The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 5.
Unlock = Open, not Choked!
https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/unlock-open-not-choked
<b> Don't let a virus stall initiatives and weaken the economy.</b>
<p>This article first appeared in the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/unlock-open-not-choked-120060400079_1.html">Business Standard</a> and on June 4, 2020.</p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p>A
recent column in this newspaper juxtaposed the way smart, experienced
people have high expectations, only to be disappointed by our weak
state’s predictable failures (<em><a href="https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/strong-expectations-from-a-weak-state-120052401090_1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Strong expectations from a weak state</a>, May 25</em>).
Is there justification for any optimism, or at least hope? Here is an
exploration of reasons for persisting in the face of continued odds, and
pushing for economic recovery. Why should one persist with constructive
efforts? Because a rising tide lifts all boats, and one’s contribution
can affect outcomes. And because attempts at partial opening will not
suffice.</p>
<div>
There could be new economic opportunities by way of capacity, logistics
or markets, or a wider array of sustainable consumer choices, whether
for manufactured goods, services, or activities. Think back, and surely
you have witnessed government action extend beyond the grind of just
keeping everything going.</div>
<div>
One instance of major change that affected the economy was in 1990, when
the secretary of the Department of Electronics N Vittal worked in close
consultation with industry. This resulted in path-breaking reforms,
such as the setting up of “high-speed” links (of a mere 64 kilobits per
second at the time) between Information Technology (IT) companies in
Indian software technology parks and their international clients, and
various tax incentives that followed much later. The offshore services
industry gathered strength, and later expanded to cover IT-enabled
services with call centres and business processing, extending to
knowledge processing.</div>
<div>
Likewise, telecommunications reforms began in 1990, when prime minister
Chandra Shekhar led a shaky government for a brief period. The
telecommunications ministry was looking for a private sector consultant.
Through an invisible network, an investment banker who had been a
management consultant in San Francisco was asked to look into
telecommunications reforms. This led to the setting up of the Athreya
Committee and its recommendations: On separating policy-making from
operations, corporatising the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam as an operating
company for Delhi and Mumbai, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam for the rest,
while recommending access to private sector operators. All this was not
smooth and painless, and took years, but did happen eventually, although
the separation remains untidy.</div>
<div>
By 1998, telecommunications operators were in a situation similar to the
predicament some months ago, of weak revenues and a debt overhang, with
some differences. There were many operators with heavy debt because of
government charges and limited revenue generation capacity, because of
smaller networks and less clients. This is the “winners’ curse” of
auctions, when exorbitant amounts are paid to government for auctions,
with nothing left for building and running networks and enterprises to
generate the revenues to justify those payments. There are exceptions,
as in the social democrat Nordic states, or state-controlled allocations
as in China, or in Japan for a number of years.</div>
<div>
Key people in government grasped this. The Prime Minister’s Office
consulted with industry and external consultants, and took action. This
resulted in the New Telecom Policy 1999 (NTP-99), whereby the major
change was converting up-front licence fees to revenue sharing, although
the policy was uneven because of cherry-picked recommendations.
Initially, the government set the percentage share too high. It took
years to reduce and trigger rapid growth. This came about through
reduced government charges, calling party pays (which cut call costs),
and a price war, brought on by the stealth entry of a new technology
(CDMA) network, which the authorities allowed despite incumbent
protests. Mobile services then grew exponentially from 2004, until the
2G spectrum scam surfaced in 2011.</div>
<div>
A stream of articles advocated extending revenue-sharing to spectrum
fees as for licence fees, and for shared infrastructure including
spectrum. In 2011, a senior official in the DoT was sufficiently
impressed to explore the possibility of evaluating alternatives using
simulation models. But the 2G scam broke after the first few meetings of
DoT officials, and this process was aborted. Instead of major changes
based on simulations, a mere statement of intent about spectrum pooling
and sharing made it into NTP-2012.</div>
<div>
There were other incredible developments, although with no apparent
results (yet). For instance, in 2013, a non-governmental organisation,
the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru, arranged for the
former chief technology officer of the US Federal Communications
Commission, Jon Peha, who had pioneered changes in America, to meet with
top officials of the DoT, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
and some IIT professors. The latter conducted successful trials using TV
White Space spectrum for the Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology. The details are many, but the point is that constructive
advocacy can have an impact.</div>
<div>
<strong>Reviving the Economy Now</strong></div>
<div>
We are in a difficult situation, with our economy and society battered
by the lockdown and much else. We will need to do everything possible to
recover, and it will take years. Attempts at partial opening will not
suffice. Systemic revival calls for unrestricted flows of money, people,
activity, and goods and services.</div>
<div>
While reactivating the economy, we will need to be cautious through the
pandemic (through “social distancing”, using masks to reduce infection,
avoiding close contact with outsiders, and so on). But survivors have to
live with this virus, as with other strains of viruses and bacteria,
and other threats.</div>
<div>
Consider traffic accidents, which average over 145,000 deaths annually (data 2013-2017: <a href="https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/chapter-1A-traffic-accidents-2017_0.pdf">https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/chapter-1A-traffic-accidents-2017_0.pdf</a>).
