Centre for Internet and Society

Access to Medicines: Petition to the US Government to Stop Pressure on India

nehaa — 2014-12-10T13:02:59Z

There is growing pressure on India from the US Government to change its intellectual property system. Bending to US pressure will put medicines out of reach for millions of patients in India and other developing countries.

Medicines are affordable for millions of poor patients across the world, thanks to India’s progressive intellectual property system. Now, transnational pharmaceutical companies and the US Government are putting pressure on the Indian Government to change India’s laws which will make medicines unaffordable. Peoples' groups, patients’ networks and civil society organizations have come together in one voice to ask the US government to stop pressuring India against use of its legitimate rights to protect public health. The Indian Government must hold its ground and not give in to the pressure.

For more details log on to Oxfam India website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/oxfam-india-november-29-2014-access-to-medicines

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities

nehaa — 2014-12-20T13:40:19Z

At the 29th session of WIPO's SCCR, the Chair, Martin Moscoso, requested NGOs to send in their statements on limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research institutions and persons with disabilities in writing, to be placed on the record. Nehaa Chaudhari, on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent in this written statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As we have always maintained in the past sessions of this Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society strongly believes that everyone, regardless of borders and barriers, either physical, or those created by time, distance and costs should have access to knowledge and education.

To that end, we strongly support the proposal made by India, earlier, on continuing constructive work in this area. We also welcome the suggestion by the Indian delegation on a synthesis of these issues (facilitated by an expert, through the Chair), so that we can have a constructive discussion on these issues.

Mr. Chair, we are very mindful of the fact that there exists a very real, very demonstrable need for limitations and exceptions for education, teaching and research institutions and also for the benefit of persons with disabilities. There is also an equally crucial need to ensure that these limitations and exceptions are open ended and are appropriate for the digital environment; a conversation we believe that is imperative for Member Nations to take forward, definitely more so than one around granting a 'para-copyright' for organizations that already enjoy a great deal of protection under existing treaties, and are far less vulnerable than beneficiaries of these limitations and exceptions.

We thank the United States of America for their document- SCCR/27/8 on the Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. We appreciate the recognition of the copyright system in the dissemination of works of authorship as well as the critical role that it plays in the promotion of educational, teaching and research objectives. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of a balance of rights and exceptions and limitations sustaining the role and activities of educational, teaching and research institutions.

However, we do believe that for a true balance to be achieved between rights and limitations and exceptions, the rights of the users of copyrighted works for the purposes of access to knowledge will have to be treated on par with those of the rights holders themselves. We believe that for this to be possible, measures will have to be taken to ensure international interoperability of limitations and exceptions and international standards suitable to address emerging and present issues of the digital environment will have to be developed. As we have submitted before this Committee earlier, it is our belief that the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by these information and communication technologies. Mr. Chair, we reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area, that will facilitate a cross border exchange of books and other learning material.

As a first step towards this end, we urge Member States to collaborate on and engage in substantive discussions building on existing Working Documents presently before this Committee. We look forward to an engaging discussion and providing all our complete support as we move forward on this very important agenda item.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

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

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:56:14Z

On Day 3 (December 10, 2014), the SCCR briefly re-convened at the Plenary. The Chair, Martin Moscoso updated the Committee on the discussions and the developments that had taken place over the course of the past two days in the Informals. The Centre for Internet and Society made a brief pointed intervention on one of the documents being discussed in the Informals.

Note: The documents cannot be made public yet. They were shared with Observers and Member States (even those that did not participate in the Informals) on the condition of maintaining confidentiality.

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, chair.

First on the making available these documents, we would like to echo what CCIA and KEI said- we would also like to see the informal papers made public, so that we can have a more informed discussion on these issues.

Second, very briefly, on some of the rights to be granted- in one of the Informal Discussion Papers laid out, in -- in the third column, which are essentially fixation and post fixation rights, just very briefly, that whatever is done in any case after the signal is fixed is already covered by copyright law and we find it frightening and we see little sense in providing two sets of incompatible, and overlapping rights- copyright, that is already existing, and a sort of a para-copyright (that this treaty seeks to create) for the same underlying content.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:55:51Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made its intervention on the proposed treaty in the ongoing WIPO session on December 9, 2014.

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, Mister Chair.

This intervention will be based on the chart detailing the ‘Concepts’ corresponding to the Definitions. We believe that certain elements of these concepts are inconsistent with a broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach; and over the course of the next few minutes, I will briefly discuss these.

