Centre for Internet and Society

World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development

pranesh — 2016-02-17T16:41:28Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/world-trends-in-freedom-of-expression-and-media-development

World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development

pranesh — 2016-02-17T17:03:42Z

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) had published a book in 2014 that examines free speech, expression and media development. The chapter contains a Foreword by Irina Bokova, Director General, UNESCO. Pranesh Prakash contributed to Independence: Introduction - Global Media Chapter. The book was edited by Courtney C. Radsch.

Foreword

Tectonic shifts in technology and economic models have vastly expanded the opportunities for press freedom and the safety of journalists, opening new avenues for freedom of expression for women and men across the world. Today, more and more people are able to produce, update and share information widely, within and across national borders. All of this is a blessing for creativity, exchange and dialogue.

At the same time, new threats are arising. In a context of rapid change, these are combining with older forms of restriction to pose challenges to freedom of expression, in the shape of controls not aligned with international standards for protection of freedom of expression and rising threats against journalists.

These developments raise issues that go to the heart of UNESCO’s mandate “to promote the flow of ideas by word and image” between all peoples, across the world. For UNESCO, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that underpins all other civil liberties, that is vital for the rule of law and good governance, and that is a foundation for inclusive and open societies. Freedom of expression stands at the heart of media freedom and the practice of journalism as a form of expression aspiring to be in the public interest.

At the 36^th session of the General Conference (November 2011), Member States mandated UNESCO to explore the impact of change on press freedom and the safety of journalists. For this purpose, the Report has adopted four angles of analysis, drawing on the 1991 Windhoek Declaration, to review emerging trends through the conditions of media freedom, pluralism and independence, as well as the safety of journalists. At each level, the Report has also examined trends through the lens of gender equality.

The result is the portrait of change -- across the world, at all levels, featuring as much opportunity as challenge. The business of media is undergoing a revolution with the rise of digital networks, online platforms, internet intermediaries and social media. New actors are emerging, including citizen journalists, who are redrawing the boundaries of the media. At the same time, the Report shows that the traditional news institutions continue to be agenda-setters for media and public communications in general – even as they are also engaging with the digital revolution. The Report highlights also the mix of old and new challenges to media freedom, including increasing cases of threats against the safety of journalists.

The pace of change raises questions about how to foster freedom of expression across print, broadcast and internet media and how to ensure the safety of journalists. The Report draws on a rich array of research and is not prescriptive -- but it sends a clear message on the importance of freedom of expression and press freedom on all platforms.

To these ends, UNESCO is working across the board, across the world. This starts with global awareness raising and advocacy, including through World Press Freedom Day. It entails supporting countries in strengthening their legal and regulatory frameworks and in building capacity. It means standing up to call for justice every time a journalist is killed, to eliminate impunity. This is the importance of the United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, spearheaded by UNESCO and endorsed by the UN Chief Executives Board in April 2012. UNESCO is working with countries to take this plan forward on the ground. We also seek to better understand the challenges that are arising – most recently, through a Global Survey on Violence against Female Journalists, with the International News Safety Institute, the International Women’s Media Foundation, and the Austrian Government.

Respecting freedom of expression and media freedom is essential today, as we seek to build inclusive, knowledge societies and a more just and peaceful century ahead. I am confident that this Report will find a wide audience, in Member States, international and regional organizations, civil society and academia, as well as with the media and journalists, and I wish to thank Sweden for its support to this initiative. This is an important contribution to understanding a world in change, at a time when the international community is defining a new global sustainable development agenda, which must be underpinned and driven by human rights, with particular attention to freedom of expression.

Executive Summary

Freedom of expression in general, and media development in particular, are core to UNESCO’s constitutional mandate to advance ‘the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication’ and promoting ‘the free flow of ideas by word and image.’ For UNESCO, press freedom is a corollary of the general right to freedom of expression. Since 1991, the year of the seminal Windhoek Declaration, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly, UNESCO has understood press freedom as designating the conditions of media freedom, pluralism and independence, as well as the safety of journalists. It is within this framework that this report examines progress as regards press freedom, including in regard to gender equality, and makes sense of the evolution of media actors, news media institutions and journalistic roles over time.

This report has been prepared on the basis of a summary report on the global state of press freedom and the safety of journalists, presented to the General Conference of UNESCO Member States in November 2013, on the mandate of the decision by Member States taken at the 36th session of the General Conference of the Organization.[*]

The overarching global trend with respect to media freedom, pluralism, independence and the safety of journalists over the past several years is that of disruption and change brought on by technology, and to a lesser extent, the global financial crisis. These trends have impacted traditional economic and organizational structures in the news media, legal and regulatory frameworks, journalism practices, and media consumption and production habits. Technological convergence has expanded the number of and access to media platforms as well as the potential for expression. It has enabled the emergence of citizen journalism and spaces for independent media, while at the same time fundamentally reconfiguring journalistic practices and the business of news.

The broad global patterns identified in this report are accompanied by extensive unevenness within the whole. The trends summarized above, therefore, go hand in hand with substantial variations between and within regions as well as countries.

Download the PDF

[*]. 37 C/INF.4 16 September 2013 “Information regarding the implementation of decisions of the governing bodies”. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223097e.pdf; http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002230/223097f.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/unesco-world-trends-in-freedom-of-expression-and-media-development

World Narrow Web

pranesh — 2012-03-27T16:00:24Z

Censorship and how govt reacts to it may push us to country-specific networks, writes Pranesh Prakash in an article published in the Indian Express on 4 February 2012.

Twitter, a popular micro-blogging service, recently announced that “[today] we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world”. In a move a few weeks ago, Blogger, Google’s blogging service, in effect announced something similar, by saying that default they would redirect Blogger users trying to get to Blogspot.com addresses (like http://example.blogspot.com) to their respective country sites (like http://example.blogspot.in). Twitter’s announcement was greeted with much disapproval by many Twitter users, as a move towards censorship, with some talking (on Twitter) about a boycott. Blogger’s move was hidden away, deep within a help page, and is being noticed now, and is causing quite a stir as caving in to censorship. Are these concerns justified? Before answering that question, let’s look at what the platforms’ announcements really say.

Twitter has given itself the ability to withhold specific tweets and users in particular countries where that content is legally required to be removed (generally with a court order). Their earlier option, they inform us, was to block the offending tweets and users in all countries. Apart from this, they will publish a notice for each tweet/ user that is blocked in a country. They will also be proactively publishing every removal request they receive at ChillingEffects.org, which allows us to hold them to account and question their decision to remove tweets.

Google, by redirecting you to the country-specific Blogger, is allowing for country-level removal of both blogs and individual blog posts. However, they also note that you can circumvent this by using a special “no redirect” address. Google currently forwards all search-related removals, but does not do so for Blogger-related requests, and all copyright-related complaints to ChillingEffects.org. Google does publish aggregate data relating to censorship of Blogger, on which free-speech advocates have been asking them to provide more granular information.

There are three problems. First, while Twitter was just as open to repressive governments’ requests last week, by making this change, they are advertising this fact to such governments. Thailand has noted it, and has congratulated Twitter.

Second, as Rob Beschizza, managing editor of the website Boing Boing, pointed out, there have been no instances of political content having been removed by Twitter. Even British courts’ super-injunctions (injunctions on speech, that prevent you from mentioning the fact that there is an injunction) were defeated by Twitter users, which only showed that attempts to censor material results in even more attention being drawn to it (which is popularly known as the “Streisand Effect”). So, does this now mean that Twitter will start applying local laws to judge “valid and applicable legal requests”, instead of American laws? What if the law is as bad as that which exists in India, where they are required to remove content within 36 hours based on any affected person’s complaint — without a court order? Will they still act on it? If they don’t, will the government or courts order Twitter.com to be blocked in India, finding it liable for illegal omissions?

Third, this trend points increasingly to the fact that we are witnessing a Balkanisation of the Web as more countries start asserting their sovereignty online. As Chinese dissident journalist Michael Anti pointed out recently, it seems we now need visas (read “circumvention techniques”) to visit the international Web. But even then, there is no longer a singular “international” Web, but an Indian Web and a Guatemalan Web, and an Angolan Web. And the government’s recent proposal of requiring companies to locate their servers in India is a move towards this (apart from being a move towards killing cloud computing).

That having been said, the reality is that the CEOs of Google, Google India, and Microsoft have been summoned to appear in Indian courts for allowing their users to publish material which they don’t know about, which is in a sealed envelope (and most of the accused companies haven’t been shown yet), and which they weren’t even asked once to remove.

The Intermediary Guidelines Rules passed by the Department of Information Technology in April 2011 do not require the user, whose content it is, to be told that there is a complaint, nor to be given a chance to defend themselves. It does not even require public notice that the content has been removed.

The truth is, the transparency around censorship that Google and Twitter are providing is far better than what most other companies are providing. For instance, Big Rock, an Indian DNS provider, suspended the CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com web address on the basis of a seemingly not legal request by the Cyber Cell of the Mumbai Crime Branch, and did so without any public notice and without even informing the cartoonist whose web address it was. At least Google and Twitter are pushing back against non-legal requests, and refusing to remove content that doesn’t violate local laws. Single-mindedly criticising them will only put off other companies from following in their footsteps.

Instead of criticising those who are actually working towards transparency in censorship, we should encourage them and others, push intermediaries not to cave in to unreasonable censorship requests, prevent them from over-censoring on their own, and push hard for the government to incorporate their best practices as part of the Intermediary Guidelines Rules.

The original article was published in the Indian Express

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/world-narrow-web

World IT Forum 2009

pranesh — 2011-08-04T04:44:33Z

At the World IT Forum, Pranesh Prakash made a brief presentation on intellectual property rights, how ill-suited they are to be considered "property" rights, and how they have been foisted upon the developing world.

At the recently-concluded World IT Forum, 2009, the Commission on Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues organized three sessions. One on 'Digital Intellectual Property Rights and Digitisation of Divides', a second on 'Employment of ICTs Toward Effective Realization of Millenium Development Goals' and a third on 'E-Governance and Biometrics: Evaluating Opportunities and Threats'. The individual sessions had K.M. Gopakumar of Third World Network ("Digital Technology and Access to Knowledge: Policy Space for the Third World), Naveen Thayyil ("Digital IPRs: Implications for Divides in New and Emerging Biotechnologies"), Anita Gurumurthy of IT for Change,("Reimagining the Digital Opportunity" ), Chat Garcia Ramilo of APC Women's Networking Support Programme ("Gender Dimensions of ICT Development"), Ajit Narayanan of AUT ("What Does Your Passport Say About You?"), Sohel Iqbal of Korea University ("Obligation and SWOT of E-Governance in Developing Countries") and Dinh Ngoc Vuong of the Institute of Lexicography and Encyclopedia of Vietnam ("Legal Aspects and Role of E-Governance in Vietnamese Reforms") speaking. As part of the first session, I spoke on how IPR as a property regime leads to mischaracterisation, and how IPR is a foreign system for developing countries.

