Centre for Internet and Society

Pune_Everyone

samantha — 2014-03-15T10:16:44Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/DSC_0371.JPG

Pune_Chatting

samantha — 2014-03-15T10:23:21Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/19.JPG

Pune_1

samantha — 2014-04-21T07:48:19Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_5.JPG

Pacman

samantha — 2014-01-31T08:39:46Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pacman.png

Open Letter to the Vatican: Request for Holy See to Comment on IPR

samantha — 2014-01-31T07:14:07Z

Due to the Holy See’s demonstrated pro-access position to medicines and published materials for persons with disabilities, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested for His Excellency, Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, to also consider copyrights, patents or IPR more generally, as the Holy See’s Permanent Observer at WIPO. We strongly encourage other organizations and civil society groups to modify this letter, as needed, and to contact the Holy See Mission to the United Nations (and WIPO) in Geneva in order to help us prompt His Excellency to contribute to the international dialogue on IPR.

You may view the original letter sent by CIS here.

His Excellency, Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi, Apostolic Nuncio
Holy See Mission to the United Nations in Geneva
P.O. Box 28
1292 Chambésy
Geneva, Switzerland
mission.holy-see@ties.itu.int
+41 22 758 98 20

Friday, January 24, 2014

Your Excellency Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi,

Subject: Call for the Holy See’s comment on Intellectual Property Rights

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, India, I, Samantha Cassar, write to Your Excellency’s opinion on copyrights, patents and intellectual property rights.

We are a not-for-profit, non-governmental research organization that works on addressing policy issues related to access to knowledge and intellectual property law reform (http://cis-india.org/a2k), and accessibility for persons with disabilities (http://cis-india.org/accessibility) among other areas related to internet and information and communication technologies.

CIS is an accredited organization with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and a regular participant at the meetings of the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights (SCCR), the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), as well as the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property.

At the outset, we commend Your Excellency for signing the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. As one of the contributors to this treaty, we appreciate the concern of the Holy See for those who are marginalised within our information society by their disabilities.

As Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director from CIS noted at Marrakesh during the adoption of this treaty, “When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers.” We are happy to see this being done through a treaty as such.

Also said by Your Excellency, within the Holy See’s statement at the 9th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO), “Among the most damaging concessions developing countries make in regional and bilateral agreements are those enhancing the monopolies on life-saving medicines, which reduce access and affordability and those that provide excessive legal rights to foreign investors, limiting the policy space for nations to promote sustainable and inclusive development.”

Given the Holy See’s demonstrated standpoint on the accessing of medicines and published works, we at the Centre for Internet and Society would like to request Your Excellency to also consider copyrights, patents or more generally, intellectual property rights (IPR), as Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva.

On behalf of CIS, I am honoured to be writing to Your Excellency and for this request to be considered. Due to the ability of copyright and other forms of IPR to obstruct the access of one’s own human rights and even the sustainable development of one’s country, we feel this area must be crucially considered within an international dialogue—not only from a place of political strategy but also from principles of mercy and compassion.

With meetings approaching for both WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (January 27-31, 2014) and WIPO’s Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (May 19-23, 2014), we are very excited at the possibility of the Holy See enriching this discussion, and hope for such a contribution to take place when the international community is listening—at these meetings, or in any other form.

With Every Best Wish,
Sincerely Yours,

Samantha Cassar

Programme Associate
The Centre for Internet & Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-the-vatican-request-for-holy-see-to-comment-on-ipr

Online Survey for Indian Mobile App Developer Startups & Enterprises

samantha — 2014-04-15T08:33:10Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) recently released an online survey for mobile app developers to respond on their legal practices within their work, as well as their business models and familiarity with India's laws. Through this research initiative, CIS hopes to better understand the dynamics of India's mobile app ecosystem amongst stakeholders, and how developers are directly or indirectly affected by the laws in place governing this ecosystem.

Developers, designers, and product managers of all sorts are invited to participate within CIS's research survey initiative so long as they are based in India and contribute to the development of at least one mobile application within a company or enterprise. Built in collaboration with HasGeek, a community-oriented enterprise for developers in Bangalore, the survey asks participants to respond to questions on their practices related to ownership, licensing, contracts and protection of their works as intellectual property (IP). Questions also seek out background information and information related to one's business model to best contextualize responses, as well as personal insight on understandings of India's copyright laws and IP more generally.

The survey can be accessed here, and will be available for completion until Tuesday, April 29, 2014.

Ultimately, CIS intends to comment on whether the current laws in place related to intellectual property are a causal factor in either encouraging or hindering mobile app development in India. In this sense, this initiative serves as preliminary policy research and strives to provide a comprehensive understanding on the widespread legal practices of developers as the supporting stakeholders of this mobile app ecosystem.

By the end of this survey's running, we hope to be able to better illustrate the complexities within an ever-growing ecosystem that are typically only considered at a level of technical or legal abstraction. For instance, it is quite common for discourse to reference the specific activities that developers might undergo while potentially violating another's rights to their works, such as those involving the direct copying of software code without the permission to do so. Other sources might advocate for the patenting of one's mobile app products and entail the complexities of the patent filing process to ensure the optimal likelihood of the application being granted.

But what are the trends that exist across developers related to such activities? What are the ways in which they carry out these activities, and most importantly, why?

What determines who patents their product or copies another's? And what factors are at play in the shaping of an enterprise's business model and the methods that they adopt to meet their objectives?

What barriers do enterprises encounter along the way, from the startup to the corporate, and how do they get around them accordingly?

We hope that through this online survey, CIS will begin to be able to address these areas of greyed understanding, and to identify existing correlation, if any, between the business models, legal practices and personal understandings related to IP, and how one's work within mobile app development is affected as a result.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/online-survey-for-indian-mobile-app-developer-enterprise

Narendra Sabharwal 2

samantha — 2014-01-31T08:33:22Z

IPR-Chair for FICCI, Narendra Sabharwal, explains the immense value of IPR while serving as protection and collateral for investors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copy_of_NarendraSabharwal.JPG

Narendra Sabharwal

samantha — 2014-01-31T08:19:06Z

IPR-Chair for FICCI, Narendra Sabharwal, explains the immense value of IPR in technology, arts and culture, while serving as protection ....

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/NarendraSabharwal.JPG

Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:26:27Z

The following is Part Four in a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Through this research, CIS attempts to understand how the developers interviewed engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine different attitudes and work practices related to contracts agreements and developer culture in the legal realm.

We left off in our blog series considering the reported reasons why one would protect their mobile app by intellectual property means and how they relate back to (or contradict) their values as a mobile app developer in India. Here, we would like to get into more of the nitty gritty of contracts—which clauses are most important to mobile app developers, and what they think of them—followed by a cultural interpretation of the dynamics of this developer community with respect to contracts, and then lastly, a look at copyright, more generally.

Contracts in mobile app developing services

Previously, we shed light on the tendency for mobile app developers, in India particularly, to create mobile apps or mobile app components for clients, often overseas, within a work-for-hire agreement. Within such an agreement, the rights to (or ownership over) one's work is generally handed over to the client the moment the code comes into creation. Simply put, if paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.

This is not the only instance where we encounter contract agreements in the mobile app ecosystem, however. For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer.

However, after conversing with multiple stakeholders within India's mobile app space, what we came into understanding is that the importance of contract agreements for mobile app developers may be generally underestimated by the developers—both from within the startup to the corporate employer.

Clauses of caution

Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Across interviews with developers in startups and SMEs working for clients, this seemed to be a prevalent problem. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).

Designer, Rahul Gonsalves explains how these areas of their contracts with clients may impact his team at Uncommon: “The non-compete and the quiet periods are the two bits which are most germane to us, because if I can’t do work for a year in the same area, that impacts my ability to run my company.” Fortunately, Gonsalves says that less frequently are they obliged into quiet periods—in which they would not be able to talk about the work they do for their clients—as this poses an even bigger problem when trying to keep a portfolio for prospective clients, or when writing or speaking on behalf of their experience at conferences.

