CYBERCRIME LAW IN TANZANIA------GET THE ANSWER

Thursday, July 10, 2014

KIMBUNGA CHAWAHAMISHA MAELFU JAPAN

Athari za kimbunga kinachoitwa Neoguri.

MP says Malawi has begun to frighten Tanzanians

Malawi's President, Professor Peter Mutharika.

MASTERS OF LAWS IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY LAW– (LL.M - ICT LAW)

RESEARCH ON

“COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS, ONLY THE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS” HAS PROVED REMARKABLY ILL-ADAPTED TO RESOLVING ISSUES OF ‘NON-LITERAL INFRINGEMENT’ OF COPYRIGHT IN COMPUTER PROGRAMS IN BOTH THE US AND UK COURTS. IT IS HIGH TIME TO ABANDON THE ATTEMPT TO FORCE SOFTWARE INTO THE COPYRIGHT MOULD AND TO CREATE A NEW RIGHT FOR PROGRAMS WHICH REWARDS AND PROTECTS INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS OF PROGRAMMING.’

REHEMA E. Y. UROKI

ABSTRACT

The world wide revolution and expansion of societal use of the internet and social media is

giving rise to new laws and potential liabilities in cyberspace due to the expansion, growth and

development of information and communication technology (ICT). Under the intellectual

property context, copyright protects expression of the ideas and not ideas itself. Not only authors

and inventors are protected with copyright and patent laws respectively, but both copyright and

patent law are applicable and used to the protection of software. One form of protection is

arguably more better than the other and there are strong debates on these two forms of

protection of software up todate. Software is widespread, affecting almost every aspect of human

life in all parts of the world since long time. This study will provide the explanation, each side

offers as to the respective superiority of intellectual property protection under patent laws and

separations between the two forms of protection under the intellectual property. There is a need

of having standpoint of which is the better way to protect software program, either by copyright,

patent law or both, or better to have protection of software by Sui generis which will cover

software programs, and to create a new rights for programs which will reward and protects

internal and external functional aspects of programming.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The development of copyright protection for computer software has recently entered a "second

generation."1 In the context of rapid developments in computer technology and computer

software markets, the centre of the discussion has now shifted to a"second generation" issue: to

what extent non-literal aspects of computer software are protected under copyright.2 Many

current legal issues pertaining to copyright of computer software involve defining the scope of

protection of non-literal expression, such as "user interface" and "look and feel," in contrast to

literal expression, such as "source code," to which ownership may be more clearly attributed.

This discussion paper will cater for the definitions of some important terms from intellectual

property, Copyright law, contention that the maxim ‘copyright does not protects ideas, only their

Edward Samuels, 'The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law," 56 TENN. L. REv. 321, 355-366 (1989) for a categorization of the developments of computer software cases. See also Menell, "An Analysis of the Scope of Copyright Protection for Application Programs," 41 STAN. L. REV. 1045, 1048 (1989). 2

There is an uncertainty in the definitions of "look and feel" and "user interface." "Look and feel" is generally defined as "a set of functional capabilities of a programmed computer and the way it 'interacts' with a user." Steven Lundberg, et al., The Copyright/Patent Interface: Why Utilitarian "Look and Feel" is Uncopyrightable Subject Matter, 6 COMPUTER LAW. 5 (Jan. 1989). Likewise, "user interface" generally refers to "all of the devices by which the human user can interact with the computer in order to accomplish the tasks of the computer program." Joseph T. Verdesca, Copyrighting the User Interface: Too Much Protection?, 45 Sw. LJ. 1047, 1047 n.4 (1991). Some commentators and courts have used the "user interface" and "look and feel" of computer software interchangeably. See, e.g., Alan S. Middleton, A Thousand Clones: The Scope of Copyright Protection in the "Look and Feel" of Computer Programs, 63 WASH. L. REV. 195, 195 & n.2 (1988); Lotus Development Corp. v. Paperback Software International, 740 F. Supp. 37, 63 (D.Mass. 1990). But one commentator states that the majority of scholars differentiate between "look and feel" and "user interface," understanding that "user interface" is one element of "look and feel." Brian Johnson, An Analysis of the Copyrightability of the "Look and Feel" of a Computer Program: Lotus v. Paperback Software, 52 OHIO ST. LJ. 947, 953-61 (1991). 3

Yutaka Nakamurat, Recent developments in Copyright Protection for Computer Software in the United States and Japan, 1993; Pg. 1

expression’, computer program and its protection under copyright, at both UK and US.