Amongst the many reasons that IPR should not be regarded in the same light as property (even though that conceptual framework is supported by the likes of Eugene Volokh) are to be found in David Levine's rejoinder to Volokh that IPR are analogous to property, along with the two rejoinders by Larry Solum. Volokh's main point is that not only control of use and excludability, but incentives to create are also part of property law, for both tangible property and intangible "property". This is questioned not only by David Levine and Larry Solum, but by Mark Lemley, Wendy Gordon, and a host of other scholars. Three simple points to note: (1) IP deals with internalisation of positive externalities, which is not something we normally associate with property law -- thus, IP actually does not give me control over my 'property', but over yours; (2) IP deals with a truly non-exhaustable, non-rivalrous good -- ideas -- which, as shown in the articles linked above, are not suited to being governed by property regimes; (3) IP goes much beyond what property law does with tangible property, since it not only governs the sale of IP and exclusion of others from my IP, but also governs the subsequent usage of IP.

Another relevant consideration is the way that IP law has been spread through the globe through means like colonisation and modern-day unbalanced trade treaties.  India got its first copyright law in 1914 and signed the Berne Convention in 1928, much before its independence. The TRIPS Agreement of 1995 mandated things like product patents for pharma products for all countries, even though an industrialised Western country like Spain only started recognizing them in 1992, and even though Italy, which was then the fifth largest manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, was forced to introduce product patents by a petition of foreign pharma companies in 1978. The benefits of product patents for pharma products have not been empirically proved, but the harms caused by patents to production of newer medicines have been well documented. Given these, it is imperative that developing countries push back against IP expansionism that is knocking on their doors through instruments like Free Trade Agreements.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/witfor-2009

World Day Against Software Patents

pranesh — 2013-01-16T07:15:16Z

A global coalition of more than 80 software companies, associations and developers has declared the 24th of September to be the "World Day Against Software Patents". The Hindu, a national daily dedicated one page of its Bangalore edition to software patents and software freedom. Deepa Kurup contributed written two articles titled "Will patenting take the byte out of IT here?" and "How would it be if you read only one type of book?" which reflects some of the concerns of the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community.

Will patenting take the byte out of IT here? [link]

Deepa Kurup

There has been little debate on patent laws and the software industry. Today is World Day Against Software Patents.

IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting
Delhi Patent Office receives around 50 applications for software patents every month

BANGALORE: Picture this. Indian mathematicians came up with the concept of the “zero” — often touted as India’s greatest contribution to civilisation — and got a patent for it. By now they would have raked in inestimable amounts in royalty. Seems preposterous? Members of the Free Software community say that patenting every other algorithm would be somewhat in the same league.

While there has been substantial discussion on how patents will affect the pharmaceutical sector, there has been little debate about its implications on the software industry. To the layman, software patenting sounds like an abstract issue applicable to an even more abstract domain. However, with a growing software industry which is trying to spread its indigenous roots, the issue becomes an important one.

Traditionally, software comes under the Copyright Law (just like any literary work) and anyone who writes a program owns it. After Indian Parliament in 2005 scrapped an ordinance which declared “software in combination with hardware” patentable, the controversial and ambiguous clause — “software per se” — has now resurfaced in a recently formulated Patent Manual.

And how will the common man be affected by this proposed change in the patent manual? For example, when Global Patent Holdings patented usage of images on websites, a bunch of small and big companies had to cough up to $50 million each. And where does this cost reflect? “The consumer will find that products will get a lot more expensive. Take a DVD player which has about 2,000 patents (many of them software-related). Every time a local company makes a DVD player, they have to pay royalties and the costs will naturally be reflected on the sale price,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy organisation.
Backdoor entry

The Free Software community feels that patents will make a backdoor entry, courtesy this manual and that ongoing public consultation (by the Patent Office) does not take their voices into account. Mr. Abraham says: “We feel that the powerful software lobbies around are pushing for this clause. If allowed, it will affect the basis of innovation, and will in turn affect the industry.” While the Bangalore consultation was “postponed indefinitely,” the Patent Office in its Delhi meeting said this issue called for an “exclusive meeting with the software industry.”

The powerful IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting. Under the guile of the seemingly innocuous clause in the Indian Patent Bill 2005, software companies and the MNC lobby is trying to carve out a slice for the specific “software embedded with hardware” industry saying that it will increase the value of indigenous home-grown software, pump up software exports and thereby rake in greater revenue.

However, the other side of the story is worth telling. Software, per se, is simply a set of instructions to carry out a certain process. Software experts put forth the argument that big corporations — with money, muscle and hired talent — will seek to impose patents along the software value chain, starting from source code to the recent demand for “embedded software.”

Sources in the Delhi Patent Office say that they receive around 50 applications for software patents every month. In the U.S. 25,000 patents are granted every year. In a software-driven world, blurring the lines between software and software “per se” could be risky. “Patenting is an expensive and tedious process. The challenge for every programmer would be to verify each time, to see if any two lines of his code would infringe upon a patent. In the U.S., a single verification can cost as much as $5,000. The fundamental issue is that if I arrive at anything independently, should I not use it only because someone had got it patented before me?” asks a senior official at Red Hat, an open source service provider.

A paper written by members of the Alternative Law Forum (ALF), the case against software patenting is presented as a very basic one. “Software evolves much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Microprocessors double in speed every two years. So, a patent that lasts up to 17 years (minimum period -15) is alarming. In this field, the idea underlying may remain the same but a product has to be replaced on an average of every two years,” it states. The paper also points out that in software “research costs are little because ideas are as abundant as air.”

Prashant Iyengar of ALF feels that patent laws will effectively curtail innovation, like it has done in the U.S. “Software, unlike other industries in India, is end-driven but is also on a “body shopping” model. Given that, a strong start-up company will be either be shut down or bought over if patent laws come in,” he explains.

How would it be if you read only one type of book? [link]

Deepa Kurup

Little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges

BANGALORE: A computer literacy programme in a public sector organisation teaches the following modules: MS Office, MS Power Point, MS Excelsheet and Internet Explorer. A glance through the “computer syllabus” in most schools, and the list is similar. All items on this checklist have one thing in common: proprietary software. So, if every computer user is being taught exclusively on proprietary platforms, would they ever be comfortable switching to the easier, cheaper and readily available alternatives?

Advocates of Free Software — software which can be used, studied and distributed without restriction — say that this is a ploy by proprietors to turn learners into potential customers. They allege that educational systems and the State are in cahoots with these large corporations which insist that children and learning adults be taught to only follow their system.

In a recent meeting with a State Government official about the use of Free Software on e-governance platforms, the official complained that none of his officials knew how to use it or repair it if things went wrong.

“This takes you to the root of the problem,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Students are taught to use only proprietary software. The Government is subsidising training in proprietary technology and little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges,” he explains.

The “back-office” tag that our IT industry has learnt to live with is also a product of this malaise, experts point out. “When students learn only proprietary software, they will qualify only as computer operators and never learn about using the nuts and bolts of the profession. This is one of the reasons why there are no innovative products that come out of this country,” says Mr. Abraham.
Simple analogy

A simple analogy would be that of a child taking up reading as a habit. If a child reads a lot of books, they say, they learn to write and express better. Academics feel that in the absence of any familiarity with Free Software, where the source is easily available, engineering students and computer graduates never get to read any code and are thus hardly familiar with the languages.

FOSS supporters have written to the Ministry of Human Resource Development and several universities to point this out. Anivar Aravind, a member of Free Software Users Group, says that the progress so far has been staggered. Recently, CDAC and Anna Univeristy (KB Chandrashekar Research Centre) came up with a Free Software syllabus and offers trained to teachers in engineering colleges.
Cost factor

A study by International Open Source Network (an UNDP initiative) study on FOSS and education states that using open source software could reduce the costs involved in ICT education significantly. In a country like ours, this fact that Open Source Software usually involves low or no cost would be perceived as an important step towards reducing the digital divide. With no licensing fee, they can be made available on CD or downloaded.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/world-day-against-software-patents

Workshop on Reforming the International ICT Standardization System

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:56:30Z

On Day 4, the last day, of the Internet Governance Forum, a workshop was conducted by the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards on the reforming the international ICT standardisation system. The panellists were Bob Jolliffe of Freedom to Innovate South Africa, Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, Ashish Gautam of IBM India, and Aslam Raffee, Chairperson of the Government IT Officers' Council, OSS Working Group, Republic of South Africa, who moderated the session.

Mr. Rafee, after introducing the panellists, laid out the parameters of the discussion. He noted that the discussion was not about "open standards" per se, but about the standardisation process.

Mr. Jolliffe noted that the main problems revolved around the question of legitimacy of the Standard Setting Organizations, which often arises from "standardisation by corporations" (a phrase coined by Martin Bryan), as shown by the representatives of the individual countries to the international bodies. For the international standardization process to acquire legitimacy, the national bodies need to do so first. A start can be made, Mr. Jolliffe noted, through simple steps like increase in stakeholder participation beyond vendors, full disclosure of institutional affiliations at the standardisation bodies, better streamlining of processes such as the fast-track system, and full and clear disclosures with regard to IP licensing terms would help in increasing accountability and legitimacy of standard setting organizations.

He also indicated that financial transparency, modernisation of processes (including remote participation), regulation of proportional influence of private interests, a code of best practices and innovation in patent searches, full interest disclosures, and clear display of IPR policies of committees would help in increasing the openness of standards.

Mr. Abraham chose to focus on the national standardization processes, and the lessons that can be learnt from those. He highlighted that the discussions around open standards were really discussions about standards followed by public institutions. He analogized the situation to private houses vs. the public road infrastructure, noting how the road infrastructure cannot be private. Ensuring that the public infrastructure was open to all, he said, was the important role played by the standardisation process. He went on to highlight the importance of open standards as a lever in the hands of governments which can be used to fix monopoly situations, as it was in the case of SCOSTA smart card standard, where the use of an open standard led to a drop in price from Rs.600 to Rs.30 and increased the number of vendors from 3 to 12. He then narrated a number of "stories" from India, Pakistan and Malaysia to show the various forms of weaknesses within the national standard setting processes. He further concluded that countries with weak institutions are the ones less likely to support open standards.

Mr. Abraham added the need to adopt common definitions of "open standards" and transparency of processes and encouragement of remote participation as suggestions for the standardization system.

Mr. Gautam from IBM India chose to talk about the standards principles that the company follows, and the need for reform of the standardization processes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system

WIPO Broadcast Treaty and Webcasting

pranesh — 2011-08-04T04:42:10Z

On Friday, 8 May 2009, at Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting held a stakeholders' briefing meeting on the Broadcast Treaty that has been on the table at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The purpose of that meeting was to inform the relevant stakeholders of the developments in Geneva, as well as to garner input from them regarding the stance to be adopted by India at the WIPO. Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society participated and made a presentation on webcasting, highlighting the differences between webcasting and broadcasting, and arguing that webcasting should not be part of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty.

First, we wish to applaud the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for holding this stakeholders' meeting, which is a definite step towards greater transparency, and are grateful for having been invited to provide our input. The meeting was attended by representatives from various government offices and ministries, including the Ministry of Human Resource Development (which administers the Indian Copyright Act), broadcasters, broadcast associations, law firms, and civil society organisations. The Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting inaugurated the session by talking of how the Broadcast Treaty involved the assessment and balancing of various interests while keeping 'public interest' foremost. This was followed by Mr. N. P. Nawani, Secretary General of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), presenting on the concerns of the broadcasting industry. After this Prof. N. S. Gopalakrishnan, head of the School of Law, Cochin University of Science and Technology, spoke.