First, Mr. Chair in the first column- on broadcasting or cablecasting organizations (in the traditional sense); where communication of the signal has been listed under scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, ‘communication’ itself is an element of copyright and is distinct from broadcast rights that are related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, may be broadcast or transmitted. Accordingly, Mr. Chair under the element of Scope of Responsibility, we are of the opinion that it should read Broadcast or Transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal; and the focus should not be at regulating communication to the public.

Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column- on broadcasting and cablecasting transmission- we have three observations. First- under the means of transmission, we believe that transmission over computer networks encompasses IP based transmissions, and should be excluded, in order for the treaty to remain consistent with a signals based approach. Second- on the reception of the broadcast or cablecast transmission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase ‘general public’. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public (say family members) could possibly be covered by the term “public”, but would be excluded from “general public”; which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not- which also flows into the third column on the Signal- and whether it is encrypted or not; which then also relates to whether broadcasting organizations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Mr. Chair, we don’t think that there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Given that signal theft is already a crime, having a specific right to prevent unauthorized decryption might result in an absurdity, where it could even cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter.

This provision might result in an absurdity, where it would cover decrypting an unauthroised retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter, where the retransmission in the first instance was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, on the third column and the meaning of signal- we submit that our preferred definition would be where the definition of a signal is confined, and it understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or cablecast and NOT one which has the capability of such a transmission, as stated in the third column in your Chart on concepts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention : Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-12-14T02:56:46Z

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on December 11 during one of the sessions in WIPO asked two questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews.

In 2008, WIPO commissioned a study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.This was prepared by Prof. Kenneth Crews. On December 10-11, 2014, at SCCR 29, Prof. Crews presented an updated (2014) version of this study and addressed comments and questions from Member States and Observers.

CIS Statement:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Professor Crews for your presentation yesterday, and for this comprehensive study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, very timely, and very important to us, from the perspective of access to knowledge and information.

I have two questions:

My first question: Did you find, in your examination, that, in terms of/ or on the question of limitations and exceptions, did you find, that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that lever of change lies to ensure that fair dealing provisions are extended equitably to the digital environment as well?

My second question, is on the interoperability of Limitations and Exceptions: Given that copyright is a very national thing, and, as your study has also well established, countries have a whole range of very diverse approaches and practices on Limitations and Exceptions; but also given that we live in an increasingly globalized world, we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the trans-boundary movement of works, with as little friction as possible, both- in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So, what did your examination show us of how interoperable- or not- the range of Limitations and Exceptions actually are?

Those are my two questions.

Thank you very much.

Response by Prof. Kenneth Crews:

Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out. So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means.

Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-08-07T10:44:05Z

The 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“the Committee” / "SCCR") took place in Geneva from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014. In this article, Nehaa Chaudhari, who attended this meeting on behalf of CIS, discusses the developments that took place with reference to the proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”).

At its 28^th Session, the WIPO SCCR devoted two and a half days to a discussion on the Broadcast Treaty. For the majority of this period informal discussions (“Informals”) were held between member states and there was no plenary. While Non- Government Organizations ( “NGOs”) and those member states who were not participating in the Informals were able to listen to the discussions taking place, we were requested to not report about them in any form whatsoever. Consequently, this article does not mention, cite or discuss the conversations in the Informals in any manner whatsoever, and is confined to deliberations at the plenary sessions.

Preliminary

Proceedings on Day 1 (June 30, 2014) began with a speech by the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry. Commending the “exceptional progress” made by the Committee over the past few years, Mr. Gurry cited the Marrakesh and Beijing Treaties as success stories. In talking about the Broadcast Treaty, Mr. Gurry said that the then ongoing FIFA World Cup, 2014 was “the perfect example” for member states on the economic and social importance of broadcasting. He went on to add that the Broadcast Treaty was the last component of the international legal framework which had not been “updated for the digital environment”. Identifying the challenge as developing a shared understanding of what and how to protect, Mr. Gurry was of the opinion that the Committee would make progress on the development of an instrument that was narrow in scope to combat cross border digital piracy.

In his statement following that of the Director General, the Chairperson, Edgar Martin Moscoso Villacorta (“the Chair”) explained that he had held consultations with the regional coordinators and three other nations from each group on June 27, 2014 to figure out how best to proceed at the upcoming 28^th Session of the Committee; before opening the floor to Regional Coordinators for their Opening Statements.