Extrapolating, this means a million fatalities in seven years, yet we
don’t shut down all traffic. By comparison, Covid-19 had about 6,000
fatalities since January.</div>
<div>
A proportion of the medical fraternity opines that (a) there is
community spread of Covid-19, and (b) with many cases milder than the
expected severity, that most patients need home care rather than
hospitalisation. If these continue, our health systems will not be
overwhelmed with severe cases. Also, so far, India has had a relatively
low fatality rate of 2.8 per cent (<em>see chart</em>).</div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/telecom/case-fatality-rate/" alt="null" width="50%" /></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
Source: Data - <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus">https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus</a></div>
<div>
As long as these factors hold, our priority has to be unfettered
economic activity. Countries with higher fatality rates, including
Sweden, China, Japan and Germany in the chart, have open economic
activity (with tremendous productivity). We will weaken and our problems
will escalate if we are held back.</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/unlock-open-not-choked'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/unlock-open-not-choked</a>
</p>
No publisherShyam PonappaTelecomEconomicsCovid192020-06-15T03:04:18ZBlog EntrySurvey of Estimates of Economic Value of Open Government Data
https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-estimates-of-economic-value-of-open-government-data
<b>This is a survey of estimates of economic value of open government data, and public sector information in general, across regions, countries, and sectors offered by several reports published during the last decade. The survey is undertaken by Ömer Faruk Sarı, a student of Business Administration at Koc University in Istanbul, Turkey, and research intern with CIS. </b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>This is a survey of economic value estimates of open government data, and public sector information in general, by consultancy groups and government bodies across the world. The first part of the post lists estimates from different regions and countries, while the second part collects estimates for different sectors. Major reports surveyed in this study include the 'MEPSIR: Measuring European Public Sector Information Resources' report (2006), 'The Value of Spatial Information' report by ACIL Tasman (2008), 'Review of Recent Studies on PSI Re-Use and Related Market Developments' report by Graham Vickery (2012), 'Market Assessment of Public Sector Information' report by Deloitte (2013), 'Open Data: Unlocking Innovation and Performance with Liquid Information' by McKinsey (2013), 'Big and Open Data in Europe: A Growth Engine or a Missed Opportunity?' by Warsaw Institute for Economic Studies (2014), and 'Open for Business: How Open Data can Help Achieve the G20 Growth Target' report by Omidyar Network (2014).</p>
<p><strong>Note about Exchange Rate:</strong>The monetary values stated in these reports vary by years and currencies. The original estimates are mentioned in the currency concerned followed by the converted amount in US Dollar (using exchange rate of the same year) provided within brackets. The exchange rates concerned are mentioned at the bottom of the post.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Countries and Regions</h2>
<h3>Global</h3>
<p>McKinsey estimates global economic value of open data as USD 3.2 Trillion for seven sectors - Education, Transportation, Consumer Products, Electricity, Oil and Gas, Healthcare, and Consumer Finance. [1]</p>
<h3>European Union</h3>
<p>Pira International Ltd. et al, in 2000, estimated the monetary value of open data for EU countries as EUR 68 Billion (USD 76 Billion). [2]</p>
<p>Zangenberg and Company, estimated this number for EU countries as for minimum EUR 29 Billion (USD 38 Billion) and for an upper limit of EUR 143 Billion (USD 188 Billion). [3]</p>
<p>The Warsaw Institute for Economic Studies (WISE Institute) estimates the economic value of open data in EU, as increase in GDP by 2020, as EUR 206 Billion (USD 253 Billion). [4]</p>
<p>Graham Vickery estimated this number as EUR 200 Billion (USD 264 Billion) in 2012. [5]</p>
<p>In 2006, MEPSIR, in their report for European Commission, mentioned EUR 27 Billion (USD 36 Billion) could be gained by use of open data. [6]</p>
<p>McKinsey, in their report in 2013, estimated the monetary value of open data for EU countries as USD 900 Billion. [1]</p>
<iframe src="http://ajantriks.github.io/cis/charts/2015.08_open-data-value-eu/index.html" frameborder="0" height="300" width="700"></iframe>
<h3>G20</h3>
<p>For G20 countries taken together, Omidyar Network estimates the economic value of open data as USD 2.6 Trillion. [7]</p>
<h3>Australia</h3>
<p>Omidyar Network, in their study on business value of open data, estimated the potential of open data for Australia as AUD 3.4 Billion (USD 2.8 Billion). [7]</p>
<p>In 2008, ACIL Tasman estimated the potential economic value of open data for Australia as AUD 1.4 Billion (USD 938 Million). [8]</p>
<p>John Houghton's estimation for the monetary value of open data is AUD 195 Million (USD 197 Million). [9]</p>
<h3>Denmark</h3>
<p>Zangenberg and Company, in 2011, estimated the economic value of open data for Denmark as DKK 520 Million (USD 92 Million). [3]</p>
<h3>France</h3>
<p>SerdaLAB, in 2009, estimated EUR 1.57 Billion (USD 2.3 Billion) can be gained by open data in France. [10]</p>
<h3>Germany</h3>
<p>In 2011, Dr, Martin Fornefeld et al estimated the economic value of open data for Germany as EUR 1.7 Billion (USD 2.2 Billion), only for geo-information. [11]</p>
<p>The POPSIS study estimated this number as EUR 3.2 Million (USD 4.2 Million), in the same year, 2011. [12]</p>
<h3>Norway</h3>
<p>Graham Vickery's report mentions the potential value of open data as NOK 260 Million (USD 43 Million). [5]</p>
<h3>Spain</h3>
<p>The Proyecto Aporta (Spanish open data portal project) study estimated the economic value of the infomediary sector in Spain as EUR 330-550 Million (USD 452-753 Million), in 2012. [13]</p>
<h3>The Netherlands</h3>
<p>In 2011, the POPSIS study estimated the economic potential that can be gained from open data in Netherlands as EUR 78 Million (USD 102 Million). [12]</p>
<h3>United Kingdom</h3>
<p>Deloitte, in their report, estimated the value of open data as GBP 6.2-7.2 Billion (USD 10-11.8 Billion) for United Kingdom. [14]</p>
<p>Rufus Pollock, in 2011, estimated GBP 4.5-6 Billion (USD 7-9.3 Billion) that can be unlocked by use of open data. [15]</p>
<p>Dot-Econ's estimation for monetary value of open data in United Kingdom is EUR 590 Million (USD 778 Million). [16]</p>
<h3>United States</h3>
<p>McKinsey's estimation, in 2013, for the value that can be unlocked by open data in United States is quite remarkable at USD 1.1 Trillion. [1]</p>
<p>Pira International Ltd. et al, in 2000, estimated the value as EUR 750 Billion (USD 838 Billion). [2]</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Data Types and Sectors</h2>
<h3>Consumer Finance</h3>
<p>McKinsey estimates USD 210-280 Billion, globally, for the consumer finance sector. [1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> The estimate for G20 countries is USD 169 Billion; for Australia, the estimate is AUD 4.2 Billion (USD 4.3 Billion).</p>
<h3>Consumer Products</h3>
<p>Across the globe, with the use of open data McKinsey estimates USD 520-1470 Billion can be generated from services of consumer products. [1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> G20 countries, in total, have a potential value of USD 419 Billion for this sector; the value is estimated at AUD 10 Billion (USD 10.2 Billion) for Australia.</p>
<h3>Education</h3>
<p>McKinsey estimates that USD 890-1180 Billion can be generated alone in education sector, across the globe. [1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> Open data in the education sector in G20 countries can generate USD 717 Billion; for Australia, value of open data in education sector is estimated to be AUD 14 Billion (USD 14.2 Billion).</p>
<h3>Electricity</h3>
<p>McKinsey estimates USD 340-580 Billion, across the globe. [1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> For electricity sector, USD 193 Billion is estimated for G20 countries; estimate for Australia for electricity sector depending on open data is AUD 6.7 Billion (USD 6.8 Billion).</p>
<h3>Geospatial Data</h3>
<p>Dr. Nam D. Pham estimates the potential value of Geo-spatial information in US as USD 96 Billion. [17]</p>
<p>In the report by Pira International Limited et al, the economic value of geo-spatial information in EU estimated as EUR 36 Billion (USD 40 Billion). [2]</p>
<p>Fornefeld et al estimates the value of geo-spatial information in Germany as EUR 1.7 Billion (USD 2.2 Billion). [11]</p>
<p>The POPSIS study estimates the economic value of Meteorological data re-use market in Netherlands as EUR 10 Million (USD 13 Million). [12]</p>
<p>Graham Vickery estimates (in 2012) NOK 72 Million (USD 12 Million) can be generated in Norway through geo-spatial information. [5]</p>
<p>The Proyecto Aporta study estimates potential value of geo-spatial information in Spain as EUR 183 Million (USD 240 Million). [13]</p>
<p>ACIL Tasman in their report, estimated that as a direct result of the uptake of spatial technologies New Zealand’s real GDP increased by NZD 1.2 Billion (USD 670 Million) in 2008 through productivity-related gains as a result of the increasing adoption of modern spatial information technologies since 1995. [8]</p>