Following with the argument that; is software copyrightable or patentable?. Finally, will be the

conclusion, and recommendation for the problem of protection of software.

1.1 Definition of terms

The phrase intellectual property (IP) refers to the bundle of legal rights that arise from the

creative genius of the human mind. Intellectual property refers to the property right conferred by

law to protect basically the creations of the intellect. The nature of intellectual property is to

encourage fair competition.4

protection given to certain types of original works and includes a wide range of creations,

including books, articles, posters, manuals, diagrams, figures and graphs, as well as CDs, DVDs,

software, databases and websites. It gives the copyright owner exclusive rights to control the

copying and dissemination of their works and can be a very valuable asset. Copyright gives the

their work to the public.6

4 By Thomas L. Peterson; How Intellectual Property Works, HowStuffWorks Inc. 1998-2013 5Tumaini University, Iringa University College Students. Used by permission. Posted to the University’s, Local Area Network (LAN) by Laltaika E.I. July 23, 2006, Oxford University Press IJL&IT 2004.12(178) 6 McMaster Industry Liaison Office, Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, 905-525-9140: 2000-2013

Trade mark is defined under section 2 of the Trade and Service Mark Act7 as any visible sign

used or proposed to be used upon, in connection with or in relation to goods or services for the

purpose of distinguishing in the course of trade or business the goods or services of a person

from those of another. A ‘trade mark’ as a sign which distinguishes particular goods or services

particular to one undertaking from the goods or services of other undertakings.8

Patent law is a specific area of law that encompasses the legal regulation, jurisprudence, and

enforcement of specific intellectual property rights known as patent rights. A patent is a

government issued right granted to individuals or groups that protects their original inventions

from being made, used, or sold by others without their permission for a set period of time.

2.0 COPYRIGHT LAW

Tracing its origins from eighteenth century England,'9 copyright protection is a form of limited

monopoly granted by the government to authors of original intellectual works.10 Copyright

protection has been extended to a broad range of "works of authorship," including some aspects

of computer programs, it is a fundamental tenet of copyright law, first expressed in Baker v.

Selden,"11 that only an author's original expression of an idea is protected; an idea itself may not

be copyrighted. Thus, if he were alive today, Shakespeare might copyright his particular

Cap 326 RE 2002 8 David Kitchin et al, Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (14th ed. 2005) 10. 9 Statute of Anne, 8 Anne ch. 19 (1710) (Eng.). 10 U.S. CoNsT. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 11 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

expression of the idea of a tragic hero's rise and fall (example, the text of Hamlet), but he could

not copyright the idea of a tragic hero's rise and fall itself. This notion is referred to as the

idea/expression dichotomy.12 Furthermore, copyright does not protect purely "utilitarian" works.

That is, one may not obtain a copyright in a work, such as a desk, whose only value is that it

serves some useful function-this is the essence of the utilitarian/non-utilitarian dichotomy.' The

idea/expression and utilitarian/non-utilitarian dichotomies are central elements of copyright

doctrine. Both are codified today at13, which provides that copyright does not protect "an idea,

procedure, process, system, method operation, principle, or discovery."14

An important variant on the idea/expression dichotomy is known as the "merger" doctrine, which

holds that where there are only a small number of ways to express a particular idea, copyright

protection does not apply. Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co.15, in such circumstances it does

not seem accurate to say that any particular form of expression comes from the subject matter.

However, it is necessary to say that the subject matter would be appropriated by permitting the

copyrighting of its expression. We cannot recognize copyright as a game of chess in which the

public can be checkmated.

12 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1252- 53 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 1033 (1984). An important variant on the idea/expression dichotomy is known as the "merger" doctrine, which holds that where there are only a small number of ways to express a particular idea, copyright protection does not apply. Thus, for example, copyright protection does not extend to a description of the rules of a game because the expression of the rules "merges" into the idea of the game. See Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (Ist Cir. 1967). 13

17 U.S.C. § 102(b) 14 For example, the United States Supreme Court held, in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954), that the creator of a statuette that served as a lamp base was entitled to copyright protection only to the extent that the statuette had artistic or aesthetic value apart from its functionality as part of a lamp. 15 379 F.2d 675; 154 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193 June 28, 1967

