Centre for Internet and Society

Connecting the Next Two Billion: The Role of FOSS

praskrishna — 2014-09-10T05:04:58Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by ICFOSS at the APrIGF in Noida on August 4, 2014.

Specific Issues of Discussions & Description

Connecting the next two billion users on the Internet poses unique challenges that must be addressed. The next two billion users will have very different profiles as compared to the first billion in terms of factors such as geography, demography, gender, disability, technology access, language access, and connectivity devices. In addition, with the coming of the Internet of Things, the users of the Internet may also include devices, sensors and sensor networks. Further, the context of the Internet itself may be changing, particularly in relation to efforts by various State and non-State actors to restrict freedom of access to the Internet and freedom of expression on it.Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) has now assumed greater significance in the light of revelations related to arbitrary surveillance conducted by states. This issue highlights the need to use audited technology and infrastructure to prevent the wanton violation of privacy of citizens. FOSS can be used to build shared community infrastructure that will protect users from privacy abuses. As most of the online applications run on top of free software, there is also a need for greater collaboration between the industry and free software community to ensure security and robustness of software to prevent incidents like the heartbleed bug vulnerabilities. As the next two billion comes online, FOSS assumes great significance for building a safe and secure Internet and robust communication platforms.The panel will discuss the following issues:• Relevance of FOSS as an access enabler and source of robust, cost-effective andfreedom-preserving software• The importance of FOSS in preventing arbitrary surveillance• Co-operation among businesses and free software community to develop secure.

Building community communication infrastructure using FOSS to restrict the dependence on centralised services.

Moderator and Speakers

Moderator: Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.IN, New Delhi
Dr. Rahul De, IIM Bangalore (Remote)
Dr. G. Nagarjuna, Free Software Foundation of India (Remote)
Mr. Prasanth Sugathan, Counsel, SFLC.in
Mr. Satish Babu, Director, ICFOSS
Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, Media Lab Asia/Govt. of India

Workshop Organizer

This workshop will be jointly organised by International Centre For Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS), an autonomous institution under the Government of Keralamandated with the objectives of co-ordinating FOSS initiatives within Kerala, as well as linking up with FOSS initiatives in other parts of the world and SFLC.IN, a donor supported legal services organisation that works to protect freedom in the digital world.The details of the contact person for the workshop is given below:Name: Mr.Satish BabuDesignation: DirectorOrganisation: International Center for Free and Open Source Software (IC-FOSS).

For more details see the APrIGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/apr-igf-delhi-2014-connecting-the-next-two-billion-the-role-of-foss

Connaught Summer Institute on Monitoring Internet Openness and Rights

praskrishna — 2013-07-26T09:17:45Z

Malavika Jayaram is a speaker at this event being held at the Munk School of Global Affairs, Bloor Street West.

Click to read the original posted on Citizen Lab website

Monday, July 22, 2013

Location: Munk School of Global Affairs (Observatory Site), 315 Bloor Street West (map)

14:00 - 17:00	Meet and Greet at the Citizen Lab Participants are free to drop by the Lab between 2:00-5:00 pm to see the space and meet with Citizen Lab researchers. Participants should go to the reception desk on the first floor and have the receptionist call the Lab.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Location: Campbell Conference Room, South House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

08:00 - 09:00	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:15	Opening Remarks
09:15 - 10:45	Tutorial "Welcome to Oz: Beyond a Black and White Debate on Internet Regulation (and Control)" – Jon Penney (Berkman Centre/Oxford Internet Institute/Citizen Lab) and Ryan Budish (Berkman Centre/Herdict)
10:45 - 11:00	Break
11:00 - 12:00	Commercialization of Information Controls "Regulators, Politicians, and Deep Packet Inspection: Who's Driving What and Why" – Chris Parsons (University of Victoria) "Fingerprinting Internet Filtering Products" – Jakub Dalek (Citizen Lab) "Cash Rules Everything Around Me: The Commercialization of Online Spying" – Bill Marczak (UC Berkeley)
12:00 - 13:45	Lunch
13:45 - 14:45	Circumvention / Attacks 1 "Collateral Freedom" – David Robinson (Robinson + Yu) "Remedy: Relays Monitoring and Deployment" – KheOps (Telecomix) "Fake Domain Attacks on Civil Society Groups" – Michael Carbone (Access)
14:45 - 15:45	Characterization / Measurement 1 "Iran through the Eyes of Big Data" – Collin Anderson (Independent Researcher) "Measurement, Detection, and Comparison of Surveillance Data" – Praveen Selvasekaran (Simple Tech Life) "Filbaan: What is Filtered Today?"
15:45 - 16:00	Break
16:00 - 16:45	Identity Systems and Monitoring "Desperately Seeking the Names: Examining the Historical Progression of Real Name Policies on the Chinese Internet" – Lianrui Jia (Carleton University) "India's Civil Liberties Crisis: Digital Free Will in Free Fall" – Malavika Jayaram (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
17:00 - 18:30	Poster and Demo Session Light refreshments will be served "User-side Approach for Censorship Detection: Home-router and Client-based Platforms" – Giuseppe Aceto (University of Naples Federico II) "The Cyber Losers" – Aaron Brantly and Katrin Verclas (National Democratic Institute) "What is the Impact of Internet Censorship in China?" – Carlotta James (Psiphon Inc.) "Open Integrity Index" – Jun Matsushita "M-Lab: Exploring the Possibilities for Open, Global Censorship and Surveillance Detection" – Stephen Soltesz (Open Technology Institute) and Meredith Whittaker (Google Research) "Mapping Google: Global Business Infrastructure and Implications for Openness " – John Harris Stevenson (University of Toronto) "Chat Program Censorship and Surveillance in China: Tracking TOM-Skype and Sina UC" – Greg Wiseman (Citizen Lab) "The Growth and Spread of Cyberspace Controls" – Benjamin Zaiser (Free University of Berlin)