<p>In the United Kingdom, a 'supply-side' assessment estimated the market size and growth potential for geographic information (GI) products and services. The market size in year 2007 was estimated to be GBP 657 Million (USD 1.32 Billion). [18]</p>
<p>Based on PwC's study in 2010, John Houghton estimates the value of spatial data in Australia as AUD 25 Million (USD 25.3 Million). [9]</p>
<p>Ordnance Survey of UK estimates the economic value of open data published by the same agency as GBP 2.9-6.1 Million (USD 4.5-9.5 Million). [19]</p>
<iframe src="http://ajantriks.github.io/cis/charts/2015.08_open-geo-data-value/index.html" frameborder="0" height="400" width="700"></iframe>
<h3>Healthcare</h3>
<p>Globally, USD 300-450 Billion is the estimate of McKinsey, depending on open data use in healthcare sector.[1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> Open data in the healthcare sector can generate USD 242 Billion for G20 countries; estimate for Australia is AUD 5.9 Billion (USD 6 Billion).</p>
<h3>Oil and Gas</h3>
<p>McKinsey estimates USD 240-510 Billion that can be generated through open data for the oil and gas sector, across the globe. [1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> Oil and gas sector, with the use of open data, can generate USD 169 Billion for G20 countries; the value for Australia is estimated to generate AUD 4.8 Billion (USD 4.9 Billion).</p>
<h3>Transportation</h3>
<p>McKinsey estimates the value of transportation sector with the use of open data as USD 720-920 Billion for the transportation sector, globally. [1]</p>
<p><strong>Based on McKinsey's Report:</strong> G20 countries altogether can generate USD 580 Billion in transportation sector; estimate of the value of open data in the transportation sector in Australia is AUD 18 Billion (USD 18.2 Billion).</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Reference</h2>
<p>[1] Manyika, James, et al. 2013. Open Data: Unlocking Innovation and Performance with Liquid Information. McKinsey Global Institute. October. Accessed from <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/open_data_unlocking_innovation_and_performance_with_liquid_information">http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/open_data_unlocking_innovation_and_performance_with_liquid_information</a>.</p>
<p>[2] Pira International Ltd. et al. 2000. Commercial exploitation of Europe’s Public Sector Information - Executive Summary. European Commission, Brussels. Aceeseed from <a href="ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/econtent/docs/2000_1558_en.pdf">ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/econtent/docs/2000_1558_en.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[3] Zangenberg and Company. 2011, Kvantificering af værdien af åbne offentlige data (Quantifying the Value of Open Government Data). Report Prepared for the Danish National Information Technology and Telecom Agency. Accessed from <a href="https://digitaliser.dk/resource/1021067/artefact/Kvantificering+af+den+erhvervsm%c3%a6ssige+v%c3%a6rdi+af+%c3%a5bne+offentlige+data+-+Zangenberg2011.pdf">https://digitaliser.dk/resource/1021067/artefact/Kvantificering+af+den+erhvervsm%c3%a6ssige+v%c3%a6rdi+af+%c3%a5bne+offentlige+data+-+Zangenberg2011.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[4] Buchholtz, Sonia, et al. 2014. Big and Open Data in Europe: A Growth Engine or a Missed Opportunity? demosEUROPA – Centre for European Strategy and Warsaw Institute for Economic Studies. Accessed from <a href="http://www.bigopendata.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/bod_europe_2020_full_report_singlepage.pdf">http://www.bigopendata.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/bod_europe_2020_full_report_singlepage.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[5] Vickery, Graham. 2012. Review of Recent Studies on PSI Re-Use and Related Market Developments. European Commission, Brussels. Accessed form <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1093">http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1093</a>.</p>
<p>[6] Dekkers, Makx, et al. 2006. MEPSIR: Measuring European Public Sector Information Resources - Final Report of Study on Exploitation of Public Sector Information – Benchmarking of EU Framework Conditions. European Commission, Brussels. Accessed from <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?doc_id=1198">http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?doc_id=1198</a>.</p>
<p>[7] Lateral Economics. 2014. Open for Business: How Open Data can Help Achieve the G20 Growth Target. Omidyar Network. June. Accessed from <a href="https://www.omidyar.com/sites/default/files/file_archive/insights/ON%20Report_061114_FNL.pdf">https://www.omidyar.com/sites/default/files/file_archive/insights/ON%20Report_061114_FNL.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[8] ACIL Tasman. 2008. The Value of Spatial Information: The Impact of Modern Spatial Information
Technologies on the Australian Economy. March. Accessed from <a href="http://www.crcsi.com.au/assets/Resources/7d60411d-0ab9-45be-8d48-ef8dab5abd4a.pdf">http://www.crcsi.com.au/assets/Resources/7d60411d-0ab9-45be-8d48-ef8dab5abd4a.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[9] Houghton, John. 2011. Costs and Benefits of Data Provision. Report to the Australian National Data Service. September. Accessed from <a href="http://www.ands.org.au/resource/houghton-cost-benefit-study.pdf">http://www.ands.org.au/resource/houghton-cost-benefit-study.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[10] Guerre, Louise, et al. 2009. Le marché de l’information électronique professionnelle en France. SerdaLAB. Presentation at CCIP on January 27. Accessed from <a href="http://www.fnps.fr/Public/Article/File/DOCUMENTS/Presentation_ET_IEP09_270109.pdf">http://www.fnps.fr/Public/Article/File/DOCUMENTS/Presentation_ET_IEP09_270109.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[11] Fornefeld, Martin, et al. 2011. Die europäische Gesetzgebung als Motor für das deutsche GeoBusiness (European Legislation as a Driver for German GeoBusiness). Accessed from <a href="http://www.micus.de/pdf/MICUS_GeoBusiness-BMWi.pdf">http://www.micus.de/pdf/MICUS_GeoBusiness-BMWi.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[12] Citadel Consulting et al. 2011. POPSIS: Pricing Of Public Sector Information Study - Models of Supply and Charging for Public Sector Information (ABC) - Final Report. European Commission. October. Accessed from <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=1158">http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=1158</a>.</p>
<p>[13] Ministry of Finance and Public Administration et al. 2012. Characterization Study of the Infomediary Sector. Proyecto Aporta. Accessed from <a href="http://datos.gob.es/sites/default/files/files/Estudio_infomediario/121001%20RED%20007%20Final%20Report_2012%20Edition_vF_en.pdf">http://datos.gob.es/sites/default/files/files/Estudio_infomediario/121001%20RED%20007%20Final%20Report_2012%20Edition_vF_en.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[14] Deloitte. 2013. Market Assessment of Public Sector Information. Report to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Government of UK. Accessed from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/198905/bis-13-743-market-assessment-of-public-sector-information.pdf">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/198905/bis-13-743-market-assessment-of-public-sector-information.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[15] Pollock, Rufus. 2010. Welfare Gains from Opening up Public Sector Information in the UK. University of Cambridge. Accessed from <a href="http://rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/psi_openness_gains.pdf">http://rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/psi_openness_gains.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[16] DotEcon. 2006. The Commercial Use of Public Information (CUPI). Report OFT861. Office of Fair Trading, Government of UK. Accessed from <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/poi/oft-cupi.pdf">http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/poi/oft-cupi.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[17] Pham, Nam D. 2011. The Economic Benefits of Commercial GPS Use in the U.S. and the Costs of Potential Disruption. June. Accessed from <a href="http://www.gpsalliance.org/docs/GPS_Report_June_21_2011.pdf">http://www.gpsalliance.org/docs/GPS_Report_June_21_2011.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[18] Coote, Andrew, and Les Rackham. 2008. An Assessment of the Size and Prospects for Growth of the UK Market for Geographic Information Products and Services. ConsultingWhere. Accessed from <a href="http://www.consultingwhere.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/UK_Market_Assessment_v11_Final.pdf">http://www.consultingwhere.com/wp-content/uploads/resources/UK_Market_Assessment_v11_Final.pdf</a>.</p>
<p>[19] Carpenter, John, and Phil Watts. 2013. Assessing the Value of OS OpenData™ to the Economy of Great Britain - Synopsis. Ordnance Survey. June. Accessed from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207692/bis-13-950-assessing-value-of-opendata-to-economy-of-great-britain.pdf">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207692/bis-13-950-assessing-value-of-opendata-to-economy-of-great-britain.pdf</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Exchange Rates</h2>
