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 ANKARA 007296 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT PASS USTR FOR JCHOE-GROVES, LERRION 
DEPT PASS USPTO FOR JURBAN AND EWU 
USDOC FOR ITA/MAC/CRUSNAK 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD KIPR TU USTR
SUBJECT:  BUSINESS GIVES MIXED REVIEWS TO TURKEY'S IPR 
ENFORCEMENT 
 
REF:  ANKARA 6899 
 
This information is sensitive but unclassified.  Please 
protect accordingly. 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Representatives of Turkish music, 
film, and publishing industries give mixed reviews to 
the GOT's latest IPR enforcement efforts.  While they 
agree that the 2004 IPR enforcement law is a welcome 
improvement, they argue that poor enforcement due to 
lack of training and knowledge, and slowly-changing 
public perceptions prevent the GOT from effectively 
prosecuting IPR violators.  Turkey will continue to 
benefit from USG-hosted IPR-enforcement training, but, 
due to GOT constraints, alternative funding is crucial 
to Turkey's continued participation.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Istanbul-based Mu-Yap (Turkey's chapter of the 
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) 
representatives say they are happy with the 2004 IPR 
enforcement law, but the GOT's current enforcement 
efforts are insufficient.  They told us in early 
December that lack of training, ignorance, and lack of 
will are the main impediments to successful IPR 
enforcement in Turkey.  General Secretary Ahmet Asena 
said that while laws to convict IPR infringers now 
exist, violators are not being sentenced, and repeat 
offenders are not being prosecuted.  For example, even 
thought the 2004 law provides a financial penalty of 
between 50,000 and 150,000 YTL (approximately USD 37,000 
to 111,000), prosecutors and judges are not using this 
provision and enforcing the payment of this fine.  Asena 
was also surprised to hear from us about draft 
legislation that would remove the penalties for pirates 
who trade in goods produced outside of Turkey (reftel) 
that is in the Parliament's Justice Commission. 
 
¶3. (SBU) AMPEC (which focuses on copyright infringement 
of motion pictures and internet games) General Manager 
Nilufer Sapancilar, however, was more positive about the 
GOT's IPR enforcement efforts.  Sapancilar has 
accompanied Turkish police on raids of centers known to 
trade in pirated materials that she called "successful." 
She also argued that the judges and prosecutors working 
in the special IP Courts, especially in Istanbul, are 
quickly becoming more knowledgeable and working to 
enforce the 2004 legislation.  She added, however, that 
training was still very important for these individuals 
and asked for any assistance available.  Like Asena, she 
was shocked when we told her about the proposed 
legislative changes, but pledged to educate her 
membership about the law and do what she could to 
discourage its passage. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Representatives of the publishing industry were 
also bleak about Turkey's IPR enforcement.  As Emrah 
Ozpirinci of Oxford Publishing put it, "Turkey is still 
a haven for pirates."  While they too felt that the new 
law was an improvement, they argued that changes in the 
law subsequent to its passage in 2004 left it without 
much enforcement capability.  For example, while the 
legislation makes the sale of pirated material a "public 
crime" and allows police to confiscate the material 
immediately without charges from the right holder, 
changes in the requirements for placing authenticating 
holograms on published documents have made it almost 
impossible for the police to determine what is 
legitimate and what is pirated. (Note:  Currently, 
holograms are not required for books with less than 90 
pages. End note.)  In addition, they emphasized that 
because the GOT has been slow to write the implementing 
regulations for the law, agencies responsible for 
enforcement are left without the authority or guidelines 
for doing so.  Finally, they shared the others' view 
that the prosecutors and judges responsible for fighting 
pirating were still in need of training and experience. 
They also were unaware that draft legislation was 
currently in the Justice Commission and said they would 
publicize it to their membership. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Comment:  With the 2004 legislation, Turkey 
took a major step toward combating pirating. 
Enforcement remains an issue, however, and training is 
important during this crucial time.  The USG has 
provided such training for prosecutors and judges, but, 
given limited GOT resources and the extent of its needs, 
additional and alternative funding must be found in 
order to send Turkish participants to the training.  As 
the potential passage of legislation that would remove 
penalties for goods produced outside of Turkey 
highlights, there are still many officials in Turkey who 
do not take IPR-enforcement seriously.  End comment. 
 
Wilson