The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1411 to 1425.
Copyrights Amendment Bill to Be Tabled in Indian Parliament – Parallel Import provisions have Been Removed
https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-amendment-bill-in-indian-parliament
<b>This week, the Indian government’s Rajya Sabha (the upper house of Parliament) will debate the Copyright Amendments Act.</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society has <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-bill-parliament" class="external-link">raised a number of concerns</a> – including the removal of parallel import provisions that would allowed universities and libraries to access foreign works more cheaply, the extension of copyright terms beyond those required by the TRIPS Agreement, and the introduction of technological protection measures (with stiff penalties for circumventing them).</p>
<p>CIS <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-bill-parliament" class="external-link">describes other provisions</a> in the bill: Fair dealing exceptions have been extended “to all works except computer programs;” the “scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’;” and two provisions have been introduced to allow for the conversion, reproduction, and distribution of works for people with disabilities.</p>
<p>According to Prashant Reddy from the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on that reviewed the original legislation had strongly supported parallel imports of books. In a <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/09/parallel-imports-unexpected-dumping-of.html">blog post on Spicy IP</a>, he noted that “publishers routinely introduce old versions of books in India,” and that parallel imports would allow students to obtain newer copies at reasonable prices.</p>
<p>However, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/04233327/Removal-of-parallel-imports-cl.html?h=B">a news story in Live Mint </a>reports that the publishing industry “had strongly opposed the amendments.”</p>
<p>This article by Mike Palmedo was published in infojustice.org on September 5, 2011. Read the original story <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/5328">here</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-amendment-bill-in-indian-parliament'>https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-amendment-bill-in-indian-parliament</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2011-09-14T11:47:37ZNews ItemCalling Out the BSA on Its BS
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs
<b>The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is trying to pull wool over government officials' eyes by equating software piracy with tax losses. Pranesh Prakash points out how that argument lacks cogency, and that tax losses would be better averted if BSA's constituent companies just decided to pay full taxes in India.</b>
<p>In the past we have covered the Business Software Alliance's <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">lack of rigour</a> <a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/4993.ars">in their piracy</a> <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/3993427">statistics</a>, and disconnect from their constituent members when it comes to <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/2010-special-301">opposing free and open source software</a>. In reaction to the criticism they have received over the years, BSA has finally stopped equating lack of sales with losses. But now, they have started equating software piracy with tax losses.</p>
<h2>How IDC thinks tax works</h2>
<p>In a report prepared by International Data Corporation (IDC) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA), they note:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Substantial value in form of potential industry and tax revenues is lost to software piracy: The situation in India is not healthy with a software piracy rate of 65% in 2009 (more than six out of ten PC software programs installed in 2009 were not paid for). Only one-third of the overall PC software revenues are captured by the industry incumbents and the rest are lost to software piracy. Most of the unlicensed software use occurs in otherwise legal businesses installing the programs on more PCs than allowed by the licenses they have paid for. Consequently, in 2009, the state exchequer tax receipts loss was roughly US$866 million at the current piracy and employment levels, as the industry lost its otherwise legitimate share of revenues to piracy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For this to be true, there must be two assumptions that are satisfied. First, those who are pirating software must not spend the money that they save by doing so on any other taxable activity. Second, the companies that would get the money if the software weren't pirated must pay the Indian government taxes. As we'll see, neither of these two assumptions are warranted.</p>
<p>The BSA-IDC report reasons as follows: Pirates don't pay taxes on the illegal software that they sell, so that is tax evasion and consequently a tax loss. It states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Higher demand for legal software will result in higher flow of license volume through the supply chain, resulting in increase in volume of business transactions. Each transaction adds a certain percentage of the deal or value added to the state exchequer's coffers in the form of indirect tax revenue[...] Increase in demand will also result in increased employment. Consequently, revenues from direct taxes will be increased for the government, as employees join newly created high-paying jobs.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>How tax actually works</h2>
<p>That reasoning is flawed. The majority of software piracy in India happens through two methods: violation of software licence terms by using the software on more computers than it is licensed for; and pre-loading of illegal software by computer sellers. Those 'computer seller' pirates do not sell the software separately, but bundle it with the computer as an additional service. In other words, they don't charge for it in the first place. So, quite clearly, there is no tax evasion.</p>
<p>Despite there being no tax evasion, there is the possibility of tax loss for the state. That would happen when instead of doing taxable activity A with with their money, they do non-taxable activity B. Putting money in special government bonds instead of spending it on software, for instance, is one such instance. However, that is a strange, unwarranted assumption. People don't always put the money that they don't spend on software into government bonds. It is a much more reasonable assumption that people would spend that money on other consumables, like food or other such tangible commodities.</p>
<p>Lastly, there is the unwarranted assumption that increase in demand for legal software increases employment. In fact, it is a much more reasonable assumption that increase in piracy increases employment in case of developing countries. Printing ("DTP") shops use pirated versions of Photoshop, CorelDraw and InDesign, computer education centres use pirated versions of Microsoft Windows, offices use pirated versions of Microsoft Word and Excel. If these didn't teach their employees the use of pirated software, millions of people would lose their jobs. All of these employees pay direct taxes. There is no analysis in the BSA-IDC report that accounts for this, treating all these millions of people as non-existent for purposes of their analysis.</p>
<h2>Increasing tax: Make MNC software companies pay full taxes</h2>
<p>Thus, there is no real tax loss to the government if the money that would have been spent on commercial software was instead spent on some other commodity. Indeed, there might even be an increase in tax collection because software companies, including leading ones such as Microsoft, are much more likely to avoid taxes than companies that deal in tangible commodities. There are well-known routes of decreasing tax liability for intangible goods such as software. Software companies normally state that they license software instead of selling it (as this suits them on issues such as customs duties), but when it comes to income tax, they try to paint the transaction as a sale of a product. (Microsoft, for instance claims that its earnings in India are 'business income' and not 'royalties' and hence is exempt under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the USA.) A company that deals with tangible commodities has no such 'licensing vs. sale' loop-hole that they can try to exploit. Further, many software companies are located in special economic zones that are "software exporting zones", and hence get large tax deductions.</p>
<p>In India, for instance, Microsoft is resisting payment of income tax for by routing all licensing to distributors in India through a shell company in Singapore and holding that Microsoft India had no income tax liabilities. <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-28/software-services/29824411_1_customs-duty-importer-ravi-venkatesan">Microsoft has been fined Rs. 2 crore</a> because it tried to separate the importing of software into India from the (more valuable) granting of licences to customers and pay only nominal customs duties on the former and under-declaring the value of the latter as zero. From nine Microsoft dealers a total of Rs 255 crore was collected as tax. Of the roughly Rs. 4000 crores loss that the BSA-IDC report claims, around 6% is realizable from just a single tax (customs duties) from 9 companies dealing in the products of one company. If we multiply this by all taxes (income tax included) amongst all the dealers of all the constituent companies of BSA, then the Indian government might recover more from taxes than is supposedly lost to piracy!</p>
<p>Elsewhere around the globe, the <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement">'Double Irish' arrangement</a>, the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39784907/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/">'Dutch Sandwich' route</a> and other such are used by MNC software companies to evade taxes. Just as there are tax havens, there are some IPR havens that cater to companies selling/licensing software and other such intangible commodities.</p>
<p>If only these software companies were to stop evading taxes in the countries in which they sell software, then the government's tax collections would automatically increase.</p>
<h2>Final idiocies, and conclusion</h2>
<p>In the BSA-IDC report, they write: "Assessing the relationship between software piracy rates and UN Human Development Index (a measure of average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development) suggests that countries with greater rates of software piracy tend to have lower levels of economic development. This further strengthens the hypothesis that IP rights (IPR) enforcement increases economic activity.".</p>
<p>This is as sensible as saying "countries with greater rates of industrial espionage (such as France, Germany, and USA) tend to have higher levels of economic development" strengthens the hypothesis that industrial espionage increases economic development. While it is empirically true that most countries with greater rates of software piracy have lower levels of economic development, it is equally true that countries with lower levels of economic development (being countries with poorer populations) have more software piracy. It is equally true that software piracy decreases if the cost of software decreases, as shown by the more carefully-conducted analysis in the Media Piracy in Emerging Economies report.<br />
</p>
<p>To use greater software piracy and lower economic development as evidence of the causal link between IPR enforcement and economic activity is to betray absolute ignorance about both economics and logic.</p>
<p>The startlingly poor level of analysis of the BSA-IDC report leaves no question that the conclusions were arrived at independently of the analysis. Such misleading analysis is worse than trash: it is downright dangerous as an instrument of policy setting.</p>
<p>To increase tax receipts, the government may as well start by making BSA's constituent companies pay all the taxes they owe.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshPiracyIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2011-09-14T18:16:51ZBlog EntryIndian Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act
<b>This is a version of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as it would appear if the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, were adopted in toto. This has been produced to aid commentators, and is not meant to serve any other purpose. Errors may remain in it, despite my best efforts. If you find any, please e-mail <pranesh@cis-india.org>. (Version 0.96 / Last updated: Friday, May 28, 2010) </b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:28:42ZFileIndian Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended by Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act.html
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act.html'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act.html</a>
</p>
No publisheradminIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-24T06:58:10ZFileGlobal IP Conference 2011, Brochure
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/global-ip-conference
<b>A brochure of the event.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/global-ip-conference'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/global-ip-conference</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaConferenceAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:27:19ZFileNew Release of IPR Chapter
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf
<b>pdf</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:27:08ZFileConsilience 2010 Report
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/consilience-2010
<b>A report of the proceedings</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/consilience-2010'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/consilience-2010</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaWorkshopAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:25:25ZFileSoftware Day Info
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-freedom-info
<b>An information about the competition.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-freedom-info'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-freedom-info</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaConferenceWorkshopCampaignAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:24:42ZFileSoftware Day Poster
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-freedom
<b>A poster of the event.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCampaignAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:24:20ZFileSoftware Patents and the Commons
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-patent
<b>Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons in Delhi</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-patent'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/software-patent</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaCampaignAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:23:57ZFileA Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf</a>
</p>
No publishergloverPublicationsAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:22:50ZFileExceptions and Limitations for Education
https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/exceptions-limitations-education
<b>Lawrence Liang examines the exceptions and limitations in copyright law in this article.</b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/exceptions-limitations-education'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/exceptions-limitations-education</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to Knowledge2011-08-22T13:22:35ZFilePhotocopying the past
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/photocopying-the-past
<b>There is no single correct position when it comes to intellectual property or IP. In fact, there are at least five correct positions that you could possibly adopt based on who you are — a pro-creator position, a pro-entrepreneur position, a pro-government position, a pro-consumer position and a public interest position.</b>
<p>Therefore, before you progress any further, dear reader, you have to first decide which of the above you are. If you are an average Indian, then you are almost certainly a consumer or a member of the general public. Next, it would only be fair for me to tell you when I am coming from: I work for a policy research organisation that focuses on protecting consumer and public interest in the digital era. Before I proceed any further, also note that not all creators prefer profits to public adulation and therefore creators’ interests are not necessarily always opposed to consumer and public interest.</p>
<p>At this point, popular imagination is captivated by meta-regulation, issues of corruption and transparency. Few seem interested in the configuration details of property regimes that we are all implicated in: tangible property, capital and, in our increasingly dematerialised world, intangible property such as IP or spectrum. Unfortunately the complications of spectrum, banking and IP make our eyes glaze over and there is almost zero attention being paid to the copyright act amendment to be discussed in Parliament this week.</p>
<p>For the government, achieving a compromise is the primary objective, and then, perhaps a distant second, raising taxes. This is not a static compromise, since each generation of new technologies precipitates a new round of negotiations between the stakeholders. So while it is easy to be Anna Hazare, it is difficult to be Kapil Sibal. An optimal compromise position as in the world of capital and tangible property protects the production, circulation and consumption of IP. A sub-optimal position results in practices that are in conflict with policy — anti-competitive behaviour or infringement.</p>
<p>Unfortunately when it comes to evidence-based policy-making, there is little funding for public interest IP research in India and the pockets of the lobbyists of rights-holders are deep. The funded research that they tout claims that government loses significant taxes because of piracy or non-maximalist IP policies. Yet rights-holders, especially multinationals in the software business, are experts at tax avoidance through techniques with names like the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich”.</p>
<p>Like any compromise, the latest amendment is a mixed bag for consumers and the general public. With regard to “digital rights management,” — or what consumers’ advocates refer to as “digital restrictions management” — the government has yielded to the TRIPS-plus agenda even though it is not a signatory to the WIPO Internet treaties. And with regard to the exception for the disabled, the Indian exception is both disability- and works-neutral making it much more robust when compared to the treaty for the visually impaired currently being discussed at the WIPO.</p>
<p>However, one particular compromise — the volte-face on Section 2 (m) on parallel imports of books — is particularly distressing for book-lovers and students. As part of the latest amendment, this new section was introduced in 2009. The standing committee report gave the section a thumbs-up, but strangely it has gone missing in the latest version of the bill circulated to the MPs in preparation for the Rajya Sabha debate this Friday.</p>
<p>Section 2 (m) is a provision that would have saved us from the uncertainty created by what some consider flawed jurisprudence around parallel importation of copyrighted works. As the standing committee report on the copyright amendment puts it, “nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to the latest editions of the books.” To date, I have never met an IIT or IIM graduate untainted by photocopied books. I would claim that the lack of quality education in our country is still at the level of an epidemic. The indigenous publication industry has benefited from our progressive copyright regime.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be appropriate to afford them maximum flexibility in a future rife with technological shifts? Are all the books that you wish to read available in the libraries and book shops you have access to? Have you ever been forced to photocopy a book because of time constraints? Would you like to see greater choice via increased free-market competition, and reduced state-sanctioned monopolies and enforcement? Does your definition of human rights include the “right to education” and the the “right to entertainment”? Shouldn’t the disabled in India benefit from the $500 million spent each year making books accessible in the US? And finally, shouldn’t a nation providing leadership to the development agenda at WIPO, walk the talk at home? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, you should demand that people are placed before the profits of foreign publishers.</p>
<p>This article by Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society was published in the Indian Express on 2 September 2011 in the Indian Express. Please read the original article <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/photocopying-the-past/840461/1">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/photocopying-the-past'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/photocopying-the-past</a>
</p>
No publishersunilIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2011-09-25T20:06:50ZBlog EntryCopyright Amendment Bill in Parliament
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament
<b>The Copyright Amendment Bill is expected to be presented in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Human Resource and Development, Kapil Sibal today afternoon. The much awaited Bill (since it has been in the offing since 2006) has undergone significant changes since its initial appearance.</b>
<p>Given below is a very quick first cut highlight of the Bill from a public interest perspective. A more detailed analysis will follow after the session discussions. </p>
<ul><li>Parallel imports: The parallel imports clause which had been put in as sec 2(m) has now been dropped from the present draft. This is a big setback because educational institutions, libraries and archives, second hand book, etc., were looking to this provision to bring down the prices and hasten the availability of books. This also affects persons with disabilities since they will be unable to import books in accessible formats.</li><li>Persons with disabilities: There are two provisions relating to persons with disabilities which have been introduced. Section 52 (1) (zb) relates to the conversion, reproduction, issues of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, provided that these activities are meant to enable access to persons with disabilities and sufficient safeguards are taken to ensure that these materials do not enter the mainstream market. This section in a sense is broader and more encompassing than some provisions found in other countries, which relate exclusively to the blind or visually impaired. This section would adequately cover persons with other disabilities who cannot read print. A new section 31B also provides for compulsory licensing for profit entities wishing to convert and distribute works in accessible formats, provided that they are primarily working for persons with disabilities and are registered under sec 12A of the Income Tax Act or under chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.</li><li>Many exceptions under 52 (1) (i) relating to fair dealing have been extended to all works except computer programmes. New sections 52 (1) (b) and (c) protect transient and incidental storage from being classified as infringing copies, which offers protection to entities such as online intermediaries. </li><li>The scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’. Three new sections 31 B, 31C and 31 D have been introduced. Section 31 B has already been described in the paragraph on persons with disabilities. Section 31 C lays down strict measures relating to statutory licensing in case of cover version, being a sound recording of a literary, dramatic or musical work. Section 31 D relates to statutory licenses for broadcasting organizations wishing to broadcast a literary or musical work or sound recording.</li><li>Non commercial public libraries can now store electronic copies of any non digital works they own (52(n)).</li><li>The new Bill introduces Technological protection measures (65A and 65B) and makes circumvention and distribution of works in which rights managements systems have been removed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment upto two years as well as fine. In addition the copyright owner can also avail of civil remedies. As such India is not really required to have these provisions in the copyright legislation since we are not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and such provisions will hamper consumer interests. </li><li>Terms of copyright have been increased significantly without reason, thus preventing works from falling into the public domain. For instance, the term of photographs has been increased from 60 years to life of the photographer plus 60 years. This is far in excess of the minimum term stipulated by international treaties. </li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament</a>
</p>
No publishernirmitaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-30T09:26:44ZBlog EntryGovt for Legalising Parallel Import of Copyright Works; Publishers Oppose
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work
<b>Section 2(m) legalises the parallel imports of books and other copyrighted material into India and was part of the initial Copyright Amendment Bill introduced in the Parliament of India in 2010. </b>
<p>Section 2(m) reads as below:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<div>"[P]rovided that a copy of a work published in any country outside India with the permission of the author of the work and imported from that country into India shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy."</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, the government did a sudden volte face owing to pressure from publisher lobbies and deleted it from the latest version of the Bill. The provision would have helped students gain access to the latest affordable versions of text books from around the world.</p>
<p>When the Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for review, the said Committee strongly supported the introduction of section 2(m) and stated as below:</p>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>"that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books."</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote">
<p>"Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. Thus, apprehensions about the flooding of the primary market with low priced editions, may be mis-founded as such a situation would be tackled by that country's law. The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to the government to ensure that the <strong>purpose for which the amendment is proposed i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of</strong>."</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="pullquote"><span class="Apple-style-span">Despite the Standing Committees support, it is curious as to why the government dropped this provision, particularly when it would have tremendously helped a number of students gain access to latest low priced editions of text books from around the world. It ought not to have succumbed to the pressures of the publishing lobby.</span></div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Empirical studies done on this count clearly demonstrate that publishers only introduce old versions of books in India. The latest versions have to be imported, and they are very expensive, often times costing more than what they cost in the US and EU. See the Economic Times article documenting this empirical study <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/policy/govt-for-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-works-publishers-oppose/articleshow/7723572.cms">here</a>.</p>
<p>Further, an easy right of import enables any third party to import books which could also then be made available in accessible formats to the visually impaired. </p>
<p class="callout">Download the Economic Times article by Shamnad Basheer <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import" class="internal-link" title="Govt for legalising parallel import of copyright works; publishers oppose">here</a>. [PDF, 470 Kb]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work</a>
</p>
No publisherShamnad BasheerIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2011-08-30T10:19:35ZBlog Entry