3.0 ‘COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECTS IDEAS, ONLY THEIR EXPRESSION’

Although the work itself may be protected, the idea behind it is not. For some copyright works

people say that it is the expression of an idea that has copyright protection rather than the

underlying idea. However, the borderline between expression and idea is very difficult to define -

ultimately only the courts can do this. A traditional concept is that copyright protects the

expression of an idea but not the idea itself. This concept has been highly developed by US

courts. The approach of the UK court to this in the context of computer programs has been

varied. In the 1992 case of John Richardson Computers, it was thought that it would be right to

adopt a similar approach in England. A few years later, in Ibcos, the concept’s usefulness was

doubted, in that it would lead to complications so far as UK law is concerned and risk over

citation of US authorities, which are based on different statutes. The view was that UK copyright

cannot prevent the copying of a mere general idea but can protect the copying of a detailed idea.

In Hollinrake v Truswell16, Herschell LC referred to the ‘fallacy perpetrated by counsel that

device for measuring the dimension of sleeves in the form of a cardboard measurement chart.

Rejecting the claim, the court identified the fallacy as the ‘failure to distinguish between literary

present. Over the last 100 years, the courts have repeatedly stated that copyright protection

16 (1894)

extends only to the expression of ideas, not to the ideas themselves. Seemingly unchallengeable

authority has accumulated on this point, but it has not deterred litigants from attempting to claim

The requirement that a work must be put into a tangible form is one of the determining factors.

This will be of great importance even if the author is apparently unconscious of what is actually

being created, and the control of arrangements whereby the work is produced is left to another.

Similarly, it was stated by Lord Denning MR in Ladbroke v William Hill17, that ‘Ideas, thoughts,

fancies in a man’s brain are not protected’, but once reduced to material form are capable of

In Donoghue v Allied Newspapers18, Farwell J stated, ‘A person may have a brilliant idea for a

story, or for a picture, or for a play and one which appears to him to be original; but if he

communicates that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright, the production which is the

result of a communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright

of the person who has clothed the idea in form’. In Donoghue, a ‘ghost writer’ wrote up the

experiences of a successful jockey. It was held that copyright was owned by the newspaper

employing the journalist who had produced the articles purportedly by the jockey, and not the

jockey, who simply recounted his experiences, but did not commit them to writing. Farwell J

17 (1962) 18 (1938)

stated that ‘If the idea, however original, is nothing more than an idea, and is not put into any

form of words or any form of expression such as a picture, then there is no such thing as

ghost, the spirit of Cleophas from the New Testament who purportedly communicated through a

medium. The pen was held by the medium who was in a trance and who responded to prompting

and questioning from the defendant who believed himself to be in touch with dead Glastonbury

monks. The court (refraining from inquiring into the reality of the alleged spirit) held that

physical act of committing words or images into a material form is not always the determining

factor and the courts have, in the interests of practical necessity and commercial reality, accepted

certain refinements of these principles. A secretary who takes down a dictation of notes or a

mere copyist is not an author (Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd20; British Oxygen v Liquid

Air21,) an approach that can be justified on the basis that originality for the purpose of copyright

arises from the application of skill, labour and effort in creation, not simply the physical labour

of compiling a work.

19 (1927) 20(1977) 21 (1925)

It is well established that there will be no copyright in a banal idea. In Kenrick v Lawrence22, the

plaintiff sought to claim copyright in the concept of a hand filling in a ballot paper. The court

affirmed that there could be no copyright in a banal idea. If an expressed idea was commonplace

and simple, nothing short of exact literal reproduction would infringe the copyright in it.

Similarly, if there is no other way of expressing a certain subject, there will be no copyright

capable of protection. (A point subsequently applied in a computer software case, Total

Information Processing Systems Ltd v Daman Ltd23, although since doubted.) In Bagge v

Miller24, the plaintiff had suggested the idea for a sketch, but left it to the defendant to compose

it in a dramatic work. The court took the view that ‘The mere suggestion of an idea which is

embodied by another in a dramatic work written by him does not constitute the originator of the

idea an author or a joint author of the dramatic work’.

In Wiseman v George Weidenfeld & Nicolson25, the plaintiff had been a helpful critic and

adviser in assisting the second defendant to turn a novel into a play. He had not written any

dialogue and, whatever his degree of artistic involvement, could not be said to be a joint author.

