After the infamous Anti-Planking bill filed by QC Rep. Winston Castelo, another bill filed by the same congressman is now gaining the same popularity. The news of his ANTI-ANGRY BIRDS BILL is now becoming viral in social networking sites.
The bill was drafted in response to his displeasure upon seeing several Angry Bird themed items in a number of stalls in 168 Divisoria Mall.
It is said that the House Bill 5379 "aims to monitor the diversity, quality and quantity of items bearing the angry birds likeness." A stall shall have no more than two kinds of the said birds emblazoned on its items. Items covered by the bill includes, but are not limited to, shirts, cups, mugs, cellphone accessories, and many others. Those not stated, but bears the semblance or similarity to Angry Birds franchise is subject to the law as well.
Why does the public have to pay House Representatives to file this kind of bills? Public funds should be spent wisely and be allocated to endeavors that will alleviate the plight of the Filipinos, instead of funding the research, drafting and filing of nonsensical bills such as the Anti-Planking and the Anti-Angry Birds bills.
Instead of filing a bill directed towards a particular brand, Angry Birds in this case, why not draft legislation, or strengthen the ones in existence, that can address the issues of copyright and trademark infringement? Clearly, the use of the Angry Birds design without permission is a violation of intellectual property rights of its owner.
Now the BIRDS are directing its ANGER towards the gentleman in Batasan.
Entry # 15 by D. LAURON
1 comment:
berd, 'twas a satire pala. rep castelo in a statement said he actually plays angry birds. but the fact that it was soooo believable says a lot.
Post a Comment