<p>Note: Exchange rates are taken for December of the year concerned.</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Euro per 1 US Dollar</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2000</td>
<td>0.8947</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2006</td>
<td>0.7580</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2009</td>
<td>0.6868</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2010</td>
<td>0.7562</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2011</td>
<td>0.7599</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2013</td>
<td>0.7296</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2014</td>
<td>0.8123</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>British Pound per 1 US Dollar</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2006</td>
<td>0.5095</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2011</td>
<td>0.6415</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2013</td>
<td>0.6106</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2014</td>
<td>0.6397</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Australian Dollar per 1 US Dollar</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2008</td>
<td>1.4919</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2011</td>
<td>0.9874</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2014</td>
<td>1.2144</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>New Zealand Dollar per 1 US Dollar</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2008</td>
<td>1.7923</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Norwegian Krone per 1 US Dollar</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2010</td>
<td>5.9774</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Danish Krone per 1 US Dollar</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2011</td>
<td>5.6495</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-estimates-of-economic-value-of-open-government-data'>https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-estimates-of-economic-value-of-open-government-data</a>
</p>
No publisherÖmer Faruk SarıOpen Government DataDigital EconomyOpen DataEconomicsOpenness2015-08-22T08:42:30ZBlog EntryCultural Interests vs. Modernization: Robert Shapiro on IPR & Innovation in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cultural-interests-v-international-economy-robert-shapiro-on-ipr-innovation-in-india
<b>Last Friday March 28, 2014, prominent economist and chairman of Sonecon, llc, Dr. Robert Shapiro, lead a discussion on the roles of IPR and FDI in innovation. Within his research findings, Shapiro argues for India to adopt a stricter IP regime in order to attract higher rates of FDI in pharmaceuticals and other industries, and in turn, to spur a more successful economy.</b>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The closed door round-table discussion had been organized by policy research and advocacy organization, <a href="http://takshashila.org.in/">T</a><a href="http://takshashila.org.in/">he Takshashila </a><a href="http://takshashila.org.in/">Institute</a>, and hosted by <a href="http://cobaltblr.com/">Cobalt</a>, a recently opened co-working space in Bangalore. The event's speaker, Robert Shapiro, has advised U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and U.S. Vice President Albert Gore, as well as AT&T, Exxon-Mobil and Google, on economic policy and security matters. Recently he co-authored an economic research paper, titled, <em>How India Can Attract More Foreign Direct Investment, Create Jobs and Increase </em>GDP, which can be accessed <a href="http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/FDI_IP_and_the_Pharmaceutical_Sector_in_India-Shapiro-Mathur-Final-January2014.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Within this paper, Shapiro and Dr. Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute argue that the most effective way for India to attract “further investment and job creation for improving the innovation environment in India” is by respecting the intellectual property rights of foreign investors—specifically within the pharmaceutical sector. The main points made by Shapiro within his session and research paper will be looked at closer to follow.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">FDI to spur innovation</h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shapiro started the session by introducing the controversy over the role of innovation in economic processes. Contrary to the belief that the majority of economists share—that innovation happens outside the economy incidentally “because someone happens to have a bright idea”—Shapiro suggests that innovation plays a much more integral role within an economy, and even goes as far as considering innovation the most powerful underlying factor (possibly more so than education). Shapiro asserts that without innovation, “every economy has to stall out,” and what prevents this is new capital changing productivity and growth rates; and in India's case: through foreign direct investment (FDI).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">With reference to China's manufacturing sectors, Shapiro depicts the immense benefits stemming from FDI. As a direct effect, he states that not only do new technologies come in but new ways of financing and management are brought in as well. The bulk of the impact of FDI, however, is an indirect function, resulting from a “spillover effect” at a regional level as more and more companies begin to adopt the ways of the new enterprises. The impact of innovation, however, is an exclusive function of how <em>effectively </em>it is applied. In order to maximize foreign investment, Shapiro stresses the need to eradicate any barriers to new businesses so that they may adopt and adapt to the new incoming technologies.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">On several occasions within his address and the accompanying discussion, Shapiro had asserted India as being an outlier in terms of FDI, with emphasis on India's FDI rates being half of those of Malaysia and Thailand (countries implied to be incomparable to India in an economic sense). He admits that he does not understand the reasons for this discrepancy, as standard economic factors alone cannot explain this; such as a country's market size, availability of labour, and quality of infrastructure (despite India's room for improvement here).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">In order to understand India's FDI rates then, Shapiro offers the importance of considering the political factors at play to the same extent as the economic ones (if not, more) with some of such factors being: the state's attitudes towards property rights, bankruptcy regime, levels of corruption, and the enforcement of contracts and intellectual property rights.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">And it is supposedly here, at this last factor, where the central issue lies for India.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">IP as a product of cultural decisions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As new ideas continue to dwarf the value of physical capital, economies are increasingly composite of these intangible assets (intellectual property)—such as patents, copyright, software and name brands—or at least within the US economy anyway. These intellectual asset-intensive economies are not limited to industries such as pharmaceuticals, software, and IT hardware (as one might initially suspect); rather, those of media, automobiles, beverages and tobacco and other consumer goods. In 2011, Shapiro states, half of US industries equalled or exceeded the three former industries in intellectual assets. These industries, which had formerly been sectors based on production, have now outsourced their production schemes to India and China.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Shapiro explains these economic trends as a function of a repeated set of choices in support of American values of growth, prosperity, and individualism. He continues in saying that cultural values are also important to consider when trying to undergo modernization. A country with more traditional values would be wrong to strive to modernize at the same rate as that of the US, for example. In such a case, modernizing at a much slower rate is advisable, and if this is unfavourable, Shapiro alternatively suggests that “you can sometimes change culture by changing the law.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">But how are US and Indian industries comparable, then, if India's economy is arguably a platform for production of US-owned intellectual assets? What are the odds that Indian companies will actually own their resulting innovations stemming from foreign investments? Presumably not very high.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">And what sets of choices has India made to reflect its own sets of cultural values and principles in contrast to those of the US?</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">Consequences of a weak IP regime and over-regulation</h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Within his recent <a href="http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/FDI_IP_and_the_Pharmaceutical_Sector_in_India-Shapiro-Mathur-Final-January2014.pdf">research paper</a>, Shapiro recounts Indian laws related to IPR over the years and how the country's weak international IP regime has paved the way for its thriving generic pharmaceutical industry. Through enforcing restrictions on patent filings, shorter patent terms, and compulsory licensing, the Indian Patent Office enabled the manufacturing of domestic pharmaceutical products without having to pay outgoing royalty (or to a lesser degree) in promotion of increased access to medicines for Indians at much more affordable prices.