickr.com>.
68.
Twitter <http://www.twitter.com>.
69.
Wikipedia <http://www.wiipedia.org>.
70.
The 22 Arab countries are Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Yemen.
71.
Morocco remained largely independent of the Othman Turkish Empire; see Anahita Bint Abd Al-Karim Al-Hakim Al-Fassi, A Taste of Maghribi History, Dar Anahita <http://home.earthlink.net/~lilinah/Library/HistoryMaroc.html#osman>.
72.
See Nowaf Kanan, Jordanian Copyright Law 44-45 (4th ed, Dar Althaqafa, 2004) (2000) 44-45.
73.
Palestinian copyright laws go back to the Othman Empire (1299–1923) and the British mandate for Palestine (1920–1946). The laws that are applicable are the Law of Copyright and Authorship No. 46 of 1911 (Palestine) and the Law of Copyright and Authorship No. 16 of 1924 (Palestine). See Ihab G. Samaan, A Historical View of Intellectual Property Rights in the Palestinian Territories (1 December 2003) (unpublished L.L.M. thesis, University of Georgia) <http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=stu_llm>.
74.
Somalia does not currently have an IP system. It has been a member of WIPO since 1982 and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO). See Somalia, WIPO <http://www.wipo.int>.
75.
Copyright Law of March 11, 1957 on Literary and Artistic Property (Comoros). See Comoros, WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=8839>.
76.
The Coalition Provisional Authority has amended the Copyright Law No. 3 of 1971 for the Protection of Copyright (Iraq). See Abu Ghazaleh Intellectual Property < http://www.agip.com>.
77.
Protection of Copyright (Law No. 9/1968) (Libya). See Libya, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=10149>.
78.
Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (Law No. 75/1999) (Lebnon). See Lebanon, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=2786>.
79.
Copyright Law of Syria (Law No. 12/2001) (Syria). See Syrian Arab Republic, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=6648>.
80.
Literary and Artistic Property (Law No. 94-36/1994) (Tunis.). See Tunisia, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=3840>.
81.
Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Law No. 7/2002) (Qatar). See Qatar, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=3567>.
82.
Copyright Law issued by Royal Decree No. M/41, 2 Rajab, 1424 (30.08.2003) (Saudi Arabia). See Saudi Arabia, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129516>.
83.
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Order Act No. 03-05/2003) (Algeria). See Algeria, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=1194>.
84.
Law No. 82 of 2002 (Law on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights), Al-Jarida Al-Rasmiyya, 3 June 2002, (Egypt) <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126540>. See Egypt, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=7296>. It is a comprehensive IP law that deals with patents, utility models, integrated circuits, confidential information, trademarks, geographical indications, and copyright. See Bassem Awad, Moatasem El-Gheriani and Perihan Abou Zeid, Egypt Country Report on A2K (Country Report: Egypt) <http://www.aca2k.org/attachments/154_ACA2K%20EGYPT%202009%20CR%20WEB-011209.pdf>. The law repealed the Copyright Law No. 354 of 1954, as amended, and introduced new sections on copyright and neighbouring rights. Book 3 of the law consists of 50 articles that deal with copyright (articles 138–88). The Egyptian Prime Minster issued later an implementation Decree No. 497 of 2005 for the law that was effective on 29 March 2005. Egypt has been a member of the WIPO since 21 April 1975, the Berne Convention since 7 June 1977, the WTO since 30 June 1995, but it is not yet a member of the WCT and WPPT. See Egypt, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=EG#a6>.
85.
A new IP Law was passed in Djibouti, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 27 January 27 2009. It repealed the Law No. 114/AN/96/36 for the Protection of Author’s Rights. See New IP Law in Djibouti, Afro-IP, (4 February 2009) <http://afro-ip.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-ip-law-in-djibouti.html>.
86.
Code of Commerce (Law No. 2000/05) (Mauritania). See Mauritania, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=7477>.
87.
Concerning Intellectual Property Rights (Decree No. 64/1999) (Kuwait). See Kuwait, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=2784>.
88.
Copyright Law and Neighbouring Rights Protection Act (No. 54/1996) (Sudan). See Sudan, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=3605>.
89.
The Unified Intellectual Property Rights Law No. 19 of 1994 (Yemen) was waiting an implementing regulation to be issued, but this did not happen.
90.
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Federal Law No. 7/2002) (UAE). See UAE, WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=7>.
91.
Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended (Copyright Law), Official Gazette No. 3821, 16 April 1992 (Jordan).
92.
Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (No. 22/2006) (Bahrain). See Bahrain, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=7311>.
93.
The Copyright and Related Rights Amending and Supplementing Law No. 2‐00 (Law No. 34‐05/2006) (Morocco). It came into force after the signature of the Morocco FTA with the US. See Moroco, WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=181342>.
94.
Promulgating the Law of Copyright (Royal Decree No. 65/2008) (Oman). See Oman, WIPO, <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5832>.
95.
These include Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Djibouti, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritania, Qatar, and Oman.
96.
These include Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the UAE, Morocco, Libya, Comoros, Yemen, and Djibouti.
97.
These include Algeria, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syrian Arab Republic, and the UAE.
98.
See WIPO, WIPO-Administered Treaties <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/>.
99.
See Eva Steiner, French Law-A Comparative Approach, part 1 (Oxford 2010).
100.
Except Sudan, which follows a legal system based on the English common law in addition to Islamic laws. Gaza also has some limited adoption of the common law but not the West Bank, which partially follows the civil law; this situation is due to historical reasons. See also Abdelsalam Hassan, History of Law Reform in Sudan (February 2008) Redress <http://www.redress.org/downloads/country-reports/HISTORY%20LAW%20REFORM%20FINALFeb08.pdf>. See, for more information on the legal systems in the Middle East, Chibli Mallat, Introduction to Middle Eastern Law (Oxford University, 2007) ch 1,7.
101.
See, generally, the following research in Arabic: Faisel Al Kandry, ‘Civil Protection of Computer Software in Kuwaiti Law’ (a paper presented at the Computer and Law Conference, Emirates University, Dubai, 1-3 May 2000); Mustafa Arjawi, ‘Civil Protection for Computer Software’ (a paper presented at the Computer and Law Conference, Emirates University, Dubai, 1-3 May 2000); Nazeh AL Mahdi, ‘Civil Protection of Computer Software according to Applicable Laws’ (a paper presented at the Computer and Law Conference, Emirates University, Dubai, 1-3 May 2000); Ahmad Saman, ‘Legal Protection of Computer Software – Applications in Comparative Laws and in the Gulf States’ (a paper presented at Kuwaiti Conference on Law and Computers, Kuwait, 4-7 November 1989); Dala Essa Wasna, Protection of Copyright on the Internet (Sader, 2002); Nouri Hamad Khater, Explanation of Intellectual Property Rules—Author’s Rights and Neighbouring Rights (Emirates University, 2008); Naeam Imgabgab, Protection of Computer Software: A Comparative Study (AL Halabi, 2006); Emad Salamah, Legal Protection of Computer Software and Software Piracy Problem (Dar Wael, 2005); Abd-Al Razaq al Sunhouri, Explanation of the New Civil Code 274-436 (AL Halabi, 3rd ed, 1998); Naeam Imgabgab, Artistic Property and Neighbouring Rights—A Comparative Study (AL Halabi, 2000); Mohamad Housam Loutfi, Legal Protection of Computer Software (Dar Althaqafa, Cairo, 1987); The Arab Organisation for Education, Culture and Science—Copyright in the Arab World in accordance with Arab and International Legislation (1999); Tourki Hamad Saqar, The Protection of Copyright–Theory and Practice (Arab Union Association, 1996); Mohamad Housam Loutfi, Public Performance Right in Musical Work—A Comparative Study Between Egyptian and French law (Egyptian Association for Books, 1987); Edward Eead, Copyright and Neibouring Rights in the Lebanese, Arabic and Foreign Laws (Sader, 2001); Abd al-Rasheed Mamoun and Mohamad Sami Abd Alsadak, Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Dar Al Nahda, 2008).
102.
Among the limited research on the copyright law in Jordan and Arab countries in English, see generally, Fawzi Mulki, Implementing National Copyright Law-a Jordanian Case Study (proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance, 2008) <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1509134&bnc=1> (one of the few articles that investigates the major challenges, including cultural and socio-economic, resulting from the implementation of a national copyright law in a country such as Jordan. The author argues that public education, awareness campaigns, and training programs are essential to the success of such law); Saleh Al-Sharieh, ‘The Purpose of Copyright Protection in Jordan and Canada: A Brief Comparison’ (2008) 2 (2), Intellectual Property Management 97-115 (comparing the copyright law in Jordan with the copyright law in Canada and arguing that the Jordanian law is not balanced and aligned toward the interests of copyright holders and not users; the author does not offer specific suggestions on how to improve the copyright law in the country); Fayad Al Qudah, ‘Legal Protection of Databases; A Study of Jordanian Law’ (2008) 22 Arab Law Quarterly 360-386 (explaining a descriptive study that deals with the legal protection of databases under the copyright law in Jordan and international conventions that Jordan has signed and arguing that the Jordanian protection of databases is in compliance with international standards in the TRIPS Agreement and that there is no further amendments needed to the law). See also David Price, ‘Copyright Protection in Developing States and the Enforcements Dichotomy: The Case of the Arab Gulf States’ (a paper presented at the 5th Asian Law Institute Conference, 22-23 May 2008, Singapore); Nowaf Kanan, Jordanian Copyright Law (Dar Al Thaqafa, 2004). See also Makeen F. Makeen, ‘Moral Rights Protection under Egyptian Author‘s Rights Law’ (2007) 83 (1) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51; Makeen F Makeen, ‘Authorship/Ownership of Copyright works under Egyptian Author‘s Rights’ (2007) 35 (5) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 571; Ramzi Madi, ‘Copyright Issues in Mobile Phone Ringtones in General and in the Light of the Jordanian Copyright Protection Law’ (2012) 3 Computer and Telecommunication Law Review 76-83.
103.
See Housam Dean Al Sageir and Husam al Badrawi, Copyright Law in the Egyptian Copyright Law–An Analytical Study from a Development Perspective (in Arabic) (2008) Bibliotheca Alexandria <http://www.bibalex.org/a2k/attachments/references/reffileabuput55g4kzfh55mzm45feh.pdf> (detailing one of the few studies in Arabic that discusses the importance of copyright from a development perspective and providing a good critique of the Egyptian Intellectual Property Law and suggestions for future improvement of the law).
104.
Mohammad Nasour, ‘Fundamental Facts of the United States–Jordan Free Trade Agreement; Ecommerce, Dispute Resolution, and Beyond’ 27 Fordham International Law Journal 742 <http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1930&context=ilj> (a study that gives an overview of the JUSFTA without further analysis); Bashar H. Malkwai, ‘The Intellectual Property Provisions of the United States—Jordan Free Trade Agreement: Template or not Template’ (2006) 9 Journal of World Intellectual Property 213-229 (outlining the provisions of the JUSFTA in connection with IP and aruging that, in its current format, it does not serve as a good template for other Arab countries that want to also sign a FTA); David Price, ‘The U.S. Bahrain Free Trade Agreement and Intellectual Property Protection in the Global IPRs Regime’ (2004) 7 (6) Journal of World Intellectual Property 829 (the author argues that Bahrain‘s FTA will impact significantly on the other Gulf states by establishing the new regional benchmark for IP to which other states will be pressured to accede); Mohammed El Said, ‘The European TRIPS-Plus Model and the Arab World: From Co-operation to Association- A New Era’ (2007) 28 (1) Liverpool Law Review 143-174; Paul G. Johnson, ‘Shoring U.S. National Security and Encouraging Economic Reform in the Middle East: Advocating Free Trade with Egypt’ (2006) 15 Minnesota Journal of International Journal 457; Peter Drahos, ‘Bits and Bibs: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property’ (2001) 4 Journal of World Intellectual Property 791-808 (arguing that Jordan’s FTA contains several TRIPS-Plus provisions that are ‘more extensive protection’ than is conferred by TRIPS); Ahmed Y. Zohny, ‘The Egyptian Free Trade Agreement, Challenges and Prospects’ (2001) 16 Arab Law Quarterly 106-132.