Prof. Gopalakrishnan covered many areas of relevance: the concept of broadcasting and the legal rights involved; the scheme of legal protection over broadcast signals and over the content of the signals, and the difference between the two; gaps in the international law covering broadcasting; details of the proposed broadcast treaty; the implications of the broadcast treaty and concerns of the Indian government; and unresolved issues.

Amongst the unresolved issues mentioned by Prof. Gopalakrishnan was that of webcasting and the problems related to that. The discussion below aims to shed some light on some of the problems created by the inclusion of webcasting in the broadcast treaty.

Legal regimes for broadcasting

At the national level, the law governing broadcasting is the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Broadcasting is covered by many sections of the Indian Copyright Act, including: ss. 2(dd) (definition of "broadcast"), 2(ff) (definition of "communication to the public"), 37 (the section granting a special "broadcast reproduction right"), and 39A (containing exceptions to s.37). At the international level, broadcasting is covered by the Rome Convention, 1960 (which India has signed, but hasn't ratified); the Brussels Convention, 1974 (only pre-broadcast satellite signals); the TRIPS Agreement, 1994 per Article 14 (which doesn't mandate that broadcasting rights be granted directly to the broadcasters); the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 (WPPT) in Articles 2(f) and 15; and the proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations ("Broadcast Treaty"). In May 2006, provisions for webcasting were brought back into the Broadcast Treaty as part of the non-mandatory Appendix after having been excised in 2004 owing to protests by many countries on their inclusion. The current draft (SCCR/15/2 rev.) was prepared in September 2006 as an attempt to put together an all-inclusive document (with alternative versions of proposed provisions present in the document), and a diplomatic conference was planned to push the treaty through. In August 2007, WIPO released a 'non-paper' (SCCR/S2/Paper1) and dropped plans for the diplomatic conference, as there was still significant disagreement about the treaty. In November 2008, the WIPO chair released an informal paper (SCCR/17/INF/1), which advocated technological neutrality, and hence, presumably, that webcasting to be covered by the treaty.

Meaning of broadcasting and netcasting

Broadcasting is generally taken to be a point-to-multipoint transmission of audio-visual content. Hence, cable transmissions and Internet/Web transmissions (which are point-to-point) are usually not included when one uses the term "broadcasting". But there is no one common definition of "broadcasting". As things stand in the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, the definition of broadcasting (Art. 5(a)) does not cover cablecasting, which is separately defined in Art. 5(b), neither does it cover webcasting. However, the definition of "retransmission" as provided in the draft treaty is broad enough to cover Internet-based transmission, and hence could provide a backdoor via which webcasting is included. The rights covered by the all-inclusive draft WIPO Broadcast Treaty include the rights of and over: retransmission; communication to the public; fixation; reproduction; distribution; transmission following fixation; making available of fixed broadcasts; and pre-broadcast signals. The treaty also mandates legislative protection to systems of digital rights management (DRM) and technological protection measures (TPMs). This, coupled with post-fixation rights, grants broadcasters the rights to dictate what one can and cannot do with a broadcast, thus negating all fair dealing rights and possibly restricting the public domain as well. It may be noted that even content creators are not provided such rights in the vast majority of the world, and that fair dealing rights are much better safeguarded by copyright law. The latest proposal by the U.S. on the term "netcasting" is to be found in an informal paper presented at SCCR 15 [MS Word document], and has been criticised as overly expansive by civil society organisations such as Consumer Project on Technology (now Knowledge Ecology International).

Non-justifications for webcasting's inclusion

Webcasting is sought to be included within the Broadcast Treaty for a number of reasons, all of which are problematic. Firstly, there is the argument of technology neutrality, which advocates say is to ensure that the treaty is relevant into the future as well. However, adopting technology neutrality as the basis for doing so amounts to wilful blindness to technological advancements, and the benefits that such advancement provides, including lowered costs of infrastructure. Secondly, advocates argue that thanks to media convergence, the same content (which is usually digital) can be delivered through various communication networks. This disregards the need to establish the requirement for a new right to be created, and simply assumes that just because the function that the two (broadcasters and webcasters) perform are similar means that they operate in similar economic and social environments. In fact, webcasters work in a very different environment from broadcasters.

This is an environment where intense innovation and competition already exist, and don't need to be artificially created by means of a new property right in an international treaty. Furthermore, the United States, a country with extremely large and hugely profitable broadcasting networks, does not have a specific statute to protect broadcasters’ rights. Even it only has laws protecting the conditional-access regime. Second, much less investment is required to reach a set number of people through webcasting than through broadcasting -- and these people can be spread throughout the globe. Typically, a computer with a fast internet connection is all that is required. Given this, anyone can become a 'broadcasting organisation'. Additionally, IP addresses (in IPv6) are not limited, unless one considers 340 undecillion addresses to be 'limited'. This is a big difference from terrestrial broadcasting, where Hertzian frequencies are limited, and hence one has to pay a premium for them. Lastly, signal appropriation does not happen for sake of the signal, but for the content. Protection, thus has to be given to the content (and already is given, in the form of copyright law). Copyright owners who object to such appropriation, and who are often large multinational corporations, have proven more than willing to pursue those who appropriate their works – broadcasters are not necessarily in a better position to do so. This situation is aggravated with webcasting. Indeed, on the Web, something akin signal appropriation is not only not frowned upon, but often encouraged: embedding of audio and video from other servers on your own website is prevalent.

Problems if webcasting is included

Apart from the lack of justifications for going ahead with the treaty, especially when it seeks to create a separate property right over signals instead of merely providing for signal protection and includes webcasting (at least upon 'retransmission'), there are many problems that the treaty creates. Firstly, transaction costs will increase vastly, leading to a tragedy of the anticommons where no one ends up using the content because clearing all the surrounding rights is too difficult. On top of clearing and making payment for rights from the copyright holders, a person wishing to use parts of any content that has been broadcast/webcast would have to get the rights cleared from the first broadcaster/webcaster as well. This is inevitable if property-like rights are bestowed upon the act of distributing signal in the form of a broadcast or hosting audio and visual content for webcasting.

Secondly, materials in the public domain and openly-licensed content will become more difficult to gain access to, and the exercise of fair dealings with copyrighted content will be hampered. Since rights over signal are independent of rights over content, a copy of the public-domain work will have to be procured from an archive, which negates the very purpose of broadcasting and webcasting, which is to make content more easily accessible to a large number of people located over great distances. Additionally, limitations and exceptions are extremely difficult to negotiate and are of the 'ceiling' kind, limiting the limitations and exceptions that national legislatures can prescribe. Thus, the fair dealing rights over the signal will probably end up being more limited than the fair dealing rights over content. This makes the situation akin to anti-circumvention measures, which (in countries where they are legally recognised) have fewer limitations and exceptions than the content they protect.

Thirdly, public benefit and access will seriously be harmed. It is conceivable that this treaty might hamper the Indian legislature's ability to pass statutes such as the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, which mandate sharing of certain kinds of signals. Lawyers will claim that such statutes go against India's international obligations.

Differences between webcasting and broadcasting

To sum up, there are a large number of differences between broadcasting and webcasting.
Infrastructure: The expenditure required to establish the infrastructure for a webcasting unit is much less than that required for an equivalent (in terms of reach in terms of listeners). Even traditional broadcasting is not that expensive: fixed-frequency radio transmission kits have been known to cost as little as Rs. 50 (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4735642.stm>. Thus, one of the biggest arguments for protection ('to recover investment') is taken away. The content producers' 'investment' is protected by copyright law.
Competition: Providing incentives to increase competition and hence public benefit is often a reason cited as a reason for introduction of a new property-like right. However, such incentives seem utterly redundant in the online market where becoming a webcasting organisation is trivial, and immense competition already exists.
Broadcasting vs. Uni- and Multicasting: The notion of 'broadcasting' does not exist in IPv6. The closest that a webcaster can come to broadcasting is 'multicasting' to a specific range of IP addresses. What one sees on the Web today is "unicasting", which is initiated by a request from the recipient and not by the webcaster.
Temporal limitations: Unlike traditional broadcasting (which does not include cable), content on demand is possible over the Web. By this, the temporal limitations faced by traditional broadcasting, which is ephemeral, are overcome. This opens up many possibilities that should not be hampered by creating an excessive legal regime (and that too a property regime) over webcasting.
Geographic limitations: While terrestrial broadcasting is limited in geographic scope (which satellite and cable-casting are less susceptible to), webcasting knows no geographic limitations. As long as an Internet connection is present, the content can be viewed anywhere. Additionally, granting a separate webcasting right will open up a jurisdicational can of worms.
Marginal costs of subscribers: While in terrestrial broadcasting, adding an additional receiver does not cost the broadcaster anything, in satellite television (direct-to-home), cable television and webcasting, each additional receiver means either additional infrastructure (cables and set-top boxes) or additional server load. In the case of webcasting, this marginal cost is small enough to ignore, especially given all the other reasons mentioned previously.

Conclusion

There are still a number of uncertainties surrounding the inclusion of webcasting in the Broadcast Treaty. Michael Nelson of the Internet Society points out that questions such as who the broadcaster is in a download grid, in distributed gaming, for webcasts of surveillance videos, etc., are unanswered. As the example of the download grid (a situation where the 'casting' is multipoint-to-point) shows, many Internet-specific scenarios have not been contemplated by the treaty negotiators. Situations which might soon be reality, such as peer-to-peer relaying of webcasts are also not contemplated, and the treaty would become a policy document preventing such technological innovations. Whether IPTV would be included within webcasting is also unclear. The WIPO chair in his informal paper noted, 'Finally, if after consideration of the options above (A/B) and possible other options, it will not in the present situation be possible to decide on the establishment of a new treaty, the SCCR should end these discussions through an express decision in order to avoid further spending of time, energy and resources to no avail. Such a decision could include a timetable for later revisiting and reconsidering the matter.' (SCCR/15/2 rev) SCCR should end these discussions which have gone on for more than a decade without any progress.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-and-webcasting

Will The International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Impact Internet Governance? A Multistakeholder Perspective

pranesh — 2012-12-10T04:40:11Z

Pranesh Prakash made a presentation at the India Internet Governance Conference (IIGC) held at the FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi on October 4 and 5, 2012. The event was organised by the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, FICCI and Internet Society. CIS was one of the supporting organisations.

Principles

I'll outline some broad principles that should be kept in mind while deciding on proposals for the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR).

Any proposal should be considered for the ITR if an only if it satisfies all the below criteria:

Only if international regulation is needed

If only national regulation is sufficient, then ITR is not the right place for it.
International roaming price transparency, for instance, is an issue where international cooperation is required.

Only if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability

On the issues of 'security', if it is strictly about network security, then it is fine.

ITU already does some standard setting work around this.

If it about security of root server operations, or DNS, etc., that's not around telecommunications, despite being a technical issue.
If it is about criminal activities on telecommunications networks, that is not a technical issue.

Only if it is something that can be decided at the level of states.

Multistakeholder issues should not end up at the ITU, since the ITU is not a multistakeholder body.
This principle has been accepted by the ITU itself in the Geneva Declaration as well as the Tunis Agenda.

Only if it proposes to address a proven harm

The ETNO proposal, for instance, does not make it very clear why they think current interconnection system is a problem.