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shapiro argues that this disregard for foreign IPR discourages foreign companies from wanting to enter the Indian market in the future for fear of imitation products coming about to their detriment. Shapiro argues that if India adopted stronger IP rights and enforcement, FDI to the country's pharmaceutical industry would increase drastically; more so, if India adopted an IP system comparable to the US, FDI flows could even rise by 83 per cent per year, making it a centre for innovative pharmaceutical R&D. Just as well its access to new innovative drugs would increase by 5 per cent, contributing to a higher life expectancy and a larger work force (Shapiro, p. 3, 2014).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">An IP regime comparable to the US and Europe, Shapiro suggests, promotes both endogenous and exogenous growth while bringing about competitive markets “with pockets of monopolies throughout.” Such [patent] regimes have evolved over decades and “simply work well,” he states. Also, in requiring patent applicants to publish all secrets—that which makes the invention novel—others are given the ability to benefit from such knowledge.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">So then, is India wrong in making decisions in accordance with its own set of cultural values and principles if they are not necessarily in accordance with those of the US?</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Arguably not. However, as Shapiro demonstrates, such decisions may bare consequence in India's pursuit to modernize as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that is not exactly in compliance with Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) standards. India may also be missing out on greater importation of technologies if foreign companies fear that their products will be imitated by local companies. According to Shapiro, India's services sector (including banking, insurance, outsourcing, R&D, courier and technology testing services) contribute to 60 per cent of the country's GDP, yet have declined in FDI for several reasons including the country's weak IP regime, as well as government regulations capping the maximum investments of foreign companies (Shapiro, p. 37, 2014).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Which brings us to the notion of market deregulation as a mechanism of promoting FDI. Shapiro suggests this to be essential for India to enable a more even playing ground for new and emerging players to compete. A regulatory issue arises when new companies are up against companies receiving government subsidies. In this way, such regulations may also prohibit companies from reorganizing to implement new technologies or practices, undermining the spillover effects that FDI can bring about.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">IPR adoption vs. innovation</h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Shapiro stresses the importance in not only allowing companies to implement new technologies, but to encourage them to do so as well. A common mistake developing countries make, he says, is trying to be the <em>source</em> of innovation: “Although it's nice to be the source of innovation, what is more important is to adopt innovation of others.” In response, a contribution to discussion made by a fellow attendee commented on the inclination of developing countries to first duplicate, then adapt, and then innovate for themselves.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">So what is India left to do then? How do Indian companies navigate along the fine line distinguishing between <em>adopting</em> new technologies and <em>duplicating</em> them? And if innovation is so integral to a country's economy, will merely adopting and adapting to emerging foreign technologies suffice for the country's economy? Or can India only progress away from “duplication” with stricter IPR enforcement?</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">While citing studies based in Europe, Shapiro illustrates the relationship between IP regimes and inventions. The study's findings displayed that while there is no relationship between IPR and <em>occurrences</em> of inventions, there is correlation between IPR and the <em>kinds</em> of inventions. Jurisdictions with strict IP laws and greater IP protection were likelier to bring about inventions with significant business value, while the inventions of other jurisdictions without IPR did not entail the same level of business value—one cannot simply reverse-engineer a food invention for study, he says.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">This is not as to say that Indian companies cannot innovate. “India has a lot of innovators,” Shapiro says, “but they're in California and New York and Washington.” Even in these hubs for innovation, the Indian demographic is highly disproportionate, and estimated to be 20-40 per cent of the workforce, suggesting the potential of Indians in terms of innovation. Shapiro poses the question: “Why are they leaving?” and stresses the importance in India understanding this phenomenon.</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY">The modernization tradeoff</h3>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Is the departure of some of India's innovators another consequence of the country's path to modernization whilst maintaining cultural values? Just as some foreign pharmaceutical companies may stay far away from the Indian market?</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">If so, is India truly better off in striving for redemption from under the close watch of the US and in pursuit of foreign direct investment? What opportunities or cultural values might be abandoned within the domestic market in favour of foreign bodies, then? And more specifically, what would a stricter IP regime mean for the future of the generic pharmaceutical industry, and in turn, the cost of access for medicines that are presently only affordable through the bypassing of international IP standards?</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Just as Shapiro gives importance to the consideration of political and cultural factors at play within one's economy, it is, then, essential to look beyond what the US wants for India economically to factor in what India wants for its own economy and the cultural and political reasons for such<em>. </em>I think we can both agree on the significance of India considering the consequences of resulting economic decisions (i.e., regarding market regulating and IP enforcement) from proxies inclusive of Indian consumers, as well as international bodies to the extent of the global systems that India is implicated in.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">But what about the question of innovation for India's economy? In the tradeoff between innovation (and prosperity) versus duplication (and accessibility), is a country of 1.2 billion people with different cultural values and economic needs really fair game to be idealized as “comparable to the US” in terms of its economic laws? Economist Robert Shapiro seems to think so.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cultural-interests-v-international-economy-robert-shapiro-on-ipr-innovation-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cultural-interests-v-international-economy-robert-shapiro-on-ipr-innovation-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersamanthaEconomicsPatentsAccess to Knowledge2014-04-03T10:54:08ZBlog EntryAnalysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012
<b>There are some welcome provisions in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012, and some worrisome provisions. Pranesh Prakash examines five positive changes, four negative ones, and notes the several missed opportunities. The larger concern, though, is that many important issues have not been addressed by these amendments, and how copyright policy is made without evidence and often out of touch with contemporary realities of the digital era.</b>
<p>The <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/PassedRajyaSabha/copy-E.pdf">Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012</a> has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and will become law as soon as the President gives her assent and it is published in the Gazette of India. While we celebrate the passage of some progressive amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957 — including an excellent exception for persons with disabilities — we must keep in mind that there are some regressive amendments as well. In this blog post, I will try to highlight those provisions of the amendment that have not received much public attention (unlike the issue of lyricists’ and composers’ ‘right to royalty’).</p>
<h2>Welcome Changes</h2>
<h3>Provisions for Persons with Disabilities</h3>