105.
Hamed EL Said and Mohammed El Said, ‘TRIPS-Plus Implications for Access to Medicine in Developing Countries: Lessons from Jordan- United States Free Trade Agreement’ (2007) 10 Journal of World Intellectual Property 438-475 (contending that, based on pure interviews, the USJFTA was not useful for the development of the Jordanian pharmaceutical sector).
106.
Mohammed El–Said, ‘The Road from TRIPS-Minus, to TRIPS-Plus: Implications of IPRs for the Arab world’ (2005) 8 Journal of World Intellectual Property 53-65 (examining how Jordan, Bahrain, and Morocco, in less that a decade, moved from TRIPS-Minus to TRIPS-Plus and how that might restrain their ability to implement their agreements and limit their negotiation power multilaterally); Mohammed El Said, The Development of Intellectual Property Protection in the Arab World (Edwin Mellen Pres, 2008); David Price, The Development of Intellectual Property Regimes in the Arabian Gulf States:Infidels at the Gates (Routledge, 2009).
107.
Valentina M. Donini, Bridging The Gap: Privatization Policy, Internet and E-commerce in Jordan (2006) European University Institute <http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/6317/1/RSCAS_2006_37.pdf<http://cadmus.iue.it/dspace/bitstream/1814/6317/1/RSCAS_2006_37.pdf> (stating the Jordanian e-transaction law and comparing it to other similar laws in the U.A.E and Tunisia; there is no mention of the importance of copyright laws to developments of Jordan and the Arab world); Soumitra Dutta and Mazen E. Coury, ICT in the Arab World (February 2003) The World Economic Forum <http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/GITR_2002_2003/Arab_World.pdf>; Virginia La Torre Jeker et al., ‘E-Transaction Law and Online Dispute Resolution: A Necessity in the Middle East’ (2006) 20 Arab Law Quarterly 43-67; Toni Essa, ‘Legal Regulation of the Internet’ (Sader, 2001); Mahmoud Al-Kandri, ‘Infringements of Copyright and Trademarks in Electronic Commerce: A Kuwaiti and Comparative Approach’ (2002) 17 Arab Law Quarterly 3 (2002) 3-27; Marwan Ibraheem & Hisaham Tahat, Paper, 21st BILETA Conference: Globalisation and Harmonization in Technology Law at the University of Malta: ‘Regulating Electronic Contracts in Jordan’ (April 2006) SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1498320>; Rami Olwan, ‘Contracting and Proving Contracts in Cyberspace’ (2002) (in Arabic) 26 Kuwait Law Journal 229-288; Rami Olwan, ‘Conflicts Over Domain Names’ (in Arabic) (2005) 22 Sharia and Law Journal 239-327; Rami Olwan, Critical Review of the Proposed Palestinian Electronic Commerce Law (in Arabic) (Mas, 2006).
108.
Essam Al Tamimi, ‘Current U.A.E Copyright and how it Compares and Contrast with WTO’s TRIPS Agreement and the Berne Convention’ (1999) 2 Journal of World Intellectual Property 371-391; Eric Garduno and Frank J. Pietrucha, ‘Intellectual Property in the Arab World’, Georgetown (2003) 1 (1) Journal of International Affairs, 57-63 <http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/publications/journal/Issues/ws03/gardunolocked.pdf>; Nouri Khater, Explanation of the Rules of Intellectual Property-Industrial Property—A Comparative Study between the Emarati, Jordanian and Frensh Laws (Emirates University, 2005) (comparing, in Arabic, Emarati, Jordanian, and French laws).
109.
Heba A. Raslan, ‘Shari’a and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, the Example of Egypt’ (2007) 47 IDEA: Intellectual Property Law Review 497; Muhammad Amanullah, ‘Author’s Copyright: An Islamic Perspective’ (2006) 9 (3) Journal of World Intellectual Property 301-315 (analyzing how Muslims view copyright according to divergent Islamic jurisprudence schools) 301-315; Ali Khan, ‘Islam as Intellectual Property-My Lord! Increase me in Knowledge’ (2001) 31 Cumberland Law Review 361 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=936291>; Steven D. Jamar, ‘The Protection of Intellectual Property under Islamic Law’ (1992) 21 Capital University Law Review 1079 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1148735>; Richard E. Vaughan, ‘Defining Terms in the Intellectual Property Protection Debate: Are the North and South arguing past enough other when we say Property? A Property Lockean, Confusion, and Islamic Comparison’ (1996) 2 Journal of International and Comparative Law 307; Amir H. Khoury, ‘Ancient and Islamic Sources of Intellectual Property Protection in the Middle East: A Focus on Trademarks’ (2003) 43 IDEA: Intellectual Property Law Review 151; Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi, ‘The Philosophy of Intellectual Property Rights over Ideas in Cyberspace: A Comparative Analysis between the Western Jurisprudence and the Shari’a’ (2004) 19 Arab Law Quarterly 191-207; Jonathan A Claypod, ‘Islamic Law and Modern Patent Law’ (2007) 14 CASRIP’s Newsletter <http://www.law.washington.edu/Casrip/Newsletter/default.aspx?year=2007&article=newsv14i2Claypool>; Sajjad Chowdhry, Intellectual Property in Islam (6 March 2006) Dinar Standard <http://dinarstandard.com/leadership/intellectual-property-rights-in-islam/>; Noera Ayaz, Intellectual Property Gaining Protection in the Muslim World 2 (March 2006) Science Development Network <http://www.sciencedev.net/fe/Article.aspx?Aid=592>; Naser M. Muhaisen, ‘Intellectual Property: An Islamic Perspective’ (2009) 56 (2-3) Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 571-587.
110.
Najib Harabi, Copyright-based Industries in Arab Countries (University of Applied Science, Paper No. 5181, 2004), <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5181/> (outlining empirically the economic performance of four key copyright-based industries in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan).
111.
Najib Harabi, Performance of Arabic Book Translation: Industry in selected Arab Countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Syria (University of Applied Science, Paper No. 4385, 2007) <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4385/1/MPRA_paper_4385.pdf>.
112.
Ahmead F. Ghoneim, Intellectual Property in Arab Countries: SMEs as Copyright Owners and/or Copyright Users (2003) WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_ip_mow_02/wipo_ip_mow_02_12.pdf>.
113.
Samir N Hamade, The Legal and Political Aspects of Software Piracy in the Arab World (2006) IEEE xplore <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01611583> (a general study with no analysis of the situation of piracy in the Arab world. The author argues that there is a need for stronger copyright laws and enforcement based primarily on political preferences); Bassam Al Talhouni, ‘New Tougher Copyright Legislation’, (1996) 18 (10) European Intellectual Property Law Review 302-303.
114.
See Amir H. Khoury, ‘The Development of Modern Trademark Legislation and Protection in Arab Countries of the Middle East’ (2003) 16 Transnational Lawyer Review 249; Fayad Alqudah, ‘Protection of Well-Known Trademarks under Jordanian Law’, IP Forum (2009) 76.
115.
See Rosa Castro Bernieri, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and Access to Medicines: The Case of Latin America’ (2006) 9 (5) Journal of World Intellectual Property 548–572.
116.
David Lea, ‘The Expansion and Restructuring of Intellectual Property and its Implication for the Developing World’ (2008) 11 (1) Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 37-60.
117.
Tshimanga Kongolo, ‘Compulsory License Issues in African Countries’ (2004) 7 (2) Journal of World Intellectual Property 185–199; Sandra Bartelt, ‘Compulsory Licensing Pursuant to TRIPS Article 31 in the Light of the Doha Deceleration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ (2003) 6 (2) Journal of World Intellectual Property 283-310.
118.
Tana Pistorius, ‘Developing Countries and Copyright in the Information Age—The Functional Equivalent Implementation of the WCT’ (2006) 9 (2) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad < http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2006/11.html >; Symposium Review: Locking up the Bridge on the Digital Divide—A Consideration of the Global Impact of the U.S Anti-Circumvention Measures for the Participation of Developing Countries in the Digital Economy, (2004) 20 Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Review 941 (arguing that technological measures may not be helpful for developing countries to realise the full potential of digital technologies and Internet networks); Peter Drahos, ‘Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard Setting’ (2002) 5 (5) Journal of World Intellectual Property 765 (contending that IP standards settings have been dominated predominately by the West (US and EU), and hence developing countries can expect very few concessions on IP issues in either bilateral or multilateral agreements, and they should look for self-helps); Clemente Forero-Pineda, ‘The Impact of Stronger Intellectual Property Rights on Science and Technology in Developing Countries’ (2006) 35 (6) Research Policy 808-824 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733306000631> (argues that stronger protection of IP has extended from developed countries, affecting pharmaceutics, biodiversity, and ethnic knowledge); John Feather, ‘Copyright in Developing Countries: Necessity or Luxury?’ (1993) 25 International Information and Library Review 15-25 (arguing that copyright is necessary for developing countries and is not regarded as luxury); Weerawit Weeraworawit, ‘Why do Developing Countries Fail to Use IP as a Tool for Development?’ (a paper presented at the 5th Annual Asian IP Law and Policy Day, New York, US, 26 March, 2008) ; E.S Nwauche, Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright and Development Policy in a Developing Country: Options for Sub Saharan African Countries (a paper presented at Copyright Workshop for Zimbabwe International Book Fair, Zimbabwe, 30 July, 2003); Peter Drahos, ‘Bits and Bibs: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property’ (2001) 4 (6) Journal of World Intellectual Property 803; Christophe Antons, ‘Copyright Law Reform and Information Society in Indonesia’ in Brian Fitzgerald (ed), Digital Content and the Internet in Asia-Pacific (Sydney University, 2008) <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/13632/1/13632.pdf>.
119.
Before the 1992 amendments to the copyright law in Jordan, the Othman Copyright Law of 1906 (Turkey) was applicable in Arab countries, including Jordan.
120.
Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended (Copyright Law), Official Gazette No. 3821, 16 April 1992 (Jordan), see also Amendments to the Copyright Law No. 14 of 1998, Official Gazette No. 4304, 1 October 1998, Amendments to the Copyright Law No. 29 of 1999, Official Gazette No. 4383, 2 October 1999, Amendments to the Copyright Law No. 78 of 2003, Official Gazette No. 4606, 16 June 2003, Amendments to the Copyright Law No. 88 of 2003, Official Gazette No. 4634, 1 December 2003, Amendment to the Copyright Law No. 8 of 2005, Official Gazette No. 4702, 31 March 2005.
121.
See art 8 of the Copyright Law in Jordan.
122.
See art 9 of the Copyright Law in Jordan in relation to moral rights, which is based on the ‘author’s rights system’ and not on the ‘copyright system’.
123.
For further explanation of the difference between ‘droit d’auteur system’ and the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American ‘copyright system’, see Silke Von Lewinski, International Copyright Law and Policy (Oxford University, 2008) 33-63; SM Stewart, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (2nd ed, Butterworths, 1989) ch 14; Elizabeth Adeney, The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers (Oxford University, 2006) ch 8.
124.
Lewinski, above n 123, 38.
125.
Ibid 43.
126.
Article 3 (B)(8) of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
127.
Article 9(A) of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
128.
Article 54 of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
129.
RMI is ‘a technology such as digital watermarks that includes details about the copyright owners and terms and conditions of use of the copyright materials’. See Attorney General’s Department, Australian Government, Fact Sheet: US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 2004 (2005) <http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Publications_Electronicrightsmanagement-Factsheet-March2005> (follow the link under ‘Downloads’).
130.
Article 55 of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
131.
TPMs are ‘technical locks that copyright owners use to stop their copyright material from being copied or accessed’ (e.g., passwords, encryption software and access codes).’ Copyright Amendment (Technological Protection Measures) Bill 2006 and related Regulations—Exposure Drafts, Australian Government <http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/CopyrightAmendment(TechnologicalProtectionMeasures)Bill2006andrelatedRegulationsExposureDrafts.aspx>. The EU Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC in chapter III defines TPMs as:

[A]ny technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject- matter, which are not authorized by the right holder of any of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided by law or the sui generis right.

See Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (‘Information Society Directive’) [2001] OJ L167, 10. See also Ian Brown, ‘The Evolution of Anti- Circumvention Law’ (2006) (2) (3) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 239-260 <http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/3879/1/3879.pdf>.
132.
Article 23 A(2) of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
133.
Article 23 (C)(1) of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended.
134.
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Special 301 Report on Jordan (2008) <http://www.iipa.com/2008_SPEC301_TOC.htm>.
135.
Ibid.
136.
Dispute Settlement: Jordan, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Special 301 Report on Jordan (2007) <http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2007/2007SPEC301JORDAN.pdf>.
137.
Jordan, International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Special 301 Report on Jordan (2009) 385–88 <http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301JORDAN.pdf>.
138.
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Special 301 Report (2010) <http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1906>; International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), Special 301 Report (2011) <http://www.iipa.com/2011_SPEC301_TOC.htm>.
139.
The list of copyright subject matter is non-conclusive, and this evidenced by the wording of art 3(B), which provides that ‘protection shall encompass works which are expressed in writing, sound, drawing, photography or movement and in particular’. Copyright Law, below n 141, art 3(B) (Jordan) (as amended); see also Ibid, art 7(D) (expression of folklore); Ibid, art 3(D) (compilation of works); Ibid, art 3(D) (encyclopedias). See also art 7(D) (expression of folklore), art 3(D) (compilation of works) and art 3(D) (encyclopaedias) of the Copyright Law in Jordan.
140.
The Copyright Law also provides for the protection of rights related to performances (art 23(A)), broadcasts and televisions (art 23(B)), and sound recordings (art 23(D)). These were some of the latest amendments that were made to the law. Ibid, art 23(A)–(B).
141.
Article 7(A) of the Copyright Law in Jordan provides as follows:

Protection shall not include:

1. Official documents, whatever the source or target language thereto, including legal text, regulations, decisions, international agreements judicial rulings, arbitral awards, and judgments issued by administrative committees of judicial competence.

Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, as amended (Copyright Law), Official Gazette No. 3821, 16 April 1992 (Jordan).
142.
See art 34 of the Copyright Law in Jordan, which contains a specific provision on public domain. See Ibid, art 34.
143.
The, US Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, defines government works as follows:

A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is ‘a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person’s official duties.’ The term only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as noncopyright. Section 105 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, as amended provides that:

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

Copyright Act of 1976, § 101, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 101).
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC §101 (1976). The term only applies to the work of the federal government, not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under US law, sometimes referred to as non-copyright. Section 105 provides that:

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise

Ibid § 105; see also Anne Fitzgerald (ed), Open Access Polices, Practices and Licensing: a Review of the Literature in Australia and Selected Jurisdictions, European Public Sector Information Platform Topic Report No. 13-State of Play: PSI Reuse in Australia (2010) <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/33206/>.
144.
The Jordanian State Secrets and Documents Law authorises public officials to protect from public disclosure broad categories of information that they designate as state secrets and impose criminal liability on any person who violated its provision under the law. State secrets and documents are categorised as strictly confidential, confidential, and restricted. These official documents must be protected from tampering or any loss, and the contents of which may not be disclosed to anyone other than competent parties, unless otherwise authorised. See State Secrets and Documents Law No. 150 of 1971, Official Gazette of Jordan, No. 2315 (1 August 1971). See also Jordan Media, USAID, An Introduction to News Media Law and Policy 45–46 (Douglas Griffin & Libby Morgan (eds), 2009) <http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/docs/jordanwebpage/JMSPprimer_eng.pdf>.
145.
Article 23 of the Copyright Law in Jordan outlines the economic or financial rights of copyright owners of related rights (performers, broadcast, television organisations, and producers of sound recordings). Copyright Law, above n 141, art 23.
146.
Compare the Copyright Law in Jordan with the French Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle [C.P.I] (French Intellectual Property Code No. 92-597 of 1 July 1992 as amended) L121-129 <http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/cpialtext.htm>.
147.
Section 195AM of the Australian Copyright Act, 1968 provides that:

(1) An author’s right of integrity of authorship in respect of a cinematograph film continues in force until the author dies. (2) An author's right of integrity of authorship in respect of a work other than a cinematograph film continues in force until copyright ceases to subsist in the work. (3) An author’s moral rights (other than the right of integrity of authorship) in respect of a work continue in force until copyright ceases to subsist in the work.