On several occasions Gonsalves and his team have tried to license their work to clients while retaining ownership... without much luck. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership.” Gonsalves goes on in explaining that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”

“The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”

Contract confusion

To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.

“Getting these things down in a legal document is a big deal. It matters,” says Aravind Krishnaswamy of Levitum. The topic came up while speaking about the process of creating the content for one of his startup's apps, which entailed arranging contracts with several third parties involved in. Krishnaswamy and his team did so to ensure that they retained ownership (or co-ownership) over all of the content featured within their app, which features instructional videos on Indian music.

Another developer interviewed, Naveen*, shared with us his experience coming out of college and into employment. Upon joining his first employer, who happened to be a large company, he along with the new “batch” of employees attended a legal session within their training, “but that was Greek and Latin to us then,” he jokes. “We were fresh out of college and had no idea what a software license was... and it was after lunch, so everyone was sleeping.”

Lucky for Naveen, he didn't need to deal with that area too much, as his employer had a legal team to take care of such matters when it came to transactions with clients or third parties. For his current employer, on the other hand, Naveen explained that he could not recall the terms of his employment, as it had been a very long time ago when he signed his employment contract.

Not a contract culture?

Naveen suggests that the problem is one of contract-illiteracy, or simply not having the background knowledge to truly understand the legal facets of the industry, especially as you move away from India's entrepreneurial hubs: “In tier 1 cities, like Bangalore or Chennai, the colleges and students do have some knowledge about open source, licensing and terms, but when you go to tier 2 cities, that's where the problem is.”

But is anyone contract-literate anyway? With the exception of lawyers or legal departments, of course, don't we all have the immediate impulse to click “Next” or sign our signature as soon as we see the words “User Agreements” followed by infinite paragraphs in the smallest font?

However, for the developer in the increasingly-complex mobile app space with numerous parties and transactions involved, terms of contractual agreements may dictate everything from whether one can develop for competing clients, to whether an employee can contribute to open source projects on their own time. Still think that reading those clauses are a waste of time?

We are not arguing that the fact that the developer community seems to be far removed from “contract culture” is in itself a bad thing. As Jayant Tewari of Outsourced CFO & Business Advisory Services asserts: “How mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake.” What they must instead learn is to maneuver the landscape to avoid troubles as best as possible.

A good way of going about it, however, may be to begin with the agreements that a developer is already committed to—with clients, employers, and third parties, alike. One should be able to articulate: What is expected of me? Within what limitations? What am I not allowed to do?

Better familiarizing oneself with one's own responsibilities and commitments may be the first step for a mobile app developer to educating him- or herself and become aware of what sort of choices could stir about conflicts in the future, potentially threatening their relationships, reputation, or even livelihood.

But is it even possible to comply to all of the rules of the game?

Within such an overcrowded industry, creation and innovation does not occur in a vacuum, and as a result, many may adjust their own creations as they see fit, according to whatever ways are most convenient and carry out the best function. But at what cost—or more appropriately, what risk?

The next, and final of this blog series will shed light on responses given across interviews to the question of infringement. Here, we intend to connect the dots between the legal practices of mobile app developers and cases of infringement. We hope that after examining such numerous and wide sweeping—yet interconnected—facets of how mobile app developers in India engage with the law within their work, we will be able to comprehensively illustrate the role that these developers play in this economy, and ultimately, pass judgement on the laws that govern this space.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mobile-app-developer-series-terms-of-agreement-iv

Mapping Digital Media: Broadcasting, Journalism and Activism in India: A Public Consultation

samantha — 2013-11-07T03:38:45Z

Lawyers, researchers, journalists and activists gathered on Sunday, October 27, 2013 at the Bangalore International Centre in response to India’s country report on Mapping Digital Media, which examines citizen’s access to quality news and information across different industries, and impacts on media freedoms as a result of digitisation. Respondents examined themes related to regulation, journalism and activism, and engaging discussions took place among attendees.

On behalf of event organizers, we invite you to view the report, available online for free access here: "Mapping Digital Media: India.

Event organizers, Alternative Law Forum, The Centre for Internet & Society, and Maraa, held a public consultation at the Bangalore International Centre with the ultimate goals to inform and engage the public within key themes of the Mapping Digital Media: India report, as a new knowledge basis for better understanding India’s transitioning digital landscape. Many resulting ideas about moving forward with the report’s findings also came about, as prospective proceeding steps within the life cycle following the report’s release.

Respondents consisted of reputed media lawyers, researchers, journalists, activist and other media professionals. Each spoke before the meeting room within three panel discussions pertaining to different sections of the report: Policies, Laws and Regulators; Digital Activism; and Digital Journalism. Each speaker shed a new light on key challenges confronting our emergent digital media landscape with special focus given to broadcasting (radio and television), cable operations and newspapers (print & online) as each of these sectors undergo digitisation.

Opening

Vibodh Parthasarathi, who had anchored the country report, started off the consultation by underscoring the report's objective of mapping the different sectors and seemingly disparate aspects of India's complex media landscape. Following a brief introduction to the report was the setting of the stage by Alternative Law Forum Co-founder and Partner, Lawrence Liang, as he shared the ultimate aims of the event in speaking collectively to the report so that we may gain a better understanding of an area that is otherwise opaque by most. Lawrence also brings to the forefront the report’s debunking of the idea of the digital divide for India, and its account of a rich media landscape.

Policies, Laws and Regulators

The consultation’s first panel discussion was started by Lawrence, as he responded to the report from a perspective of legality. Lawrence examines the role of the state in India’s rich media landscape, specifically in terms of the four values at the centre of such: freedom of speech and expression, access to infrastructure, the question of development, and the question of market regulations—all of which are tied together within the country report. Lawrence argues that we must arrive at quantitative measures of accessing diversity and quantity of freedom of speech, but only after understanding the ecology in which freedom of speech operates, and attempts to do so in examining drafted policies, policing measures, and market regulatory measures taken within the context of India.

Thirty attendees including journalists, activists, academics, and lawyers, all brought forth different perspectives on digital media in India.

Following was Matthew John, Associate Professor and Executive Director of the Centre on Public law and Jurisprudence. Matthew shared his impressions on the report, while making reference to three issues the report asks us to rethink; these being: public reason, the regulatory state, and the question of distribution. Matthew gives rise to a democratic problem in the public sphere of communication and claims that how it is addressed and resolved must be paid attention to. He makes reference to the history of telecom cases in responding to the question of how we are going to think about freed up telecom, and contrasts different types of regulatory agencies in asking the question of whether or not we should separate regulation from politics.

An engaging discussion following this panel’s speakers took place. Amongst points made by event attendees includes questions of how to scale up the citizen’s stake in media within a legal paradigm, as well as points made with reference to challenges to equity in media in terms of content and challenges to such.

Digital Media and Society (Digital Activism)

The discussion had begun with panelist, Arjun Venkatraman, Co-founder of the Mojolab Foundation as well as the digital activism platform, Swara. Arjun engages within the digital media debate in speaking on behalf of members of civil society that act from within the digital divide and exposes the gaps within new modes of activism that arise out of a lack of understanding on how to engage with these new medias. He also informed attendees of how to make cheap IVR based voice portals, linking voice users to the web for under USD200 as means of leveraging users’ voices via unlicensed spectrum.

Also contributing to the discussion on digital activism was Meera K, Cofounder of Bangalore News publication, Citizen Matters. In examining examples of new spaces that digital media has provided for the exchange of pluralistic views and alternative voices, Meera critiques different types of activism that have emerged, including social activism, political activism, and middle class activism. She questions whether new media can be seen as sufficient space for free speech with reference to various challenges, such as the polarization of debates, and also compares and contrasts the positive outcomes of new media campaigns—such as tangible capitalized solutions—with corresponding pitfalls.

