Centre for Internet & Society

This report provides an overview of the discussion from the Expert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights, organized by ARTICLE 19 in London on November 18, 2011.

At the meeting, nineteen international scholars, experts and human rights activists met to explore the antagonistic relationship between Intellectual Property (IP) and the rights to freedom of expression and information (FoE). This conversation is timely if not overdue, as governments are increasingly using the pretext of IP protection to place unjustified restrictions on the exercise of FoE, particularly on the Internet. ARTICLE 19 believes that increasing the profile of the human rights perspective in debates on IP law and policy is essential to protecting FoE, particularly in the digital environment. The objective of the meeting was therefore to develop an appropriate rights framework for evaluating IP law and enforcement mechanisms, to advance a policy paper on the issue and eventually to establish a set of key principles on IP and FoE.

This report outlines:

  • A summary of the discussions that took place during the meeting; and
  • Outstanding issues and those requiring follow-up discussion in order to conceptualise and complete a position paper on the subject.

List of Participants

  1. Andrew Puddephatt: Director, Global Partners & Associates
  2. Brett Soloman: Executive Director, ACCESS.
  3. Dinah PoKempner: General Counsel, Human Rights Watch.
  4. Jérémie Zimmermann: Co-founder and spokesperson, LaQuadrature du Net: Internet & Libertés
  5. Jeremy Malcolm: Project Coordinator for IP and Communications; Consumer International.
  6. Jim Killock: Executive Director, Open Rights Group
  7. Michael Camilleri: Human Rights Specialist, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at OAS.
  8. Michael Geist: Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Univesity of Ottowa.
  9. Pranesh Prakash: Programme Manager, Center for Internet and Society
  10. Raegan MacDonald: Policy Analyst, ACCESS (Brussels)
  11. Saskia Walzel: Senior Policy Advocate, Consumer Focus
  12. Yaman Akdeniz: Associate Professor in Law; Human Rights Law Research Center, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University.
  13. Walter van Holst: IT legal consultant, Mitopics
  14. Agnes Callamard: Executive Director, ARTICLE 19
  15. Barbora Bukovska: Senior Direct for Law and Policy, ARTICLE 19
  16. David Banisar: Senior Legal Counsel, ARTICLE 19
  17. Gabrielle Guillemin: Legal Officer, ARTICLE 19
  18. Andrew Smith: Lawyer, ARTICLE 19
  19. Michael Polak: Intern, ARTICLE 19

Welcome, Introductions, Purpose 

Agnès Callamard opened the meeting with a welcome and introduction, giving a brief overview of ARTICLE 19’s extensive experience over twenty years bringing together coalitions to increase the profile of various advocacy issues and develop key policy documents, including the Camden Principles on FoE and equality, and the Johannesburg Principles on FoE and national security.

In the last three years, the Internet has increasingly come to the forefront of ARTICLE 19’s work. During this time it has become clear that the agenda for protecting IP negatively impacts FoE, and that there is a notable absence of traditional human rights groups engaged with the IP agenda or campaigning on its implications for human rights. ARTICLE 19 believes that there is a clear need for this gap to be filled, for us to enter this dialogue and challenge current preconceptions with an alternative human rights narrative that counters that promoted by IP industries.

The purpose of this meeting, therefore, is to develop a strategy for promoting the FoE perspective in debates on IP. To do this, it is important to first conceptualise the relationship between FoE and IP within a rights framework: to identify how or if these interests should be balanced and what the areas of conflict and conciliation are. This discussion should clarify the best way to proceed, with a view to arrive at a policy paper and eventually a set of principles on how to best protect FoE in the IP context.   

Session 1: Brief comments by participants on issues of concern for freedom of expression campaigners in relation to IPR

The objective of the first session was for all participants to identify the most significant issues in current debates on freedom of expression and IP, and the extent to which some issues may have been overlooked, underestimated, or over-emphasised. These issues, ideas and perspectives would then guide discussions during the remainder of the meeting and at future meetings.