See the Australian Copyright Act, 1968, S. 195 AM, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/>.
148.
Article 20 of the Chinese Copyright Law, as amended, provides that ‘[t]he rights of authorship, alteration and integrity of an author shall be unlimited in time’. (中华人民共和国著作权法) [Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China of 1990] (promulgated by the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress, 7 September 1990, art 20 (as amended) <http://www.chinaiprlaw.com/english/laws/laws10.htm>.
149.
See French Intellectual Property Code, below n 152.
150.
Brian Fitzgerald and Rami Olwan, ‘Copyright in the UAE in the Digital Age’ (2010) 32 (11)
European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR) 565, 566.
151.
In Mahkamat al-Tamiex [Taimez] [Court of Cassation-Civil Division], case No. 2648/2003, 11 November 2001, the Court mentioned clearly that according to arts 3, 8, and 9 of the Copyright Law in Jordan, moral rights are personal rights protected after the death of the author. Transfer of economic rights will allow the author to object to any derogatory treatment or any other amendment on his work or abuse that causes damage to his honour and reputation. The latest draft of the copyright law of Jordan of 2010 provides clearly in art 7 that moral rights are unlimited and inalienable.
152.
Article L121-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that an ‘author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work’ and that this right ‘shall attach to his person’, ‘shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible’, and ‘may be transmitted to mortis causa to the heirs of the author’. French Intellectual Property Code, above n 146, L121-1.
153.
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention provides that:
1. (1)
  Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
2. (2)
  The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons or institutions authorized by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed. However, those countries whose legislation, at the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Act, does not provide for the protection after the death of the author of all the rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these rights may, after his death, cease to be maintained.
3. (3)
  The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted by this Article shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, opened for signature 9
September 1886, S. Treaty Document No. 99-27 (1986) (as amended) (Berne Convention), art 4bis, art 9 <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html>. Article 9 of the Berne Convention provides that:
1. (1)
  Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.
2. (2)
  It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.
3. (3)
  Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.
Ibid art 9.
154.
Copyright Law, above n 141, art 4. See Amendments to the Copyright Law No. 8 of 2005, Official Gazette, No. 4702, 31 March 2005).
155.
According to art 5 of the Copyright Law in Jordan, as amended, the following persons shall also qualify as authors of works:

A person who translates the work into another language, converts it from one form of the forms of literature, arts or sciences into another form, summarizes it, alters it, amends it, illustrates it, comments on it, catalogues it or performs any other action which makes the work appear appears in a new form;

The performer which conveys to the public the work of others whether or not this performance was by singing, playing a musical instrument, rhythm, recital, photography, drawing, movement, steps or any other method; and

Authors of encyclopaedias, collections, compiled data and compilations, which are granted protections by virtue of this law.

Copyright Law, above n 141, art 5(A)–(C).
156.
Joint authorship occurs under art 35(A) of the Copyright Law in Jordan when:

More than one person contributed to making a single work such that the share contributed by each cannot be separated, they shall be considered as owners of the work with each having an equal share unless they agree to do something different. None of them shall, in this case, exercise the copyrights with respect to this work without the consent of all the authors.

Ibid art 35(A).
157.
Article 28 of the Copyright Law in Jordan provides that:

The author may dispose of any of his rights with respect to the work on the basis of sharing with others in a percentage of the revenues or profits resulting from the financial exploitation of the work by the others. A precondition is that the author shall have the right to obtain an additional share of the said revenues or proceeds, if it is established that the agreement concerning the exploitation of his work was not fair to his interests, or became so for condition and circumstances which were not known at the date of the contracting or which took place afterwards.

Ibid art 28.
158.
For a performer or producer of phonograms, copyright will last for 50 years from the end of the year where the fixation was made or the performance took place (art 23(E)); for a broadcast organisation, copyright in a broadcast will last for 20 years from the end of the year when the broadcast took place (art 23(E)); and for applied works, copyright will last for 25 years starting from an arbitrary date for the archiving of the work (being the first of January in the calendar year in which the work was actually archived (art 32). Ibid arts 23(E), 32; see also Berne Convention, above n 153, art 7 (1); TRIPS, above n 25, art 9 (1).
159.
Edward J. Ellis, ‘National Treatment under the Berne Convention and the Doctrine of Forum Non Convenient’ (1996) 36 (1) IDEA: Intellectual Property Law Review 327-344.
Article 5 of the Berne Convention provides that:

Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this convention, in countries of the union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as the rights especially granted by this Convention.

Berne Convention, above n 153, art 5.
160.
Article 56 of the Copyright Law in Jordan provides that:
1. A.
  The provisions of this law shall apply to the works of Jordanians and foreigners which are published or not published and which are expressed by any of the means stipulated in paragraph (B) of article 3 inside the Kingdom as well as the works of Jordanians which are published or not published and which are expressed by any of the means stipulated in paragraph (B) of article 3 outside the Kingdom.
2. B.
  Taking into consideration the provisions of the international agreements concerning copyright and in case of their non-applicability, the principle of reciprocity shall be applied. The provisions of this law shall apply to the works of foreign authors which are published or not published and which are expressed by any of the means stipulated in paragraph (B) of article 3 of this law outside the Kingdom.
3. C.
  For the purposes of the application of this law, the authors who have regular residence in one of member countries in the international agreements dealing with copyright, which Jordan has acceded to, without being citizen of that country shall be treated as citizen of the Kingdom. This article shall also apply to the holders of the rights stipulated in article 23 of this law.
See Copyright Law, above n 141, art 56(A)–(C). Compare ibid with United Arab Emirates Federal Law No. 7 of 2002 Pertaining to Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, as amended, with art 44 (‘Without prejudice to the provisions of International conventions applicable in the State; if disputes arise in respect of the laws, provisions of the law herein shall apply to the works, performances, phonograms and broadcasts made by foreigners, provided that the principle of reciprocity is applied.’).
161.
On ‘national treatment’, see Adrian Sterling, World Copyright Law (Sweet and Maxwell, 2003) 151, 605. On the role of ‘material reciprocity’ under the Berne Convention, see Lewinski, above n 123, 100-101; 112-113; Fitzgerald and Olwan, above n 150, 567-568.
162.
Fitzgerald and Olwan, above n 150.
163.
Amended by the latest amendments to the law.
164.
Article 6 of the Copyright Law in Jordan provides as follows:
1. A.
  If the work was innovated for the account of another person, the copyright shall revert to the innovated author unless there is a written agreement stipulating otherwise.
2. B.
  In spite of the inclusions of paragraph (A) of this article and in any other Law, if an employee created during his employment a work related to the activities or business of the employer, or uses the experiences, information, instruments or articles of the employer under the employee’s own disposal in his attempt to create such work, the copyrights shall be to the benefit of the employer, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing.
3. C.
  The Intellectual property rights shall be to the benefit of the employee, if the intellectual property right created by the same is not related to the business of the employer, and the employee does not use the experiences, information, instruments, or raw materials of the employer in his attempt to conduct such creation, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing.
Copyright Law, above n 141, art 6(A)–(C).
165.
See Teresa Hackett, Exceptions and Limitations in Copyright Vital for South Countries, (3 November 2008) Third World Network <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/intellectual_property/info.service/2008/twn.ipr.info.081102.htm>; Fernando dos Santos, Julieta Nhana and Filipe Sitoi, ACA2K, Country Report: Mozambique (2009) <http://www.aca2k.org/attachments/154_Mozambique_ACA2K_Country_Report.pdf>; Consumers International, Copyright and Access to Knowledge, Policy Recommendations on Flexibilities in Copyright Laws (2006) Soros Foundation <http://www.consumersinternational.org/media/303356/copyright%20and%20access%20to%20knowledge%20-%20full%20report%20(pdf).pdf>.
166.
Hackett, above n 165.
167.
Examples of the first kind include the reproduction of public speeches, the right to make quotations, reporting current events, parody, and reproduction for private non-commercial use. See Ibid. Examples of the second kind include press reviews, ephemeral recordings by broadcasting organisations, museum catalogues, and de-compilation/reverse engineering of computer programmes for interoperability. See Ibid. Examples of the third kind include provisions for libraries, educators for teaching and research, people with disabilities, reporting of parliamentary and judicial proceedings, and religious celebrations. See Ibid.
168.
See Lewinski above n 123, ch 23, 564; see also TRIPS, above n 25, art 9(1).
169.
Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that:

Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

TRIPS, above n 25, art 13.
170.
Copyright Law, above n 141, art 11(D).
171.
These conditions according to art 11(B) of the Copyright Law in Jordan are as follows:
1. 1.
  The passage of three years since the first publication date of any printed work related to technology, physical sciences, physics, or mathematics or the passage of 7 years since the first publication of poetry, theatrical or musical works, books of art and fiction or the passage of 5 years since the first publication of any other printed works.
2. 2.
  The non-availability of enough copies that have been distributed of the works in the Kingdom as to fulfil the needs of the general public, pre-college education or college education by the holder of the reproduction right or through his authorization at a price commensurate with the prices in the Kingdom of similar works.
3. 3.
  The copies published under this item are sold at a price which is equal or less than the price stipulated in item (2) of this paragraph.
4. 4.
  Upon granting a non-exclusive and a non-assignable licence for reproduction from the Minister of Culture, the author of the work shall deserve a fair compensation determined in accordance with the law.
Ibid art 11(B).
172.
Article 17 of the Copyright Law in Jordan provides as follows:
The published works maybe used, without the consent of the author subject to the following conditions and in the following cases:
1. A.
  Presenting, displaying, reciting, acting or playing musically the work in a private family gathering or in an educational. Cultural or social institution by way of illustration for educational purposes. The musical bands of the State may play musical works provided that in all the foregoing no financial gain is achieved and the source and the name of the author, if available, are mentioned.
2. B.
  Employing the work for private personal usage by making a single copy by reproduction, recording, copyright, translation or musical orchestration, provided that all the foregoing does not interfere with normal exploitation of the work and does not cause unjustified damage to the legitimate interests of the right holder…
Ibid art 17.
173.
According to article 17(C), teachers and vocational trainers should not reproduce publications, programs, audio recordings, and audio–video recordings for profit-making and in all cases must indicate clearly the name of the author and the title of his work. Ibid art 17(C).
174.
Article 17(D) provides that:
The published works maybe used, without the consent of the author subject to the following conditions and in the following cases
1. A)
  Quoting paragraphs of the work into another work for purposes of illustration, explanation, discussion, critique, cultivation, or examination within the limits justified by these purposes and provided that the names of the work and author are mentioned.
Ibid art 17 (D).
175.
Article 7(B) of the Copyright Law in Jordan does not protect published, broadcasted, or publicly conveyed news unless they were distinguished by a personal effort involving innovation and arrangement. Ibid art 7 (B).
176.
Article 20 of the Copyright Law in Jordan provides as follows:

Public libraries, non-commercial documentation centres, educational institutes and scientific and cultural institutions may reproduce any work by photocopying or otherwise and without the consent of the author provided that the number of photocopying and the number of the copies are limited to the needs of these institutions, provided that these actions do not lead to damaging the copyright of the author and do not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work.