Though the ETNO proposal says that it is required to enable "fair compensation", "sustainable development of telecom", it does so without showing why the current payment mechanisms are unsustainable, or how telecom industry has changed lately, or even how moving from voice to data (even for voice) is going to affect "sustainable development of telecom".
Geoff Huston provides the wonderful example of how ten years ago, content providers were asking for fair compensation from telecom providers ("content is being provided free, while ISPs charge customers; ISPs are worthless without content, hence ISPs need to share revenue with content providers"). Now the opposite argument is being made by telecom operators.

Airtel in India has publicly asked Google and Facebook for revenue sharing.

Rohan Samarajiva of LIRNEasia

He believes ETNO proposal is bad for developing countries.

Adverse unintended effect of ETNO proposal ("sending-party network pays") is that less traffic will be directed towards poorer regions without the ability (whether through ad sales, or otherwise) to justify that expenditure by the sender.

ISOC paper is one of the most in-depth analysis so far.

They strongly believe it is going to be bad for Internet

Truth is that there has been no clear economic study so far of the potential impact. Hence counting benefits without proper analysis is risky.

Only if there's no better place than ITU

If another existing organization like ICANN or IETF can look at it, then ITU should not take over.

If all the above principles are satisfied, then the question becomes:

Does the proposal further substantive principles, such as:
Development
Competition and prevention of monopolies
Etc.

If the proposal does advance such substantive principles, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: Whether mandatory or not whether it is the minimal amount required to achieve the policy objectives.

Conclusion

Indian government's positions on the specific proposals to the ITR haven't yet been made public.

But the India government has taken a public position on the larger issue before: the IBSA statement on Enhanced Cooperation from December 2010. the IBSA reaffirms its commitment to the stability and security of the Internet as a global facility based on the full participation of all stakeholders, from both developed and developing countries, within their respective roles and responsibilities in line with paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda.

"The management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations."

Demonization of the ITU is not good, though some in civil society have engaged in it, and is not the issue here. * After all, ITU was a core part of the WSIS process that led to the multistakeholder system. * ITU does have its own role to play in Internet governance.

Importantly, transparency and public participation is required. * We have signed an international civil society letter asking ITU to be more transparent. This has had a little impact; more documents are now out in the public. And there's now WCITLeaks.org * The Indian government must hold inclusive meetings with all relevant experts and stakeholders, including civil society organizations and academics.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/will-the-international-telecommunication-regulations-itrs-impact-internet-governance-a-multistakeholder-perspective

Will Indians have to pay for WhatsApp?

pranesh — 2015-08-24T02:00:56Z

India's Department of Telecommunications (DoT) formed a panel in January 2015 to look into net neutrality in the country.

This was originally published by BBC on July 25. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.

Net neutrality means service providers should treat all traffic equally. Users should be able to access all websites at the same speed and cost.

A battle to decide the future of the internet in India is being fought online, between telecom users and operators.

The panel has now released its report to the public and invited comments. Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet Studies decodes the report and what it means for Indians.

What does the panel say?

Internet-based Over-the-top (OTT) communication services like WhatsApp, Viber, and the like are currently taking advantage of "regulatory arbitrage", meaning that the regulations that apply to non-Internet based communications services (telephone calls) are different from OTT communications services.

Under current rules, the OTT services don't have to get a licence from the government, don't have to abide by anti-spam, do-not-disturb regulations, share any revenue with the government or abide by national security conditions. The panel wants to bring these services under a licensing regime.

The report distinguishes between Internet-based voice calls (voice over IP, or VoIP) and messaging services and doesn't wish to interfere with the latter. This means it could regulate services like Skype, Viber and WhatsApp calls but not WhatsApp or Viber messages. It also distinguishes between domestic and international VoIP calls, and believes only the former need regulation. It is unclear on what basis these distinctions are made.

The core principles of net neutrality - which are undefined in the report, though definitions proposed in submissions they've received are quoted - should be adhered to. In the long-run, these should find place in a new law, but for the time being they can be enforced through the licence agreement between the government and telecom providers.

Where does the panel report go wrong?

The proposal by the panel to regulate VoIP services like Skype or Viber is a terrible idea.

Many important terms are left undefined, and many distinctions that the report draws are left unexplained. For instance, it is unclear on what regulatory basis the report distinguishes between domestic and international VoIP calls or between regulation of messaging services and VoIP services.

Will it increase cost of access to WhatsApp and Viber?

"Zero-rating" is a policy whereby telecoms providers agree not to pass on the costs of handling the data traffic so that consumers can receive services for free.

On the one hand, this could decrease the cost of access to WhatsApp and Viber. But that might not be allowed because free services could harm competition and distort markets.

Whether this will lead to consumers paying for WhatsApp and similar services depends on what kinds of regulations are placed on them, and if any costs are imposed on them.

Does the report uphold net neutrality?

The report is clear that it strongly endorses the "core principles of net neutrality".

On the issue of "zero-rating" the panel proposes some sound measures, saying that there should be a two-part mechanism for ensuring that "harmful" zero-rating doesn't go through.

First, telecom services need to submit "zero-rating" tariff proposals to an expert body constituted by telecoms department.

Second, consumers will be able to complain about the harmful usage of "zero-rating" by any service provider, which may result in a fine.

Where have people got the report wrong?

There have been reports saying that the panel has recommended increased charges for domestic VoIP calls. This is untrue.

There are reports saying the panel has given the go-ahead for all forms of zero-rating. Once again, this is untrue. The panel cites instances of zero-rating that aren't discriminatory, violative of net neutrality and don't harm competition or distort consumer markets (such as zero-rating of all Internet traffic for a limited time period). Then it goes on to state that the regulator should not allow zero-rating that violates the core principles of net neutrality.

Pranesh Prakash is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society. A longer article he wrote on the panel report can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-july-25-2015-will-indians-have-to-pay-for-whatsapp

Why Parallel Importation of Books Should Be Allowed

pranesh — 2019-02-01T17:41:26Z

There has been much controversy lately with some publishers trying to stop the government from amending s.2(m) of the Indian Copyright Act, clarifying that a parallel import will not be seen as an "infringing copy". This blog post argues that the government should, keeping in mind the larger picture, still go ahead and legalise parallel imports.

[Updated Wednesday, February 2, 2011, to respond to Thomas Abraham's extensive and thoughtful rebuttal of the earlier version this post.]

First off, here is the controversial clause, with the proposed amendment (the insertion of a "proviso", in legalese) being emphasised in bold font-face:

The amendment

2(m) "infringing copy" means,—

    (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;

    (ii) in relation to a cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means;

    (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means;

    (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;

Provided 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 shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy.

Some claim that this amendment to s.2(m) ("provided that... copy") has the potential to destroy the publishing industry. The most lucid explanation of this was in a recent op-ed by Thomas Abraham in the Hindustan Times, very ominously titled The Death of Books. However it seems to us that the publishing industry—especially foreign publishers with distributorships in India—don't want to open themselves up to competition in the distribution market, and are opposing this most commendable move.

What is parallel importation?

Before getting into explanations of why allowing for parallel importation is good, and how the arguments otherwise fall short, we should examine what parallel importation is.

"Parallel import, insofar as copyright is concerned, involves an “original” copyright product (i.e. produced by or with the permission of the copyright owner in the manufacturing country) placed on the market of one country, which is subsequently imported into a second country without the permission of the copyright owner in the second country. For instance, the copyright owner of a book produced in India places the book on the market in India. A trader buys 100 copies of the book from India and imports them to China without the permission of the copyright owner of the book in China. This act of the trader bringing the books into China is called parallel import, the legality of which depends on the copyright law of the importing country (namely China in this example)." (Consumers International, Copyright and Access to Knowledge: Policy Recommendations on Flexibilities in Copyright Laws 23 (2006).)

Some fear-mongers try to equate parallel importation with 'anarchy' in markets, and some confusedly claim that this amendment would allow infringing copies of books would be permitted. That is simply not true. For parallel importation to be said to happen, the sale must itself be legal. If it is an an illegally sold copy (a pirated copy of a book, for instance) that is imported, then it will count as a black market import—not as a parallel import. Allowing for parallel imports will only dismantle monopoly rights over importation, and the amendment makes that amply clear.

Harms on existing books of not allowing parallel importation

Libraries/second-hand bookshops/consumers have no way of knowing if a book was originally imported legally or not, since there is no easy way of telling a parallel-ly imported copy apart from a exclusively imported copy. If one of them, even unknowingly buys/sells a foreign edition about which they am not sure and it turns out it was not legally imported (and there are literally thousands of such books, and I personally own at least a couple dozen foreign editions bought from various second-hand bookshops) then they are committing copyright infringement.

This precisely was argued by the library associations and others in amici briefs to the US Supreme Court in the Costco v. Omega case. For instance, the brief for the the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libaries, and the Association of Research Libraries in Support of Petitioner argues that:

By restricting the application of [the first sale doctrine] to copies manufactured in the United States, the Ninth Circuit’s decision threatens the ability of libraries to continue to lend materials in their collections. Over 200 million books in U.S. libraries have foreign publishers. Moreover, many books published by U.S. publishers were actually manufactured by printers in other countries. Although some books indicate on their copyright page where they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way of knowing whether these books comply with the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Without the certainty of the protection of the first sale doctrine, librarians will have to confront the difficult policy decision of whether to continue to circulate these materials in their collections in the face of potential copyright infringement liability. For future acquisitions, libraries would be able to adjust to the Ninth Circuit’s narrowing of [the first sale doctrine] only by bearing the significant cost of obtaining a “lending license” whenever they acquired a copy that was not clearly manufactured in the United States.

and, the brief for the Public Knowledge, American Association of Law Libraries, American Free Trade Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Medical Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association in Support of Petitioner states:

The uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding [against parallel importation] will harm used bookstores, libraries, yard sales, out-of-print book markets, movie and video game rental markets, and innumerable other secondary markets. Owners of copyright works or goods containing copyrighted elements manufactured abroad will be unable to dispose of these products without authorization at the risk of liability under copyright law’s extensive damages provisions. Furthermore, the chilling effects of the Ninth Circuit’s holding will extend beyond works manufactured abroad. Owners of copies of works will be unable to determine whether they are protected by [the first sale doctrine], as they will not always know where their goods were manufactured. Copyright holders will have little incentive to make clear the location of manufacturing of their copyrighted works,3 as greater uncertainty means a greater ability to sell the right to distribute the goods within the United States. Secondary market sellers who cannot afford to purchase this right will be unable to do business unless they are prepared to engage in lengthy and expensive litigation with an uncertain result. A wide variety of important secondary markets in copyrighted works and goods with copyrighted elements will suffer without the protection of the first sale doctrine.

Benefits of parallel importation

Dismantling distribution monopoly rights

The benefits that will accrue from allowing for parallel importations are huge. Currently a large percentage of educational books in India are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition, the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an authorization to import books—the licence raj that currently exists would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit. This is especially important for students and for libraries because even when low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.

Allowing people to import goods without permissions (with appropriate duties) is taken for granted in all other areas, so why not copyrighted works? After all, it is not the act of publication that gets affected, but the right of exclusive distribution. And if that goes away after first sale internationally, that's not a bad thing at all.

Generally, there are two main benefits of allowing for parallel importation: faster introduction of the latest international releases into the domestic country, and lowered prices by decreasing the costs imposed by a monopoly right over distribution.