A debate amongst attendees followed in response to the question of assessing the value of media in terms of impact or size of public outreach, along with how content is generated and controlled.

Digital Media and Journalism

Independent journalist and media analyst, Geeta Seshu, got the conversation started regarding digital media and journalism by comparing the pitfalls of journalism in traditional media with the possibilities offered by digital journalism. Geeta argues that journalists have become devalued and are losing their footing within traditional media. She discussed the new forms of journalism and how news can be generated in an interactive and non-hierarchical manner and examined the intersections of mainstream media and journalism. She questions the possibility of digital journalism existing on its own, without the influence of or incorporation of principles of traditional media, and grapples with possibilities for providing a new model for doing so.

The day’s last speaker was Subhash Rai, Associate Editor of New Indian Express. Subhash offers a mainstream perspective and argues that we must look at traditional and mainstream forms of media as a starting point for emerging forms of journalism before we can begin to understand these journalism models better. Just as well, traditional and mainstreams means of news dissemination can learn from digital media, however we should not be quick to look away from the core of the entire picture, as traditional forms of media are still very strong in comparison.

A discussion followed surrounded questions posed by speakers and attendees, such as what digital journalism should look like, and how such a transition to new forms of media should be imagined. How information has changed with respect to its creation and consumption was debated as well.

Moving Forward

Before the conclusion of the public consultation, attendees and speakers discussed future advancements for the country report. Many recommendations and ideas were generated, including suggestions for future public consultations, advocacy windows offered by the report, and ways to produce another iteration of the report. Prospective initiatives included online working groups to dive deeper into specific themes of the report, a Hackathon where attendees will pool ideas together, and follow-up public consultations.


Participants brainstormed together on how to move forward the report’s findings. Many ideas were drafted, including a Hack-a-thon and online focus groups.

The event's agenda went as follows:

Time	Detail
10.00 a.m.	Introductory Remarks by Vibodh Parthasarathi, CCMG, Jamia
10.15 a.m. - 11.30 a.m.	Policies, Laws and Regulators Session Moderator – Ram Bhat Speakers – Lawrence Liang (ALF) and Mathew John (JGLS)
11.30 a.m. - 11.45 a.m.	Tea Break
11.45 a.m. - 1.15 p.m.	Digital Media and Society (Digital Activism) Session Moderator – Lawrence Liang Speakers – Arjun Venkatraman (Mojolab) and Meera K (Citizen Matters)
1.15 p.m. - 2.00 p.m.	Lunch Break
2.00 p.m. - 3.15 p.m.	Digital Media and Journalism Session Moderator – Vibodh Parthasarathi Speakers – Geeta Seshu (Free Speech Hub) and Subhash Rai (newindianexpress.com)
3.15 p.m. - 4.00 p.m.	The Way Ahead (Moving Forward) Moderated by Lawrence Liang

Event Participants

Rashmi Vallabhrajasyuva
Meera K, Oorvani Foundation
Samantha Cassar, CIS
Sharath Chandra Ram, CIS
Suresh Kumar, Artist
Aruna Sekhar, Amnesty India
Sriram Sharma, Part time Blogger
Ammu Joseph, Independent Researcher
Mathew John, Jindal Global Law School
Swati Mehta, The Rules
James North, The Rules
Bhairav Acharya, Lawyer
Deepa Kurup, The Hindu
Abhilash N, Independent
Deepu, Pedestrian Pictures
Rashmi M, PhD Student at NIAS
Jayanth S, LOCON Solutions Pvt Ltd.
Nehaa Chaudhari, CIS
Dinesh TB, Servelots
Snehashish Ghosh, CIS
Lawrence Liang, ALF
Vibodh Parthasarathi, CCMG, Jamia
Ram Bhat, Maraa
Ashish Sen, AMARC
Subhash Rai, New Indian Express
Geeta Seshu, Free Speech Hub, The Hoot
Arjun Venkatraman, Mojo Lab Foundation
Raajen, Centre for Education and Documentation
Ekta, Maraa
Smarika Kumar, ALF

Press Coverage

Need to increase diversity in online journalism (The New Indian Express, October 28, 2013).
Experts moot holistic approach to media laws (The Hindu, October 28, 2013).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-digital-media-broadcasting-journalism-activism-india

Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:15:25Z

The following is a third post within a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Through this research, CIS attempts to understand how the developers interviewed engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine different attitudes and perspectives towards themes related to open software, as well as contract agreements.

While interviewing 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers, the conversations that proceeded the immediate responses to our questions posed proved to be the most insightful. Previously, we examined responses surrounding different views on intellectual property rights (IPR) and potential factors influencing these individuals' attitudes and practices within their work. Within these preceding blog posts reporting on our interviews, a prevalent device we have made reference to is the dichotomy across positions that app developers take at polar ends of various spectrums. Here are some examples of the ways we have observed individuals to have opposing standpoints:

To work within a large corporate body	versus for a small startup enterprise
To develop mobile apps as one's own product	versus to develop apps as a service for another
To be familiar with intellectual property	versus to disregard intellectual property
To desire protection for one's intellectual property	versus not to care about protection for one's intellectual property

Contrary to some pro-IPR stances, several of our app developers strongly opposed notions of strict IPR regimes (patents, especially) and advocated on behalf of the open source community. And yet, others expressed their appreciation for open source software (OSS), all the while pursuing their own IP protection—a contradiction?

But is it really so cut and dry? Must an individual represent one side or the other? And if he or she does straddle the line that divides these opposing stances, is it by choice? Or necessity?

And what other dichotomies exist for the mobile app developer?

Open values and open source

Those interviewed who spoke highly of open source software often did so in referring to personal values of openness and the ability to share and use others' code freely within their work. One developer within a nonprofit enterprise explained that he would not want to restrict the future development and utilization of their idea, and would only consider licensing his source code under open source licensing, and not copyright.

Another common claim across developers is their involvement within the developer community, and contributions to open source libraries—and not only as a hobby. Large software development social enterprise, Mahiti, along with other interviewees representing social or nonprofit enterprises exhibited a particular interest in the use of and contributions to open source libraries.

Sreekanth S. Rameshaiah, cofounder and CEO of Mahiti explains that they “require all software to be GNU licensed, unless decided otherwise by the clients.” GNU General Public License (GPL) is considered a free software license—one that allows the licensed works to be freely accessible to all and to be used, copied, and altered as desired—as well as copyleft—in requiring all users of any component of the previous work to license their succeeding work under the same license as well. Some clients for Mahiti, of course, wouldn't find such conditions desirable, if they are ever to profit off or retain full ownership over their products and services.

Open source for future protection

One designer from a services SME enlightened us of a different reason for doing so: to guarantee their ability to use their work again. “Since we use a bunch of templates and things like that, those we license using a non-exclusive license, because we reuse those elements on different bits of code in different projects,” he explains, “so there are bits of it which is used over multiple projects and there are stuff that is built exclusively for the client.”

Here we are given some insight, that perhaps developers do not necessarily license for community values primarily, but for the ability to use their own work across clients. That being said, we begin to wonder what the possibility that open source code may serve as a loophole for work-for-hire contracts, which require the developer to assign all written intellectual property to whoever is commissioning the project. If the code happened to “already be available by open source,” a developer may still be honouring any restrictive agreements with clients, and ensuring their ability to use their code in this future again.

Such a strategy complies with the advice of Jayant Tewari of Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services. Some advice Tewari has for startups is to first and foremost protect themselves by making wiser choices related to code in order to prevent being litigated against by others—such as using an open source equivalent to a piece of code that one does not have the rights to, or instead putting the extra time in to develop it from scratch.

Conflicting perspectives: hypocrisy or realism?