The courts have distinguished between the situations where a person has ideas and is then

commissioned to produce work, but, in each case, a work has been made subject to contract or

22 (1890) 23 (1992) 24 (1917–23) 25(1985)

MASTERS OF LAWS IN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY LAW– (LL.M - ICT LAW)

REHEMA E. Y. UROKI

INTRODUCTION

The role of the law is to recognise, regulate human conduct and to enforce such regulation. The

challenge to any emerging economy is to keep pace with the developments in technology and

introduce relevant and appropriate legislation to facilitate the growth of Information and

Communication Technology (ICT).

"Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have the potential to profoundly change

global trade, finance and production. By making businesses more competitive and economies

more productive, and most of all by empowering people with knowledge, ICTs can support faster

economic growth and thus strengthen the material basis for development. Our challenge is to

ensure that this potential is used to generate real gains in the global struggle against poverty, disease and ignorance and their offspring, fear, intolerance and war1."

The Internet and other global information technologies have opened new opportunities for the

creation, distribution, and use of creative content. The Internet challenges lawmakers and society

as a whole: how to preserve the balance between creators’ rights and users’ rights? Can the

foundations of copyright law withstand the pressures of the new technologies? Can they be

interpreted to apply to the modern age? The Internet affords a new medium for traditional types of creative expression and enables new types of expression2. It also makes infringement of

protected rights substantially easier. The Internet’s challenges to copyright law arise from the

digitization of information and the creation of the networked environment. The Internet forces

policymakers to ask what interests should society protect, whose interests should be protected, from whom, how and where?3

Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents make up most of the area of law known as Intellectual

Property. Copyright gives authors or artists the legal right to exclude others from using their

1 Andrew L. Mollel & Zakayo N. Lukumay; Electronic Transactions and The Law of Evidence in Tanzania: Iringa University College 2007 2 Murray, A. (2000): Entering into Contracts Electronically: The Real W.W.W., in: Edwards & Waelde (eds.): Law and the Internet: Regulating Electronic Commerce, Oxford: Hart Publishing 3 P.G. Altbach ed., Copyright and Development: Inequality in the Information Age. (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Bellagio Publishing Network Research and Information Center, 1995)

works. Copyright arises automatically when a protectable work has been fixed in any tangible medium, whether the medium is canvas, paper or computer hard drive4.

artistic, scientific, and other creative content, while permitting the public to access, use and innovate with such creative works5.

values: the creation, spread and sharing of knowledge and information, and public use and

access. In the current era, and particularly with regard to List Developing Countries like

Tanzania, the presumptions of copyright are ripe for wholesale reconsideration. The biases and

interests of developed countries are monopolizing the international copyright agenda; the

interests of List Developing Countries have been ignored and, in any event, copyright, a Western concept, is not a prerequisite for the production of works in List Developing Countries6.

In Tanzania THE COPYRIGHTS AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS ACT No.7 of 1999 deals

with the protection of these rights and also protects expressions of folklore. The act has come into operation from 31st December 19997. As outlined under Section III, 2B herein, this Act

establishes the COPYRIGHTS SOCIETY OF TANZANIA (COSOTA), a body corporate, which

has the duty and powers to:- Promote and protect these rights, Collect and distribute royalties on

behalf of its members, Maintain registers of works, productions and association of its members,

Search to identify and publicize rights of owners, and defend them and Print, publish, circulate

information and sensitize its members and the general public on these rights.

Industrialized countries, the main producers of copyright protected works, have also been the

nearly exclusive beneficiaries of expanded intellectual property protection. List Developing

Countries are primarily copyright users and have received minimal benefit. Increased copyright

protection and enforcement in their countries, as mandated by the Agreement on Trade-Related

4 D. Vaver, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-marks ( Concord, Ontario, Canada: Irwin Law, 1997) 5 D. Karjala et al (more than 40 US intellectual property professors), ‘ Comment of US Copyright Law Professors on the

Copyright Office Term of Protection Study’, 12 European Intellectual Property Review 531 ( 1994) 6 D. Nicholson, ‘Does copyright have any significance in the lives of illiterate or visually-impaired persons?’

http://www.wipout.net/essays/1128nicholson.htm

7 CAP 218 RE 2002

Intellectual Property (TRIPS) and the Berne Convention, work primarily in the interests of

developed countries and copyright holders, predominantly multi-national enterprises. Credible

economic projections as to how increased copyright protection will assist List Developing

Countries are rare and particular. In the current conjuncture, greater copyright protection equals increased outflows of foreign currency from List Developing Countries to developed countries8.