All the foreign books that an online bookseller like Flipkart delivers in India are procured from international sources. Without parallel importation, Flipkart will have to ask for permission from the book publishers for each foreign book each time it makes a sale. This would cripple Flipkart's business model.

Helping book publishers

Book publishers will be benefited by parallel importation, just as they are benefited by the existence of libraries and second-hand book stores. Libraries and second-hand book stores help with market segmentation, providing access to people who can't afford expensive books at much lower rates, often free. However, the existence of second-hand book stores in almost every city in India—I have personally bought second-hand books everywhere from Jhansi (Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace) to Delhi's Darya Ganj market (Edmund Wilson's Letters on Literature and Politics)—does not prevent me from buying books first hand. Indeed, Wilson's Letters is out of print, and cannot be bought in a store like Crosswords or Gangaram's.

Why do I emphasise second-hand books and libraries? They are artefacts of something variously known as the "first sale doctrine" or the "doctrine of exhaustion" in copyright law: After the first sale of a book, subsequent sales, rentals, etc., cannot be controlled by the copyright owner. Parallel importation is simply a matter of applying this doctrine to the first sale of the book internationally rather than its first sale in India.

Thus we see that the existence of second-hand books, libraries, and parallel imports, are all dependent on the same rule of copyright law: the first sale doctrine. This doctrine is enshrined in s.14(b)(iv) of the Indian Copyright Act, and has been interpreted by the Delhi High Court to mean first sale in India. The present amendment changes that to mean first sale internationally.

The introduction of the modern "public library" in the mid-19th century led to a surge in literacy, readership, and book sales, and not a decline. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that allowing parallel importations will lead to a decline in book sales.

Helping libraries and the print-disabled

Even currently, many people buy books directly from abroad and have them shipped to India. This is especially necessary for libraries whose patrons—scholars and students—very often need access to the latest books. Currently, libraries often buy books from abroad from Amazon, Flipkart, Alibris, etc. Such acts, within a strict reading of the law, are not legal, since they fall afoul of s.51(b)(iv), since the import is not for the "private and domestic use" of the libraries. This is also of especial concern for organizations working with print-disabled individuals, since the number of books legally available domestically in formats accessible by the print-disabled is very small, and often need to be imported.

Helping all consumers

An excellent report was prepared in 2006 by Consumers International, in which they studied the costs of textbooks in eleven countries, including India, by average purchasing power of each country's citizens, instead of absolute cost. Based on that study, and a detailed investigation of international treaties on copyright and the flexibilities allowed in them, Consumers International recommended that India should amend our law to make it clear that parallel importation of copyrighted works is legal (on page 51 of the report).

Rebutting objections

I will address a few specific objections raised by Mr. Abraham, Nandita Saikia, and others.

1. Authors' won't lose out on royalties

Authors do not lose out on royalties because of parallel importation, just as they do not lose out on royalties because of libraries, nor because of second-hand book stores. For parallel importation to take place, the books have to be purchased legally, and that first sale itself ensures that authors are paid royalties.

Of course, publishing contracts often have a clause that remaindered books will not garner royalties. But in that case, the problem is not parallel importation, but the overstocking and subsequent remaindering of books. The authors wouldn't be paid (or would be paid very little) for remaindered books even if the books weren't imported into India. Parallel importation does not in any way change that.

Indian authors

There is a worry that an Indian author would be hit if remaindered copies of his/her books started entering the Indian market. That would mean that foreign publishers had overstocked that Indian author's book, i.e., that the expectation from the book was much higher than the actual demand. If this happens infrequently, then the author hasn't much to worry about (since remainders aren't a big problem). If it happens frequently, then firstly the publisher should re-adjust to the market and realize that demand is low. Secondly, the author needs to worry more about quality of the book (and whether it caters to foreign audiences) than the possible effects that the availability of cheaper copies of that book would have.

2. Remaindered books are in publishers' control

India has amongst the cheapest book prices in the world. Then why would book publishers be wary of even cheaper books overrunning the Indian market? The reason, Mr. Abraham tells us, is remaindered books. He believes that remaindered books have the potential to destroy the Indian book market. Remaindering of books has been happening for decades. If remaindered books haven't already destroyed all book markets worldwide, then it is unlikely that they will do so suddenly just because parallel importation of books is permitted in India.

Remainders happen because of a miscalculation by the publisher: expecting more demand than was actually present. What happens with that excess stock is controlled by the publishers. They can choose to pulp them, burn them, or even push them into other channels of commerce that Mr. Abraham points out exist in the mature, frontline markets where remaindering happens:

And the reason why they have not destroyed book markets worldwide is because the mature markets exist with multiple strands (chains and high street stores, independents, direct sellers, online sellers, and supermarkets)—so a direct seller will sell the same book a high street store is selling at a much reduced price without it affecting the business of each strand. Each strand is discrete and price sensitivity does not matter the same way.

Since those multiple strands of commerce exist, each of which would enable the seller to get a better profit (being in a developed country) than in India, there is no reason to fear overrunning of the market with remainders.

3. Dumping of books should be tackled separately

An extension of the remaindered books concern is that of India becoming a land where all books will be dumped. This hasn't happened in case of countries like New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Egypt, Cameroon, Pakistan, Argentina, Israel, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, and a host of other countries, all of which allow for parallel importation of books. In a 1998 judgment, the United States Supreme Court, some parallel imports of copyrighted goods were legal. That ruling did not cause the downfall of the US book market, despite cheaper books being available outside the US. Australia has allowed for parallel importation of books in one form or another since 1991 (when the law was changed to allow for all parallel of all books that weren't introduced in the Australian market within 30 days of it being released elsewhere in the world). New Zealand did a study after removing the ban on parallel importation, and declared that cheaper books were available on a more timely basis than previously. None of these countries have been overrun by grey market books.

Customs laws are better suited

Even assuming that this fear is well-founded, copyright law is not the best way to deal with the problem. Dumping of books should be regulated by customs laws (anti-dumping and countervailing duties). Using copyright law to regulate apprehended book dumping practices (which might not even happen) is like using a trawler hoping to catch only shrimp: it is naive to think that there won't be unintended bycatch, and the consequences can be disastrous for the knowledge environment in case of books.

Customs laws are more flexible because they are imposed by the executive, and unlike copyright law, can be more easily changed as per requirements. So even if copyright law allows for parallel importation of copyrighted works, a special case can be made out by publishers in case of trade publishing, for instance, and that can be targetted specifically by imposing duties. However, the inverse cannot happen, since we are not aware of any mechanism whereby libraries, consumers and others can get to 'override' the provision in the Copyright Act.

Additionally, these duties can be made to operate only if the book is already being sold in India; these duties can be made to operate only on new books. A ban on parallel importation, on the other hand will apply equally to books that are out of print, to books that the original copyright owner has not even granted an exclusive Indian distributorship and are not even being sold in India. It goes right to the heart of freedom of speech, which the Supreme Court has held includes the right to receive information.

4. Non-printing of low-priced editions for India because of "unsecure" market won't happen

Parallel importation, which is what the amendment to s.2(m) allows for, affects only importation. It does not in any way affect publication in India or exports. Exporting low-priced Indian editions to countries which allow for parallel importation of books, is currently of doubtful legality. [Update: Earlier an incorrect claim was made in this post that such export was legal. The legal status is not that clear. While there is a Delhi High Court case that makes exports of low-priced editions illegal in the context of sale to the United States, it specifically states that the decision does not depend on whether India allows for parallel importation or not.] The amendment does not change that position, for reasons explained at greater length in a separate post. The incentives to print low-priced editions hence does not decrease. If anything it will increase because currently books that are not available as low-priced editions cannot be imported without exclusive licensing, and with a change in this position, the incentive to compete in the form of low-priced editions will increase.

Indeed, even before that 2009 Delhi High Court judgment prohibiting exports to the United States, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. And even before the 2005 Bombay High Court judgment prohibiting parallel imports, many low-priced editions were being printed in India. This won't change, regardless of the law, because India is an increasingly profitable and expanding market, and low-priced editions are a necessity in this market due to lower average income.

5. Rhetoric flourish and the law: Open and closed markets

Mr. Abraham asks how many authors one can name from open markets like Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, as a sign of the 'history of creativity' in each of these countries and territories. It might be just as well to ask how many authors he can name from closed markets like Bhutan, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, and Ukraine. One's ability to name authors from a country has less to do with the open/closed nature of its market and more to do with one's general knowledge.

Additionally, the 'mature' markets which he wishes India to emulate—United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia—are more ambiguous on parallel importation than he would have us believe. In the United States, the legality of a segment of parallel importation of copyrighted goods reached the United States Supreme Court in Quality King v. L'anza in 1998, in which the court held in favour of the importer.

The question reached the US Supreme Court again last year in Costco v. Omega, but the court split on it 4-4, and did not deliver a binding precedent on parallel importation. Thus, for all intents and purposes, under copyright law, the United States is an open market.

In the United Kingdom, as per European Union law, parallel importation is permitted from anywhere within the EU. And in Australia, parallel importation of parallel goods is largely allowed, with some conditions to encourage faster publishing in Australia of foreign books.

Most importantly, none of the markets held up as role models are developing countries. India is. This makes all the difference, as the Consumers International report underscores.

Standing Committee consultations

Lack of wide consultation

On one point we are in complete agreement with Mr. Abraham, which is his point regarding lack of adequate consultation. While there was a good amount of consultation during the drafting stage, when a wide-ranging public consultation was held in 2006, this was not repeated in 2010 by the Standing Committee. Further, the Standing Committee only gave fifteen days for responses to its call for comments.

Publishers were represented

While Mr. Abraham states that only the Authors Guild was represented before the Standing Committee, by going through the report prepared by it, we see that the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India were also called to testify before the Standing Committee.

Libraries, students, consumers were not represented

However, while the authors supported it, and the publishers opposed it, no one got to hear the voice of the readers, the students, the libraries, the book buyers. For instance, not a single consumer rights organization or library association was called before the Standing Committee. Internationally, organizations like Consumers International, the International Federation of Library Associations, and EIFL (an international library organization) are invited to meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization and their views are taken with seriousness as they are a very important part of the copyright environment.

Department's and Standing Committee's reasoning

We reproduce below four paragraphs from the Standing Committee's report, which elucidate many of the reasons for going in for this particular amendment.

7.10
All the reservations/objections raised by the various stakeholders [including the Federation of Indian Publishers and the Association of Publishers in India, whose objections are quoted in an earlier paragraph of the report -ed.] were taken up by the Committee with the Department with the intent of having full understanding of the background necessitating the proposed amendment and its exact impact on the various stakeholders. As clarified by the Department, the main purpose of this amendment was to allow for imports of copyright materials (e.g. books) from other countries. It was in accordance with Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement relating to exhaustion of rights whereunder developing countries could facilitate access to copyright works at affordable cost. Exhaustion of rights (popularly called as parallel import) was a legal mechanism used to regulate prices of IPR protected materials. This was viable only if the price of the same works in the Indian market was very high when compared to the price in other countries from where it was imported to India.

7.11
Committee's attention was drawn to the fact that majority of educational books used in India were imported from other countries particularly from US and EU. There was an increasing tendency by publishers to give territorial licence to publish the books at very high rates. The low price editions were invariably the old editions than the latest ones. This provision would compel the Indian publishers to price the works reasonably so that it would not be viable for a distributor to import same works to India from other countries. This would also save India foreign exchange on the payment of royalties (licence fee) by the Indian publishers to foreigners.