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Location: Campbell Conference Room, South House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

08:00 - 09:00	Breakfast
09:00 - 10:20	Characterization / Methodology 2 "Refining the Tor Censorship Detector" – Sam Burnett (Georgia Tech) "From Internet Security to Internet Freedom: The case of the RPKI" – Sharon Goldberg (Boston University) "Running Software in Albuquerque to Measure Censorship Anywhere" – Jeffrey Knockel (University of New Mexico) "Social Media as Labratory: What We Can Learn about Chinese Politics from Sina Weibo Censorship and Online Discussion" – Jason Q. Ng (Citizen Lab)
10:20 - 11:00	Break
11:00 - 12:00	Circumvention 2 "VPNthnography: Hacking the Great Firewall for Fun and Profit" "Economics of Web Proxy Networks" – Bennett Haselton (Peace Fire/Citizen Lab) "Censors Working Overtime" – Karl Kathuria (Psiphon Inc.)
12:00 - 14:00	Lunch
14:00 - 15:30	Tutorial "Network Censorship Techniques, Detection, and Localization" – Nick Weaver (ICSI)
15:30 - 16:00	Break
16:00 - 17:30	Panel: Bridging Activism and Research (5 minute talks + discussion) Ali Bangi (ASL19 / Citizen Lab) Stefania Milan (Tillburg University) Deji Olukotun (PEN) John Scott-Railton (Citizen Lab / UCLA) 'Gbenga Sesan (Paradigm Initiative Nigeria)

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Location: Campbell Conference Room, South House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

08:00 - 09:00	Breakfast
09:00 - 10:20	Jurisdictions and Borders Online "Cyberconflict and the Legal-Territorial Paradox" – Cameran Ashraf (UCLA) "Beyond Borders: Legislative Challenges to the Management of Records in the Cloud" – Elaine Goh (University of British Columbia) "Civil Society 2.0: The Global Struggle to Govern the Democratic Impacts of ICTs" – Muzammil M. Hussain (University of Michigan) "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Networked Public Sphere: How to avoid a Convergent Crisis" – James Losey (Open Technology Institute)
10:20 - 10:40	Break
10:40 - 12:10	Tutorial "Ranking Companies on Digital Rights: Challenges and Synergies" – Rebecca MacKinnon (New America Foundation)
12:10 - 14:00	Lunch
14:00 - 15:30	Surveillance and Monitoring "Revisiting Webtapping: Learning From Five Years’ of U.S. Cyber and Intel Policy" – Chris Bronk (Rice University) "Who Watches the Watchmen?: Detecting Stealth and Unattributed Information Controls" – Herve Saint Louis (University of Toronto) "IX Maps" – Andrew Clement (University of Toronto) "Technologies of Control, ‘National Security’ and Systemic Abuse of Minorities in the East and Horn of Africa" – Clara Gutteridge (Equal Justice Forum)
15:30 - 15:45	Break
15:45 - 16:30	Closing Discussion on Interdisciplinary Research and Information Controls

Friday, July 26, 2013

Location: Rooms 108, 208 and Basement, North House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

10:00 - 14:00

Breakout Sessions

Light refreshments will be served

The half day will be dedicated to giving participants the opportunity to break into small groups to further discuss, share, and hack on topics raised during the workshop.

Sponsor

The workshop is sponsored by University of Toronto's Connaught Fund. Since it was founded in 1972, the fund has invested more than $1 million in projects that span across the disciplines.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/citizenlab-summer-institute-on-monitoring-internet-openness-and-rights

Conference Report: 'Privacy Matters' Bangalore

praskrishna — 2011-02-08T05:13:24Z

On February 5th the 'Privacy Matters" conference was held at the TERI Regional Center in Bangalore. The event was a full day and centered around issues of privacy including: privacy rights of minorities, privacy and open government data, and privacy and identity.

