Consumers International IP Watchlist
The Consumers International IP Watchlist identifies countries whose IP policies and practices are harmful to consumers. This Watch List is used as a counterbalance to the United States' Special 301 Report, which is an annual report highlighting those countries that supposedly do not provide strong enough protection for the interests of US intellectual property owners.
From 2009-2012, Consumers International published annual editions of the IP Watchlist, based on manually collated data. Those reports from 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 IP Watchlist Reports are still available.
From 2013, the collation of the report data is done automatically, so you can now view current statistics based on the reports that we have to hand day by day! As of Friday November 28, 2014, the five best and worst countries in our survey are shown below, based on how well their intellectual property regimes respect consumer rights. In this table A represents a good score, that shows that consumers' interests are being observed in this area. B, C and D are progressively not so good... and F is a fail. These are the overall scores; more details are available that break these scores into categories.
|Best-rated countries||Worst-rated countries|
|1||Moldova (B)||Jordan (D)|
|2||Israel (B)||Kenya (D)|
|3||India (B)||Argentina (C-)|
|4||Indonesia (B)||Thailand (C-)|
|5||New Zealand (B-)||United Kingdom (C-)|
This survey is based on the answers to 49 questions about IP laws and practices which can be answered "Yes", "No", or "In part". A select sample of those questions will be featured below from time to time. You can view the answers to all questions in the country reports below.
Are rights holders prohibited from excluding user rights under copyright law?
For example, rights holders can use the fine print of a licence agreement to take away your legal right to make backup copies or quotations. To maintain balance between rights holders and consumers, it is important that the law prevent them from taking away your user rights through fine print. Unfortunately a majority of countries don't have such a law.
Is there any general user right that is based on a set of balancing criteria, such as a "fair use" right?
This deals with the availability of a flexible user right like "fair use", or "fair dealing" when this is not reserved for a specific purpose like education. Such a user right enables the law to adapt to new uses dynamically, and is the bedrock of online innovation in the relatively few countries that have it. Thankfully, we are slowly seeing more countries amending their laws to include a flexible right, and this is a trend that should continue.
Are temporary or transient copies, incidental to a lawful use, excepted from copyright?
It is important for temporary copies to be left out of copyright, because such copies are made automatically every time we use a computer or the Internet. If the making of automatic temporary copies could be controlled by copyright owners (as proposed under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement), the use of digital goods would become subject to their permission. The result? More expensive digital products, with more limitations on their use.
Click through for a full page of more detailed statistics on how each country scored across eleven categories of questions. (If you want to see how the statistics were generated, we can enable an expert mode for you on request!) For even more detail, read on for the country reports below.
Below are the countries for which reports are available, along with an indication of how complete and current they are. For your convenience, an answer that supports consumer rights is answered "Yes" and colour-coded in green, whereas a problem area is answered "No" and coloured red.
To edit the report for your country (edits are moderated), create an account, log in, and click "Edit" while viewing the report you wish to edit. The newest questions will be highlighted in green, the most-recently amended ones in yellow. If your country is not listed, you can submit a new draft country report.
|Albania||3 years 39 weeks ago||
|Argentina||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Armenia||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Australia||2 years 23 weeks ago||
|Bangladesh||4 years 37 weeks ago||
|Belarus||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Brazil||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Brazil||3 years 37 weeks ago||
|Cameroon||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Canada||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Chile||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|China (PRC)||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Costa Rica||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Costa Rica||2 years 40 weeks ago||
|Egypt||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Fiji||2 years 38 weeks ago||
|France||3 years 38 weeks ago||
|France||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|India||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Indonesia||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Israel||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Japan||2 years 31 weeks ago||
|Jordan||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Kenya||4 years 36 weeks ago||
|Lebanon||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Malawi||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Malaysia||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Mexico||4 years 37 weeks ago||
|Moldova||3 years 38 weeks ago||
|Morocco||4 years 36 weeks ago||
|Morocco||4 years 36 weeks ago||
|New Zealand||1 year 27 weeks ago||
|Nigeria||4 years 36 weeks ago||
|Pakistan||3 years 38 weeks ago||
|Philippines||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Romania||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Serbia||3 years 38 weeks ago||
|Slovenia||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|South Africa||3 years 38 weeks ago||
|South Korea||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Spain||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Sweden||4 years 37 weeks ago||
|Thailand||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Ukraine||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|United Kingdom||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|United States of America||2 years 35 weeks ago||
|Vietnam||4 years 36 weeks ago||
|Zambia||4 years 37 weeks ago||
This work is licensed under a Attribution Share Alike Creative Commons license