Ibid art 20.
177.
There are also private libraries such as Abdul Hameed Shoman in Amman. Library, Abdul Hameed Shoman <http://www.shoman.org/en/content/about-library>.
178.
Article 47 the Copyright Law provides also the following administrative measures: (1) the destruction of the reproductions of the work or the copies made of it that were illegally published, as well as the material used in its publication; (2) the change of the features of the reproductions, the copies, and materials or order that they be made unusable; and (3) the confirmation of the seizure for the settlement of the compensation adjudicated for the author if it is established that the copyright in the work will lapse after two years from the date the ruling become absolute. Copyright Law, above n 141, art 47.
The administrative measures, according to article 47, are not applicable on the following:
1. (B)
  [T]he court shall not order the destruction of the reproductions of any work, the copies made thereof or the change of their features if the dispute is related to the translation of the work into Arabic. The ruling of the court should in this case be limited to confirming the seizure of the work, its reproductions, or the copies made thereof as may be required.
2. (C)
  In no case shall buildings and what they have in or on them of engravings, drawings, ornamentations, or geometrical figures be subject to seizure. Furthermore, no ruling shall order their destruction, the change of their features, or their confiscation for the purpose of safeguarding the architect’s rights whose designs were used in the buildings and whose drawings were put in them illegally. This shall not violate his right in obtaining a fair compensation regarding the foregoing.
Ibid.
179.
The infringing acts are in art 51 of the Copyright Law in Jordan as follows:
1. 1.
  Any person who exercised without a legitimate reason any of the rights stipulated in the Articles (8), (9), (10) and (23) of this law.
2. 2.
  Any person who offers for sale, circulation or rental any limited work, or reproduction thereof, disseminated it to the public in any way, or used it to obtain financial gain or imported it into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan or exported it outside the Kingdom while the knowledge or reasonable grounds to know that it was imitated work.
Ibid art 51(A).
180.
The amount was amended from JD 3,000 (USD 4,230) to JD 6,000 (USD 8,460) in accordance with the Copyright Law in Jordan.
181.
In case of repeat infringers with respect to any of the crimes stipulated, the person who commits it shall be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment and the maximum fine. The court may also issue a ruling for the closure of the establishment in which the crime was committed for a period not exceeding one year or the suspension of its license for a certain period of time or permanently (art 51(B)). Ibid art 51(B).
182.
Santos, Nhana and Sitoi, above n 165.
183.
Mohamed Olwan, The Three Most Important Features of Jordan’s Legal System International Association of Law Schools <http://www.ialsnet.org/meetings/enriching/olwan.pdf>.
184.
See Court Establishment Law No. 17 of 2001 (‘Court Establishment Law’), Official Gazette No. 4480, 18 March 2001 <http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=17&year=2001>.
185.
See Sharia Court Establishment Law No. 19 of 1972, Official Gazette No. 2357, 1 January 1972 <http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=19&year=1972>.
186.
See Municipalities Court Establishment Law No. 35 of 2006, Official Gazette No 4759; 16 May 2006 <http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=35&year=2006>; Militarily Courts Establishment Law No. 23 of 2006, Official Gazette No. 4751, 16 March 2006 <http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=23&year=2006>.
187.
Magistrate Courts hear civil actions where the amount involved does not exceed JD 750 (USD 1060) and criminal matters where the sentence is two years or less. See art 3 of the Magistrate Courts Law No. 15 of 1952 which is still applicable. Magistrate Courts Law No. 15 of 1952, Official Gazette No. 1102, 1 January 1952. <http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=15&year=1952>.
188.
Court of First Instance hear criminal matters that fall outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court and all civil cases not heard in the Magistrate’s Courts and where alleged damages exceed JD 750. See art 4(2) of the Court Establishment Law No. 17 of 2001. See also The Embassy of the United States in Jordan, Jordanian Legal System <http://jordan.usembassy.gov/acs_jordanian_legal_system.html>.
189.
Court of Appeals hears all appeal cases from judgments of the Courts of First Instance and all cases of appeal from the Magistrate’s Court that are not heard by the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals may reconsider determinations of facts, as well as of law; they may therefore decide to rehear a case decided below. See also The Embassy of the United States in Jordan, above n 188.
190.
See the High Court Administrative Court Law No. 12 of 1992, Official Gazette No 3813, 25 March 1992 <http://www.lob.gov.jo/ui/laws/search_no.jsp?no=12&year=1992>. See also the Court Establishment Law, above n 186, art 8.
191.
The Court of Cassation considers appeals of felonies in criminal cases and all judgments exceeding JD 500 in civil cases. Other cases may be accepted for appeal by a special leave granted by the President of the Court.
192.
The Court Establishment Law, art 4(2), The Embassy of the United States in Jordan, above n 188.
193.
Before the issuance of the Copyright Law No. 22 of 1992, Jordanian courts have relied on the decisions issued by the Egyptian and Syrian courts in relation to copyright.
194.
One case that was brought before the Court of Cassation (civil division) dealt with a publishing contract between a Jordanian author and a publisher. The dispute concerned the publisher’s reproduction of some work of the author in another book, which did not reflect the actual work of the author. The Court of Cassation (civil division) held that the publisher had no authorisation to reuse the materials of the book that was the subject of the publishing contract without first obtaining necessary authorisation from the author, and this constituted an infringement action. The Court awarded the plaintiff a sum of JD 5000.00 (USD 7, 052) in damages, plus court and attorney’s fees, in addition to ordering the destruction of all copies of the book that contained the infringing work. The Court of Cassation (Civil Division), Case No 2648/2003, 11 November 2003. See also the following cases:
Case No. 2648/2003, 11 November 2001; Case No 132/2001, 7 November 2001.
- In Case No 804/2005, the Court of First Instance decided that the defendant has infringed the economic and moral rights of the plaintiff when he wrote a book on information systems and copied 58%–60% of its content without the proper acknowledgement that is acceptable to scientific research. The court therefore applied the penalties in art 51 A(1). The Court of First Instance; Case No. 804/2005, 30 October 2005. See also Case No. 65/2006, 14 May 2006 and Case No. 120/96, 12 June 1969.
195.
The High Court of Justice decided that it has no jurisdiction in a copyright case as the case relates to a dispute over the ownership of a work registered at the National Library Department under the provisions of the Copyright Law. It was decided that the Court of Cassation has the jurisdiction to decide any copyright dispute as specified in art 2 of the Copyright Law; the case was therefore dismissed by the High Court of Justice. The Court of Cassation (civil division) further acknowledged that art 38 of the Copyright Law requires the filing of any work published or printed with the Jordanian national library before it is distributed in the country. Accordingly, any work that is sold or distributed before filing is not protected under the Copyright Law. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation decided that there is no order for damages in favour of the author, as prescribed in art 49 of the Copyright Law, and that art 256 of the Civil Code is not applicable as the private law (copyright law) should be applied in this situation and not the public law (civil law). See Case No. 78/1999, 10 November 1999; Case No. 2797/1999, 27 April 2000. See also for similar decisions, Case No. 47/1985, 15 May 1985; Case No. 1987/228, 26 July 1987 and case No. 47/1995, 25 February 1995.
196.
The Court of Cassation (Civil Division) also decided to return a copyright case to the Court of Appeal since that court did not issue a reasoned decision when it decided to dismiss a case without confirming the date of dismissal based on the issuance of a General Pardon Law and the application of art 272(B) of the Civil Law and art 339 of the Criminal Procedure Law, Case No. 3687/2006, 2 April 2007. See also Case No. 47/1995, 25 February 1995.
197.
The Court of Cassation (civil division) decided to revoke the decision of the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the decision of the Judge of expedited matters in refusing to allow a requester of a precautionary measure as all the conditions as prescribed in art 46 of the Copyright Law had been followed. The Court of Cassation, Case No. 2058/2004, 17 October 2004.
- The Amman Court of Appeal decided to return a request to appeal the decision of the Court of First Instance in issuing a precautionary measure as it did not have the authority to issue its decision. The Court revoked the decision of the Court of First Instance based on art 2 and art 46 of the Copyright Law, which does not allow the Judge of precautionary measures to issue a decision related to the subject matter of the case as this is left to the Judge presiding over the case. See the Court of Appeal, Case No. 1313/2000, 18 May 2000.
198.
The Amman Court of Appeal (Criminal division) held that the director of a company who used computer software without obtaining a licence was subject to a criminal liability and was sentenced to three months of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Case No. 2769/2005, 29 September 2005. Article 74(2)(3) of the Jordanian Criminal Law No. 16 of 1960 (old law) makes corporation liable criminally through the acts of its managers and representatives. See also the recent Case No. 13783/2009, 19 March 2009, where the court acquitted the accuser of criminal copyright liability as she was not the manager of the corporation and was only responsible for registering the corporation under her name.
199.
Walter Arthur Copinger et al., Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (Sweet and Maxwell, 5th ed, 2005) 1870.
200.
Lewinski, above n 123.
201.
World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues (2002) (WIPO Survey) <http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/ecommerce/pdf/survey.pdf>.
202.
See in Australia Microsoft Corp v. Blanch (2002) 895 FCA; Microsoft Corp v Business Boost Pty Ltd (2000) 1651 FCA; Anne Fitzgerald and Brian Fitzgerald, Intellectual Property in Principle (Lawbook, 2005) 110; James Lahore and Warwick A Rothnie, Copyright and Design (3rd ed Butterworths, 2004) 1996; Digital Agenda- The Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act, 2000 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caaa2000294/>; Anne Fitzgerald and Dimitrios G. Eliades, Intellectual Property (Lawbook, 3rd ed, 2008) 70-73.
203.
Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald, above n 202, 110.
204.
Article 9(A) of the Copyright Law in Jordan was amended in the Law No. 9 of 2005 after Jordan signed the WCT and the WPPT.
205.
“Temporary” is not defined in the Copyright Law in Jordan and in the Berne Convention, WCT and the WPPT. It implies that a copy will be deleted, destroyed or otherwise disappear within some limited, although not necessarily short time. See also Copinger et al., above n 199, 479.
206.
The Egyptian Intellectual Property Law, in art 170(9), provides as follows:

Without prejudice to the moral rights of the author, pursuant to the provisions of the law herein, the author may not prevent third parties, after the publication of his work, from undertaking any of the following acts:

Temporarily reproducing work subsequent to or during the digital transmission of the work; or during exercising an act aiming at receiving a digitally stored work; and within the framework of normal operation of the device used by the right holder.