The main tasks of the moment for least developing countries are to create exemptions to

affordable access to materials. And providing assistance to such endeavors is the main task of the developed world if they wish to help, rather than further dominate, such countries9.

MAIN BODY

a) PLAYED MUSIC IN COMMUTER BUSES

It is observed and interviewed that, there are different forms of music is being played from this

commuter buses. Some commuters’ buses use CD, Flash Disc, and just a radio, some uses only

radio and others uses radio and flash disc. In the observation shown that the drivers and

conductors using flash disc in the most commuter buses for the purpose of having different

music and not only one type of music something which proved by interview method. And when

interviewed the driver and conductor that why they are playing different music while the system

of playing music is one, others they asked that they just took that music by flash disc and by CD

from different music centers, and also from different friend computers.

The purpose of them taking music differently in one CD or in one flash disk, when conducting

interview the realization is that, a lot of them are doing that purposely so that they can attract

passengers to the bus; Example, more than three drives in different commuter buses they replied

confidently in interview that there are some people who likes much gospel music, others they

like rege music, others likes bongo music, and some of them likes taarabu and bolingo, so for the

purpose of helping all passengers to enjoy in the bus while travelling is to have a flash disc

8 H. Chakava, ‘International Copyright and Africa: The Unequal Exchange’ in P. Altbach ed., Copyright and Development: Inequality in the Information Age, (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Bellagio Publishing Network Research and Information Center, 1995) 9 Ibid

which has all kind of music as longer as they know what passengers mostly like. They also tried

to help to believe that a lot of passengers they like to travel with those buses having played music

especially different music.

What observed and conducted by interviews in the commuter buses drivers and conductors is

that, music played in the buses is not from an original CD or radio. What driver and conductors

know of copyright and copyright infringement; the observation shows that they know nothing

about copyright and copyright infringement. But in the interview it was observed that they heard

about COSOTA finding people who are playing music which is not from original CDs or from

radios directly, in different areas and different buses. When asked if they are aware that the

music played by flash disk or CDs if are not original is infringement of copyrights their response

was observed to be negatives, that it is impossible for a person to buy all music passangers they

are interested so that the best way is to buy an empty CDs or flash disc go to friends or to the

people who burning CDs and ask to burn for them due to the cheapest price of gaining different

music.

Example; one driver asked that one CD which burned is 1500Tsh/= and sometimes 2000Tsh/=,

and the CD may have more than 100 different music played depending only the capacity of the

CD brought to the burner. And the matter of original CD, they said that most of original CD are

unaffordable because original one are to much expensive that the lowest price of one CD which

is original starting from 3500Tsh/=. Hence when comparing the price of original CD or burned

CD they are mostly interested to burn CD and also having music in flash disc for lowest price

instead of buying original CDs in the sense that original CD is to much expensive.

All in all here, what observed is that, the drivers and conductors of these commute buses are not

all aware of copyright and copyright infringement in the matter of played music in their buses.

b) PLAYED MUSIC IN TAXIS

It is observed and interviewed that, Most of the taxis specifically here in Iringa are mostly using

to play different music in CD and flash discs, and few in the form of CD/DVD, while some of

them are using to listen the music by radio directly. Taxis in Iringa have no differences in

playing music as their friend’s commuter buses.

It is observed that; Tax drivers they don’t know the intellectual property rights in general and

copy rights as specifically a question to answer. As said earlier, taxi drivers they are playing

music mostly from the flash discs or from the CDs, which means that they have infringed the

copyrights of the original work or the work of the creator. During the time of interview; they

asked that they know nothing about copyright infringement because; that is not their business so

long as the burner of that CDs and flash discs are not explaining to them that it is not allowed to

copy or to burn the CDs or to take music in flash disc. Also they respond that they don’t know if

it is wrong for what they are doing.

In the interview, it was noted that two tax drivers as respondents replied that they know, and they

are aware about the intellectual property rights, but they prefer to use the flash discs and burned

CDs to play music to entertain their passengers because it is too cheap to them, and some time

they got it free of charge from different friends with different music as they are aware that some

passangers likes much gospel music, others they like rege music, others likes bongo music, and

some of them likes taarabu and bolingo, so for the purpose of helping all passengers to enjoy in

the tax while travelling is to have a flash disc which has all kind of music as longer as they know

what passengers mostly like.