Of those who expressed an interest in the open source movement, not all had said that their products were to be open licensed as well. One developer explicitly stated: “I like the idea of open source, and building upon others' work...but our app is not open source, it's proprietary.” It may be a given, then, that all or most developers within our interview sample rely on open source code within their practice, but not all may contribute their resulting product's source code back.

Vivek Durai, from Humble Paper says that despite the fact that “open source has really taken route... on the smaller levels, people will come to a point when philosophies begin to change the moment you start seeing commercial.”

In our first blog post, we established the tendency for startup app developers to move away from the services model towards a product-oriented business model. If app developers most often contribute back to open source libraries when they do not have any mobile app products of their own to protect, I begin to wonder if we would see any change to the levels of content generation across open source libraries if, hypothetically speaking, all services app development enterprises began to solely develop their own products.

Which brings us to an additional mobile app ecosystem dichotomy:

To license mobile app code as proprietary VS to license mobile app code as open source

As individuals move away from the services model to focus their energy and investments on their own products, I begin to wonder if there is a tendency for them to also move away from the open source model as well...

Although perhaps irrelevant, we also consider the question concerning the reasons mobile app developers moving away from the services model to begin with. In the first part of this series, we heard from industry consultants of the little financial incentive the services sector has to offer, but can that be all there is to it?

Join us in our next post as we look closer at the mobile app ecosystem's business model trends, as well as its startup culture with regards to contracts and copyright.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-open-source-community-and-contradictions-iii

Interviews with App Developers: Name of the Game (Part IV)

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:58:27Z

The following is a concluding piece in a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Within this research, CIS attempts to understand how they engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine responses given across interviews regarding instances of infringement of IP within their work.

Before commencing our interviews with India's mobile app developers and other industry players, a small series of questions had been devised in hopes of enabling us a glimpse at the facets of the picture of our main interest: those related to intellectual property. What we soon came to find, was that these questions may have too bluntly stated, producing hesitant and wary responses from those interviewed. After breaking this immediate ice, however, we often were given the privilege of hearing from these talented and thoughtful individuals several times over. And it is through this set of questions that the space was created for us to work together to reach an understanding of how different types of players orient themselves within the industry, in relation to their practices, policies, and business relationships, and voice any concerns or questions of their own.

The last of these questions to look at, is arguably the most sensitive in nature, asking whether one has ever had their works infringed upon, or has been accused for infringement upon those of others. In asking this question, we had hoped to gain some insight about occurrences of infringement taking place within the mobile app ecosystem, how this occurs, and in what sort of context.

Preceding conversations revealed differing experiences related to infringement; some experiences common across most, while others limited to one or two individuals. What these experiences, in turn, revealed, is what seems to be polarized stances on the very notion of infringement, reflecting personal histories and differing interests.

But what even is “infringement?” The term may be generally defined as:

infringement

noun

The action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; a violation

But what exactly does this mean for a mobile app developer? Having not been previously defined or explained to those interviewed, the term had been used across responses in reference to various instances of infringement, spanning across many areas related to mobile app development. These instances will be looked at to follow.

Mobile app content (i.e. logos, pictures, etc.)
Pirated apps in app stores
“Dummy apps” or imitations of another's app
Breaching app stores user agreement
License agreements of code created by another
Open source licenses
Breaching of terms of agreement for by commissioning clients
Breaching of terms of agreement for by those hired

Not a threat to the threatening

After implying that his enterprise uses components that are owned by another without the proper permission to do so (whether source code or visual components was not specified), one developer simply stated that “no one would come after us—we have no money!” IP Strategy Consultant, Arjun Bala, explained to us that “here, developers do not need to worry about being sued. The big companies do not go after small developers; it depends on how much money they're making.” Bala continues in saying that, “Patent lawsuits can cost something like millions of dollars, so unless they're going to get more back, they wouldn't go throught the trouble of doing so... but that is true even in the US.”

This soon revealed to be a demonstrated theme known across those within the developer ecosystem. Developer, Aravind Krishnaswamy stated that the “startup mentality is to break all of the rules first, then concern themselves with IP as a means of covering their own tracks.” There is a perceivable difference, he says in their motives regulating their behaviours that differ from “I shouldn't do this because I can get caught vs. I shouldn't do this because it's against the law.”

Towards being infringed upon

For those within service agreements, this was generally so due to the fact that one does not own their works and instead assigns ownership to their mobile apps to clients. Rahul of Uncommon explains that any cases of infringement upon their work is unconcerning to his team: “Because once we hand it off [to clients], it's their issue,” he says.

Contrasting to this perspective, however, is the apprehension exhibited by some towards not clearly knowing whether they are incidently infringing upon others people's work. Because of this unknowing, however, others are indifferent. "There's a few people who I think looked at what we're doing and tried to copy some of the features or just the positioning,” Krishnaswamy suspects, “but, ultimately there are some things you can be bothered about as a small company.” He continues in saying that those suspects to be copying you “could have been working on their product independently—it's quite possible.”

Sree of Mahiti, on the other hand is not too concerned about others infringing upon their products or copying them as such is “irrelevant to their business model.” In making their software products open source, Sree explains, that they do not care how people use it, but if he were to come across infringement, he would likely act upon it.

But how can one be indifferent to infringement while licensing under GNU, a perpetual copyleft license?

Name of the game

Perhaps one could even go a step further in arguing that being a developer (a startup developer, especially) necessitates bending the rules at some point. Of all of the bits of open source code used, how many of the licenses are actually considered and complied to in their entirety? As stated by Vivek Durai of Humble Paper: “In a mobile app where you're producing software, you could potentially be violating the terms of OS licenses.” Tewari argues that this actually occurs in pretty much all cases.

“Everyone is in non-compliance. That is a given,” Tewari asserts. However, the distinction he makes is that more corporate players are in non-compliance knowingly than not, where is more SMEs infringe upon others without being aware that they are. Just as well, the degree to which infringement takes place may differ between the two types of industry players: “At the corporate level, where they know they are not in compliance, the degree of non-compliance might be very small or specific, but it still exists.” On the other hand, for startup developers, a substantial amount of their code may not comply with the licenses and agreements they are obliged to—something that could pose problems for them later down the road if left unfixed.

“Everyone is in non-compliance. That is a given... It is similar to asking 'do I know anyone who has never paid a bribe?' My answer is no.”

To put simply, Tewari draws the following comparison “It is similar to asking 'do I know anyone who has never paid a bribe?' My answer is no.” Here, he suggests that non-compliance to legal agreement, although technically unjust, is as tacit to the software sector as bribes are to the justice sector. Although perhaps not a perfect comparison, it definitely helps to put things into perspective.

Mope App Matrix

After speaking with numerous mobile app developers, lawyers, and other community players, it is difficult to say whether our findings have brought clarity to the nature the problem at hand, or if our research has, instead, shed light on additional problems within our realm of vision—at varying heights and depths, cutting across one another to form a matrix of indivisible linkages, or just plain chaos.

In the next of our exercises, we hope to comprehensively illustrate this matrix, by categorizing the different stakeholders across this ecosystem according to their interests and the ways in which they operate, and in turn, affect each other.

We look forward to bringing to completion (even if only to return to later) the first of our stages within this chapter of the Pervasive Technologies Project, which, to recap, had initially been to understand the mobile app ecosystem in light of India's IP regime. But what we are arriving at may be regarded, instead, as an understanding of the ecosystem informed by the stories and experiences of the ecosystem's central organisms: its developers. Perhaps it can only be here, at the intersection of stories—whether complementary or contradictory in nature—where the intricacies of processes deeply-embedded and their implications begin to reveal themselves.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-name-of-the-game-part-iv

Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II

samantha — 2014-08-19T03:51:39Z

The following is a second post within a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Within this research, CIS attempts to understand how they engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine how these developers responded to a question on legal protection for their works.