Group Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators : Reflections of a North-South Divide

Opening statements by Regional Coordinators on behalf of their groups reflected sentiments similar to those witnessed at the 26^th and 27 ^th Sessions of this Committee[1]. While there was broad consensus on having a well-balanced work plan that addressed the different issues of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research and persons with disabilities, statements also reflected the disagreements between various groups on the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the various items on the agenda, largely along the fault-lines of the classic Global North v. the Global South. For instance, statements by the European Union (“the EU”) and Group B, the group of developed countries emphasised the convening of a diplomatic conference for the Broadcast Treaty, but on the other hand, statements by the groups of developing countries highlighted the importance of limitations and exceptions.

The Regional Coordinator (presently, Paraguay) for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (“GRULAC”) placed emphasis on a “well balanced work plan which envisages the different issues” but also stated that for their group, “the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions (is) of the utmost importance.”

The representative of Bangladesh, in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Group said that their group considered all issues to be equally important, notwithstanding the fact that they might enjoy different levels of discussion at the SCCR; and on the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations said that the group was “willing to work constructively” and hoped to continue “meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organizations and to advance further to a balanced international instrument of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organizations.”

The statement of the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) Group, presently represented by the Czech Republic categorically stated that the CEBS Group was “striving for the successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organizations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the Diplomatic Conference to take place, as soon as possible, preferably in 2015.” (sic)

Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, in their statement recognised the “tradition…to allocate more time to discussion on more mature subject matters”, referring to the Broadcast Treaty and, like the CEBS Group, also touched upon the issue of convening a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible.

The European Union (“the EU”) has perhaps been one of the most vocal proponents of the Broadcast Treaty at past sessions of the Committee, and carried forward this tradition into the 28^th session as well, labelling negotiations on the Broadcast Treaty “a high priority” for Member States. The EU also echoed the statements made by the CEBS Group as well as Group B on the need to call for a diplomatic conference “as soon as possible.” In order to achieve this, said the EU, there was a need to build a “broad consensus” on the problems that needed to be addressed as well as on the extent of protection envisaged.

Technical Assistance from Broadcasters

The United States of America placed an emphasis on a treaty that would address challenges posed by new technologies, indicated in their request to the Secretariat to inform the member states about different sizes and types of broadcasters using new technologies by conducting a survey, recognising that a lot had changed over the course of the past 12 years, when a report on this issue was last prepared; a proposal which was supported by the delegation of India as well.

Following these comments by the United States of America (but in an unrelated move), the Chair suggested technical assistance be sought from broadcasters. Surprisingly, he identified three NGOs (in this case associations of broadcasters), namely Asian Broadcasters Union, International Association of Broadcasters and National Association of Broadcasters, who could provide technical assistance if required.

This stance was supported strongly by the delegations of Egypt and the Russian Federation. While it also found support from the Japanese delegation, it also pointed out that a mere presentation might bring about some confusion, and instead thought that it might be a better idea to update the studies commissioned by WIPO in 2002.

Resistance to this proposition was offered by the delegation of Venezuela who questioned the “expertize of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue” and “the selection criteria” among others. Exclaiming in surprise at the manner on which this proposal had been accepted, the delegate sough further clarifications on the issue, demanding to know “who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.” (sic.) The concern on the absence of transparency was also echoed by the delegate of Uruguay, who expressed his great “astonishment” at “three technical experts” at the session, saying that it was “most inappropriate” to be informed about the presence of technical experts after regional coordinators had earlier expressed their refusal to have such an exercise. In response, the Chair said that this was a decision that he had taken in response to a request for technical consultations made at the earlier session of the Committee. He went on to add that the Committee could do without the technical assistance if perceived to be unnecessary and the process not transparent.

Scope of Protection: Article 6

The Scope of Protection under the Broadcast Treaty is laid out under Article 6 of WorkingDocument 27/2/Rev. (“Working Document”). This document lays out the text which forms the basis of the negotiations at the SCCR.

Confining the Broadcast Treaty to a signal based approach versus broadening the scope of the treaty to a more technologically neutral rights based approach was the chief point of conflict between the developed and the developing nations, reflect in their statements discussed below.

Opening the proceedings, the United States of America (“the US”/ “USA”) placed complete support on the statement of Group B; but also added that the way forward “to finding consensus” was to “focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.” The US proceeded to outline its proposal of “a single right to authorise the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium.” Highlighting the key advantages to this proposal the US said that its proposal was “modern”, recognizing the importance of “new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy and avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions”. However, the US was also quick to clarify that the “right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast” and would also “avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast” as well as “avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying”.