7.12
Committee was also given to understand by the representatives of the publishing industry that Scheme of the Copyright Law was entirely different from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Patent Act, 1970. The application of the standards and principles of these two laws through the proposed amendment of section 2(m) would completely dismantle the business model currently employed, rendering several industries unviable. On a specific query in this regard the Department informed that the concept of international exhaustion provided in section 107 A of the Patent Act, 1971 and in section 30 (3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and in section 2 (m) of the copyright law were similar. This provision was in tune with the national policy on exhaustion of rights.

7.13
After analysing the viewpoints of all the stakeholders along with the clarifications given thereupon by the Department, the Committee is of the view that proposed inclusion of the proviso in the definition of the term 'infringing copy' seems to be a step in the right direction, specially in the prevailing situation at the ground level. The present practice of publishers publishing books under a territorial license, resulting in sale of books at very high rates cannot be considered a healthy practice. [Emphasis added.] The Committee also notes that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. It has been clearly specified that only those works published outside India with the permission of the author and imported into India will not be considered an infringed copy. 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. [emphasis added.] The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to Government to ensure that the purpose for which the amendment is proposed, i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of.

Conclusion

It is clear that allowing for parallel imports is not likely to hurt publishers, but will result in an expansion of the reading market. It is mainly foreign publishers' monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/parallel-importation-of-books

Why Data Localisation Might Lead To Unchecked Surveillance

pranesh — 2018-10-16T14:08:34Z

In recent times, there has been a rash of policies and regulations that propose that the data that Indian entities handle be physically stored on servers in India, in some cases exclusively. In other cases, only a copy needs to be stored.

The article was published in Bloomberg Quint on October 15, 2018 and also mirrored in the Quint.

In April 2018, the Reserve Bank of India put out a circular requiring that all “data relating to payment systems operated by them are stored in a system only in India” within six months. Lesser requirements have been imposed on all Indian companies’ accounting data since 2014 (the back-up of the books of account and other books that are stored electronically must be stored in India, the broadcasting sector under the Foreign Direct Investment policy, must locally store subscriber information, and the telecom sector under the Unified Access licence, may not transfer their subscriber data outside India).

The draft e-commerce policy has a wide-ranging requirement of exclusive local storage for “community data collected by Internet of Things devices in public space” and “data generated by users in India from various sources including e-commerce platforms, social media, search engines, etc.”, as does the draft e-pharmacy regulations, which stipulate that “the data generated” by e-pharmacy portals be stored only locally.

While companies such as Airtel, Reliance, PhonePe (majority-owned by Walmart) and Alibaba, have spoken up in support the government’s data localisation efforts, others like Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Mastercard have led the way in opposing it.

Just this week, two U.S. Senators wrote to the Prime Minister’s office arguing that the RBI’s data localisation regulations along with the proposals in the draft e-commerce and cloud computing policies are “key trade barriers”. In her dissenting note to the Srikrishna Committee's report, Rama Vedashree of the Data Security Council of India notes that, “mandating localisation may potentially become a trade barrier and the key markets for the industry could mandate similar barriers on data flow to India, which could disrupt the IT-BPM (information technology-business process management) industry.”

Justification For Data Localisation

What are the reasons for these moves towards data localisation?

Given the opacity of policymaking in India, many of the policies and regulations provide no justification at all. Even the ones that do, don’t provide cogent reasoning.

The RBI says it needs “unfettered supervisory access” and hence needs data to be stored in India. However, it fails to state why such unfettered access is not possible for data stored outside of India.

As long as an entity can be compelled by Indian laws to engage in local data storage, that same entity can also be compelled by that same law to provide access to their non-local data, which would be just as effective.

What if they don’t provide such access? Would they be blacklisted from operating in India, just as they would if they didn’t engage in local data storage? Is there any investigatory benefit to storing data in India? As any data forensic expert would note, chain of custody and data integrity are what are most important components of data handling in fraud investigation, and not physical access to hard drives. It would be difficult for the government to say that it will block all Google services if the company doesn’t provide all the data that Indian law enforcement agencies request from it. However, it would be facile for the RBI to bar Google Pay from operating in India if Google doesn’t provide it “unfettered supervisory access” to data.

The most exhaustive justification of data localisation in any official Indian policy document is that contained in the Srikrishna Committee’s report on data protection. The report argues that there are several benefits to data localisation:

Effective enforcement,
Avoiding reliance on undersea cables,
Avoiding foreign surveillance on data stored outside India,
Building an “Artificial Intelligence ecosystem”

Of these, the last three reasons are risible.

Not A Barrier To Surveillance

Requiring mirroring of personal data on Indian servers will not magically give rise to experts skilled in statistics, machine learning, or artificial intelligence, nor will it somehow lead to the development of the infrastructure needed for AI.

The United States and China are both global leaders in AI, yet no one would argue that China’s data localisation policies have helped it or that America’s lack of data localisation polices have hampered it.

On the question of foreign surveillance, data mirroring will not have any impact, since the Srikrishna Committee’s recommendation would not prevent companies from storing most personal data outside of India.

Even for “sensitive personal data” and for “critical personal data”, which may be required to be stored in India alone, such measures are unlikely to prevent agencies like the U.S. National Security Agency or the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters from being able to indulge in extraterritorial surveillance.

In 2013, slides from an NSA presentation that were leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the NSA’s “BOUNDLESSINFORMANT” programme collected 12.6 billion instances of telephony and Internet metadata (for instance, which websites you visited and who all you called) from India in just one month, making India one of the top 5 targets.

This shows that technically, surveillance in India is not a challenge for the NSA.

So, forcing data mirroring enhances Indian domestic intelligence agencies’ abilities to engage in surveillance, without doing much to diminish the abilities of skilled foreign intelligence agencies.

As I have noted in the past, the technological solution to reducing mass surveillance is to use decentralised and federated services with built-in encryption, using open standards and open source software.

Reducing reliance on undersea cables is, just like reducing foreign surveillance on Indians’ data, a laudable goal. However, a mandate of mirroring personal data in India, which is what the draft Data Protection Bill proposes for all non-sensitive personal data, will not help. Data will stay within India if the processing happens within India. However, if the processing happens outside of India, as is often the case, then undersea cables will still need to be relied upon.

The better way to keep data within India is to incentivise the creation of data centres and working towards reducing the cost of internet interconnection by encouraging more peering among Internet connectivity providers.

While data mirroring will not help in improving the enforcement of any data protection or privacy law, it will aid Indian law enforcement agencies in gaining easier access to personal data.

The MLAT Route

Currently, many forms of law enforcement agency requests for data have to go through onerous channels called ‘mutual legal assistance treaties’. These MLAT requests take time and are ill-suited to the needs of modern criminal investigations. However, the U.S., recognising this, passed a law called the CLOUD Act in March 2018. While the CLOUD Act compels companies like Google and Amazon, which have data stored in Indian data centres, to provide that data upon receiving legal requests from U.S. law enforcement agencies, it also enables easier access to foreign law enforcement agencies to data stored in the U.S. as long as they fulfill certain procedural and rule-of-law checks.

While the Srikrishna Committee does acknowledge the CLOUD Act in a footnote, it doesn’t analyse its impact, doesn’t provide suggestions on how India can do this, and only outlines the negative consequences of MLATs.

Further, it is inconceivable that the millions of foreign services that Indians access and provide their personal data to will suddenly find a data centre in India and will start keeping such personal data in India. Instead, a much likelier outcome, one which the Srikrishna Committee doesn’t even examine, is that many smaller web services may find such requirements too onerous and opt to block users from India, similar to the way that Indiatimes and the Los Angeles Times opted to block all readers from the European Union due to the coming into force of the new data protection law.

The government could be spending its political will on finding solutions to the law enforcement agency data access question, and negotiating solutions at the international level, especially with the U.S. government. However it is not doing so.

Given this, the recent spate of data localisation policies and regulation can only be seen as part of an attempt to increase the scope and ease of the Indian government’s surveillance activities, while India’s privacy laws still remain very weak and offer inadequate legal protection against privacy-violating surveillance. Because of this, we should be wary of such requirements, as well as of the companies that are vocal in embracing data localisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bloomberg-quint-pranesh-prakash-october-15-2018-why-data-localisation-might-lead-to-unchecked-surveillance

What Does Facebook's Transparency Report Tell Us About the Indian Government's Record on Free Expression & Privacy?

pranesh — 2015-04-05T05:08:37Z

Given India's online population, the number of user data requests made by the Indian government aren't very high, but the number of content restriction requests are not only high on an absolute number, but even on a per-user basis.

Further, Facebook's data shows that India is more successful at getting Facebook to share user data than France or Germany. Yet, our government complains far more about Facebook's lack of cooperation with Indian authorities than either of those countries do. I think it unfair for any government to raise such complaints unless that government independently shows to its citizens that it is making legally legitimate requests.

Since the Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi has stated that "transparency and accountability are the two cornerstones of any pro-people government", the government ought to publish a transparency report about the requests it makes to Internet companies, and which must, importantly, provide details about how many user data requests actually ended up being used in a criminal case before a court, as well as details of all their content removal requests and the laws under which each request was made.

At the same time, Facebook's Global Government Requests Report implicitly showcases governments as the main causes of censorship and surveillance. This is far from the truth, and it behoves Facebook to also provide more information about private censorship requests that it accedes to, including its blocking of BitTorrent links, it's banning of pseudonymity, and the surveillance it carries out for its advertisers.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/what-does-facebook-transparency-report-tell-us-about-indian-government-record-on-free-expression-and-privacy

WGIG+8: Stock-Taking, Mapping, and Going Forward

pranesh — 2013-04-04T06:49:31Z

On February 27, 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society conducted a workshop on the Working Group on Internet Governance report, titled "WGIG+8: Stock-Taking, Mapping, and Going Forward" at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) + 10 meeting at Fontenoy Building, conference room # 7, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris from 9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Details of the event were published on the UNESCO website.

Session Personnel

Pranesh Prakash was the moderator for the session. There were about 10-15 participants along with 5 remote participants.

There were four speakers:

William Drake, International Fellow and Lecturer, Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ at the University of Zurich
Carlos Afonso, Executive Director of the Núcleo de Pesquisas, Estudos e Formação (NUPEF) institute
Avri Doria, Dotgay LLC, Association for Progressive Communications, International School for Internet Governance
Désirée Miloshevic, International Affairs and Policy Adviser, Afilias

Summary of the Discussion

Speakers Summaries

William Drake:
Mr. Drake argued that the WGIG process demonstrated the benefits of multistakeholder collaboration, and facilitated the WSIS negotiations, and the multistakeholder process that WGIG embodied promoted public engagement in the Internet governance debate. The working definition of “Internet governance” that the WGIG came up with demystified the nature and scope of Internet governance. One important outcome of the WGIG report was the proposal of the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum. The WGIG began the holistic assessment of “horizontal issues,” including development, and made some broad but useful recommendations on key “vertical issues”. And lastly, the WGIG offered four models for the oversight of core resources that helped to focus the global debate on the governance of the Internet’s core resources.