Law No. 82 of 2002 (Law on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights), Al-Jarida Al-Rasmiyya, 3 June 2002, art. 171(9) (Egypt) <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126540>.
207.
Article 4(10) of the JUSFTA provides as follows:

Each Party shall provide that all reproductions, whether temporary or permanent, shall be deemed reproductions and subject to the reproduction right as envisaged in the provisions embodied in WCT Article 1(4) and the Agreed Statement thereto, and WPPT Articles 7 and 11 and the Agreed Statement thereto.

JUSFTA, above n 20, art 4, 10.
208.
Suggested Revision to the Chairman’s Basic Proposal for the Treaty Formerly Known as the Berne Protocol, Ad Hoc Alliance for a Digital Future (on file with the author).
209.
See Brian Fitzgerald, ‘Promoting Creativity and Innovation Through Law’ in Leon Mann and Janet Chan, Creativity and Innovation in Business and Beyond’ (Routledge, 2011) 117-131. (providing further explanation on how the law needs to be structured to promote the free ‘flow of information’).
210.
Professor Suhail Hadaden, Intellectual Property Law (2010) (class notes for LLB students at the University of Jordan) (on file with author).
211.
Ibid.
212.
Infopaq Int’l A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08), 2009, FSR 20.
213.
Ibid.
214.
Copinger et al., above n 199, 478.
215.
Emanuella Giavarra and Teresa Hackett, Electronic Info for Libararies, Draft Law on Copyright Including Model Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Consumers (2009) eIFL-IP <http://www.eifl.net/system/files/201101/modellaw_v16.pdf>.
216.
The agreed statement concerning art 8 of the WCT mentions that:

It is understood that the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Treaty or the Berne Convention. It is further understood that nothing in Article 8 precludes a Contracting Party from applying Article 11bis(2).

WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), Geneva, 20 December 1996, entered into force on 6 March 2002. <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P8_189>.
217.
Article 11 of the WPPT provides that:

Performers shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of their performances fixed in phonograms, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’. Art 14 of the WPPT provides that:

Producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of their phonograms, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), Geneva, 20 December 1996, entered into force on 20 May 2002, art 11 <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html>.
Article 14 provides that:

Producers of phonograms shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public of their phonograms, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

Ibid art 14.
218.
Article 8 of the WCT provides as follows:

Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii) and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing (any communication to the public) of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

WIPO Copyright Treaty, above n 216, art 8.
219.
Mihaly Fiscor, The Law of Copyright and the Internet (Sweet and Maxwell, 2002) 496; Copinger et al., above n 199, 438; Press Release, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, The WIPO Treaties: Making Available Right (March 2003) <http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/wipo-treaties-making-available-right.pdf>; Jane C. Ginsburg, ‘The (New?) Right of Making Available to the Public’ (2004) Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers < http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=columbia_pllt>.
220.
See also Sterling, above n 161, 399.
221.
Copyright Law, above n 141, arts 23(A), 23(C)(5), 24 (introduced for the first time in the Jordanian law).
222.
Ibid art 9(F).
223.
The EIFL suggests the following definition of ‘communication to the public’:

Any communication to the public of a work, sound recording, film or broadcast, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of the work, sound recording, films or broadcasts in such a way that members of the public may access the work, sound recording, film or broadcast from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

See Giavarra and Hackett, above n 215, 10.
224.
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down
Culture (The Penguin, 2004); William W. Fisher, Promises to Keep Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment (Stanford University, 2004); Peter Biddle et al., The Darkest and the Future of Content Distributions (18 November 2002) Bearcave < http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htm>. See also Niva Elkin-Koren and Neil Weinstock Netanel, The Commodification of Information (Kluwer, 2002) 79-106; Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Prometheus Books, 2001) 179; Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, From Shakespeare to Dj danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age (2006) SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=909223>; Pamela Samuelson, Preliminary Thoughts in Copyright Reform (2007) SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1002676>.
225.
Professor Peter Yu notes:

It is important to remember that many of these countries institute or revamp their intellectual property systems in the first place mainly because of the TRIPs Agreement or external pressure from the developed world, such as what they currently experience in their bilateral and plurilateral trade negotiations. Oftentimes, they introduce reforms in the fear of losing trade benefits, export markets, and development If they had a choice to select the type of innovation systems they wanted to build, an anticircumvention regime would be very unlikely to be a top priority. After all, economists have shown empirically that countries with limited imitative capacity often do not benefit from a strong intellectual property regime.

Yu, above n 35, 53.
CIPR also criticised DRM provisions for developing countries as follows:

For developing countries, where Internet connectivity is limited and subscriptions to on-line resources unaffordable, it may exclude access to these materials altogether and impose a heavy burden that will delay the participation of those countries in the global knowledge-based society.

Barton et al., above n 1, 106.
226.
Professor Ruth L. Okediji noted that:

To date, fifty-two (52) countries are members of the WCT, of which forty-six percent (46%) are developing countries, ten percent (10%) are least-developed countries and thirty-eight percent (38%) are countries in transition. Only 6% of the members are developed countries. This is not simply a matter of the relative numbers of developing countries; the WCT is not in force in several notable countries such as Canada, Austria, and Germany. Many developing countries have already ratified, or made commitments to ratify, the treaties either as a result of bilateral/regional trade agreements, or by virtue of other economic pressures exerted on them. Nevertheless, it is remarkably ironic that a treaty dealing with digital copyright concerns has a membership comprising mainly of developing countries with limited Internet penetration rates and significant levels of illiteracy and poverty.

See Ruth L. Okediji, Limitations, Exceptions and Public Interest Consideration for Developing Countries, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development Paper No. 15 (2006) UNCTAD <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc200610_en.pdf at 32>. See also the following: Nicola Lucchi, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Digital Media: a Comparative Analysis of Legal Protection, Technological Measures and New Business Models under EU and US Laws’ (2005) 53 (7) Buffalo Law Review 1111; Pamela Samuelson, ‘Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti Circumvention Regulations Need to be Revised’ (1999) 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 519 <www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/dmcapaper.pdf>; Pamela Samuelson and John Browning, ‘Confab Clips Copyright Cartel’, (March 1997) Issue 5.03 Wired Magazine <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.03/netizen.html>; Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) About Anti Circumvention (DMCA), Berkman Center for Interent and Society <http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID91>; Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works, US Copyright Office <http://www.copyright.gov/1201/>; Gwen Hinze, Seven Lessons from a Comparison of the Technological Protection Measure Provisions, Electonic Frontier Foundation <https://www.eff.org/pages/seven-lessons-comparison-technological-protection-measure-provisions>; Jane C. Ginsburg, ‘Legal Protection of Technological Measures Protecting Work of Authorship: International Obligations and the US Experience’ (2005) 29 Columbia Journal of Law and Arts SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=785945>; Thomas A. Mitchell, ‘Honouring David Shapiro: Note: Copyright, Congress and Constitutionality: How the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Goes Too far’ (2004) 79 Notre Dame Law Review 2115; Laura N. Gasaway, Anti-Circumvention: a View from Librarians and Educators (14 June 2001) (unpublished manuscript) <www.alai-usa.org/2001_conference/pres_gasaway.doc>.
227.
Haochen Sun, ‘Rethinking the Chinese Copyright Law in the Digital Age’ (2003) 6 (6) Journal of Intellectual Property 912.
228.
Article 11 of the WCT provides that:

Contracting parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

WIPO Copyright Treaty, above n 216, art 11.
Article 18 of the WPPT also contains a similar article that states as follows:

Contracting parties have to provide adequate legal protection and affective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights, and to restrict acts in respect of their performances or phonograms which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, above n 217, art 18.
229.
Copyright Law, above n 141, 54.
230.
Copyright Law, above n 141, 55.
231.
WIPO Copyright Treaty, above n 216, art 11.
232.
Article 18 of the WPPT provides that:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

WPPT, above n 217, art 18.
233.
Al Sharieh, above n 102, 97-115.
234.
Ad Hoc Alliance for a Digital Future, above n 208.
235.
Compare with art 16.4(7) of the Singapore US Free Trade Agreement (SUSFTA), which provides that:

In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, producers of phonograms, and their successors in interest use in connection with the exercise of their rights and that restrict unauthorized acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who: (i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, or other subject matter.