<p>India now has amongst the most progressive exception for persons with disabilities, alongside countries like Chile. Under the amendments, sections 51(1)(zb) and 31B carve out exceptions and limitations for persons with disabilities. Earlier s.52(1)(zb) dealt only with formats that were “special designed only for the use of persons suffering from visual, aural, or other disabilities”. Thanks to a campaign mounted by disability rights groups and public interest groups such as CIS, it now covers “any accessible format”. Section 52(1)(zb) allows any person to facilitate access by persons with disabilities to copyrighted works without any payment of compensation to the copyright holder, and any organization working the benefit of persons with disabilities to do so as long as it is done on a non-profit basis and with reasonable steps being taken to prevent entry of reproductions of the copyrighted work into the mainstream. Even for-profit businesses are allowed to do so if they obtain a compulsory licence on a work-by-work basis, and pay the royalties fixed by the Copyright Board. The onerousness of this provision puts its utility into question, and this won’t disappear unless the expression “work” in s.31B is read to include a class of works.</p>
<p>Given that the Delhi High Court has — wrongly and <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_incuriam">per incuriam</a>, since it did not refer to s.14(a)(ii) as it was amended in 1994 — held parallel importation to be barred by the Copyright Act, it was important for Parliament to clarify that the Copyright Act in fact follows international exhaustion. Without this, even if any person can facilitate access for persons with disabilities to copyrighted works, those works are restricted to those that are circulated in India. Given that not many books are converted into accessible formats in India (not to mention the costs of doing so), and given the much larger budgets for book conversion in the developed world, this is truly restrictive.</p>
<h3>Extension of Fair Dealing to All Works</h3>
<p>The law earlier dealt with fair dealing rights with regard to “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works”. Now it covers all works (except software), in effect covering sound recordings and video as well. This will help make personal copies of songs and films, to make copies for research, to use film clips in classrooms, etc.</p>
<h3>Creative Commons, Open Licensing Get a Boost</h3>
<p>The little-known s.21 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the right of authors to relinquish copyright, has been amended. While earlier one could only relinquish parts of one’s copyright by submitting a form to the Registrar of Copyrights, now a simple public notice suffices. Additionally, s.30 of the Act, which required licences to be in writing and signed, now only requires it to be in writing. This puts Creative Commons, the GNU Public Licence, and other open licensing models, on a much surer footing in India.</p>
<h3>Physical Libraries Should Celebrate, Perhaps Virtual Libraries Too</h3>
<p>Everywhere that the word “hire” occurs (except s.51, curiously), the word “commercial rental” has been substituted. This has been done, seemingly, to bring India in conformance with the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). The welcome side-effect of this is that the legality of lending by non-profit public libraries has been clarified. The amendment states:</p>
<p class="discreet">"2(1)(fa) “commercial rental” does not include the rental, lease or lending of a lawfully acquired copy of a computer programme, sound recording, visual recording or cinematograph film for non-profit purposes by a non-profit library or non-profit educational institution."</p>
<p>Even after this, the overwhelming majority of the ‘video lending libraries’ that you see in Indian cities and towns continue to remain illegal.</p>
<p>Another welcome provision is the amended s.52(1)(n), which now allows “non-commercial public libraries” to store an electronic copy of a work if it already has a physical copy of the work. However, given that this provision says that the storage shall be “for preservation”, it seems limited. However, libraries might be able to use this — in conjunction with the fact that under s.14 of the Copyright Act lending rights of authors is limited to “commercial rental” and s.51(b) only covers lending of “infringing copies” — to argue that they can legally scan and lend electronic copies of works in the same manner that they lend physical copies. Whether this argument would succeed is unclear. Thus, India has not boldly gone where the European Commission is treading with talks of a European Digital Library Project, or where scholars in the US are headed with the Digital Public Library of America. But we might have gone there quietly. Thus, this amendment might help foster an Indian <a class="external-link" href="http://internetarchive.org/">Internet Archive</a>, or help spread the idea of the <a class="external-link" href="http://openlibrary.org/">Open Library</a> in India.</p>
<p>On a final note, different phrases are used to refer to libraries in the amendment. In s.2(1)(fa), it talks about "non-profit library"; in s.52(1)(n) and (o), it refers to "non-commercial public library"; and in s.52(1)(zb), it talks of "library or archives", but s.52(1)(zb) also requires that the works be made available on a "non-profit basis". The differentiation, if any, that is sought to be drawn between these is unclear.</p>
<h3>Limited Protection to Some Internet Intermediaries</h3>
<p>There are two new provisions, s.52(1)(b) and 52(1)(c), which provide some degree of protection to 'transient or incidental' storage of a work or performance. Section 52(1)(b) allows for "the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public", hence applying primarily to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), VPN providers, etc. Section 52(1)(c) allows for "transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy". This seems to make it applicable primarily to search engines, with other kinds of online services being covered or not covered depending on one’s interpretation of the word 'incidental'.</p>
<h3>Compulsory Licensing Now Applies to Foreign Works Also</h3>
<p>Sections 31 ("compulsory licence in works withheld from public") and 31A ("compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works") used to apply to Indian works. Now they apply to all works, whether Indian or not (and now s.31A is about "compulsory licence in unpublished or published works", mainly orphan works). This is a welcome amendment, making foreign works capable of being licensed compulsorily in case it is published elsewhere but withheld in India. Given how onerous our compulsory licensing sections are, especially sections 32 and 32A (which deal with translations, and with literary, scientific or artistic works), it is not a surprise that they have not been used even once. However, given the modifications to s.31 and s.31A, we might just see those starting to be used by publishers, and not just radio broadcasters.</p>
<h2>Worrisome Changes</h2>
<h3>Term of Copyright for Photographs Nearly Doubled</h3>
<p>The term of copyright for photographs has now gone from sixty years from publication to sixty years from the death of the photographer. This would mean that copyright in a photograph clicked today (2012) by a 20 year old who dies at the 80 will only expire on January 1, 2133. This applies not only to artistic photographs, to all photographs because copyright is an opt-out system, not an opt-in system. Quite obviously, most photoshopping is illegal under copyright law.</p>
<p>This has two problems. First, there was no case made out for why this term needed to be increased. No socio-economic report was commissioned on the effects of such a term increase. This clause was not even examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. While the WCT requires a ‘life + 50′ years term for photographs, we are not signatories to the WCT, and hence have no obligation to enforce this. We are signatories to the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, which require a copyright term of 25 years for photographs. Instead, we have gone even above the WCT requirement and provide a life + 60 years term.</p>
<p>The second problem is that it is easier to say when a photograph was published than to say who the photographer was and when that photographer died. Even when you are the subject of a photograph, the copyright in the photograph belongs to the photographer. Unless a photograph was made under commission or the photographer assigned copyright to you, you do not own the copyright in the photographs. (Thanks to <a href="http://deviantlight.blogspot.com">Bipin Aspatwar</a>, for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version, with "employment" and "commission" being treated differently.) This will most definitely harm projects like Wikipedia, and other projects that aim at archiving and making historical photographs available publicly, since it is difficult to say whether the copyright in a photograph still persists.</p>
<h3>Cover Versions Made More Difficult: Kolaveri Di Singers Remain Criminals</h3>
<p>The present amendments have brought about the following changes, which make it more difficult to produce cover versions:</p>
<ol>
<li> Time period after which a cover version can be made has increased from 2 years to 5 years.</li>
<li>Requirement of same medium as the original. So if the original is on a cassette, the cover cannot be released on a CD.</li>
<li>Payment has to be made in advance, and for a minimum of 50000 copies. This can be lowered by Copyright Board having regard to unpopular dialects.</li>
<li>While earlier it was prohibited to mislead the public (i.e., pretend the cover was the original, or endorsed by the original artists), now cover versions are not allowed to "contain the name or depict in any way any performer of an earlier sound recording of the same work or any cinematograph film in which such sound recording was incorporated".</li>
<li>All cover versions must state that they are cover versions.</li>
<li>No alterations are allowed from the original song, and alteration is qualified as ‘alteration in the literary or musical work’. So no imaginative covers in which the lyrics are changed or in which the music is reworked are allowed without the copyright owners’ permission. Only note-for-note and word-for-word covers are allowed.</li>
<li>Alterations were allowed if they were "reasonably necessary for the adaptation of the work" now they are only allowed if it is "technically necessary for the purpose of making of the sound recording".</li>
</ol>
<p>This ignores present-day realities. Kolaveri Di was covered numerous times without permission, and each one of those illegal acts helped spread its popularity. The singers and producers of those unlicensed versions could be jailed under the current India Copyright Act, which allows even non-commercial copyright infringers to be put behind bars. Film producers and music companies want both the audience reach that comes from less stringent copyright laws (and things like cover versions), as well as the ability to prosecute that same behaviour at will. It is indeed ironic that T-Series, the company that broke HMV’s stranglehold over the Indian recording market thanks to cover versions, is itself one of the main movers behind ever-more stringent copyright laws.</p>
<h3>Digital Locks Now Provided Legal Protection Without Accountability</h3>
<p>As I have covered the issue of Technological Protection Measures (TPM) and Rights Management Information (RMI), which are ‘digital locks’ also known as Digital Rights Management (DRM), <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment" class="external-link">in great detail earlier</a>, I won’t repeat the arguments at length. Very briefly:</p>
<ol>
<li>It is unclear that anyone has been demanding the grant of legal protection to DRMs in India, and We have no obligation under any international treaties to do so. It is not clear how DRM will help authors and artists, but it is clear how it will harm users.</li>
<li>While the TPM and RMI provisions are much more balanced than the equivalent provisions in laws like the US’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMC), that isn’t saying much. Importantly, while users are given certain rights to break the digital locks, they are helpless if they aren’t also provided the technological means of doing so. Simply put: music and movie companies have rights to place digital locks, and under some limited circumstances users have the right to break them. But if the locks are difficult to break, the users have no choice but to live with the lock, despite having a legal right.</li>
</ol>
<h3>Removal of Parallel Importation</h3>
<p>In past blog posts I have covered <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books" class="external-link">why allowing parallel imports makes sense in India</a>. And as explained above, the Delhi High Court acted per incuriam when holding that the Copyright Act does not allow parallel importation. The Copyright Act only prohibits import of infringing copies of a work, and a copy of a book that has been legally sold in a foreign country is not an “infringing copy”. The government was set to introduce a provision making it clear that parallel importation was allowed. The Parliamentary Standing Committee heard objections to this proposal from a foreign publishers’ association, but decided to recommend the retention of the clause. Still, due to pressure from a few publishing companies whose business relies on monopolies over importation of works into India, the government has decided to delete the provision. However, thankfully, the HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal, has assured both houses of Parliament that he will move a further amendment if an<a class="external-link" href="http://www.ncaer.org/"> NCAER</a> report he has commissioned (which will be out by August or September) recommends the introduction of parallel imports.</p>
<h3>Expansion of Moral Rights Without Safeguards</h3>
<p>Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without adequate safeguards. The changes might allow the legal heir of an author, artist, etc., to object to ‘distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act’ of her ancestors work even when the ancestor might not have. By this amendment, this right continues in perpetuity, even after the original creator dies and even after the work enters into the public domain. It seems Indian policymakers had not heard of <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_James_Joyce">Stephen Joyce</a>, the grandson of James Joyce, who has “brought numerous lawsuits or threats of legal action against scholars, biographers and artists attempting to quote from Joyce’s literary work or personal correspondence”. Quoting from his Wikipedia page:</p>
<p class="callout">In 2004, Stephen threatened legal action against the Irish government when the Rejoyce Dublin 2004 festival proposed public reading of excerpts of Ulysses on Bloomsday. In 1988 Stephen Joyce burnt a collection of letters written by Lucia Joyce, his aunt. In 1989 he forced Brenda Maddox to delete a postscript concerning Lucia from her biography Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom. After 1995 Stephen announced no permissions would be granted to quote from his grandfather’s work. Libraries holding letters by Joyce were unable to show them without permission. Versions of his work online were disallowed. Stephen claimed to be protecting his grandfather’s and families reputation, but would sometimes grant permission to use material in exchange for fees that were often "extortionate".</p>
<p>Because in countries like the UK and Canada the works of James Joyce are now in the public domain, Stephen Joyce can no longer restrict apply such conditions. However now, in India, despite James Joyce’s works being in the public domain, Stephen Joyce’s indefensible demands may well carry legal weight.</p>
<h3>Backdoor Censorship</h3>
<p>As noted above, the provision that safeguard Internet intermediaries (like search engines) is very limited. However, that provision has an extensive removal provision:</p>
<p class="callout">Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty-one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access;</p>
<p>There are two things to be noted here. First, that without proof (or negative consequences for false complaints) the service provider is mandated to prevent access to the copy for 21 day. Second, after the elapsing of 21 days, the service provider may 'put back' the content, but is not mandated to do so. This would allow people to file multiple frivolous complaints against any kind of material, even falsely (since there is no penalty for false compalaints), and keep some material permanently censored.</p>
<h2>Missed Opportunities</h2>
<h3>Fair Dealing Guidelines, Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities</h3>
<p>The following important changes should have been made by the government, but haven’t. While on some issues the Standing Committee has gone beyond the proposed amendments, it has not touched upon any of the following, which we believe are very important changes that are required to be made.</p>
<ul>
<li> Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement. This has now been extended to the proposal for circumvention of Technological Protection Measures and removal of Rights Management Information also.</li>
<li>Fair dealing guidelines: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions, but would act as a more general framework for those cases which are not covered by the specific exceptions.</li>
<li>Government works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act. A simple amendment of s.52(1)(q) would suffice. The amended subsection could simply allow for “the reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any government work” as being non-infringing uses.</li>
<li>Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.</li>
<li>Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.</li>
<li>Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.</li>
<li>Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled. Importantly, after the terrible judgment passed by Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court in the Super Cassettes v. Myspace case, any website hosting user-generated content is vulnerable to payment of hefty damages even if it removes content speedily on the basis of complaints.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Amendments Not Examined</h2>
<p>For the sake of brevity, I have not examined the major changes that have been made with regard to copyright societies, lyricists and composers, and statutory licensing for broadcasters, all of which have received considerable attention by copyright experts elsewhere, nor have I examined many minor amendments.</p>
<h2>A Note on the Parliamentary Process</h2>
<p>Much of the discussions around the Copyright Act have been around the rights of composers and lyricists vis-à-vis producers. As this has been covered elsewhere, I won’t comment much on it, other than to say that it is quite unfortunate that the trees are lost for the forest. It is indeed a good thing that lyricists and composers are being provided additional protection against producers who are usually in a more advantageous bargaining position. This fact came out well in both houses of Parliament during the debate on the Copyright Bill.<br /><br />However, the mechanism of providing this protection — by preventing assignment of “the right to receive royalties”, though the “right to receive royalties” is never mentioned as a separate right anywhere else in the Copyright Act — was not critically examined by any of the MPs who spoke. What about the unintended consequences of such an amendment? Might this not lead to new contracts where instead of lump-sums, lyricists and music composers might instead be asked to bear the risk of not earning anything at all unless the film is profitable? What about a situation where a producer asks a lyricist to first assign all rights (including royalty rights) to her heirs and then enters into a contract with those heirs? The law, unfortunately at times, revolves around words used by the legislature and not just the intent of the legislature. While one cannot predict which way the amendment will go, one would have expected better discussions around this in Parliament.</p>
<p>Much of the discussion (in both <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/17052012/Fullday.pdf">the Rajya Sabha</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.132/newdebate/15/10/22052012/Fullday.pdf">the Lok Sabha</a>) was rhetoric about the wonders of famous Indian songwriters and music composers and the abject penury in which some not-so-famous ones live, and there was very little discussion about the actual merits of the content of the Bill in terms of how this problem will be overcome. A few MPs did deal with issues of substance. Some asked the HRD Minister tough questions about the Statement of Objects and Reasons noting that amendments have been brought about to comply with the WCT and WPPT which were “adopted … by consensus”, even though this is false as India is not a signatory to the WCT and WPPT. MP P. Rajeeve further raised the issue of parallel imports and that of there being no public demand for including TPM in the Act, but that being a reaction to the US’s flawed Special 301 reports. Many, however, spoke about issues such as the non-award of the Bharat Ratna to Bhupen Hazarika, about the need to tackle plagiarism, and how the real wealth of a country is not material wealth but intellectual wealth.</p>
<p>This preponderance of rhetoric over content is not new when it comes to copyright policy in India. In 1991, when an amendment was presented to increase term of copyright in all works by ten years (from expiring 50 years from the author’s death to 60 years post-mortem), the vast majority of the Parliamentarians who stood up to speak on the issue waxed eloquent about the greatness of Rabindranath Tagore (whose works were about to lapse into the public domain), and how we must protect his works. Little did they reflect that extending copyright — for all works, whether by Tagore or not — will not help ‘protect’ the great Bengali artist, but would only make his (and all) works costlier for 10 additional years. Good-quality and cheaper editions of Tagore’s works are more easily available post-2001 (when his copyright finally lapsed) than before, since companies like Rupa could produce cheap editions without seeking a licence from Visva Bharati. And last I checked Tagore’s works have not been sullied by them having passed into the public domain in 2001.</p>
<p>Further, one could find outright mistakes in the assertions of Parliamentarians. In both Houses, DMK MPs raised objections with regard to parallel importation being allowed in the Bill — only in the version of the Bill they were debating, parallel importation was not being allowed. One MP stated that “statutory licensing provisions like these are not found anywhere else in the world”. This is incorrect, given that there are extensive statutory licensing provision in countries like the United States, covering a variety of situations, from transmission of sound recordings over Internet radio to secondary transmission of the over-the-air programming.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, though that MP did not raise this issue, there is a larger problem that underlies copyright policymaking in India, and that is the fact that there is no impartial evidence gathered and no proper studies that are done before making of policies. We have no equivalent of the Hargreaves Report or the Gowers Report, or the studies by the Productivity Council in Australia or the New Zealand government study of parallel importation.</p>
<p>There was no economic analysis conducted of the effect of the increase in copyright term for photographs. We have evidence from elsewhere that copyright terms <a class="external-link" href="http://williampatry.blogspot.in/2007/07/statute-of-anne-too-generous-by-half.html">are already</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2024588">too long</a>, and all increases in term are what economists refer to as <a class="external-link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss">deadweight losses</a>. There is no justification whatsoever for increasing term of copyright for photographs, since India is not even a signatory to the WCT (which requires this term increase). In fact, we have lost precious negotiation space internationally since in bilateral trade agreements we have been asked to bring our laws in compliance with the WCT, and we have asked for other conditions in return. By unilaterally bringing ourselves in compliance with WCT, we have lost important bargaining power.</p>
<h2>Users and Smaller Creators Left Out of Discussions</h2>
<p>Thankfully, the Parliamentary Standing Committee went into these minutiae in greater detail. Though, as I have noted elsewhere, the Parliamentary Standing Committee did not invite any non-industry groups for deposition before it, other than the disability rights groups which had campaigned really hard. So while changes that would affect libraries were included, not a single librarian was called by the Standing Committee. Despite comments having been submitted <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/copyright-bill-submission" class="external-link">to the Standing Committee on behalf of 22 civil society organizations</a>, none of those organizations were asked to depose. Importantly, non-industry users of copyrighted materials — consumers, historians, teachers, students, documentary film-makers, RTI activists, independent publishers, and people like you and I — are not seen as legitimate interested parties in the copyright debate. This is amply clear from the the fact that only one MP each in the two houses of Parliament raised the issue of users’ rights at all.</p>
<h2>Concluding Thoughts</h2>
<p>What stands out most from this process of amendment of the copyright law, which has been going on since 2006, is how out-of-touch the law is with current cultural practices. Most instances of photoshopping are illegal. Goodbye Lolcats. Cover versions (for which payments have to be made) have to wait for five years. Goodbye Kolaveri Di. Do you own the jokes you e-mail to others, and have you taken licences for quoting older e-mails in your replies? Goodbye e-mail. The strict laws of copyright, with a limited set of exceptions, just do not fit the digital era where everything digital transaction results in a bytes being copied. We need to take a much more thoughtful approach to rationalizing copyright: introduction of general fair dealing guidelines, reduction of copyright term, decriminalization of non-commercial infringement, and other such measures. If we don’t take such measures soon, we will all have to be prepared to be treated as criminals for all our lives. Breaking copyright law shouldn’t be as easy as breathing, yet thanks to outdated laws, it is.</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/26243">This was reposted in infojustice.org on May 25, 2012</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to KnowledgeFair DealingsPiracyIntellectual Property RightsEconomicsIntermediary LiabilityFeaturedTechnological Protection Measures2013-11-12T14:13:04ZBlog EntryA Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers. </b>
<div class="visualClear">In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Download the guide <a title="A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf">here</a>, and please feel free to comment below.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">You may also download a <a title="India-EU FTA TRIPS Comparison Chart" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/India-EU_FTA_Chart.odt">chart</a> comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Following is a summary of CIS' findings:</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">
<div class="visualClear">
<ul><li>India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.</li><li>The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.</li><li>The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.</li><li>India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.</li><li>The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.</li><li>In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.</li><li>An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.</li><li>The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers. </li><li>The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement</a>
</p>
No publishergloverDevelopmentConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeDiscussionEconomicsAnalysisTechnological Protection MeasuresIntermediary LiabilityinnovationIntellectual Property RightsPatentsPublications2011-08-30T13:06:03ZBlog Entry