Before one can identify the solution, one must first identify the problem. Yet, in order to understand the problem, we must first understand the individuals involved and the how the problem affects these individuals. We hope that the findings of this preliminary research initiative will provide sufficient groundwork to understand the problems that exist and the different ways of approaching them before determining the most suitable prospective option in changes at the policy level. In this case, the individuals under study are the key contributors to the mobile app space within India; and the problem, being those faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem.

Previously, we looked at responses that were given across these mobile app developers interviewed which revealed how they orient notions of intellectual property within their practice and own products, specifically. Findings that were made included deductions that the majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. Just as well, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.

Question 2: “How is your IP protected?”

Next, we asked how they go about protecting their intellectual property to get a feel of who is protecting their apps and who is not. In asking this question, we hoped to learn how they go about protecting their work via legal means. Across their various responses, we observed many patterns and contradictions which are conveyed here with reference to comments made across interviews. It is important to note, however, that no causal relations intend for be argued for, only suggested correlations.

How they responded

When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many of our conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.

“The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum

Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.

Reasons for IPR protection

If a startup or SME is bootstrapped with very little cash flow to begin with, what would provoke or inspire one to pursue the process of acquiring patent protection then? Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, Levitum, considers “the concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context.” So if this is the case, why did so many developers interviewed express an interest in IPR?

For those who did express interest in acquiring IPR as protection for their mobile app products, most seemed to express an interest in proving ownership over their work, or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.

Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explains his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which is currently pending in India and the US: "For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive. And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”

Security not so easily attainable

“To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase."—John Paul, Plackal

However, for the startup especially, such protection does not come without a cost. For this reason, IPR is generally perceived as a gamble or tradeoff. It becomes a “question of priority between innovation and protection,” says Krishnaswamy. He continues in saying that, "I feel like even if it’s a great idea if someone else copies it, that’s some level of validation, but as a small company I’d rather be nimble in terms of how we build it up and get it to a certain point. We're trying to move fast and get something going, and then figure it out.” For Krishnaswamy and his team, securing a patent on an area where they feel they feel they have unique work is on their list of things to do, “It's something for us to revisit in the future.”

Paul explains that he and his team didn't always have IPR within reach: “To some extent, IPR law is only accessible after moving away from the startup phase.” So what discourages startups from acquiring IPR, or simply seeking it out?

Patent attorney and IP consultant, Arjun Bala explains that “there is a lot to figure out. One aspect is filling it out, the other is how you write it so that it is easily granted and gives you the right sort of patent protection you are looking for. It is a very complex process that requires a lot of technical and legal expertise.” But even if one successfully manoeuvres the IPR system, is protection guaranteed?

Business Financial Strategist of Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services, Jayant Tewari, illustrates the lack of security for the SME in the patent system, specifically, in saying, “Since a patent becomes public domain on filing, it can be effectively infringed based on the filing, even before it is granted.” Tewari continues in stressing the irrelevance of patents for SMEs due to the difficulty of enforcement: “the infringement will be adjudicated after 2 years at an immense cost to the SME patent-holder, who will go commercially belly-up due to the infringement. The regime does not protect the SME at all.”

“It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.”
—Samuel Mani, Mani Chengappa & Mathur

Nevermind enforcement...

Not only did our interviews shed light on the difficulty for a startup developer to apply for and be granted protection for their intellectual property, but also for the enforcement of such. Partnering Lawyer, Samuel Mani, of technology-focused law firm, Mani Chengappa & Mathur, speaks to us about the extensive procedure required to prove one's ownership over their IP: “To demonstrate copyright infringement, it requires going into millions of lines of code—unless it is the interface that is copied, which is easily visible.” Mani continues on the enforcement of patent protection by saying, “For a patent, the scope is even wider. It is easy to say 'this is the method and no once can copy', but unless the look and feel is the same, it is very hard to demonstrate that you have been infringed on.”

Planting the initial seed

If there is arguably so much risk associated with applying for IPR protection, as well with enforcement, what specifically gets startups thinking about IPR initially within their practice? What experiences help them formulate their opinions on the matter, and which forms of IPR do they seek out?

Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too farfetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.

Cofounder and developer for a medium-sized software development enterprise, Anoop[1] explained that it wasn't until after the success of his enterprise's first application with $1 million in sales, that they started thinking about intellectual property and began to understand the value of it. This newly attained understanding, however, had not been enough to sufficiently equip his team with the knowledge to properly secure protection. For them, going after patent protection turned out to be a pursuit in vain.

Loss of faith in patents for SMEs

Anoop shares his disappointing experience after attempting to secure a patent for one of their mobile apps:

“We burned our fingers with patents. We spent a lot of money for a game we invented about 3 years ago. We had a law firm in the US to help us. We applied for it, and it went through 3-4 revisions, costing us $25-30,000. We finally closed the file when we could not get it due to an existing patent. We were really surprised."

After much disappointment from not being successful in their attempts to acquire patent protection, however, Anoop came out of the experience with a new outlook on patents and their role for SMEs:

“They're meant for large companies as means to bully your competitor. Only big players with the capacity to file for a patent as soon as it takes off benefit. The existing system doesn’t really work for startup companies. In India and anywhere. It’s an expensive process. If you’re a startup who’s just bootstrapping, there’s no guarantee that you will get it. It’s going to take you years.”

Patent hype
Anoop is a prime example of developers in the startup space that fall victim to the promises of the patent system—only to be spat back out having exhausted their time and earnings. Already being aware of the probability for failure, Mani strongly discourages going after patent protection as a means of staying in the race. “With people spending millions on litigation, it is a recipe for disaster, especially considering the inherent delay of the Indian system.” For this reason, Mani stresses the importance of applying for the right protection.

Mani also suggests that the patent debate is driven by self-interest—people who simply make money off of application filing, regardless of whether or not the case succeeds. As a lawyer in the IT space, Mani claims to have turned away several prospective clients looking to patent their products when he insisted that such means of protection was not suitable for their product and interests...which brings us to an additional area of heated debate: the patentability of mobile apps.

Can mobile apps be patented?[2]

One concept that seemed to receive contested responses across interviews is that of the patentability of mobile apps in the first place. When asked if mobile apps could be patented, former lawyer and startup founder, Vivek Durai, of HumblePaper, put it blatantly in responding, “absolutely not.” Others offered explanations of the Indian Patent Law nuances regarding when a mobile app is patentable and when one is not.

While consulting a SME with their own patent application, Bala explains their approach to ensure the mobile app's eligibility for patent protection, while providing some insight into the Indian patent system:

“One approach that we've taken to getting a patent in India is it's not just a pure software, but a software plus a hardware—as in it requires a specific hardware to function. If [the software] makes the hardware perform better, then it has a technical effect... In which case, we have a better chance of getting a patent in India. If your software is agnostic to hardware, however, it is much more difficult to receive a patent in India.”

To patent or not to patent? (or any IPR for that matter)
To Tewari, on the other hand, the question of whether a mobile app can be patented is one entirely irrelevant. The question Tewari introduces into the developer's market strategy is not 'can I patent my app?' but instead, 'should I do so?' In response to which; he would predominantly reply: No.

“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake,” argues Tewari. Alternatively, he suggests developers learn how to maneuver the laws, to prevent themselves from arriving at any sticky situations after unknowingly using another's code. To his clients who have mobile apps of their own, he advises to use an open source equivalent of a piece of code if they do not have the rights to it. Doing so will help keep infringement upon others at a minimal and prevent litigation against oneself.

“How [startup] mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake."—Jayant Tewari, Out Sourced CFO & Business Advisory Services

Not all developers interviewed, however, aspired to acquiring patent protection. In fact, some strongly opposed software patents, while expressing their appreciation for openness across the developer community. The other side to the IPR-Open Source dichotomy will be examined in the blog post to follow, after which, we will then look at accounts of infringement and threats of litigation across mobile app developers interviewed.

To recap

By looking closely at the individual experiences across mobile app developers interviewed, we hope to begin to map out the mobile app ecosystem and the ways in which industry players engage with each other regarding their IPR. We also hope to begin to shed light on the different attitudes towards the law within one's practice, and how they shape their decisions related to their work. Only after doing so, may we be able to sufficiently assess how India's current IP laws govern this landscape.

Stay tuned for the next in this blog series! We hope that you may benefit from our findings in your own practice as a mobile app industry player or enthusiast, as well.

Notes:
[1] Name changed to protect the interviewee's identity

[2] In conducting interviews, our goal was not to test the legitimacy of responses, but instead, to map them out across various industry stakeholders. For this reason, this blog series will not be able to sufficiently respond to legal question, such as whether or not mobile apps are patentable to begin with. We intend to, however, undergo legal analysis of the Indian IPR system at its intersection with the mobile app space in India at a later stage in this project.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii

Institute for Internet & Society 2014, Pune

samantha — 2014-04-07T11:31:23Z

Last month, activists, journalists, researchers, and members of civil society came together at the 2014 Institute for Internet & Society in Pune, which was hosted by CIS and funded by the Ford Foundation. The Institute was a week long, in which participants heard from speakers from various backgrounds on issues arising out of the intersection of internet and society, such as intellectual property, freedom of expression, and accessibility, to name a few. Below is an official reporting summarizing sessions that took place.

Day One

February 11, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 9.40 a.m.	Introduction: Sunil Abraham, Executive Director Centre for Internet and Society
10.00 a.m. – 10.15 a.m.	Introduction of Participants
10.15 a.m. – 12.00 p.m.	Internet Governance and Privacy: Sunil Abraham
12.00 p.m. – 12.30 p.m.	Tea-break
12.30 p.m. – 1.00 p.m.	Keynote: Bishakha Datta, Filmmaker and Activist, and Board Member, Wikimedia Foundation
1.00 p.m. – 2.00 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.	Participant Presentations
3.00 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.	Tea Break
3.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.	Histories, Bodies and Debates around the Internet: Nishant Shah, Director-Research, CIS

This year’s Internet Institute, hosted by the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), kicked off in Pune to put a start to a week of learnings and discussions surrounding internet usage and its implications on individuals of society. Twenty two attendees from all over India attended this year, from backgrounds of activism, journalism, research and advocacy work.

Attendees were welcomed by Dr. Ravina Aggarwal, Program Officer for Media Rights & Access at the Ford Foundation, the event’s sponsor, who started off the day by introducing the Foundation’s initiatives in pursuit of bridging the digital divide by addressing issues of internet connectivity.

Internet Governance & Privacy, Sunil Abraham
The Institute’s first session was led by Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of CIS, and engaged with issues of internet governance and privacy with reference to four stories: 1) a dispute between tweeters from the US and those in South Africa over the use of hashtag #thingsdarkiesays, which is said not to be as racially derogatory as it is in the US; 2) Facebook’s contested policies on photos featuring users breastfeeding, 3) a lawsuit between Tata and Greenpeace over the organization’s use of Tata’s logo in a video game created for public criticism of their environmentally-degrading practices, and lastly, 4) the case of Savita Bhabhi, an Indian pornographic cartoon character which had been banned by India’s High Court and which had served as a landmark case in expanding the statutory laws for what is considered to be pornographic.

Each of these stories has one major thing in common: due to their nature of taking place over the internet, they are not confined to one geographic location and in turn, are addressed at the international level. The way by which an issue as such is to be addressed cuts across State policies and internet intermediary bodies to create quite a messy case in trying to determine who is at fault. Such complexity illustrates how challenging internet governance can be within today’s society that is no longer restricted to national or geographic boundaries.

Sunil also goes on in explaining the relationship between privacy, transparency, and power, summing it up in a simple formula; privacy protection should have a reverse relationship to power—the more the power, the less the privacy one should be entitled to. On the contrary, a direct correlation goes for power and transparency—the more the power, the more transparent a body should be. Instead of thinking about these concepts as a dichotomy, Sunil suggests to see them as absolute rights in themselves—instrumental in policies and necessary to address power imbalances.

The Web We Want, Bishakha Datta
The Institute’s kickoff was also joined by Indian filmmaker and activist, Bishakha Datta, who had delivered the keynote address. Bishakha bridged together notions of freedom of speech, surveillance, and accessibility, while introducing campaigns that work to create an open and universally accessible web, such as the Web We Want and Sexuality and Disability. Bishakha stresses how the internet as a space has altered how we experience societal constructs, which can be easily exhibited in how individuals experience Facebook in the occurrence of a death, for example. Bishakha initiated discussion among participants by posing questions such as, “what is our expectation of privacy in this brave new world?” and “what is the society we want?” to encompass the need to think of privacy in a new way with the coming of the endless possibilities the internet brings with it.

Histories, Bodies and Debates around the Internet, Nishant Shah
CIS Research Director, Nishant Shah, led a session examining internet as a technology more broadly, and our understandings of it in relation to the human body. Nishant proposes the idea that history is a form of technology, as well as time, itself, for which our understanding only comes into being with the aid of technologies of measurement. Although we are inclined to separate technology from the self, Nishant challenges this notion while suggesting that technology is very integral to being human, and defines a “cyborg” as someone who is very intimate with technology. In this way, we are all cyborgs. While making reference to several literary pieces, including Haraway’s Cyborg: Human, Animus, Technology; Kevin Warwick’s Living Cyborg; and Watt’s small world theory, Nishant challenges participants’ previous notions of how one is to understand technology in relation to oneself, as well as the networks we find ourselves implicated within.

Also brought forth by Nishant, was the fact that the internet as a technology has become integral to our identities, making us accessible (rather than us solely making the technology accessible) through online forms of documentation. This digital phenomenon in which we tend to document what we know and experience as a means of legitimizing it can be summed in the modern version of an old fable: “If a tree falls in a lonely forest, and nobody tweets it, has it fallen?”

Nishant refers to several case studies in which the use of online technologies has created a sense of an extension of the self and one’s personal space; which can then be subject to violation as one can be in the physical form, and to the same emotional and psychological effect—as illustrated within the 1993 occurrence referred to as “A Rape in Cyberspace.”

Attendee Participation
Participants remained engaged and enthusiastic for the duration of the day, bringing forth their personal expertise and experiences. Several participants presented their own research initiatives, which looked at issues women face as journalists and as portrayed by the media; amateur pornography without the consent of the woman; study findings on the understandings of symptoms of internet addiction; as well as studies looking at how students engage with college confession pages on Facebook.

Day Two

February 12, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.	Wireless Technology: Ravikiran Annaswamy, CEO and Co-founder at Teritree Technologies
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.	Tea-break
11.15 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.	Wired Technology: Ravikiran Annaswamy
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.	Network, Threats and Securing Yourself: Kingsley John, Independent Consultant
3.00 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.	Tea Break
3.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.	Practical Lab: Kingsley John
4.45 p.m. – 5.00 p.m.	Wrap-up: Sunil Abraham

Day Two of the Institute entailed a more technical orientation to “internet & society” across sessions. Participants listened to speakers introduce concepts related to wired and wireless internet connectivity devices and their networks, along with the network of internet users and how one may secure him or herself while “online.”

Wireless & Wired Technology, Ravikiran Annaswamy
Senior industry practitioner, Ravikiran Annaswamy had aimed to enable the Institute’s participants to “understand the depth and omnipresent of telecom networks” that we find ourselves implicated within. Ravikiran went through the basics of these networks—including fixed line-, mobile-, IP-, and Next Generation IP-networks—as well as the technical structuring of wired and wireless broadband. Many participants found this session to be particularly enriching as their projects aimed to provide increased access to internet connectivity to marginalized areas in India, and had been without the know-how to go about it.