See Singapore United States Free Trade Agreement (SUSFTA), signed on 6 May 2003 (entered into force 1 January 2004) <http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/singapore/asset_upload_file708_4036.pdf>. Compare the SUSFTA with the Chile United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), art 17.7, signed on 6 June 2003 (entered into force 1 January 2004) <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/chile-fta/final-text>.
236.
The DMCA contains specific narrow statutory exemptions that apply to the act of circumvention. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201. For an explanation of the exceptions under the DMCA that apply to the acts of circumvention and preparatory acts, see Urs Gasser, Legal Framework and Technology Provisions of Digital Content: Moving Forward, Toward a Best Practise Model (Berkman Center for Interent and Society, Paper No. 04, 2006) <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=908998>. The US courts appear to have interpreted the DMCA in line with a narrow approach. Accordingly, TPMs will only be reinforced where they are preventing or inhibiting copyright infringement; see Brian Fitzgerald et al., Internet and E-commerce Law-Technology Law and Policy (Law Book, 2007) ch 4. See also Storage Tech Corp v. Custom Hardware Engineering and Consulting Inc., 421 F. 3d 1307 (fed. Cir. 2005).
237.
International Intellectual Property Alliance, above n 136. See also the European Union Council Directive 2001/31, on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (‘Directive on Copyright and Information Society’), 2001 O.J (L 167).
238.
International Intellectual Property Alliance, above n 136.
239.
Lewinski, above n 123, 42.
240.
Ibid.
241.
Xue, above n 37, 168, 176, 183.
242.
Gasser, above n 236.
243.
Knowledge Ecology, KEI has Filed Comments on the EC’s Green Paper on Copyright in the <http://www.keionline.org/content/view/215/1>.
244.
Okediji, above n 226, 35.
245.
World Intellectual Properrty Organization, above n 201.
246.
Consumers International, The statement on Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to A WIPO Development Agenda (2006) <http://bit.ly/HOhBzv>.
247.
Article 9(2) of Berne Convention provides as follows:

It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

Berne Convention, above n 153, art 9, 2.
248.
Wedage Danta Rodrigo ‘Copyright Law in the Digital Era: A Comparative Study of Sri Lanka,
Australia and the United States’ (A PhD thesis, University of Queensland, 2007) 218.
249.
See Okediji, above n 226. A group of European and international IP scholars drafted a Declaration on the ‘Three-Step-Test’ in copyright law. The declaration proposes that ‘an appropriately balanced interpretation of the Three-Step Test under which existing exceptions and limitations within domestic law are not unduly restricted and the introduction of appropriately balanced exception and limitation is not precluded’. Christophe Geiger (et al.), Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Decleration: A Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three- Step Test’ in Copyright Law <http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/declaration_three_steps.pdf>.
250.
Pedro Nicoletti Mizukami el al, ‘Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright in the Brazilian Law:
A Need for Reform’ in Lea Shaver (ed), Access to Knowledge in Brazil (Bloomburg, 2010) 67, 70-76.
251.
Margaret Ann Wilkinson, ‘Filtering the Flow from the Fountains of Knowledge- Access and Copyright in Education and Libraries’ in Michael Geist (ed), In the Public Interest-The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin, 2005) 331.
252.
With the advent and widespread use of digital technologies, distance education has now developed into a fully fledged system of education that is capable of even replacing traditional classroom education. The importance of distance education is that it affords unprecedented opportunities to extent teaching beyond the classroom and campuses. See Rodrigo, above n 248, 308, 309.
Ibid 309.
253.
See Wedage Danta Rodrigo, expressing similar views in connection with least developing countries (LDCs)). Rodrigo, above n 248, 332.
254.
Giavarra and Hackett, above n 215.
255.
World Bank, Jordan Country Brief (2011) <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/JORDANEXTN/Resources/JordanCountryBrief.pdf>.
256.
UNDP JORDAN, Towards Better Integration of Persons with Disabilities in Employment, <http://www.undp-jordan.org/index.php?page_type=projects&project_id=81&cat=1>.
257.
Ibid.
258.
Knowledge Ecology International, above n 243.
259.
See WIPO, Proposal by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, Relating to Limitations and Exceptions: Treaty Proposed by the World Blind Union (WBU) (2009) <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_18/sccr_18_5.pdf>; Press Release, WIPO, SCCR Commits to Improving Access by Visually Impaired to Copyright-Protected Works (18 Dec 2009) <http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2009/article_0061.html>.
260.
Awad, El-Gheriani and Abou Zeid, above n 84, 15, 16.
261.
IFLA et al., The Public Domain, Why WIPO should Care, Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda Third Session 19-23 (2007), IFLA, <http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/the-public-domain-why-wipo-should-care>.
262.
Article 34 of the Copyright Law in Jordan, as amended, provides as follow:
1. A)
  After the lapse of the protection period stipulated in this law of any work upon the nonexistence of heirs or upon the nonexistence of successors before the end of the protection period, the work shall revert to public domain such that any person shall have the right to print it, publish it or translate if it has already been printed, published or translated.
2. B)
  If the work stipulated in paragraph (A) of this article was not printed, published or translated before reverting to public domain, none of its rights may be exploited including its printing, publication, or translation without a license from the minister. This licence shall be valid for 15 years. It shall be considered cancelled if not used within 1 year or if used then stopped afterwards for one whole year.
Copyright Law, above 141, art 34.
263.
See Law No. 82 of 2002 (Law on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights), Al-Jarida Al-Rasmiyya, 3 June 2002, art 183 (Egypt) <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126540> (expressing a similar position); Awad, El-Gheriani and Abou Zeid, above n 84.
264.
Article 26 of the Omanian Copyright Law provides that the ‘term of protection for the economic copyrights, stipulated under this law, shall be the life of the author and seventy years starting from the beginning of the Gregorian calendar year following the year of his death’ . Royal Decree No. 65/2008, above n 94, art 26.
265.
Michael Geist, The Copyright Consultation: My Submission, Michael Geist (11 Sept 2009) <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4377/125/>.
266.
Bahrain, Morocco and Oman US-FTAs contain provisions and side letters on intermediary liability, safe harbours and notice and taken down. Art 14.10.29 of the BUSFTA provides that:

For the purpose of providing enforcement procedures that permit effective action against any act of infringement of copyright covered under this Chapter, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and criminal and civil remedies, each Party shall provide, consistent with the framework set forth in this Article:

(a) Legal incentives for service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials; and

(b) Limitations in its law regarding the scope of remedies available against service providers for copyright infringements that they do not control, initiate or direct, and that take place through systems or networks controlled or operated by them or on their behalf, as set forth in this subparagraph (b).

(i) These limitations shall preclude monetary relief and provide reasonable restrictions on court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions for the following functions and shall be confined to those functions:

(A) Transmitting, routing, or providing connections for material without modification of its content, or the intermediate and transient storage of such material in the course thereof;

(B) Caching carried out through an automatic process;

(C) storage at the direction of a user of material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider; and

(D) Referring or linking users to an online location by using information location tools, including hyperlinks and directories.

(ii) These limitations shall apply only where the service provider does not initiate the chain of transmission of the material, and does not select the material or its recipients (except to the extent that a function described in clause (i)(D) in itself entails some form of selection).

(iii) Qualification by a service provider for the limitations as to each function in clauses (i)(A) through (i)(D) shall be considered separately from qualification for the limitations as to each other function, in accordance with the conditions for qualification set forth in clauses (iv)–(vii).