India reiterated its serious concerns regarding webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks. Japan, on the other hand, while most other nations chose to reserve their comments for discussions in the Informals alone.

On the third day of this meeting, the Chair presented the progress that had been made over the course of the discussions taking place in the Informals. He said that webcasting had been removed from the scope of application. The concern, said the Chair, was that webcasting was also carried out by other actors- not just broadcasting organizations, and that having different rules for different actors carrying out the same activity would not be “a good message” (sic.)

Rights of Broadcasters: Article 9

The Rights of Broadcasters under the Broadcast Treaty are laid out under Article 9 of the Working Document. The US said that it “remained convinced” that a narrow scope of rights would make it possible for the SCCR to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. The Russian Federation on the other spoke of the need to take into account the “appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, and the unauthorized use of the signal.”

As in the case of the Scope of Application, in the case of Rights of Broadcasters as well, the Chair updated the plenary on the discussions in the Informals. The discussions were informed by two informal documents listing out the rights as well as the scope. While discussing the rights, said the Chair, it was decided to merge simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission since they were closely related. The rights sought to be granted to the broadcasters include those of fixation, reproduction of fixations, distribution of fixations and performance of the broadcast among others.

In response to the Chair’s invitation for suggestions, the delegate of Sri Lanka suggested that one of the sentences be rephrased as follows: “Transmission or retransmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium whether simultaneous, near simultaneous or deferred including on demand transmission on a broadcast signal.” She also added fixation rights should be granted only to that extent of a file being copied for the purpose of transmission, before it has been transmitted. A few other delegations either echoed similar sentiments, or chose to remain silent until the Informals.

Comments by NGOs

On the third (and the final for the Broadcast Treaty), day of discussions, the Chair opened the floor to interventions, observations and comments by NGOs.

AIR, representing broadcasting organizations spoke of the “great need” to update the Rome Convention because of the prevalence of piracy, especially transmissions over the internet. The National Association of Broadcasters cited instances of television piracy as examples of the harm to broadcasters and need for such a treaty. The Japanese Commercial Broadcasters Association expressed its support for post fixation rights and said that they were important to broadcasters, “especially the right of making available a fixed broadcast is crucial in order to fight online piracy which we said a number of times before…” (sic.). Also recognising the need to be flexible, the Japanese Commercial Broadcasters expressed their support to the proposal made by the Japanese delegation in making some rights optional.

A different set of concerns was articulated by other NGOs, who were not associations of broadcasters. Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue ( “TACD”) spoke of the possible “collateral damange to public access and culture” and the addition of “new layers of complications barriers and costs added” to access to information and knowledge by consumers. Further, highlighting the irony of the SCCR with the strong push towards a binding Broadcast Treaty “with a wide scope”, the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue said that this was in “stark contrast on the part of some other Member States to discussing new global norms” to facilitating the role played by libraries and archives. Additionally, TACD also said that there was the danger of “opening up an endless and incomprehensive Pandora box of overlapping rights on content between non creators of broadcasts and the real creators” (sic.), and also expressed grave concern over the negative impact of post fixation rights on the use of news, culture and information by consumers ad users. “In consideration of a new international norm for broadcasters, we must not forget the common food for the free flow of information for citizens,” said TACD. It also said that the focus of the work should not be to satisfy the interests of one special group while ignoring the possible negative unintentional consequences on “normal users”, and asked for a social impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty.

Knowledge Ecology International (“KEI”) in their statement stated that the broadcasters had failed to meet their burden of proving the need for “exclusive rights to fight piracy.” In order for the Committee to make progress, KEI suggested that the focus be on a “narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the key need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.” KEI also questioned and opposed the extension of broadcasters’ rights to cable television and other services which were not only subscription based, but were also protected under theft of service laws. Further confining the scope of the Broadcast Treaty, KEI suggested that the treaty only deal with over the air broadcasts which were free to the public.

A powerful statement by CCIA referred to fixed signals as “fiction” and said that the existing model in the Brussels Satellite Convention was adequate to protect piracy of signals. Echoing the sentiments of various other organisations as well (including CIS as discussed below), CCIA stated that while broadcasters had stated that the present approach was not adequate to protect their interests, no reasons had been offered fir the same. In agreement with other nations as well as TACD before it, CCIA also sought information from WIPO on the “real world impact of the obligations” it intended to create.

Also joining the call for impact assessment was the Third World Network (“TWN”). TWN also spoke of restricting the scope of the Broadcast Treaty to the mandate accorded to the SCCR in line with the 2007 General Assembly decision, the need to base discussing on WIPO’s Development Agenda, and the “negative implications on the free flow of information over the Internet and the negative impact on the public domain and access to knowledge.”

