This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CAIRO 003624 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ELA, NEA/RA, AND EB/IFD 
USAID FOR ANE/MEA MCCLOUD 
USTR FOR SAUMS 
TREASURY FOR MILLS/NUGENT/PETERS 
COMMERCE FOR 4520/ITA/ANESA/MTALAAT 
 
SENSITVE 
 
E.O.  12958: N/A 
TAGS: KIPR ECON ETRD EINV EAID EG
SUBJECT: EGYPT ISSUES IPR COPYRIGHT REGULATIONS 
 
This cable is Sensitive But Unclassified.  Please handle 
accordingly.  Not for internet distribution. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.  On March 29, 2005, the Prime Minister 
issued decree 497/2005 which promulgated the final chapter 
of executive regulations of the Intellectual Property Rights 
(IPR) Law 82 of 2002.  Analysis of this chapter, which cover 
copyrights and neighboring rights, indicates potential 
deficiencies in the regulations and some inconsistencies 
with Egypt's international IPR commitments, including the 
agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (TRIPS).  Some of these problems were anticipated by 
IPR experts, who had offered, to no avail, to help the GOE 
with the drafting of the regulations.  Post will report on 
any additional shortcomings in the regulations that come to 
light, and will follow up with IPR experts for their 
reaction to the new regulations.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Chapter 3 on copyrights and neighboring rights was 
the last chapter of the four-chapter implementing 
regulations of the 2002 IPR law to be issued.  The absence 
of executive regulations on copyrights was singled out in 
the 2004 Special 301 report as one of the reasons for weak 
copyright enforcement in Egypt -- a deficiency cited as 
justification for elevating Egypt to the Priority Watch List 
that year. 
 
¶3. (SBU) While the implementation of the copyright 
regulations is welcome, a review of the chapter by the IPR 
consultants at the USAID-funded Intellectual Property Rights 
Assistance (IPRA) Project indicates that the regulations 
fail to address the following important issues: 
 
False licensing:  The regulations do not address false 
licensing -- the granting of a license by someone with no 
authority to do so.  GOE enforcement authorities cite their 
inability to verify the authenticity of licenses as a major 
reason for failing to provide effective copyright 
enforcement. 
 
Border protection:  There is confusion within the GOE over 
which agencies are responsible for preventing pirated 
material from entering the country, a TRIPS obligation.  The 
issue is not addressed by either the 2002 IPR law or the 
Chapter 3 regulations.  This deficiency is of great concern, 
as most pirated goods in Egypt are imported, not produced 
locally. 
 
Non-voluntary licenses:  A concern with IPR Law 82 of 2002 
was that it created a provision for non-voluntary licenses 
that went beyond what was permitted under the Berne 
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 
(Berne Convention) and TRIPS.  The copyright regulations 
failed to remedy this problem and, in fact, appear to have 
created an even more expansive set of non-voluntary 
licenses, especially for educational purposes, without the 
protections and limitations required under the Berne 
Convention. 
 
Computer software:  Chapter 3 regulations regarding the 
adaptation of computer software are unclear and could allow 
persons other than the software designer to adapt the 
software without permission, in violation of the Berne 
Convention and TRIPS. 
 
Licensing of works in the public domain:  The regulations 
require payment for licenses for the commercial or 
professional use of works, sound recordings, performance or 
broadcast programs that are already in the public domain. 
Requiring payment for such works violates the principle of 
public domain and deprives the public of the intended 
benefits. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Comment:  Analysis of the copyright regulations by 
IPRA experts indicates that a number of deficiencies that 
will have to be corrected if Egypt is to meet its 
international IPR obligations.  These problems are not 
wholly unexpected.  The IPRA project had identified many of 
these concerns after the IPR law went into effect and had 
offered to assist the Ministry of Culture with the drafting 
of the executive regulations.  Unfortunately, the offer was 
refused.  Post will report on any additional shortcomings in 
the regulations that come to light, and will follow up with 
representatives in the field of intellectual property for 
their reaction to the new regulations.  End comment. 
 
GRAY