All participants agreed that applying a human rights framework to this debate is an important and worthwhile endeavour. The following issues were identified during the discussions:

Conceptual starting point

Participants agreed that the status quo should not be the “starting point” for discussions, and that we should avoid being trapped in the narrative that has been developed and imposed by IP rights holders. This requires questioning accepted language and norms, pushing the boundaries of the debate and thinking outside the box. The proliferation of terms such as “piracy”, “theft” and other criminal law language to describe non-commercial copyright infringement demonstrates the extent to which corporate interest groups have controlled the agenda. We should reject these terms and instead adopt positive language that emphasises the cultural and economic value of information sharing, and frame IP as a potential obstacle to these values. This dialogue should recognise that the relationship between people and information has changed in the digital age, and that a new generation of people express themselves through sharing media online and creating new works such as video mash-ups.

A human right to IP?
Several participants questioned whether we should accept interests in IP as “human rights”, particularly as the concept is one born from censorship. Rejecting IP as a human right would require challenging accepted language such as “intellectual property rights” and “rights holder”. If we speak of IP interests or claims, rather than human rights, then it is also inaccurate to speak of their interaction with other rights as a “conflict between rights” that requires “balancing”. Instead, certain IP claims, and the detection or enforcement mechanisms that support them, should be framed as restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Some participants expressed doubts over the value of advocating that IP is not a human right when the idea is already embedded and various regional courts have already recognised it as such. Such a campaign would be difficult and achieve little, particularly as it may require changing established agreements such as Berne and TRIPS that would take decades to reform. Staying within the existing legal framework may be the only pragmatic way to achieve change in the short and medium-term. There was agreement that understanding how different treaties and human rights instruments or bodies understand IP is important before proceeding.

In the alternative, it was suggested that IP could be viewed as a “human right” to the extent that it complements other human rights, such as FoE. Copyright is often justified on terms that it is essential for incentivising creativity and that it is an “engine” of free speech – this argument needs further exploration, as it shows that the two rights may sometimes be complementary. ARTICLE 19 is familiar with a strategy focussed on complementarity, as the Camden Principles promoted a similar approach to advocate that the right to equality and right to FoE were mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. Similarly, participants spoke about a “social value” approach to viewing IP as a human right, i.e. the greater the social value behind the IP protection, the more weight it would have in a rights “balancing” exercise.

Other suggestions on reframing or reversing IP preconceptions included recommending a system where the “public domain” is the norm and any monopoly interest the exception. Exceptions would have to be argued on a case-by-case basis and would be granted only when it would be in the public interest to do so.

A consensus seemed to develop that rejecting the idea of IP as a right would not be a helpful strategy. However, between the various alternative suggestions the only agreement seemed to be that the issue requires more exploration so that the nature of IP as a right can be better understood. It is anticipated that reaching a definite conclusion on this issue will inevitably not satisfy everyone, but would be necessary to proceed with an advocacy campaign.

The Right to Culture
As well as the right to property and the right to freedom of expression, there is also the right to culture in Article 27 of the UDHR and Article 15 of the ICESCR. Both instruments reflect the tension between a right to access culture and the competing right of individuals to protect the material interests in their intellectual property. Participants recommended further exploration of the economic, social and cultural rights perspective on IP issues and integrating this into a campaign.

Pulling apart multiple IP issues
Participants identified a number of ways in which IP engages freedom of expression, and that it is therefore important that a FoE analysis dealt with these issues separately. One focus should be on the IP protections themselves – these give individuals monopolies over information and thereby restrict others’ FoE. Within this, the breadth of exceptions regimes is important, as these vary significantly between countries, in particular the duration of copyright protection and how ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ type exceptions are defined. The use of digital rights management systems (DRMS) as preventative measures also relate to this area. A second focus, and a current “hot topic” in IP circles, is the enforcement agenda. This includes the criminalisation of non-commercial IP infringement, the privatisation of policing IP infringement and its impact on net neutrality, and criminal and civil law protections for DRMS.

The difference between types of IP was also discussed. There are different rationales behind copyright, trademarks, and patents. Our approach should be as nuanced and specific as possible – when we are criticising copyright we should only refer to copyright and not IP generally. Unpacking the issues in relation to the different types of IP will be important for developing a coherent policy. 

The way that international trade agreements have consistently augmented IP rights was also highlighted. In relation to electronic data, the copyright holder now has so much control over the use of the information, particularly through digital rights management systems protected by the criminal law, that purchasing such products is increasingly more like renting than owning. This augmentation should be tracked and highlighted in an advocacy campaign. 

Advocacy Strategy
It was also noted that developing a human rights perspective on IP is not only an intellectual pursuit but needs to be viewed in terms of a citizen movement capable of achieving outcomes. Participants identified several further issues that should be considered when developing an advocacy strategy.