All in all, played music in the taxis in Iringa as the area of concentration it is not quite different

from that music played in other buses like as it is shown in the commutes buses. What observed

is that, the tax drivers are not all aware of copyright and copyright infringement in the matter of

played music in their taxis, what they are all looking is the cheapest price of getting more and

different music in one CD or flash disc instead of buying the original in the sense that the

original one are to much expensive.

But in the interview also, it was observed that they heard about COSOTA but they are all not

care about COSOTA in the sense that there is no law for catching them only contradictions and

wasting others time, is what they have in their mind.

c) PLAYED MUSIC IN THE INTERNET CAFES AND IN THE KIOSKS

In the observation and interview in the areas surrounding Tumaini University – Iringa College,

most of the internet cafes and kiosks are not inviting for CD burning services. But if you heard

about a good music in the café or in the kiosk and ask them to give you they will offer you free

but by using flash disc and not by the way of burning CDs.

In Iringa town cafes and in the kiosks they are totally not offering the service of burning CDs

until they know you, otherwise they will refuse the service fearing that may be you are coming

from COSOTA offices. Therefore, most of the internet cafes and kiosks operators in Iringa they

know what the intellectual property rights in general means, and copyright in particular mean.

Almost all of the respondents in an interview to the cafes and to the kiosks replied that they

know the copyrights law through the COSOTA, that if they burn the CD’s they know that they

are making copyright infringement. Hence they are not offering that services until may be they

know that person, if is a close friend or relative and the believable people he or she is asking the

offer in good faith and not for the search of information about the people who are burning and

supplying the music by the way of burning a lot of CDs from the original one and sell it in

cheapest price but with more profit because it is what their are doing.

All in all, most of the cafes and kiosks specifically here in Iringa town are mostly using to play

different music in CD flash discs, and others in the form of CD/DVD, while some of them are

using to listen the music by radio directly. But in the cafes and to the kiosks they are somehow

know the effects of copyright and copyright infringement due to the small knowledge from

COSOTA whom it is observed that most of the time they are visiting the places for the purpose

of making investigation if there are people who still infringing the copyright.

d) KIOSKS OFFERING OR UPLOADING MUSIC IN THE PHONES.

It is observed and interviewed that, a big number of the people in the kiosks offering or

uploading music in the phones they know the intellectual property rights especially copyrights

and copy rights infringement. It is observed that apart from knowing copyrights and copyright

infringement, they are still infringing the copyright because there are no proper mechanisms for

the government to control the copyrights infringements. They said that COSOTA has in certain

extent tried to prevent this copy rights infringement, but yet they have failed to implement what

was expected from the said kiosks offering or uploading music in the phones. Hence they do

continue infringe the copyright especially by using computer network system something that,

they said that it is difficult for COSOTA to prove that they do infringement while they are just

using computer for their own purpose.

All in all, these groups of people observed that at least they have the knowledge about copyright

infringement although they are continuing to infringe by using computer network system in the

sense that there is no law established to prove copyright infringement through computer

programs as they are almost using the computer to do so.

e) FOUR MOBILE PHONE COMPANY OFFICE (BRANCH) IN YOUR COMMUNITY

(I.E. VODACOM, ZANTEL, TIGO AND AIRTEL)

From the interview and the observation done, four customer services centre in these four mobile

phones company office they said that the company knows about copyright and copyright

infringement. When interviewed about the caller tunes and ringtones they offer, all of them said

that, the money gained from the said music are not actually benefiting the artists, they also

replied that the artist actually are not benefiting anything from their work when the company like

Vodacom company offering the caller tunes, they all together agreed that they are in one way or

another infringing the copyright and exploiting the artist.

When asked if themselves as the customer are benefiting from that business, they all from that

different company as mention Vodacom, Airtel, Zantel, and Tigo replied that privately they are

not benefiting, but the companies are benefiting a lot of money from those offer services of caller

tunes and ringtones, and contributing nothing to the development of the artists.

All in all, what observed is that, these companies are aware of copyright infringement but they

have this saying that the government have nothing to tell them when infringing these rights

because they are doing that by computer network system and there is no law to stop them in Tanzania unless to be established.10 They said also that even if the government will establish the

law still to them is not easy to get the chance to catch that infringement because they have no

habit of disclosing any information to anybody outside the office.