Carlos Afonso:
Mr. Afonso commented on the issue of international interconnection costs, and pointed out that they continue to be complex and involve complicated cost accounting. Mr. Afonso then pointed out that the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) could be doing more in the context of IPv6, in the way of stimulating backbone operators to ensure IPv6 visibility of the networks below them — many are already IPv6-ready but upstream providers do not provide corresponding transit. He also drew attention to “enhanced cooperation” as an issue that had not been anticipated at the time of the report, but had since become an important issue; similarly, he identified social networking and (in response to a question) military uses of the Internet, etc., as other such issues. He opined that the WGIG report needed to be elaborated upon in the present context.

Avri Doria:
Ms. Doria argued that while the report was reluctantly accepted after having been first rejected by the governments, it has proven to be highly useful. She praised the report for its working definition of IG, as it is still being used, and because the report made a clear distinction between governments and the governance of the Internet. She then argued that the definition of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders is very loose in the WGIG report and that these definitions are something that needs further study as they do not take into account the full role and responsibilities of all stakeholders. She also argued that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is transferring some of its oversight powers over technical governance of the domain name system, to multistakeholder processes as can be seen from the “Affirmation of Commitments” which has replaced the earlier “Memorandum of Understanding” it had with ICANN." She argued that the Affirmation of Commitment based review teams are an important experiment that should be followed with interest.

Désirée Miloshevic:
Ms. Miloshevic pointed out that outside the meta issue of keeping the Internet open for innovation, issues relating to freedom of speech and human rights were the most important challenges facing Internet governance today. She highlighted that several issues, such as economic benefits, consumer protection, freedom to connect and education are issues that have either not been addressed or have been addressed inadequately in the report. She then went on to argue that the IGF, which is an outcome of the WGIG report has had a tangible impact on IG, particularly on clarifying IG as a multi-stakeholder process rather than describing mere institutional regulation models. For example, the IGF allows for newly identified public policy issues to continue to feature as topics in the IGF as emerging issues, such as open data, etc. Ms. Miloshevic also emphasised the need for stakeholders to increase the development of capacity in dealing with IG issues at the global level.

Summary of General Discussion

Overall, it was agreed by all panelists that the WGIG 2005 report and the WSIS process have had a large impact on Internet Governance (IG), particularly in terms of an increase in public awareness and participation in IG as well as in framing of IG as involving multiple stakeholders and not just governments. This has in turn led to a shifting of power equations as well as an increase in openness and transparency. The report has helped create the distinction between governments and governance of the Internet, and framed, through the working definition of IG that was later incorporated in the WSIS Tunis Agenda, the non-technical aspects of IG as a core part of IG. Further, the identification and mapping of issues associated with IG and the generation of institutional governance models were important outcomes of the report. The report was also seen as instrumental in the creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

Panellists also noted the changed context and the progress (and in many cases, lack of progress) since the WGIG report. Issues were raised around the lack of progress in implementing the specific recommendations made by the report. Inadequate capacity-building of actors in the global South, and efforts of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) with respect to IPv6 were used as examples. It was also pointed out that a number of concerns have materialized that had not been anticipated at the time of the report, including 'enhanced cooperation', the emergence of social networking, and military uses of the Internet.

Moderator's summary

The WGIG and its report, the background report and the book that followed from that report, have proven to be crucial in defining the formulation and direction of Internet governance for the past 8 years, and have resulted in a multi-stakeholder governance model for the Internet and the IGF, and have set many norms that have shifted power equations. However, many significant issues that weren't central to Internet governance during the formulation of the WGIG report have since emerged, the majority of the recommendations made in the WGIG report haven't seen much progress, the capacity of actors in the global South to engage in IG issues has not increased greatly, and the IGF needs to gain greater credibility and centrality. Transnational private corporations are emerging as increasingly powerful actors in Internet governance and are slowly shifting the balance, a development that was unforeseen in 2005 when governments were seen as the most powerful actors.

Any agreed recommendations from the session

The panelists recommended the production of an analytical report that would explore the current status of the issues and recommendations laid in the original report issues as well as identify any new concerns that have arisen since 2005. An important aspect of this report would be an emphasis on the benefits of the IGF and the role of the WGIG process and report in underscoring the significance of multi-stakeholder processes. Further recommendations included the continued advancement of Internet rights and principles and enhanced cooperation, as these are two focus areas that have emerged since the WGIG report, and the strengthening of the IGF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/wgig-8-stock-taking-mapping-and-going-forward

Visually impaired seek access to print materials

pranesh — 2013-01-16T06:20:49Z

An article in the Deccan Herald (November 3, 2008, page 4) by L. Subramani on the CIS signature campaign.

Rahul Cherian is quoted in this article published in the Deccan Herald.

Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an organisation researching on the impact of internet on society, has initiated a signature campaign to persuade the Indian government to support the Treaty for the Improved Access for the Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons.

The treaty, drafted earlier this year by the World Blind Union (WBU) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), asks governments of various countries to change their copyright laws to allow free access to information of several print disabled persons.

The nation-wide campaign (in India) is being supported by organisations such as National Association of the Blind, Delhi and National Federation for the Blind (who is also an affiliate member of the WBU).

“Those who are visually challenged and otherwise print disabled are able to use computers independently with the help of screen readers and magnifiers (software technology), yet they are excluded from accessing copyrighted materials since such materials aren’t available in accessible formats,” said Nirmita Narasimhan, who oversees the campaign at CIS.

Treaty endorsement
Signatures are sought from individuals and organisations to urge the Government of India to endorse the treaty, which calls for copyright laws to be modified so that organisations of the blind and disabled can convert books available in the market into formats which can be accessed by persons with different visual and reading disabilities.

“The Indian Copyright Act (1957) is not taking into account recent technology advancements that has empowered the print disabled to access printed materials,” said Rahul Cherian, a Chennai-based copyrights lawyer involved in drafting the treaty.

“Collecting signatures from people would be an evidence of public opinion in India regarding the issue and would help us to persuade the Government to make our country a signatory to the treaty. This would mean that the government must make amending the national law a priority.”

Rahul said Indian publishers are largely willing to endorse changes to the law, since they view improved accessibility would bring more readers to the market (it is believed about 30 million persons are print disabled in the country). He also feels opposition from authors is unlikely as it doesn’t seriously threaten their incomes.

Interested can contact: Centre for Internet and Society, No D2, 3rd floor, Sheriff Chambers, 14, Cunningham Road, B’lore - 560 052. P: +91 80 4092 6283. M: 098458 68078. The current address of the Centre for Internet & Society is No. 194, Second 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560071, Ph: +91 80 4092 6283

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/deccan-herald-november-3-2008-l-subramani-visually-impaired-seek-access-to-print-materials

Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. | Summons Order

pranesh — 2012-03-15T07:53:05Z

This is Judge Sudesh Kumar's summons order (dated December 23, 2011) by which he notes there is enough prima facie evidence to proceed with trial against the intermediaries named and their senior officials. In the order he notes that, "It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network. It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same."

IN THE COURT OF SUDESH KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

Complaint Case No. 136 of 2011

In the matter of:

Vinay Rai
S/o Sh. Mahima Rai
10 A. First Floor. Pritvi Raj Road
New Delhi

...Complainant

Versus

...Accused

Facebook India
Through its country head
Ms. Kirthiga Reddy
Office at: 4th Floor, Building-14. OPUS Towers,
Mindspace. Cyberabad, APIIC SW Unit Layout.
Madhapur. Hyderabad-500081
kirthiga@fb.com 07799021119
Facebook
Through its chairman
Donald Edward Graham —
Facebook Corporate Office
1601 S. California Ave. Palo Alto. CA 94304
Google India (P) Ltd.
Orkut
Youtube
Blogspot
Through its Country head
Shri Rajan Anandan
8th and 9th Floors. Tower — C, Building No.8,
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon - 122 002
Google
Youtube
Blogspot
Orkut
Through its CEO, Larry Page — CEO
1600, Amphitheatre, Parkway, Mountain View,
CA 94043, USA
Yahoo India (P) Ltd
Shri Arun Tadanki
Building No.8, Tower-C,
DLF Cyber CityPhase-2 Gurgaon-
Yahoo
Through Roy J. Bostock — Chairman
Yahoo! Inc. 701 1st Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Microsoft India (P) Ltd.
Sri Bhaskar Pramanik 7th Floor,
Cyber Green Tower-A, DLF Cyber City, Phase-3
Gurgaon – 122002
Microsoft
Through Steve Ballmer — CEO
Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-7329 USA
Zombie Time
DNS Services, 1650-302 Margaret St #332
Jacksonville, FL 32204-3869, US
Exbii
BoardReader.com
700 Tower Drive, Suite 140
Troy, Michigan 48098 US
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN
IMC India
Through Sh. K.M. Gala-CEO, IMC India (Head Office)
418, Swastik Chambers, Sion Trombay Road
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071 (Maharashtra)
My Lot
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN
MyLot LLC, 7415 W 130th St
Suite #100, Overland Park, KS 66213, US
Shyni Blog
Through Sri Rajan Anandan
C/o Google India (P) Ltd
8th and 9th Floors. Tower—C, Building No 8,
DLF Cyber City Gurgaon—122002.
Topix
Through its CEO/CHAIRMAN
TOPIX.COM.P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682, US

IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR

Ld. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / PATIALA HOUSE COURTS / NEW DELHI

CC No. 136/1
Vinay Rai Vs. Facebook
PS Tughlak Road
23.12.2011

Order on Summoning:

The complainant in the present case is a Senior Journalist and Editor of Urdu Weekly namely Akbari. He has filed the present complaint U/s 200 Cr. PC r/w 156 (3) Cr. PC therein praying that the accused persons be summoned for having committed offences punishable U/ s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295 (A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. The complainant has submitted that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic content in question in the present complaint and also responsible for the management and control of online site and internet content and the accused includes those who used, posted and uploaded the material on the site through the internet. It is alleged by the complainant that the content in question has been hosted on various websites which is per-se inflammatory, unacceptable by any set of community standards; seeks to create enmity, hatred and communal Violence amongst various religious communities: is demeaning, degrading and obscene, and it will corrupt minds and adversely affect religious sentiments. It is further submitted that the complainant had received some information in this regard and while going through the contents in the above said websites realized that the same were unacceptable to the secular fabric provided by the Constitution of India and would be intolerable to any community or religion. It is further alleged that on a bare perusal of the contents it is clear that the same would certainly corrupt young minds below the age of 18 and even elders, it is highly provocative and which may even lead to consequences effecting communal harmony. The complainant has mentioned the names of the websites allegedly hosting the said objectionable content in the memo of parties and provided the alleged objectionable material in a sealed envelope. The complainant has further stated that the Social Networking Websites are meant only for providing content with respect to educational, historical, research material and entertainment work etc. as part of their commercial activities for social purposes. However, the objectionable content available on these social networking websites may lead to communal riots. It is further alleged that Government authorities have turned a blind eye to the same and do not have any established procedure or rules and guidelines to control and regulate the same. It is averred that the Government is least bothered and as usual waiting for some mishappening before taking some appropriate actions. Neither police officials nor the Government have initiated any action to curb or check these activities sou moto and failed to register any case against the above named accused persons under any law to remove such contents from there. The complainant has further alleged that the main social networking websites are Google, Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, Broadreader, Mylot, Zombie Time, Shyni Blog, Blogspot, Exbii.com, IMC India. It is alleged that the accused persons knowingly allowed these contents and materials to be hosted in the websites which is dangerous to communal harmony with common and malfide intentions and have failed to remove the objectionable content for their wrongful gain. The complainant further stated that he has provided the said contents to the Court, in a sealed cover with request for directions not to publicize the offensive and inflammatory material which may lead to communal disharmony under his social responsibility. It is further stated by the complainant that the said contents available and hosted on the these sites are per-se unacceptable and clearly established the offences punishable under various provisions mentioned in the IPC and in case no action is taken against the accused person the same will cause serious prejudice to our society and social values provided and protected under the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as a member of the community the complainant is not only individually hurt but also believes that it such content is allowed to continue on these platforms in this form, then incalculable and irreparable damage will be caused to the secular fabric of India. It is alleged that all those who are responsible for allowing this content to be hosted on the websites conspired with those who are the source of such content, and those who are promoting such material with malice to defame the country and with intent to spread communal violence to destabilise the country with undisclosed persons and are liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences U/s 153 (A), 153(B), 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and120-B IPC.