One consideration would be how we develop campaigning alliances. Some industries are potential allies, in particular Internet intermediaries that are increasingly under pressure to be the private police of copyright holders. Some artists themselves are also sympathetic to FoE arguments. More obviously, consumers and information users should be mobilised by a campaign. It is important to develop distinct strategies for targeting identified groups that reflects our understanding of their diverse interests; this would allow us to build commonalities between actors who may normally be regarded as having divergent objectives, and mobilise each to push for change in a direction that supports our ultimate goal.

Central to a campaign strategy is also the idea of having a clear message as to what the problem is and how it impacts people on a day to day basis. The utility of graphics illustrating the inequitable geographic distribution of IP interests was recommended as a useful tool to demonstrate the scale of this global problem. Ways of countering campaigns conducted by IP holders over the last two decades were also discussed, in particular how to push back against the idea of copyright infringement as “theft”, as has been promoted through slogans such as “you wouldn’t steal a handbag.” Illustrative analogies were discussed, including viewing IP infringement as mere trespass rather than theft and as “copying” rather than depriving a person of property. However, it was concluded that these analogies were helpful for developing our understanding of the issues, but would not be as effective as campaign tools. An effective campaign would have to distinguish between background issues and our actual advocacy points, which would be focussed on a clear set of key fundamental principles.

Participants also identified the importance of engaging governments and the media on the inconsistency of their policies and coverage of FoE and IP. The US, in particular, is loudly proclaiming its commitments to FoE on-line whilst simultaneously promoting aggressive enforcements mechanisms for IP that directly undermine FoE rights. 

The campaign against ACTA in the European Parliament (EP) was also recommended as a platform from which to launch further dialogue on FoE and IP. Since the meeting, ARTICLE 19 has released a statement on ACTA that we have shared with all participants, and plans to circulate this statement to various EP committees and MEPs in the coming weeks.[1]

Opportunities for strategic litigation were also identified. In particular, there are a number of Article 10 ECHR cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights on the blocking of websites, many being from Turkey.  

Session 2: The tension between freedom of expression and IPR

The second session began with a presentation by Gabrielle of the background paper on intellectual property and freedom of expression. Participants gave feedback on issues raised in the paper and suggested ways of developing it into a policy paper to compliment an advocacy campaign.

Gabrielle’s opening comments acknowledged that the background paper is very much focussed on FoE in the digital age, and is centred more on copyright rather than trademarks and patents. Gabrielle outlined the way in which conflicts between tangible property rights and freedom of expression have been dealt with by the ECHR. She also identified key challenges to reframing understandings of IP, in particular in relation to the notion that the public domain and information sharing should be the norm while information monopolies should be the exception. Gabrielle also highlighted the timeliness of this discussion as significant changes to the enforcement agenda are taking place; including the criminalisation of copyright infringement and DRMS circumvention.

Participants agreed that the policy paper was an excellent starting point for discussions on FoE and IP, and recommended a number of areas for further elaboration in future drafts:

  • The objective tone of the paper, placing ARTICLE 19 as an impartial arbiter, is a productive starting point.
  • The legal framework for IP/FoE should be elaborated to acknowledge the right to culture as contained in Article 27 of the UDHR and Article 15 of the IESCR. The ways that states periodically report their IESCR compliance could be explored.
  • Intermediaries should be referred to in broader terms than just as ISPs. “Information society service providers” is an umbrella phrase that includes search engines, advertisers, payment services. 
  • The Scarlett decision by the ECJ should be incorporated once it is released.[2]
  • The concept of “filtering” is essentially a type of “blocking”, both may be referred to as censorship to clarify their immediate impact on FoE.
  • Some participants felt that explaining why the FoE implications are different for civil and criminal law would be helpful. 
  • Participants felt that the section on the implications of the ACTA regime could be built upon.[3]
  • In developing the section on FoE rights, the Latin American view of FoE as a collective right may also be worth emphasising. It may also be worth comparing the potential balance between IP and FoE to other balancing exercises related to privacy or reputational rights. 
  • The differences between copyright, trademarks and patents should be explained. 
  • A section outlining the philosophical foundations of these protections, in particular the difference between the US (incentivise creation) and European (natural rights) approach to IP might also be helpful. 
  • It should be stressed that the failure of IP law to adapt to new technologies is the problem, not new technologies themselves. This failure undermines the justifications for protecting IP rights. 
  • Greater emphasis should be placed on the way in which the current legal framework is based on an ideal of an 18th century author, and does not acknowledge the impact of IP on scientific research and collaboration, indigenous knowledge, peer-to-peer sharing, the creative power of new technology etc. 
  • Positive examples of IP infringement would be useful for illustrating why IP protection shouldn’t be safeguarded at all costs. In particular, efforts to make works more accessible to minority language speakers (crowd-sourcing methods in particular) and the impact that IP law has on blind people’s access to information. 
  • Similarly, examples of censorship that make the impact of IP protections of FoE clearer to policy makers would be helpful in debunking the myth that the interests of the IP industry giants are synonymous with those of the individual creators. 
  • It would also be helpful to illustrate that IP protection is also a geographic concentration of wealth issues as much as a moral issue.[4]
  • The role of de minimis exception regimes in protecting FoE should also be explored in greater depth. 
  • Several sources were also recommended, including the Association littéraire et artistique internationale (ALAI)[5], the International Federation of Libraries Association (Stuart Hamilton identified as a contact)[6] and the OSCE study on Internet Freedom.[7]

Session 3: Key questions, issues and challenges

Dave chaired a third session to elaborate upon the key issues discussed prior to lunch, with a view to reaching some level of consensus on the appropriate scope of restrictions on freedom of expression in defence of IPR.

Gabrielle offered comments on the balance that could be applied between the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) and the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR). However, as the European Court of Human Rights has not ruled on the balance that ought to be struck between these two rights in the context of intellectual property, it is difficult to speculate on how it would be litigated.

Participants agreed that the ‘public interest’ is central to assessing when property rights can be restricted to promote other rights, including FoE. The need to stress the importance of the Internet as a public forum was also identified. 

The participants also discussed what limitations are appropriate to place on IP rights. Various ideas were suggested, but it was concluded that any recommended framework on the substance of IP rights would have to be compliant with the Berne Convention. This means that in terms of copyright duration, the minimum that could be recommended is 50 years. It was also stated that any system that recommends a default public domain with a system of registration for copyright “exceptions” would not be compliant with Berne. The augmentation of IP rights through these international agreements was again referenced, as there appears to have been a pattern of the US and EU exporting the worst aspects of their IP regimes abroad through trade arrangements without elaborating on how exceptions to IP rights should be developed. It was also noted that copyright holders will continue to support this process, as their business model depends upon having as much control over the use of information as possible.

Again participants identified the need to distinguish between the limitations that are imposed on FoE by the IP rights themselves, those limitations imposed by preventative technological measures and those imposed by enforcement mechanisms.

The importance of distinguishing the different actors involved was also emphasised, i.e. whether we are discussing competing rights between private creators (e.g. original creator vs. derivative creator) or the direct relationship between the state and individuals (e.g. enforcement of criminal provisions against an individual infringing IP). It is important that our analysis does not conflate private actors with state actors, and that it is clear what positive and negative obligations are on these parties and the rationale for their application. 

It was suggested that an approach that balances competing human rights is appropriate where the interests of two creators are in conflict, but perhaps not when the state intervenes to prevent or punish IP infringements. Where the state acts to restrict an individual’s access to the Internet, it is not a balance issue but an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression.

Participants stressed the economic and social significance of blanket (and even many specific) restrictions on Internet access. Blanket prohibitions on access to the Internet was compared to solitary confinement, and participants agreed that sanctions such as these are never necessary or proportionate responses to IP infringement. An analogy was made to a statement recently issued by ARTICLE 19 on services to counterfeit mobile telephones being shut down in Kenya.[8] Participants also indicated that these blanket measures are increasingly rare, but that states still violate the principles of necessity and proportionality through limitations that they impose. 

Further FoE concerns were raised in relation to the enforcement of IP rights in the digital environment. In order to monitor the Internet for IP infringement, it is necessary to monitor the content of all Internet communications. This has implications for FoE rights and privacy rights, and has a potential chilling effect on all on-line expression.

There was also some discussion on defining what our working definition of FoE should be in this context, particularly in relation to use of new technologies and DRMS. Does FoE necessarily include the right to scan a document, to use translation technology on it, to copy and paste, to save in various formats etc?

Participants also discussed that the ordinary de minimis exceptions cannot simply be transplanted and applied as ‘exceptions’ or defences to DRMS circumvention offences. DRMS limit the use of works severely, and unless you have the technical knowledge to circumvent these devices, it is not possible to take advantage of exceptions or defences.

There were also discussions on access to justice issues, due to the prohibitively expensive cost of contesting litigation against large corporations.

Several participants mentioned that discussions on these issues have a tendency to become too narrow in their focus. Examples given were that the focus drifts to copyright rather than trademarks and patents, that peer2peer sharing gets more attention than other technology uses, and that artistic expression is talked about but not technical or scientific forms of expression. At the same time, some participants expressed an aversion to a “kitchen sink” approach in any campaign, as it may result in an incoherent message.

Various sources were recommended for further reading. These included a report by Consumers International on best state practices (Brazil, Canada and South Africa mentioned for enacting progressive legislation recently),[9] and the UN guidelines on consumer protection.[10]

Session 4: Measures for protecting and enforcing IP rights on the Internet: finding a better balance with FOE

At the fourth session, Barbora chaired a discussion on procedural issues that pose a threat to freedom of expression and Internet freedom. Key issues identified at the outset were whether sticking to a human rights view that judicial oversight is the best option or is there a human rights compliant alternative model? As it was decided in the previous session that disconnection is disproportionate, are all forms of criminal liability for Internet use disproportionate? And what limits should be placed on civil remedies, such as damages-award ceilings.

Discussions began on whether an administrative model for notice and takedown would be appropriate. Advantages that were identified of non-judicial models include:

  • An administrative system is more effective in terms of time and cost. The number of notice and takedown requests that happen on-line would overwhelm a traditional judicial organ.
  • Protections for intermediaries from liability can be built into the system.
  • Guidelines can ensure compliance with legal certainty, transparency, due process, specificity of remedies, protections for the identities of users. 
  • Could also be subject to judicial oversight.
  • That limitations on cost would also “disarm” corporations who would not be able to threaten expensive court procedures that intimidate individuals into prematurely settling civil actions. 
  • The need for fast remedies in digital infringements was also stressed. For example, a website may be created only for the 90 minutes of a football game and then disappear – traditional judicial methods cannot be used to provide redress in these circumstances. Although this may appear to be a “shoot first, aim later” approach, one needs to consider these pragmatic concerns. An administrative model is better suited to this than a judicial system. 
  • Alternatives to an administrative model included the use of non-legal ombudsmen or arbitration proceedings. These measures could also keep costs low.

A number of participants disagreed that an administrative model was appropriate. Their concerns focussed on the following issues:

  • That the independence of an administrative body could not be guaranteed.
  • That an administrative procedure should never be used to impose criminal liability.
  • The procedural guarantees in an administrative system are less robust, particularly in countries that do not have a strong separation of powers.
  • That the time and cost of a judicial system is necessary to comply with international human rights standards. 

Concerns were also raised about recommending any boilerplate solution that should be ‘copy and pasted’ into all national contexts without adequate consideration being paid to that country’s legal system or traditions. In terms of accuracy of language, it was also commented that notice and takedown affects hosts of content, and not ISPs, who are mere conduits.

Systems in place in Canada and Japan for “notice and notice” were also discussed. In these systems, the IP holder notifies the intermediary, who notifies the user, who has a time to reply before action is taken. The role of the intermediary in this system is to facilitate communications and they are not subject to liability. The accommodation of “emergency requests” could also be considered within this system.

With any notice and takedown system it would also be important to make it clear to those controlling the content how you object to a takedown notice. Access to justice principles are important here, particularly considering the amount of misinformation that has circulated in recent years on the nature of IP infringement.

Various examples were given of forum shopping by IP owners in provincial courthouses where judges are less experienced in IP law and therefore more responsive to the arguments of IP holders.

There was also a discussion on why copyright holders would favour criminal sanctions as opposed to civil remedies. On the one hand, it seems intuitive that the rights holder would rather receive damages than have a person fined or imprisoned by the government. It was suggested that the criminal law has the advantage of having a more significant chilling effect. Also, in criminal cases, the costs of detection and enforcement can be placed on the state.