Network, Threats and Securing Yourself, Kinglsey John
An instructional session on how to protect oneself was given by Kingsley John, beginning with a lesson on IP Addresses—what they are and the different generations of such, and how IP addresses fit into a broader internet network. Following, Kingsley demonstrated and explained email encryption through the use of software, Kleopatra, and how it may be used to generate keys to encrypt emails through Thunderbird mail client.

Evening Discussion

A handful of participants voluntarily partook in an evening discussion, looking at the role of big players in the global internet network, such as Google and Facebook, how they collect and utilize users’ data, and what sorts of measures can be taken to minimize the collecting of such. Due to the widely varying backgrounds of interest among participants, those coming from this technical orientation towards the internet were able to inform their peers on relevant information and types of software that may be found useful related to minimizing one’s online presence.

Day Three

February 13, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.	Free Software: Prof. G. Nagarjuna, Chairperson, Free Software Foundation
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.	Tea-break
11.15 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.	Open Data: Nisha Thompson, Independent Consultant
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.	Freedom of Expression: Bhairav Acharya, Advocate and Adviser, Centre for Internet and Society
3.00 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.	Tea-break
3.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.	Copyright: Nehaa Chaudhari, Program Officer, Centre for Internet and Society

The third day of the Internet Institute incorporated themes presented by speakers ranging from free software, to freedom of expression, to copyright.

Free Software, Prof. G. Nagarjuna
Chairman on the Board of Directors for the Free Software Foundation of India, Professor G. Nagarjuna shared with the Institute’s participants his personal expertise on software freedom. Nagarjuna mapped for us the network of concepts related to software freedom, beginning with the origins of the copyleft movement, and also touching upon the art of hacking, the open source movement, and what role software freedom plays in an interconnected world.

Nagarjuna looks at the free software movement as a political movement in the digital space highlighting the user’s freedoms associated to the use, distribution, and modification of software for the greater good for all. This is said to distinguish this movement from that of Open Source—a technical and more practical development-oriented movement. The free software movement is not set out to compromise the fundamental issues for the sake of being practical and in that sense, ubiquitous. Instead, its objective is “not to make everybody use the software, but to have them understand why they are using the software,” so that they may become “authentic citizens that can also resonate why they’re doing what they’re doing. We want them to understand the ethical and political aspects of doing so,” Nagarjuna says.

Open Data, Nisha Thompson
Participants learned from Nisha Thompson on Open Data; what it is, its benefits, and how it is involved in central government initiatives and policy, as well as civil society groups—generally for uses such as serving as evidence for decision making and accountability. Nisha explored challenges concerning the use of open data, such as those pertaining to privacy, legitimacy, copyright, and interoperability. The group looked at the India Water Portal as a case study, which makes accessible more than 300 water-related datasets already available in the public space for use from anything from sanitation and agriculture to climate change.

Freedom of Expression, Bhairav Acharya
Bhairav Acharya, a constitutional lawyer, traced the development of the freedom of speech and expression in India. Beginning with a conceptual understanding of censorship and the practice of censorship by the state, society, and the individual herself, Bhairav examines the limits traditionally placed by a nation-state on the right to free speech.

In India, modern free speech and censorship law was first formulated by the colonial British government, which broadly imported the common law to India. However, the colonial state also yielded to the religious and communitarian sensitivities of its subjects, resulting in a continuing close link between communalism and free speech in India today. After Independence, the post-colonial Indian state carried forward Raj censorship, but tweaked it to serve to a nation-building and developmental agenda. Nation-building and nationalism are centrifugal forces that attempt to construct a homogenous 'mainstream'; voices from the margins of this mainstream (the geographical, ethnic, and religious peripheries) and of the marginalised within the mainstream (the poor and disadvantaged), are censored.

Within this narrative, Bhairav located and explained the evolution of the law relating to press censorship, defamation, obscenity, and contempt of court. Free speech law applies equally online. Broadly, censorship on the internet must survive the same constitutional scrutiny that is applied to offline censorship; but, as technology develops, the law must innovate.

Copyright, Nehaa Chaudhari
CIS Programme Officer, Nehaa Chaudhari examined the concept of Copyright as an intellectual property right in discussing its fundamentals, purpose and origins, and Copyright’s intersection with the internet. Nehaa also explained the different exceptions to Copyright, along with its alternatives, such as opposing intellectual property protection regimes, including the Creative Commons and Copyleft. Within this session, Nehaa also introduced several cases in which Copyright came into play with the use of the internet, including Hunter Moore’s “Is Anyone Up?” website, which had showcased pornographic pictures obtained by submission bringing rise to the phenomenon of “revenge porn.” Instances as such blur the lines of what is commonly referred to as intellectual property, and what specific requirements enables one to own the rights to such.

Day Four

February 14, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.	E-Accessibility and Inclusion: Prashant Naik, Union Bank
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.	Tea-break
11.15 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.	Patents: Nehaa Chaudhari
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 2.00 p.m.	Fieldwork Assignment

Day Four of the Internet Institute introduced concepts of eAccessibilty and Inclusion on the internet for persons with disabilities, along with patents as an intellectual property right. Participants were also assigned a fieldwork exercise as a hands-on activity in which they were to employ what they’ve learned to initiate conversation with individuals in public spaces and collect primary data while doing so.

eAccessibility and Inclusion, Prashant Naik

Prashant Naik started off the day with his session on E-Accessibility and Inclusion. Prashant illustrated the importance of accessibility and what is meant by the term. Participants learned of assistive technologies for different disability types and how to create more accessible word and PDF documents, as well as web pages for users. Prashant demonstrated to participants what it is like to use a computer as a visually impaired individual, which provided for an enriching experience.

Patents, Nehaa Chaudhari
Nehaa Chaudhari led a second session at the Internet Institute on intellectual property rights—this one looking at patents particularly and their role within statutory law. Nehaa traced the historical origins of patents before examining the fundamentals of them, and addresses the questions, “Why have patents? And is the present system working for everyone?” Nehaa also introduced notions of the Commons along with the Anticommons, and perspectives within the debate around software patents, as well as different means by which the law can address the exploitation of patents or “patent thickets”—such as through patent pools or compulsory licensing.

Fieldwork Assignment, Groupwork
Participants were split into groups and required to carry out a mini fieldwork assignment in approaching individuals in varying public spaces in Pune in attempts to collect primary data. Questions asked to individuals were to be devised by the group, so long as they pertained to themes examined within the Internet Institute. Areas visited by groups included the Pune Central Mall, MG Road, and FC Road.

Day Five

February 15, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.	E-Governance: Manu Srivastav, Vice President, eGovernments Foundation
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.	Tea-break
11.15 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.	Market Concerns: Payal Malik, Economic Adviser, Competition Commission of India
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.	Digital Natives: Nishant Shah
3.00 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.	Tea-break
3.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.	Fieldwork Presentations

Day Five of the Internet Institute brought with it sessions related to themes of e-governance, market concerns of telecommunications, and so called “Digital Natives.”

eGovernance, Manu Srivastava
Vice President of the eGovernments Foundation, Manu Srivastava led a session on eGovernance—the utilization of the internet as a means of delivering government services communicating with citizens, businesses, and members of government. Manu examined the complexities of the eGovernance and barriers to implementation of eGovernance initiatives. Within discussion, participants examined the nuanced relationship between the government and citizens with the incorporation of other governing bodies in an eGovernance system, as well as new spaces for corruption to take place.

Market Concerns, Payal Malik
Payal Malik, Advisor of the Economics Division of the Competition Commission of India shared her knowledge on market concerns of the telecommunications industry, and exclaimed the importance of competition issues in such an industry as a tool to create greater good for a greater number of people. She demonstrated this importance by stating that affordability as a product of increased access can only be possible once there is enough investment, which generally only happens in a competitive market. In this way, we must set the conditions to make competition possible, as a tool to achieve certain objectives. Payal also demonstrated the economic benefits of telecommunications by stating that for every 10% increase in broadband penetration, increase in GDP of 1.3%. She also examined the broadband ecosystem in India and touched upon future possibilities of increased broadband penetration, such as for formers and the education sector.

Digital Natives, Nishant Shah
Nishant Shah shed some light on one of the areas that the Centre for Internet & Society looks at within their research scope, this being the “Digital Native.” As referred to by Nishant, the Digital Native is not to categorize a specific type of internet user, but can be said for simply any person who is performing a digital action, while doing away with this false dichotomy of age, location, and geography.

Nishant examines varying case studies in which “the digital is empowering natives to not merely be benefactors of change, but agents of change,” from the Blank Noise Project’s “I NEVER Ask for it…” campaign in efforts to rethink sexual violence, to Matt Harding’s foolish dancing with groups of individuals from all over the world.

As occurrences in the digital realm, however, these often political expressions may be rewritten by the network when picked up as a growing phenomenon, in order to make it accessible to online consumers by the masses. In doing so, the expression is removed from its political context and is presented in the form of nothing more than a fad. For this reason, Nishant stresses the need to become aware of the potential of the internet in becoming an “echo-chamber”—in which forms of expression are amplified and mimicked, resulting in a restructuring of the dynamics surrounding the subject—whether it be videos of boys lipsyncing to Backstreet Boys in their dorm room going viral, or a strong and malicious movement to punish the Chinese girl who had taken a video of her heinously and wickedly killing a kitten after locating her using the Human Flesh Search Engine.

Fieldwork Presentations, Groupwork

To end off the day, participant groups presented findings collated from the prior evening’s fieldwork exercise, in which they were to ask strangers in various public places of Pune questions pertaining to themes looked at from within this year’s Institute. Participants were divided into four groups and visited Pune’s FC Road, Mahatma Gandhi Road, and Central Mall.

Groups found that the majority of those interviews primarily accessed the phone via the mobile. There was also a common weariness of using the internet and concern for one’s privacy while doing so, especially with uploading photos to Facebook and online financial transactions. People were also generally concerned about using cyber cafes for fear of one’s accounts being hacked. Generally people suspected that so long as conversations are “private” (i.e. in one’s Facebook inbox), so too are they secure. Just as well, those interviewed shared a sense of security with the use of a password.

Day Six

February 16, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.	Wikipedia: Dr. Abhijeet Safai
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.	Tea-break
11.15 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.	Open Access: Muthu Madhan (TBC)
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.	Case Studies Groupwork
3.00 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.	Tea-break
3.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.	Case Studies Presentations

As the Institute came closer to its end, participants got the opportunity to hear from speakers on topics pertaining the Wikipedia editing in addition to Open Access to scholarly literature. Participants also worked together in groups to examine specific case studies referenced in previous sessions, and then presented their conclusions.

Wikipedia, Dr. Abhijeet Safai
The Institute was joined by Medical Officer of Clinical Research at Pune’s Symbiosis Centre of Health Care, Dr. Abhijeet Safai, who led a session on Wikipedia. Having edited over 3700 Wikipedia articles, Dr. Abhijeet was able to bring forth his expertise and familiarity in editing Wikipedia to participants so that they would be able to do the same. Introduced within this session were Wikipedia’s different fundamental pillars and codes of conducts to be complied with by all contributors, along with different features and components of Wikipedia articles that one should be aware of when contributing, such as how to cite sources and discuss the contents of an article with other contributors.

Open Access, Muthu Madhan
Muthu Madhan joined the Internet Institute while speaking on Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature. Within his session, Muthu examined the historical context within which the scholarly journal had arisen and how the idea of Open Access began within this space. The presence of Open Access in India and other developing nations was also examined in this session, and the concept of Open Data, introduced.

Case Studies, Groupworks

Participants were split up into groups and assigned particular case studies looked at briefly in previous sessions. Case studies included #thingsdarkiessay, a once trending Twitter hashtag in South Africa which had offended many Americans for its use of “darkie” as a derogatory term; the literary novel, The Hindus, which offers an alternative narrative of Hindu history had been banned in India for obscenity; a case in which several users’ avatars had been controlled by another in a virtual community and forced to perform sexual acts, referred to as A Rape Happened in Cyber Space; and lastly, a pornographic submission website, Is Anyone Up?, for which content was largely derived from “revenge porn.” Each group then presented on the various perspectives surrounding the issue at hand.

The Cyborg, Nishant Shah
Nishant Shah led an off-agenda session in the evening looking more closely at the notion of the human cyborg. Nishant deconstructs humanity’s relationship to technology, in suggesting that we “think of the human as produced with the technologies… not who produces technology.” Nishant explores the Digital Native as an attained identity for those who, because of technology, restructure and reinvent his or her environment—offline as well as online. Among other ideas shared, Nishant refers to works by Haraway on the human cyborg in illustrating our dependency on technology and our need to care for these technologies we depend on.

Day Seven

February 17, 2014

Time	Detail
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.	Internet Activism: Laura Stein, Associate Professor, University of Texas and Fulbright Fellow
11.00 a.m. – 11.15 a.m.	Tea-break
11.15 a.m. – 12.45 p.m.	Domestic and International Bodies: Chinmayi Arun, Research Director
12.45 p.m. – 1.30 p.m.	Lunch
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m.	Participant Presentations
3.00 p.m. – 3.15 p.m.	Tea-break
3.15 p.m. – 4.45 p.m.	Hot Question Challenge

The last day of the week-long Internet Institute examined concepts of Internet Activism and Domestic and International Bodies. Some participants led presentations on topics of personal familiarity, before a final wrap-up exercise, calling upon individuals to share any new formulations resulting from the Institute.

Internet Activism, Laura Stein

Associate Professor from the University of Texas, Laura Stein, spoke on activism on the internet. Laura examined some grassroots organizations and movements taking place on the online and the benefits that the internet brings in facilitating their impact, such as its associated low costs, accessibility and possibility for anonymity. Despite the positive effects catalyzed by the internet, Laura stresses that the “laying field is still unequal, and movements are not simply transformed by technology.” Some of the websites exemplifying online activism that were examined within this session includes the It Gets Better Project, which aims to give hope to LGBT youth facing harassment, and the national election watch by the Association for Democratic Reforms. Additionally, Laura spoke on public communication policy, comparing that of the US and India, and how this area of policy may influence media content and practice.

Domestic and International Bodies, Chinmayi Arun
As the Internet Institute’s final speaker, Research Director for Communication Governance at National Law University , Chinmayi Arun, explores the network of factors that affect one’s behavior on the internet—these including: social norms, the law, the markets, and architecture. In referring to Lawrence Lessig’s pathetic dot theory, Chinmayi illustrates how individual’s—the pathetic dots in question—are functions of the interactions of these factors, and in this sense, regulated, and stresses the essential need to understand the system, in order to effectively change the dynamics within it. It is worth noting that not all pathetic dots are equal, and Google’s dot, for example, will be drastically bigger than a single user’s, having more leveraging power within the network of internet bodies. Also demonstrated, is the fact that we must acknowledge the need for regulation by the law to some extent, otherwise, the internet would be a black box where anything goes, putting one’s security at risk of violation.

Hot Question Challenge
The very last exercise of the Institute entailed participants asking each other questions on demand, relating back to different themes looked at within the last week. Participants had the chance, here, to bridge together concepts across sessions, as well as formulate their own opinions, while posing questions to others that they, themselves, were still curious about.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/institute-for-internet-society-2014-pune

Infographic2

samantha — 2014-07-21T01:36:41Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/MobileappdevelopmentinIn.png