BUSFTA, above n 31, art 14.10.29; see also OUSFTA, above 31, art 15.10.29; MUSFTA, above n 31, art 15.11.28.
267.
See, e.g.; MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); A & M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); Universal Music Austl. Pty. Ltd. v. Sharman License Holdings Ltd. [2005] FCA 1242 (Australia) (‘Kazaa’).
268.
Nouri Khater and Adnan Serhan, Explanation of the Jordanian Civil Code, 359-367 (Dar al Thaqafa, 1997). See also Edward A. Tomlinson, ‘Tort Liability in France for Act of Things: A Study of Judicial Lawmaking’ (1988) 48 Louisiana Law Review 1299 (providing further explanation of tort law under the continental European systems, particularly France); Al Tamimi, Law of Tort in the UAE (on file with author).
269.
The Jordanian Civil Code was enacted in 1976 to replace the Ottoman Majallah of 1876, which was highly influenced by Sharia and Islamic Law. See Khater and Serhan, above n 268, 5-8.
The Jordanian Civil Code comprises rules derived from the Egyptian Civil Code, Law No. 131 of 1948 (Civil Code), Al-Jarida Al-Rasmiya, 29 July 1948 (Egypt), which in turn was modeled on the French Napoleonic Code, Civil Code No. 43 of 1976, Offical Gazette, No. 2645 (1 Augst 1976); see also Mahkamat al-Tamiez [Taimez] [Court of Cassation], Case No. 228/1987, 26 July 1987.
270.
See Commercial Law No. 12 of 1966, art 2, Official Gazette, No. 1910 (30 Mar 1966). Article 71, paragraph 20 of the Jordanian Civil Code provides that the ‘provisions of special laws shall be applicable to the right of the author, Inventor, trademarks and all other rights’. Civil Code No. 43 of 1976, art 71, 20 (Jordan).
271.
The major provisions concerning liability for another person’s act are to be found in the French Civil Code. Article 1384 of the French Civil Code provides that a ‘person is liable not only for the damages he causes by his own act, but also for that which is caused by the acts of persons for whom he is responsible, or by things which are in his custody’. Code Civil [C. civ.], art 1384 (France) (as amended) <http://lexinter.net/ENGLISH/civil_code.htm>. Article 1384 contains a limited list of vicarious liability, but in a famous case in 1991, the Court of Cassation (cour de cassation) decided that the general statement in article 1384 allowed creating new heads of vicarious liability. See J. Spier, Unification of Tort Law: Liability for Damage Caused by Others (Kluwer, 2003) 85-88; Tomlinson, above n 268; Hannibal Travis, ‘Opting Out of the Internet in the United Stated and the European Union: Copyright, Safe harbours, and the International Law’ (2008) 84 331.
272.
Article 121, paragraph 7, of the French Penal Code provides that a ‘person, who knowingly facilitates the preparation or the realisation of a crime or of a tort by providing her help or assistance, is an accomplice for this crime or tort’. Code Penal [C. Pén], art 121,7 (France); see also Travis, above n 271; Xavier Amadei, ‘Standards of Liability for Internet Service Providers: A Comparative Study of France and the United States with Specific Focus on Copyright, Defamation, and Illicit Content’ (2001) 35 Cornell International Law Journal 189. Compare Code Penal [C. PÉN] art 121, 7 (France), with Criminal Law No. 16 of 1960, arts 44-55, 76, Official Gazette, No. 1487 (1 Jan 1960).
The Jordanian Civil Code, above n 269, art 288(B).
273.
See Khater and Serhan, above n 268, 489-507.
274.
P2P technology is used widely over the Internet to share and distribute files and information between Internet users.
275.
On May 27, 2007, Japan has introduced the Provider Liability Limitation Law, which states under art 3(1) that a provider is liable only if:
1. i.
  It is technically possible to prevent transmission of the infringing material; and
2. ii.
  The provider knows of the existence of the material; and
3. iii.
  Knows that the transmission is infringing copyright; or
4. iv.
  Reasonably ought to know that the transmission infringes.
See WIPO, above n 201. A person whose rights have been infringed can ask a provider to disclose information about the person transmitting the material if the information is necessary for a legal claim or other legitimate reason (Art. 4(1)). Ibid.
276.
The US Congress has enacted ‘safe harbor’ provisions as part of the DMCA, the ‘Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act,’ in order to shelter OSPs from liability for copyright infringement in certain circumstances. See 17 U.S.C. § 512.
277.
In France, hosting service providers (technical intermediaries) are defined in the Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN) of 21 June 2004 and are protected in certain circumstances from the infringing acts of online users. The Act brings France into compliance with the European Commission Directive 2000/31, on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society (‘Directive on Certain Aspects of Information Society’), 2001 O.J (L. 178). See Loi N2004-575 du 21 Juin 2004 Pour la Confiance dans L’économie Numérique [Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy of 21 June 2004, Journal Offcial De La Republique Française [J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], 22 June 2004, p 11168 <http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000801164&dateTexte>; Kylie Junik, French Court Finds Daily Motion Liable for Copyright Infringement, Citizen Media Law Project (18 July 2007) <http://www.citmedialaw.org/french-court-finds-dailymotion-liable-copyright-infringement>.
278.
Fitzgerald and Olwan, above n 150, 570.
279.
China has also promulgated the Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information. See (信息网络传播权保护条例) Regulation on the Protection of the Right to Network Dissemination of Information (promulgated by the Executive Meeting of the State Council, 18 May 2006, effective 1 July 2006) (China) <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=182147>; see also Lin Xie, Safe Harbors and Joint Liability of the OSPs in China—A Comparative Study Between the US and Australia and China (unpublished manuscript) <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358467>; Yiman Zhang, ‘Establishing Secondary Liability with a Higher Degree of Culpability: Redefining Chinese Internet Copyright Law to Encourage Technology Development’ (2007) 16 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 257.
280.
Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage, A Framework for Copyright Reform (2001) <http://bca.archives.ca/docs/bca_comm_eng.pdf>; Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage, Consulting Paper on Digitial Copyright Issues (2001) <http://balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site/crp-prda.nsf/vwapj/digital.pdf/$FILE/digital.pdf>.
281.
Ida Madieha bt. Abdul Ghani Azmi, ‘Institutional Repositories in Malaysia: the Copyright Issues’ (2009) 17(3) International Journey of Law and Information Technology 268, 272.
282.
Ramzi T. Abdel Jaber, ‘Silicon Wadi: Can Jordan Develop an Internationally Respected and Competitive Software Industry?’ Jordan Times (online) (8 April 1999) <http://www.jordanembassyus.org/040899009.htm>.
283.
Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald, above n 202, at 111.
284.
See Copinger et al., above n 199, 540.
285.
John Abbott, ‘Reverse Engineering of Software: Copyright and Interoperability’ (2003) 14 Journal of Law and Information Science 7.
286.
Susanna H.S. Leong, ‘Legal Protection of Factual Compilations and Databases-Rethinking the Copyright Protection Model in Singapore’ (2007) 5 (2) Journal of World Intellectual Property 1047-1068.
287.
See Khater, above n 101, 301–03.
288.
ICTSD and UNCTAD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (Cambridge University, 2004),Chapter 11, ‘Copyright: Term of Protection,’ <http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/RB_2.11_update.pdf>.
289.
Mark J. Davison, The Legal Protection of Databases (Cambridge University, 2003) 1.
290.
Ibid.
291.
See, for Singapore, Leong, above n 286, and for Malaysia, Azmi, above n 281, 271-272.
292.
This could be inferred from art 3(A)(D) of the Copyright Law. See Copyright Law, above n 141.
293.
Article 2(5) of the Berne Convention provides that:

5) Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopaedias and anthologies which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such, without prejudice to the copyright in each of the works forming part of such collections.

Berne Convention, above n 153, art 2.5.
294.
See Tabbaa and Partners, Update on Compliance with Intellectual Property in Jordan (2007) USAID <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADM871.pdf>.
295.
Ibid.
296.
Mary Wai San Wong, The Next Years in Copyright Law: An Asian Perspective (16 February 2007) (unpublished manuscript) SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1017144#PaperDownload>. See also Mohammed El Said, ‘Access to Knowledge, and Intellectual Property Protection, the Arab World: The Challenges of Development’ in Hala Essalmawi, Access to Knowledge Toolkit II (A2K), The Access to Knowledge Movement: Opportunities, Challenges and the Road Ahead (2009) Bibliotheca Alexandria, 52-63 <http://www.bibalex.org/a2k/attachments/references/reffileu24bkg55ykqwgc55zysxzq45.pdf>.
297.
Abdel Latif, above n 30, 53.
298.
Meeting Report, ICTSD-UNCTAD Dialogue, 2d Bellagio Series on Development and Intellectual Property: ‘Towards Development-Oriented Intellectual Property Policy: Advancing the Reform Agenda’ (18–21 September 2003) <http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/bellagio/docs/Bellagio2_Report.pdf>.
299.
Jonathan Zittrain, Alternatives to Intellectual Property <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/mexico_2006_module_2_alttoip> (on file with author).
300.
See Consumers International, above n 246.
301.
Ibid.
302.
On the flexibilities contained in the TRIPS Agreement, see generally Alhaj Tejan-Cole, Presentation, Flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement and its Impact on National Intellectual Property Policy, Belize Intellectual Property Office <http://www.belipo.bz/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/TRIPS-FLEXIBILITIES.pdf>.
303.
WIPO, Development Agenda for WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/>.
304.
There is a draft of a Jordanian Copyright Law in the process of being reviewed by the Parliament, and it is not clear when and whether it will be approved.
305.
Consumers International <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>.
306.
Library of Alexandria <http://www.bibalex.org/Home/Default_EN.aspx>.
307.
Consumers International, above n 165.
308.
EIFL <http://www.eifl.net/>.
309.
The African Copyright and Access to Knowledge Project <http://www.aca2k.org/>.
310.
Committee on Copyright and Other Legal Matters <http://www.ifla.org/clm>.
311.
Knowledge Ecology International <http://keionline.org/>.
312.
Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir, ‘Open Access and the Public Domain in the Digital Data and Information for Science’ in Julie M. Esanu and Paul F. Uhlir (ed), Open Access and Public Domain in Digital Data and Information For Scienc: A Processing of An International Symposium (National Academies, 2004) <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11030>.
313.
Azmi, above n 281, 277.
314.
Fitzgerald and Olwan, above n 150, 570.
315.
TIPS for Developing Countries when Reviewing Copyright Laws (9 September 2009) ACA2K <http://www.aca2k.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=229%3Atips-for-developing-countries-when-reviewing-copyright-laws&catid=69%3Adenise&lang=en>.
316.
Azmi, above n 281, 273-274.
317.
ACA2K, above n 315. See also Giavarra and Hackett, above n 215; WIPO, Study for Limitations & Exceptions of Copyright & Related Rights in the Digital Environment <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=16805>.
318.
John T. Cross and Peter K. Yu, ‘Competition Law and Copyright Misuse’ (2008) 56 Drake Law Review 427, 430 SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=986891>.
319.
See Shiju Vaghese Mazhuvanchery, ‘The Indian Competition Act: A Historical and Developmental Perspective’ 2010 3 (2) The Law and Development Review 241.
320.
Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Law No. 15 of 2000, Offcial Gazette, No. 4423 (2 April 2000).
321.
Article 9 of the Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Law provides that:

A. Every provision or condition restricting competition included in the license contract related to any of the intellectual property rights, which may have negative effect on commerce, or many hinder the transference or dissemination of the technology shall be void and null, and in particular:

1. To prohibit the licensee from transferring modifications done on the technology included in the license contract except for the licensor (Back transferring of technology).

2. Preventing the licensee from arising Juridical or Administrative disputes in respect of the licensed intellectual property right.

3. To compel the licensee to accept the license with number of rights instead of one right only.

B. The intellectual property rights mentioned in paragraph (A) of this article particularly include:

1. Copyrights and neighbouring rights.

2. Trademarks.

3. Geographical indications.

4. Industrial drawings and Industrial designs.

5. Patents.

6. Layout designs of integrated circuits.

7. Trade secrets.

8. New varieties of plant.

Ibid art 9.
322.
Haitham A. Haloush, ‘A Practitioner Guide to the Unfair Competition Law in Jordan’ (2009) 2 Open Law Journal <http://bentham.org/open/tolawj/articles/V002/1TOLAWJ.pdf>; Haitham A. Haloush, ‘Building a Trade Secrets System in Jordan: A Critique of the Current Legal Framework’ (2009) 4 (6) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 425.
323.
Professor John Cross and Peter Yu define copyright abuse as ‘the use of the rights of copyright owners in any improper way’. It is hoped that IP scholarship would give in depth analysis of the legal issues involved in relation to copyright abuse. See Cross and Yu, above n 318, 455.
324.
Lea Shaver (ed), Access to Knowledge in Brazil (Bloomburg, 2010) 7.
325.
Ibid.
326.
Ibid.
327.
Abdel Latif, above n 30.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Rami M. Olwan

Authors

Rami M. Olwan
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Olwan, R.M. (2012). Rethinking the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age: A Developmental Perspective. In: Intellectual Property and Development. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27907-2_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27907-2_5
Published: 22 October 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27906-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27907-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics