Centre for Internet and Society

France, Greece, India and the European Union Sign the Marrakesh Treaty

nehaa — 2014-05-02T23:23:25Z

On April 30, 2014, on Day 3 of the 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, a Signing Ceremony was conducted for member states wishing to sign the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to books and other reading material for the print disabled.

Read the WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marrakesh Treaty

Opening the proceedings, the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry called the Marrakesh Treaty “one of the greatest achievements of this Committee in the past year.” The Hon’ble Ambassador of France in his speech following that of the Director General emphasised the importance that his government placed on this treaty. Mrs. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development signed the Marrakesh Treaty for the Government of India. In her address at the Signing Ceremony, Mrs. Ish placed emphasis on India’s 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, stating that these provisions were “in complete harmony” with the Marrakesh Treaty and that India was “well poised” to implement the same. Mrs.Ish also stated that India would be ratifying the treaty “very soon.” Most importantly perhaps, Mrs. Ish reminded the Committee that appropriate mechanisms to implement this treaty would have to be put in place; and that implementing it in its true spirit would require cooperation from all member states. The Ambassador of Greece, speaking on behalf of Greece and the European Union said that they wanted the Marrakesh Treaty to serve its original purpose of benefitting persons with print disabilities.

The European Blind Union (EBU) and the Secretary General of (and speaking on behalf of) the International Publishers’ Association (IPA) also made statements at the Signing Ceremony. EBU was of the opinion that while the signature was a “major, symbolic leap forward”, the next crucial step was to ensure its speedy ratification so that it might become effective. IPA echoed previous speakers on the point that ratification and implementation were but first steps, and that access would only be achieved as a result of “collaboration between rights organizations and rights holders.”

It will be interesting to see how these member states follow up on their signatures to the Marrakesh Treaty. The treaty will only be effective 3 months after at least 20 nations have ratified it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/france-greece-india-eu-sign-marrakesh-treaty

Feedback on the Framework on OSS Adoption in E-Governance Systems

nehaa — 2013-10-28T10:35:04Z

CIS gave its feedback to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) on the Framework on Open Source Software Adoption in E-Governance Systems on October 26, 2013.

In September, 2013, the DeitY invited comments on the Framework on the proposed adoption of Open Source Software in E-Governance Systems (available at https://egovstandards.gov.in/Public_review_Framework_on_oss).

The Framework, published in September, 2013, provides a set of recommendations and procedures to encourage, manage and increase the adoption of Open Source Software in E-Governance systems. Further, the Framework goes on to discuss various important issues, including the deployment of unified software for all major devices, with the utilization of a standards based web browser, the integration of OSS with other on-going initiatives, and the development of an eco-system consisting of institutions, industry, academia and other key stakeholders to promote and adopt OSS. The envisaged Centre of Excellence on OSS to realize this Framework is noteworthy.

CIS commends the DeitY for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the Framework.

The text of CIS Feedback is reproduced below:

PRELIMINARY

This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society[1] on the Framework on Open Source Software Adoption in ‘E-Governance’ (“Framework”), published by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (DeitY).[2]

The Framework, published in September, 2013, provides a set of recommendations and procedures to encourage, manage and increase the adoption of Open Source Software in E-Governance systems.[3] Further, the Framework goes on to discuss various important issues, including the deployment of unified software for all major devices, with the utilization of a standards based web browser, the integration of OSS with other on-going initiatives, and the development of an eco-system consisting of institutions, industry, academia and other key stakeholders to promote and adopt OSS. The envisaged Centre of Excellence on OSS to realize this Framework is noteworthy.

CIS commends the DeitY for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the Framework. CIS’ comments are as stated hereafter.

COMMENTS

Scope and Applicability

In the section pertaining to Scope and Applicability, the Recommendation proposed is to give priority to preferred areas for the adoption of this Framework.[4]

It is suggested that the preferred areas alluded to aforesaid be identified and disclosed. It is further suggested that the Framework identify a timeline for operationalization of all of the proposed recommendations, including the identification of the preferred areas and the adoption of the Framework in these areas. It is also suggested that a time frame be provided for the implementation of the Framework to all other areas, besides the preferred ones.

Preamble

In the section titled Preamble, the Recommendation proposed is to consider OSS along with Closed Source Software.[5] considering the socio- economic and strategic benefits provided by OSS.[6]

CIS appreciates the welcome measure in considering OSS alternatives along with CSS. While viewing this as indeed the first step in the right direction, CIS would suggest the development of a mechanism and the adoption of further measures in order to migrate entirely to an entirely OSS based system; with preference being given to OSS between OSS and CSS.

Factors Influencing the Adoption of OSS in Government

In the section dealing with Factors Influencing the Adoption of OSS in Government, the Framework states that the influencing factors are to be prioritized on the basis of feedback from managers/users.[7]

CIS proposes that it may be clarified who the managers/users being spoken of are, and what is the type and manner of feedback expected for the evaluation of influencing factors. CIS suggests that feedback also be sought in a more inclusive and holistic manner, after seeking consultation from other stakeholders as well.

Device Drivers

Under the section dealing with Device Drivers, the onus to ensure availability of device drivers for GNU Linux Operating Systems has been placed on the users.[8]

CIS strongly suggests that this be modified to state that the availability of device drivers for GNU Linux Operating Systems must be assured by vendors as a part of procurement requirements.

Procurement Guidelines

Under the section dealing with Procurement Guidelines, it has been recommended that vendors must provide justifications for excluding OSS in their response to proposals.[9]

CIS suggests that vendors be given a time frame within which to ensure compliance with the Framework, and thereafter be required to include OSS in their response to proposals, post which justifications ought not to be considered, as a matter of policy, but could be on an exceptional case to case basis.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

CIS welcomes the initiative of the DeitY towards the adoption of OSS in E-Governance Systems. This Framework, while indeed addressing the important issues associated towards the end of adoption of OSS in E- Governance, would be further strengthened by addressing the concerns enumerated above.
CIS is thankful to the DeitY for the opportunity to provide feedback on this Framework. As a non-governmental research organization working in the areas of Openness[10] and Access to Knowledge.[11] CIS appreciates this effort by the DeitY, and would be privileged to work with the Government on this and other matters in these areas.

[1]. See www.cis-india.org (last accessed 26 October, 2013).

[2]. See https://egovstandards.gov.in/system/files/PublicReviewDocument/Framework_on_OSS_Ver0.8.pdf (last accessed 26 October, 2013).

[3]. Hereafter referred to as OSS.

[4]. See Page 9 of the Framework.

[5]. Hereafter referred to as CSS.

[6].See Page 12 of the Framework.

[7].See Page 16 of the Framework.

[8].See Page 20 of the Framework.

[9].See Page 22 of the Framework.

[10].See http://cis-india.org/openness (last accessed 26 October, 2013)

[11].See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 26 October, 2013).See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 26 October, 2013).

This submission was prepared on behalf of CIS by Nehaa Chaudhari. Click to download the submission file here. For specific section wise review comments, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/feedback-on-framework-on-oss-adoption-in-e-governance-systems

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS RTI - IMPROPER PAYMENT - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:35:58Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-rti-improper-payment-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (THIRD) RTI REQUEST - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T18:16:52Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-third-rti-request-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI REQUEST - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:58:50Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-request-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T18:14:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (FIRST) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:42:43Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-first-rti-february-2015

Comments on the Open Licensing Policy Guidelines of the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology

nehaa — 2014-06-30T11:26:44Z

The Centre for Internet and Society submitted its comments on the Open Licensing Policy Guidelines to the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, on May 28, 2014. The comments were prepared by Sunil Abraham and Nehaa Chaudhari.

I. PRELIMINARY

1.1 This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”)[1] on the Open Licensing Policy Guidelines (“Guidelines”) of the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (“NMEICT”).

1.2.The Guidelines provide a set of recommendations and procedures to ensure that content produced under the NMEICT is openly licensed.

1.3 CIS commends the NMEICT for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the Guidelines. CIS’ comments are as stated hereafter.

II. SECTION-WISE COMMENTS

2.1 Preamble

2.1.1 Recognizing the role of intergovernmental agencies in promoting the use of open licenses, the Preamble makes a reference to the 2012 Paris OER Declaration.[2] CIS appreciates this inclusion and suggests that reference may also be made to another important declaration, i.e., the Cape Town Open Education Declaration, released in 2008,[3] which encourages the publishers and governments to make available, at no charge, via the internet, publicly funded educational materials.

2.2 Principles of Openness

2.2.1 The first principle[4] requires the treatment of information products as “national resources.” The phrase “national resource” most often used in connection with rivers, forests, mines and minerals or spectrum would imply specific legal connotations and might therefore prove to be a misnomer for information products. It is suggested that “national resources” be replaced with “commons” or, alternatively, the sentence be restructured to state that content, software and technology would be treated as “information commons”.

2.2.2 The third principle[5] states that “information and knowledge resources” shall be available “freely”. “Freely” has a wide array of connotations including the absence of restrictions and the absence of payment/costs. It is suggested that “freely” be further clarified and perhaps be replaced with “on a gratis basis”.

2.2.3. The fifth principle deals with the transfer of “all intellectual property rights” to the Government of India and the retention of “moral rights” with the contributor. Intellectual property rights is a wider term including among others copyright and related rights, patents, trademarks and industrial designs. There are two types of right under copyright- moral rights (of attribution for the work) and economic rights (which allow the owner to derive financial benefit and reward from the use of her/his work).[6] It is submitted that the intention behind the fifth principle is seemingly to transfer all economic rights to the Government of India while ensuring due credit to the author/contributor for her/his work. “Intellectual property rights” being a wider term would be a misnomer in this sense, as would the use of “copyright”, since this does not appreciate the distinction between economic and moral rights. Therefore, it is suggested that “intellectual property rights” be replaced with “economic rights” for the applicable branch of copyright law.

2.2.4. The sixth principle deals with the release of information and knowledge resources in a “suitable open licence”. “Suitable open licence” could include both indigenously developed as well as existing licences. It is submitted that in the interests of interoperability, one of the fundamental principles of open access, it would be appropriate to adopt an existing system of licensing. It is recommended therefore, that the Creative Commons approach could be adopted for content and the GNU or BSD licenses could be considered for software. It is strongly suggested that “suitable open licence” be replaced with a specific license framework to ensure interoperability, particularly between information and knowledge resources produced by other nations also funding and adopting OER.

2.3 Guidelines

2.3.1 The second guideline mandates a single portal/gateway for all knowledge resources under this project. It is suggested that this be replaced with the adoption of the principle ‘lots of copies keep stuff safe’, the basis for the LOCKSS Program of Stanford University.[7] The LOCKSS Program allows participating libraries to take custody of and preserve access to the content to which they have subscribed. It is suggested that a similar approach be adopted towards the content being developed under the NMEICT OER project.

2.3.2. The fourth guideline makes a reference to the possible adoption of a CC-BY-SA licence to make content available. The rationale behind a Share-Alike clause could be to prevent the appropriation of the education market by ‘rent seekers’. However, it is necessary to examine this further. The danger of appropriation and subsequent monopolization of content is one that needs to be addressed provided that the process of content creation itself is dependent on contributions from subsequent utilizers of content. Content under the NMEICT model is developed as a result of government contributions and is not dependent on subsequent utilizers feeding back into the system, thus invalidating the need for a Share -Alike clause. Additionally the absence of a Share-Alike clause is likely to incentivise private participation. Private players would have the freedom to utilize the content generated under this scheme, modify and develop it further and make it available in the market for sale. This would be extremely useful in meeting the last mile connectivity and ensuring the wider availability of content. It is therefore submitted that that the licence to be adopted should be CC-BY.

2.3.3. The fifth guideline places a requirement on the grantee/creator to intimate the NMEICT about the use of other open license materials. It is submitted that this could be excessive regulation. It is suggested that this guideline be modified and a two- fold requirement be placed on the content creator/grantee- one, to specify clearly and explicitly the licence being used and the licensing conditions in her/his work, and two, to attribute any and all content used to the rightful creator and holder of copyright.

2.3.4. The eighth guideline mandates the use of “open formats” for delivery of outputs. It is suggested that “open formats” be replaced with the mandatory adherence to “open standards” and a reference be made to the National Policy for Open Standards notified in 2010. The eighth guideline also discourages the use of proprietary software. It is submitted that the requirements of sharing the source file along with the relevant APIs need a more detailed explanation. It is suggested that the difference between a development platform/environment and the software written subsequently over this platform be clarified. Notwithstanding that the former may be proprietary if no other alternative is available, developers/creators/licensees would be obligated to openly license any code/software they create using the platform. It is suggested that it ought to be made explicit that there shall be no choice for the latter and that the choice was limited to the type of platform being employed.

2.3.5. It is suggested that a ninth guideline be included. This guideline would deal with accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0[8] may be referenced and invoked.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

3.1. CIS welcomes the initiative of the NMEICT towards the adoption of an OER Policy. These Guidelines, while indeed addressing the important issues associated towards the end of adoption of an OER Policy, would be further strengthened by addressing the concerns enumerated above.

3.2. CIS is thankful to the NMEICT for the opportunity to provide feedback on this Policy. As a non-governmental research organization working in the areas of Openness and[9] and Access to Knowledge,[10] CIS appreciates this effort by the NMEICT, and would be privileged to work with the Government on this and other matters in these areas.

[1].See www.cis-india.org (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[2].See http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/Paris%20OER%20Declaration_01.pdf (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[3].See http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[4].See 2(a), Principles of Openness of the Guidelines.

[5].See 2(c), Principles of Openness of the Guidelines.

[6]. See illustratively http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html#moral_rights (last accessed 26 May, 2014); http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html (last accessed 26 May, 2014); http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-otherprotect/c-moralrights.htm (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[7]. See http://www.lockss.org/about/what-is-lockss/ (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[8].See http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (last accessed 28 May, 2014).

[9].See http://cis-india.org/openness (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[10].See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-open-licensing-policy-guidelines-of-national-mission-on-education-through-information-and-communication-technology

Comments on the Draft ICAR Open Access Policy

nehaa — 2013-05-28T06:44:45Z

The following comments were submitted to the Indian Council for Agricultural Research on May 23, 2013.

Introduction

The Centre for Internet and Society,[1] is is a not-for-profit research organization. Our substantive areas of work include openness (including openness of government data, open access to scholarly literature, open standards, free and open source software, open educational resources, and open video) access to knowledge and IPR reform, freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, digital humanities and digital natives.[2]It is our belief that openness and collaboration are the agents of innovation and creativity, and the advent of the internet has radically redefined the meaning and practice of openness and collaboration. Pursuant to our vision, we have been actively involved in the area of Openness and the promotion of open access.[3]

Key research and highlights of our work in these areas are as under:

Comments on the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance (Phase 1), submitted to the Department of Information and Technology.[4]
A Status Report on Open Access to Scholarly Literature in India.[5]
A Survey Report on the Online Video Environment in India.[6]
A Report on Open Government Data in India.[7]
An Open Government Data Study.[8]
Publication of multiple blog posts and the conduction of various events including workshops and seminars around Openness and Open Access.[9]

We hope that our commitment to Open Access and Openness, substantiated with our work in these areas leads you to consider our comments to your Draft Open Access Policy favourably.

The Structure of the Report

This report will deal provide feedback on the structure of the policy, various clauses of the policy, what clauses may be omitted (if any) and other clauses that may be included. Additionally, possible challenges that might require to be addressed in the implementation of this policy have also been indicated.

Overview

It is felt that the ICAR Draft Policy on Open Access is fairly comprehensive, covering most areas associated with its implementation, detailed, embodies the principles of openness and open access, and is a step in the right direction towards achieving open access to scientific and scholarly literature, acting as an example for other communities to do the same.[10]

Structural Feedback

It is suggested that the policy be structured along the lines of the UNESCO Library Open Access Policy, with headings including Introduction, the Objectives/Mission Statement of the Policy, Applicability, Repository, Roles and Obligations of various participants, Intellectual Property Law Issues and Implementation.[11]

Feedback on Existing Clauses

The decision of the ICAR to implement an Open Access Policy is commendable, and an encouragement to other institutions to follow suit.

The adoption of OAI-MHP standard will ensure interoperability, given that it is seen as the cornerstone in open access to institutional research output, and failure to utilize this standard would reduce accessibility and therefore the impact of materials, since they are invisible to each other.

The provisions of the content to be made a part of the repository, and the implementation are comprehensive and detailed. Inter alia, measures involving encouragement to publish in journals that allow for open access through archiving, workshops for advocacy and capacity building, adoption of the CC-NC-SA license are appreciated.

Suggested Changes

It is suggested that the Policy include provisions on information to be made available in accessible formats. In pursuance of the same, it is particularly suggested that the ICAR adopt measures to publish literature that is made available through this Open Access mechanism in formats accessible for visually impaired/print disabled persons, to truly realise the underlying aims of Open Access.

It is suggested that in addition to class/lecture notes already included under the content, ‘course content’ developed for any class/seminar/lecture in any university/college/educational institution be made a separate category of material to be included for open access.

It is suggested that the following sentence in the proposed policy be further clarified: “Scientists are advised to mention the ICAR’s Open Access policy while signing the copyright agreements with the publishers”- A clarification is required regarding the application of this sentence and its applicability. Would the policy apply to both those cases where the scientists have copyright over their work, and where the institute has copyright, or to only one of these scenarios?

It is suggested that the ICAR participate in the development and promote the building of cross institutional services (cross repository services) to further the aims of Open Access,[12] and the same be reflected in the forthcoming policy.

It is suggested that the forthcoming policy include an explicit provision on long term digital preservation[13] of the collected information, including possible measures that the ICAR may adopt to this end.

It is suggested that the forthcoming policy include a specific provision that requires contributing scientists/researchers etc. to explicitly declare that they have the copyright for and have obtained the necessary permissions to post and contribute to the Open Access Project.

It is suggested that the ICAR take steps for aiding the development of Open Access Journals. In furtherance of the same, the ICAR could have links of the websites of these Journals on its own repository, such that the link to the articles on the websites of these Journals leads directly to the ICAR Repository. Such a move would incentivise authors to contribute, since their effort would be recognised, and researchers would have a persistent source to cite from an archive. This effort would also be in consonance with the broader aims of Open Access that the ICAR is keen to achieve through its proposed policy.

It is suggested that the policy also include measures to encourage persons not members of the ICAR to contribute to the Repository.

It is suggested that as regards the implementation aspects of the creation of this repository, the ICAR would also have to ensure the creation of digital document identifiers for all content to be contributed to and housed on the repository. Additionally, the policy ought to also lay down standards of training and development of the staff and authors to submit content to the repository, and to be able to efficiently utilize the same. It is also suggested that the policy encompass the development of a framework for feedback for users and feedback from users, where the former would provide current statistics and details about articles and contributions to users, and the latter would be a mechanism for users to comment on their experience in utilising the repository.

Concluding Observations

The Centre for Internet and Society deeply appreciates the effort undertaken by the ICAR to bring about Open Access in its area of work, which is definitely a welcome step in the right direction. CIS hopes that given its commitment to Open Access and strong tradition of work in this area, the ICAR would give due regard to the observations made out in this report.

[1]. Hereafter referred to as CIS.

[2]. See http://cis-india.org/about for more details.

[3]. See http://cis-india.org/openness for our work on Openness.

[4]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/comments-ifeg-phase-1

[5]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-access-to-scholarly-literature

[6]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/online-video-environment-in-india

[7]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/ogd-draft-v2-call-for-comments

[8]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-government-data-study

[9]. See http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=open+access for details of our posts and events on Open Access.

[10]. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Open Access Policy Concerning UNESCO Publications, available at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ERI/pdf/oa_policy_en_2.pdf (last accessed 22 May, 2013).

[11]. Id.

[12]. Gerard van Westrienen and Clifford A. Lynch, Academic Institutional Repositories: Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005, available at http://dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html (last accessed 22 May, 2013).

[13]. Leslie Chan, Supporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role of Open Access Institutional Repositories , Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 29 (3&4), 277, 282.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-draft-icar-open-access-policy

CIS Statement on the proposed treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2013-12-30T06:46:28Z

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made the statement at the WIPO-SCCR on December 18, 2013.

CIS would like to congratulate the Chair and the Vice Chairs on their election; and thank the Secretariat and the entire Committee for the hard work being put in this week at the SCCR.

The Centre for Internet and Society, in agreement among others, with the GRULAC, the African Group, Tunisia, Senegal, Sudan and India, believes that an international instrument to govern exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives is critical, especially from the perspective of developing and least developed countries, to ensure the development of an international copyright system that balances rights of both the right holders and the users.

We believe that such an international instrument would serve a two fold purpose- one, of protecting copyrighted works, two, of providing greater access to these materials, and the dissemination of knowledge, culture and information; and would be in furtherance of WIPO’s Development Agenda.

On the question of these exceptions being a part of national legislations alone; our submission in three fold:

First, as stated by the delegation of Tunisia, that national legislations lack uniformity on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives- and in this context, the development of this international instrument that we are discussing today, is particularly important. Second, as stated by the African Group, such an international instrument would also foster a system for cross border exchange; with limitations and exceptions operating at the international level. Third, as mentioned by KEI in their statement, discussions here are likely to influence law making, specifically the development of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives at the national level.

Specifically, Mister Chairman, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to address three specific issues from the Working Document SCCR/26/3 before us today.

First, On the three step test. We believe that in order to truly facilitate access to knowledge and information, libraries and archives should have the benefit of any and all flexibilities. Therefore, a narrow interpretation of the three step test should NOT be adopted.

Second we believe that the protection of works in digital form as well as online libraries and archives is critical from an access to information and education perspective, as was noted by the delegation from Senegal. We believe therefore that the transmission of works in in a digital form as well as any internet service providers engaged in facilitating access to materials under this proposed instrument should also be granted protection.

Third, libraries, archives, educational, research and teaching institutions should be allowed to import and export copyrighted works and parallel trade in these works should be allowed.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Video

Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from December 16 to 20 are available online. CIS' statement is in the video titled SCCR/26- Wed18 - English - Afternoon session. The length of the video is 02:51:05. The statement is available in this video from 22 minutes, 56 seconds- when the Chair recognizes CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities

nehaa — 2013-12-30T06:17:50Z

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made this statement at the WIPO-SCCR on December 20, 2013.

The Centre for Internet and Society believes in the universal access to knowledge/education for all, without the barriers of time, distance and costs. We believe that information and communication technologies provide us with the opportunities to achieve this universality for ALL learners, both, through formal and informal institutions and learning environments, in both, digital and non digital formats.

The adoption of limitations and exceptions for education and research is particularly significant from the perspective of developing and least developed nations, where prices of books and other learning material are high not just in absolute terms, but where consumers often have to commit higher proportions of their income to have access to these materials.

We are in agreement with some of the delegations before us, among others with Ecuador, Kenya and the African Group in our belief that the present international legal framework, does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. The compulsory licensing provisions in the Berne Appendix are complex, narrow, unworkable and of little value to developing nations.

We believe, therefore, Mr. Chair, that there is a need to adopt open ended exceptions for education, teaching and research compatible with the digital environment. In our opinion, Mister Chair, a narrow construction and application of the three step test to these limitations and exceptions would not be the ideal way forward especially for developing and least developed countries. We believe Mr. Chair, that these limitations and exceptions should be those that harmonize national practices; prescribe an international standard, facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities

CIS Statement at 27th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-05-01T14:27:48Z

The 27th Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from April 28, 2014 to May 2, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of CIS made the following statement on April 29, 2014.

This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on the Scope of the Treaty and the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. The statement makes references to a specific Working Document available here. CIS statement is quoted in Knowledge Ecology International on April 29, 2014 and in the Intellectual Property Watch on May 1, 2014.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

We have some concerns regarding the intended scope and language of Article 9 in Working Document SCCR/27/2 Rev. We believe that this expands the scope of this proposed treaty and is likely to have the effect of granting broadcasters rights over the content being carried and not just the signal. On this issue, we have two brief observations to make:

First- Article 9 envisages fixation and post fixation rights for broadcasting organizations- for instance among others, those of reproduction, distribution and public performance This, we believe is not within the mandate of this Committee, being as it is, inconsistent with a signal based approach.

Second- we express our reservations on the inclusion of “communication to the public” reflected in Article 9 Alternative B, which also relates to the definition of communication to the public under alternative to d of Article 5 of this document. Communication to the public is an element of copyright and governs the content layer, as distinct from the “broadcast” or “transmission” of a signal. Therefore, attempts to regulate “communication to the public” would not be consistent with a signal based approach, which we believe is the mandate binding on this Committee.

That is all, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

In response to CIS' statement, the Chair had this to say:

Thank you, CIS,. That was a very clear statement and gave us a very clear explanation of the situation. We will indeed take due account of that in the course of this afternoon's further discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

CIS Statement (on Technological Measures of Protection) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-05-02T11:18:23Z

This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Technological Measures of Protection", which is topic 9 of Working Document SCCR 26/3.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

We believe that in an environment where much of the preservation and dissemination of knowledge by libraries and archives is in the digital format, having a limitation and exception provision as regards this particular provision of TPMs in this international instrument is integral; and we echo the Canadian Library Association and The Charted Institute of Library and Information Professionals among others on the need for such an exception.

TPMs have the potential to override any fair use or fair dealing exceptions in copyright; and would render much of the discussion that we have been having over the past two days and at earlier sessions of this Committee, redundant, were where such an exception not to be talked about along with other exceptions that we are discussing for libraries and archives. TPMs may prevent end users from using works in ways that are allowed under fair use or fair dealing provisions- permitted exceptions in copyright law. If for instance, TPMs were in place on master copies of files that were obtained by libraries and archives, these institutions would not be allowed to carry out basic preservation activities such as file format migration which in turn would limit the life span of the master files in question and also render access to these files difficult (if that's the word that I could use); which in turn defeats the very purpose of preservation and access to knowledge by libraries and archives.

Therefore Mr. Chair, we think that the suggestion echoed — that the suggestion made by KEI earlier, that Article 7 of the Marrakech Treaty that deals with TPMs would be a logical — could be a logical step forward, and we think that there is merit in that statement, and we would like to align ourselves with that statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

CIS Statement (on Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works out of Commerce) at 27th SCCR on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-05-02T11:21:05Z

This statement was in response to the Chairperson seeking NGO inputs specifically on "Orphan Works, Retracted and Withdrawn Works, and Works Out of Commerce", which is topic 7 of Working Document SCCR 26/3.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair.

Mister Chair, we will be addressing this topic on two levels:

First, the need for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives for orphan, retracted and withdrawn works and works out of commerce.

Second, the need for these limitations and exceptions to be a part of an international legal instrument.

On the first level, Mr. Chair- we are of the opinion that this limitation and exception is necessary for libraries and archives to be able to perform their key functions- the preservation and dissemination of knowledge.

This exception speaks to a very complex environment- One where the owner of a work cannot be located despite an exhaustive search and therefore digitazation cannot take place because to do so would be copyright infringment; one where the volumes of works that we’re speaking of are anywhere between 10 and 70 percent of the collections of some libraries (these figures are based on reports released by various libraries, library associations and others, that are available online); one, where rights information of works is lacking; and an environment where works have been withdrawn for a variety of reasons. The outcome which commonly arises as a result of all of these is that works are not available to the public, in turn affecting access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, which is one of the basic purposes of copyright. Any interpretation or understanding of copyright ought to be one that aids in the achievement of this purpose, as opposed to deviating from it.

On the second level, Mr. Chair- we believe that there is a need for an international legal instrument to govern these limitations and exceptions.

We have heard the statements made to this Committee by various Hon’ble delegations today and at earlier sessions of this Committee. What emerges, as KEI said earlier, is that there is a lack of uniformity in national legislations and approaches in addressing this issue. What also emerges is that the current copyright framework in some developing and least developed countries does not adequately address these issues. Therefore, Mr. Chair, as we have stated at earlier Sessions of this Committee- to be able to harmonize these limitations and exceptions, to ensure that these limitations and exceptions have a cross border effect, and hopefully to have discussions that we have here are influence national law making and state practice (also, as KEI said earlier), we believe that an international legal instrument that deals with among others the exception we are discussing in Topic 7, is very important.

That’s all we have to say at the moment, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

CIS RTI REQUEST TO DIPP - NUMBER 3 - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:28:53Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015