The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”), in agreement with CCIA pointed out that the broadcasters had not discharged their burden of justifying the need for the Broadcast Treaty and why “international instruments including, among others, the TRIPS and the Rome Convention” were insufficient to address the concerns of broadcasters. Joining other organizations including CCIA, TACD and TWN in a call for a further study, CIS requested an impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty on all stakeholders. Further, CIS pointed out that if the rationale for seeking this protection was the protection of the underlying investment, IP based transmissions should be out of the scope of this treaty, since the investments involved in IP based transmissions and those in broadcasting in a traditional sense were very different. CIS also strongly opposed the inclusion of fixation and post fixation rights since they were inconsistent with a signals based approach and pointed out the irony in protecting a signal for twenty years, when the signal itself lasted milliseconds.

IFTA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance placed emphasis on the separation of the content and well as the broadcast signal as well maintaining a balance by also safeguarding public interest.

Chair’s Conclusions

After five days of deliberations, the 28^th Session of the SCCR, just like the 27^th Session, ended with no conclusions being adopted by the Committee, as a result of which the Chair’s Conclusions were prepared by the Chair, Martin Moscoso.

Clarifying that this item would be maintained on the agenda for the 29^th Session of the SCCR and that there had been no agreement on recommendations to the WIPO General Assembly, the Chair’s Conclusions state that the Committee conducted discussions on issues relating to “categories of platforms and activities to be included under the object and scope of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, and initiated discussions on definitions.” The Chair’s Conclusions also clarify that “the Secretariat was requested by some Members to provide an update of the 2010 study on “Current Market and Technology Trends in the Broadcasting Sector” (Document SCCR 19/12), focusing on the use of digital technology by cablecasting and broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense whether public or commercial, including in developing countries, with the aim of presenting the results of the study and providing opportunities for technical discussion at the 29th session of the SCCR.”

[1] See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1 (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ report on the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for transcripts of the discussions at the 27 ^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 27^th Session of the Committee.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

4th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest: Statement of Conclusion for the IP and Development track

nehaa — 2015-12-25T02:22:52Z

The 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was held from December 15 to 17, 2015 in New Delhi. This post provides a summary of the event.

This was also published on the Global Congress blog.

Wrap up note 1: Feedback on broad discussion in the IP and Dev track – set of collected key points:

This year, the discussions included attention to broad perspectives on clarifying the meaning and reality of open collaborative innovation, as well as significant focus on the sub-themes of economic development (innovation and software patents, clean technologies, climate change and green patenting, issues of branding and plain packaging); sustainable development (agriculture and geographic indicators [GI]); policy, law and regulation (role of governments, patenting, compulsory licensing [CL], global institutions [particularly WTO, WIPO and WHO] and national institutions [particularly patent offices]). Trade dominated the discussions across the IP and Dev track, including the TPP and other issues, reflecting the strong global trade agenda.

Missing areas in the track papers, workshops and panel discussions included the limited discussion on traditional knowledge (TK); the work of indigenous groups and how they are navigating the IP landscape; biodiversity; biotech and food security; innovation in the nanotechnology sphere; and inclusive development. Accessibility to innovations for low-income households, and accessibility to innovations at the country level needs greater attention. These topics can be brought out more strongly, more directly.

The value of building research networks to create explicit knowledge and coherence in research-based evidence for advocacy and policy-making was made visible in the workshop session presented by Open AIR, with the Open AIR network as the exemplar. The challenge is to translate the kinds of research and evidence presented at the GC into content and value for policy-making and trade negotiations.

Wrap up note 2: Value of the deliberations and future research:

This is a new track in the GC, introduced in 2015. It is an important track for this and future Global Congresses because it brings together the many strands of research, advocacy and other work that are related to topics in innovation, IP and development, but which are not specifically about openness, user rights or A2M. This is a very broad range of fields of study, from agriculture to nanotechnology. It was proposed that the track be renamed “Innovation and Development” to more explicitly describe its focus.