10 Vodashop, Iringa Town, Miyomboni highway to Iringa stend, Zantel shop, Ruaha areas, Iringa town, Airtel shop, CRDB areas Iringa Town, and Tigo shop, Iringa Town, Miyomboni highway to Iringa stend, first door and first floor.

f) TWO MUSIC ARTISTS

What has done here is telephone interview and not observation method of conducting data. When tried to call one artist from Boma FM,11 and ask him on how and what they understand

about copyright and copyright infringement when using copyrighted materials he tried to tell that

they are aware of copyright infringement and they are thinking about how they will abolish

copyright infringement soon. Not only this artist but also other artist whom communicated with he said the nearly the same thing as the first artist said.12

In the interview with telephone; AY mzee wa commercial Tanzania replied that copyright

infringement in Tanzania is mostly caused by lack of adequate knowledge on Intellectual

Property, lack of Intellectual Property policy, inadequate capacity of enforcing agencies and lack

of inter institutional Intellectual property coordination and information exchange. Following his

more words he said that no way that the artists will combat the problem until the government

start valuing the work of the artist in Tanzania and formulate the policies and laws to govern

is prohibited under the law that copyright infringement is causing the work of artists loose the

market hence to stop it immediately.

Both of the interviewed artists; replied by showing the high understanding of what is copyright

and copyright infringement. But both of them claimed that most of their works if not all are very

easily and cheaply infringed through the computer network system due to the development of

information and communication technology (ICTs).

In the interview further claimed against the government, that although the parliament enacted

intellectual property laws in Tanzania, the government is not in the position to the enforcement

of the said laws, something which affected morally and economically both the government and

the music artists.

The interview also come with the point that; they were asked in what forms their work has been

infringed mostly, they both replied that through the rapid development of information and

communication technology (ICT), people in various places they used to burn CD/DVD’s, and

11 Evoid Rosen Katurya of Boma FM Moshi 12 AY, Mzee wa Commercial

use flash disc to tape or records their music and playing the music in public areas like in the

restaurant, buses, bar, in the areas of ceremonies without their permission, and without using the

original CD/DVD. And by doing so, they claimed that they lost a lot of money, as their original

and certified CD/DVD’s remains unsold in the shop, hence losses occurred.

They also claimed against the radio, that most of the radio stations playing their music without

their permission in the commutes and taxis, in the kiosks and cafes and other areas; therefore

they are suffering not only morally but also economically because as the artists they are gaining

nothing from their work. Hence they both replied that the big problem facing most of the user of

their product in Tanzania is that they don’t know the intellectual property laws, so they commit

facing as artists.

About the matter concerning internet cafe and kiosks in the copyright and copyright

infringement, they both replied that internet cafe and kiosks they played a very big role in the

discs something which is bringing a more problematic issue in the copyright infringement. The

internet cafes and kiosks operators knows well about the intellectual property laws through

COSOTA, but still in a good number of them violating intellectual property laws which has a big

challenge in the artists original works.

The question on the point of the kiosks which downloading music in the mobile phone the two

artists both replied that these people they know the copyrights law and copyright infringement

because they have habit of visiting them and talk with them friendly about the concerned issue

on copyright infringement, and not only that but even the people from COSOTA are well

elaborate the issue and effects to them. They are still claiming that; the only problem is the

government. That the government is too reluctant in the enforcement of the intellectual

properties laws, something which made the rights of the artists to be infringed.

The question about the customer service of the four mobile phone companies if they know

anything about the copyright law and also about the caller tone and ringtones, if they are

benefiting or not. They both replied that the four companies as the international companies they

know the laws of copyright infringement very well but they take advantage of the weakness of

CYBERCRIME LAW IN TANZANIA------GET THE ANSWER

Thursday, July 10, 2014

KIMBUNGA CHAWAHAMISHA MAELFU JAPAN

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

MP says Malawi has begun to frighten Tanzanians

COPYRIGHT,TRADEMARKS AND PATENTS

COPYRIGHT PATENT AND TRADEMARKS

CYBERCRIME LAW IN TANZANIA

Translate

RECENTLY POSTS

Total Pageviews

LIKE MY PAGE

About Me

TELL ME ABOUT BUSINESS

My Blog List

what is crime?