It is further averred that the contents which are shown on the social networking websites are clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony as is quite apparent on a bare look at the material available on these social networking websites. It is further stated that the content which has been shown on these websites amount to imputations, assertions, which are prejudicial to national integration. It is alleged that the contents which are available on these social networking websites are obscene may lead to creation of obscene books, pamphlets, paper, which can easily be downloaded from these social networking websites affecting the minds of children and was harmful for social harmony and may lead to increase in crime against women also.

That the contents which are clearly mentioned and annexed in the sealed cover show the malafide intentions of these social networking websites hosting such content in these websites is an act of malice intended to outrage, religious feelings of classes of citizens by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. It is averred that the cause of action for filing the present complaint has risen on 8.12.2011 when the complainant downloaded these pictures and photos and these facts came to the knowledge of the complainant while sitting at his above stated residence and still continuing.

The complainant prays that the above said accused persons alongwith undisclosed persons are liable to be prosecuted and punished U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC.

The complainant has thereafter examined four witness in support of his complaint. Complainant Mr. Vinay Rai has examined himself as CW 1 in pre summoning evidence and he deposed on oath that he has gone through the contents which have been posted on various social networking websites as alleged and the documents downloaded from those sites are original as these have been downloaded directly from those websites. He produced Ex. CW 1/A-1 to Ex. CW 1/A-16 which have been downloaded from the website named as www.zombietime.com. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-17 has been downloaded from Orkut which is arrayed as accused no.4 and 10. He also proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-18 downloaded from website mylot.com, which is a pre-se defamatory to all politicians. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-19 to Ex. CW 1/A-22 were downloaded from the post of topix.com and the contents are dangerous for our social structure and community. He further deposed that Ex. CW 1/A-23 to Ex. CW 1/A-36 which are posted by the service provider youtube.com without any sensor or prohibitory or disclaimer which is also dangerous for communal harmony and peace. He deposed that Youtube shown as accused no.5 and 8 provided the internet service and allowed to post these defamatory contents on websites and same is available to people below 18 years of age also which was also alarming danger to our society and Country. He deposed that such contents are against the secular fabric of our society, religion and culture. The witness has further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-37 to Ex. CW 1/A-48 are taken from the website facebook.com. He further proved on record Ex. CW 1/A-49 to Ex. CW 1/A-52 as provided by the blogspot.com, which is arrayed as accused at number 6 & 10 in the complaint and these documents are obscene and against the culture of our Country. He further stated that the blogspot is being managed by googleindia and googleinternational who have already been arrayed as accused in his complaint. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-53 has been taken from the website exbii.com, which provides services through google.com. The contents of the said exhibit are dangerous to our society and same has also been shown as political conspiracy to destabilize our Country. He further stated that Ex. CW 1/A-54 has been taken from website indymedia.org and same has been shown as a article posted by imcindia.org, which is against the Hinduism and defamatory to our religion. He further stated that the Ex. CW 1/A-55 provided by broadreader.com which is defamatory to Indian politicians and the Ex. CW 1/A-56 and Ex. CW 1/A-57 have been taken from the service provider blogspot.com which has been provided by the websites Further more, the complainant has deposed on the lines of his complaint. It is further prayed by the complainant that said accused persons alongwith certain undisclosed person were liable to be prosecuted U/s U/s 153-A, 153-B, 292, 293, 295(A), 298, 109, 500 and 120-B of IPC. It is further deposed by the complainant that all the contents were clearly showing and instigating enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

Complainant thereafter examined Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex as CW 2 in pre summoning evidence, who deposed on oath that he was not only a practicing Orthodox Christian but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents on the websites in question. He further stated that the present complaint is filed by the complainant not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever user and post the material on the site through internet. CW 2 further deposed that the contents of the website in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that on bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequences. He deposed that the contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He stated that the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intentions of the these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused persons and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.

Thereafter Dr. Aziz Ahmad Khan was examined as CW 3, who also deposed on oath that he is a scholar and P.HD. in Urdu but is an extremely secular person and has seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He also deposed that the complainant has filed the present complaint not only in public interest but also as an affected person who believes in a secular India. He further deposed that the accused person are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He also deposed that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further deposed that the on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to dangerous consequences. He submitted that these contents prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony. He deposed that if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further deposed that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further deposed that all the documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.

Mr. Rahul Agrawal was examined as CW 4 in pre summoning evidence by the complainant, who also deposed on oath that he is a Journalist and running a News Agency and he is a secular person and believe to maintain peace and harmony amongst the society and Country. He stated that he felt offended when he had seen and found extremely shocking some of the contents of the websites in question. He further stated that accused persons are the publishers and service providers of the electronic contents and also responsible to manage and control online site and internet contents as also whoever uses and posts the material on the site through internet. He further stated that the contents of the websites in question not only are inflammatory and shocking but have been deliberately posted by the persons in question to inflame the minds of the persons who view it but also to create grave communal tensions and to incite hatred amongst religious denominations across the country. He further stated that even on a bare perusal of the said contents it is clear that the same will certainly corrupt young and impressionable minds and is highly provocative and which may lead to illogical and dangerous consequence. He further stated that the contents as exhibited prima facie appear to be dangerous to society and communal harmony and if such contents are allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiments of the general public following different religions. He further stated that the contents of the exhibited documents clearly show the malafide intention of these social networking websites to create deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of people. He further stated that the contents hosted on each of these websites are ex-facie scurrilous, defamatory, prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions and communities, likely to cause fear and generate a feeling of insecurity amongst members of religious communities, obscene by any criteria of community standards of obscenity, seeks to corrupt young minds, malicious and insulting to religions and religious feelings of persons and under no stretch of imagination be considered to be under freedom of speech and expression. He further stated that each and every documents exhibited herein the complaint are downloaded from the website of the accused and same may be treated as original of their respective documents.

No other Complainant witness was examined in pre summoning evidence and the pre summoning evidence was closed. As the addresses of most of the respondents are beyond the jurisdiction of this court, an enquiry report U/s 202 Cr. PC was sought from the SHO concerned regarding the authenticity of documents as filed in the court.

SHO PS Tughlak Road has furnished this enquiry report on 17.12.2011. Today, the matter has been fixed for Orders on summoning. The complainant has furnished about 60 internet generated print outs alongwith the complaint in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened during pre summoning evidence. I have gone through each and every internet generated print out. Today, complainant has also furnished a CD submitting that the same contained the vulgar and obscene data available on the networks of the proposed accused and print outs of which were placed on record vide Annexure-A.

To my mind the printouts as furnished and exhibited on bare perusal are found to be obscene, lascivious, indecent and shocking. The printouts shown are totally degrading and demeaning. Some of the printouts are showing various religious idols in a very degrading, demeaning and obscene way which are certainly unacceptable to any person professing such religion and also to civilized society as a whole. There are obscene picture and derogatory articles pertaining to Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and various Hindu God and Godesses. There are defamatory and obscene articles pertaining to various Indian political leaders. The contents are certainly disrespectful to the religious sentiments and faith and seem to be intended to outrage the feelings of the religious people whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. There are certain degrading and obscene photographs of various political leaders belonging to different political parties and the photographs pasted and the language used is also obscene, filthy and degrading.

Prima facie, I am satisfied that the material produced on record will promote enmity between different religious sections and groups and a feeling of hatred and ill-will between them would be promoted if the offensive material was allowed to be publicised as such. The documents are certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups. They tend to promote feeling of insecurity amongst members of some religion. The documents are obscene and could certainly corrupt the minds of the young. Most of the obscene pictures produced on record are tending to hurt the feelings of different religions. In my considered view, the said contents are certainly prejudicial to national harmony and integration. The publication of such offensive and inflammatory material which has tendency to inflame minds cannot be considered to be an expression of freedom of speech by any stretch of imagination in civil society. Having gone through the record, I am satisfied that the said contents produced on record by the complainant and which were available on various websites are not protected by the doctrine of free speech of expression under our Constitution. In fact much content fell foul of Provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

The Counsel for complainant has further argued vehemently that the offensive material as placed on record was just a part of a very large bunch of such content which was available on these networks. He further argued that it was impossible that availability of such content in such large quantity was publicised without the knowledge and connivance of the accused persons. He further alleged that all the accused persons in connivance with each other and some unknown persons have intentionally and knowingly permitted such content to be publicised just for the sake of commercial gains.

Having gone through the record, I find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant. All the accused persons are involved in the business of publication and are providing service of the electronic contents to users. They are certainly doing it for commercial gain. The accused persons having full control over the working of their sites it seems have purposely promoted and publicised offensive material for their commercial gains. It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network.

It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same. It is also evident that such contents are continuously openly and freely available to every one who is using the said network irrespective of their age and even the persons under the age of 18 years have full and uncensored access to such obscene contents.

From the above, it is clear that there is prima facie material on record against the accused persons for committing offences U/s 292/293/120 IPC and they are liable to be summoned for facing trial for the same.

However, from the testimony of these witnesses examined on record belonging to three different religions alongwith the material produced on record, it is evident that the same promotes enmity between different groups and religions, which is certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and communal harmony. The accused persons through the publication and promotion of the offensive material as produced on record seem to be promoting disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions. The act / omission on part of the accused person as alleged certainly tends to prejudice the maintenance of harmony between different groups and religions. The imputations and assertions and publications as produced on record are prejudicial to the national interest.

The contents as produced by the complainant are insulting and outrageous to the religious feelings of various classes of people.

From the above as argued vehemently by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. I find, prima facie, that the accused persons are liable to be summoned for offences U/s 153-A, 153-B and 295-A IPC. However, owing to the embargo under section 196 Cr. PC which prohibits taking of cognizance under the said Provisions except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government or District Magistrate, the accused persons are not summoned for the said offences. All the accused persons however, be summoned for facing trial U/s 292, 293 and 120-B IPC for 13.01.2012 on filing of PF.

Ld. Counsel for complainant has also vehemently argued that even the Government of India seems to have turned a blind eye to the offensive, degrading and demeaning content on these websites which is outrageous and also against national integration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the complainant, let a copy of this Order be also sent to the Government of India through the Secretary (Information and Technology), Secretary (Home) and Secretary (Law) for taking the immediate appropriate steps in this regard and file a report on the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2012.

Sudesh Kumar / MM / ND / 23.12.2011.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/vinay-rai-v-facebook-summons-order-2011-12-23