From this GC, it has become clearer what future topics may be considered for papers and other inputs into the IP and Dev track. Such topics include counter-narratives to mainstream IP perspectives; bringing IP for development in multiple sectors to the fore – in education; in automotive manufacturing; in technology evolution; in agricultural production and food security; in the broad policy, law and regulatory environment pertinent to these and other sectoral perspectives. For example, in the paper on green patenting, reference was made to Tesla and Toyota releasing patents, but the session did not get to discuss that. The papers presented at the 4th GC suggest many areas of focus for future research and future GCs – perhaps the best way to think about this exploration is through greater attention to innovation in a range of social and economic sectors; to consider the particular challenges of innovation, IP and development in LDCs; to study innovation ecosystems and where IP fits in these ecosystem. Cross-track sessions are also considered to be very important because of the knowledge sharing that takes place across sectors, for example the discussions on patent wars in the access to medicines (A2M) track provided food for thought with respect to emerging issues in the software sector.

Wrap up note 3: Ideas and implications of GC sessions for future directions for research, collaborations and next GC:

For the next GC, mobilization is required across various geographic regions and a significant discussion is required on preparation and design of the sub-themes, based on the notes above. The requirement for more evidence-based research was noted. It was recommended that the future name of the track should be Innovation and Development. The core group, comprised of track leaders and sessions chairs, should continue the leadership of the track from GC to GC, bringing additional interested persons on board, in particular with respect to the design of sub-themes well in advance of the 5th GC, to guide prospective submissions.

Ends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track

004: A License to Share

nehaa — 2014-03-20T05:38:34Z

In this blogpost Devika Agarwal, a 4th year student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, takes a first look at the Creative Commons 4.0 Licence.

With the increasing amount of information being uploaded online every day, it becomes imperative to facilitate the sharing of this information legally. Creative Commons (CC) license is a tool developed especially with the objective of allowing widespread dissemination of information in a manner so as not to infringe the copyright of a person over the work.

A CC license is a valid license. It is ‘non-exclusive’ in nature; this means that the author of a work is free to enter into a different licensing agreement with anybody he wishes despite holding a CC license (the different licensing contracts must also be ‘non-exclusive’ in nature). Simply put, licensees of a CC license will be governed by the terms of the CC license unless they have a different agreement with the license holder.

In India, works licensed under the CC license include digital copies of educational material by NCERT.

With the first version of the license being published in 2002, Creative Commons has witnessed a number of changes to help serve the needs of internet users better. Version 4.0 of the Creative Commons License was released on November 25, 2013.

A more global license

What sets the latest version of the Creative Commons license apart from its precursors is the fact that CC license 4.0 is an ‘international license’. The earlier versions of CC license required the license to be “ported” to the different jurisdictions; ‘porting’ was a process which involved the translation and legal adaptation of CC’s core license suite (also known as ‘generic’ license suite’ ) to conform to the languages and copyright laws of individual jurisdictions). This means that earlier one had to obtain a CC license ported to one’s country; the “ported version of the license” was a modification of the generic CC license, suited to meet the copyright requirements of a particular country.

The CC license 4.0, on the other hand, is an international license, i.e., the 4.0 license is ‘jurisdiction neutral’ in nature and a single version of the license exists for all persons.

Sui generis database rights:

The CC license 4.0 also provides explicitly for protection to sui generis databases in jurisdictions which recognize copyright related to sui generis databases. Sui generis databases were not expressly covered by the earlier versions of the CC license. (India does not extend copyright protection to sui generis databases).

Non-attribution

The one element common to all the CC licenses is ‘attribution’ or acknowledgement of the licensor as the author of the work by “giving appropriate credit and providing a link to the license. Where the earlier licenses provided that a licensor may request a licensee to remove attribution from adaptations of the work (in order to preserve anonymity), the 4.0 license extends the right of ‘non-attribution’ of a licensor to works which have not been adapted.

This right of attribution is recognized under section 57 (1) (a) of The Copyright Act, 1957 in India which states that “even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim authorship of the work.”

30-day period to remedy breach of CC license terms

A significant change in the CC 4.0 version is that unlike the earlier licenses which terminated the CC license in case of failure to comply with the license terms, the 4.0 licenses allow a 30-day period to the licensees to remedy the breach, after which the license shall resume.

The terms incorporated in the 4.0 license are aimed at making the license more compatible with the copyright laws of various jurisdictions and at the same time ensure that information can be shared with more freely, thus preserving the spirit of Access to Knowledge.

(Creative Commons re-launched its India chapter in November last year.)

Similarly, right of ‘non-attribution’ is recognized under section 21 of The Copyright Act, 1957 which provides for relinquishment of copyright by the author. This may be done “by giving notice in the prescribed form to the Registrar of Copyrights or by way of public notice.” A CC license where attribution has been removed at the instance of the licensor will serve as a ‘public notice’.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-license-to-share