A number of initial principles were identified through this discussion:

  • Intermediaries should be immunised from civil liability.
  • There should not be liability for hyperlinking. It must be distinguished from “re-publication”. 
  • Non-commercial infringement should not be criminalized. It was noted that TRIPS requires commercial scale infringement to be criminalized. Narrowly defining what is meant by “commercial” is important:
  1. Peer-to-peer sharing should not be considered commercial.
  2. IP infringement committed by individuals should not be considered commercial.
  • The need for clarity in the law and for information on IP law to be available to end-users facing litigation threats from copyright holders. In particular, states should educate individuals in the exceptions to copyright protections that serve the public interest.
  • Possible limitations on damages could be developed.

Session 5: Political developments and strategies of response

The purpose of the fifth session was to provide participants with the opportunity to discuss developing strategies for working together to better combat governments’ attempts at restricting FoE on the basis of protecting IP.

The first priority that was identified was to finalise a policy paper on the issue. This would perhaps take some time to formulate, and may require further meetings to discuss key issues.

A second priority for advocacy was identified in relation to ACTA, which will be voted upon by the European Parliament in the coming months. ARTICLE 19 has issued a statement on ACTA that will also be circulated among participants.

A third discussion concerned the possibility of uncovering a wikileaks-type “scandal” in which the hypocrisy of copyrights holders, and their true motivations, could be exposed. Receiving internal emails from whistleblowers interested in exposing such a story would provide a good media storm in which to launch an advocacy campaign. Examples of IP industries illegally lobbying governments or interfering with the administration of justice would be helpful. The involvement of the British Phonographic Industry in lobbying for the Digital Economy Act was referenced in this discussion.

The utility of engaging with the copyright industries was also discussed. These industries have a reputation for not negotiating– they want as much control over information as possible, as control is essential to their business model. There may be some utility in identifying who our enemies’ enemies are. It was mentioned that the occupy movements may be interested in pursuing a human rights narrative against corporate property interests. These groups are very much engaged in promoting FoE rights.  The traditional media was also identified as a group that may be interested in supporting a movement for greater FoE protections against IP.

In terms of developing strategy, it was also recommended that we look at successful human rights campaigns from the past, particularly any in the field of cultural rights. Potential partners for coalition building need to be looked at, and many of these partners may be within emerging economies such as BRIC or South Africa.

As we develop a strategy, we need to remain focussed on framing this battle as a human rights fight. We need to identify victims, perpetrators, and a call to action. A different plan may be needed for each audience that we identify. From the experience of activists at the meeting, theoretical arguments will not succeed in rousing a people-driven campaign. The use of new media, such as campaign videos on youtube, that clearly outline the human rights case would be helpful. It is also necessary to bridge the gap between popular campaigns and videos, and getting those campaigns into the mainstream media and creating a political issue out of it. As technology users that would be interested in this campaign tend not to vote, making this a political issue means making people who do vote understand the issue as one that is a mass-scale human rights violation.

Concluding comments and closing

Agnès closed the session by identifying several key steps:

  • The need to revise the policy paper in light of discussions throughout the day’s sessions.
  • The need to meet again to discuss the revised policy paper and to continue these discussions.
  • The objective of developing our role as advocates, identifying what we can initiate, what existing efforts we can support, and what our overall strategy should be.

[1].ARTICLE 19 statement “European Parliament must reject ACTA”, see: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-%28acta%29

[2].This judgment has since been released. See ARTICLE 19 press release: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2872/en/landmark-digital-free-speech-ruling-at-european-court-of-justice

[3].ARTICLE 19 has since released a statement on ACTA. See: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-(acta)

[4].http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png was recommended for its map of patent distribution in 2002.

[5].ALAI homepage: http://alaiorg.vincelette.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=24

[6].See a list of publications at: http://www.ifla.org/en/publications

[7].OSCE study “Freedom of Expression on the Internet” (2010): http://www.osce.org/fom/80723

[8].ARTICLE 19 statement on FoE and counterfeit mobile telephones: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2762/en/kenya:-free-expression-standards-should-guide-fight-against-%E2%80%9Ccounterfeit%E2%80%9D-mobile-phones



The views and opinions expressed on this page are those of their individual authors. Unless the opposite is explicitly stated, or unless the opposite may be reasonably inferred, CIS does not subscribe to these views and opinions which belong to their individual authors. CIS does not accept any responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the views and opinions of these individual authors. For an official statement from CIS on a particular issue, please contact us directly.