Conference Summary

On the 5th of February, civil society, lawyers, students, NGO’s, and representatives from the IT companies gathered together at the TERI Southern Regional Center to take part in 'Privacy Matters' - a public conference held to discuss privacy issues in India, and the privacy legislation that has been proposed in the parliament. The conference was opened by Prashant Iyengar, head researcher at Privacy India. Mr. Iyengar explained the mandate of Privacy India, which is to raise awareness of privacy, spark civil action, and promote democratic dialogue around privacy challenges and violations in India.

Keynote: Ashish Rajadhyakksha, Senior fellow, Centre for the Study of Culture & Society

Mr. Rajadhyaksha delivered the keynote speech. In his presentation he focused on privacy in relation to the changing nature of the individual. He pointed out how humans are now becoming technologically enhanced individuals - in essence cybernetic organisms. These technological enhancements can be both positive and negative, but in both cases come with multiple and complicated questions of privacy, because the technological enhancements facilitate everyday life but at the same time create possible privacy violations. He further raised the point that people are not aware of these privacy implications, and thus violations of privacy are not seen as coercive acts, and people do not see their liberty as being placed at risk or challenged.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

How do we define claim rights vs. liberty rights in terms of privacy ?

How do we define our rights in terms of privacy?

Privacy and Minorities: Session I of the conference focused on the privacy rights of minorities and privacy and open government data

Zainab Bawa, CIS RAW fellow spoke on Privacy and Open Government Data. Her presentation, titled Property Rights, Privacy, and Open Government Data looked at how data by governmental agencies is handled. Her research is specifically on land records and the government. In her work she looks at:

How data bases are designed

How documents are translated into English
How hard copy documents are digitized

How information is posted

What are the privacy implications for all these processes

Shubha Chacko from Sangama spoke on the issues of sex workers and questions of privacy. Ms. Chacko opened her presentation by pointing out that there is a common conception that sex workers have no rights to privacy. She then talked about the precarious position sex workers find themselves in, because the law and society find it offensive that a sex worker brings into the public sphere what society believes is to happen in the private. Ms.Chacko also spoke on the invasive techniques that sex workers are subjected to such as HIV intervention and open disclosure of health records, and how these invasive techniques take away the privacy of sex workers. Furthermore, the nature of sex workers work means that they are not privy to the same right of anonymity that many believe is an important principle of privacy. Ms. Chacko closed her presentation by pointing out that the UID might actually bring privacy to sex workers. Closing the panel, Sahana Basavapatna spoke on refugees, the UID, and privacy. Ms. Basavapatna spoke about the difficult situation that refugees are placed in as they have no identity in India, but are also easily identified.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

How can a privacy legislation insure that when data bases are architected, they are structured in a way that is appropriate for that type of data?

How can a privacy legislation work to ensure that when records are digitized, information is not lost or manipulated?
What are ways in which the Government can post data, so that it is both open and not in violation of an individual’s privacy?

How can a privacy legislation ensure anonymity for all citizens when necessary?

Should specific steps be taken in a privacy legislation to ensure the privacy of minorities such as refugees and sex workers?

How can a privacy legislation be framed and implemented in order to not perpetuate existing societal stigmas?

Identity and Privacy: Session III of the conference focused on identity and privacy

Hamish Fraser (Partner at Truman Hoyle, Sydney, Australia) spoke on the Australia Identity card, and how, among other reasons, it was privacy concerns that squashed the identity card in Australia. Furthermore, out of the attempt to make an Australian Identity Card, the Privacy Act of 1995 was passed. Currently in Australia individuals do not have identity cards, but instead they have numbers for different services – such as a tax number, a health number, and a driver license number. These numbers are not unique, and one number for a certain service cannot be used for another service, thus the government cannot track an individual by their number. Mr. Hamish also touched on the ten principles of privacy that the Australian legislation adopts, and pointed out that though the legislation does not have strong teeth, in Australia there is a strong culture of privacy that makes the law enforceable. Michael Whitener (Principal and co-founder of VistaLaw International LLC) spoke next. His presentation titled “Science Fiction Becomes Reality, but at What Cost” focused on the privacy aspects of biometrics and changing technology.

Raman Chima, Privacy analyst for Google, was the final speaker on the panel. Mr. Chima worked to expose myths that people hold about why Google collects information, and how they use that information. For instance Google gathers limited information to develop valuable products and services, and to develop innovative products that reflect strong privacy standards. Mr. Chima also pointed out that though online tracking can have negative implications, it also has many positive implications - such as allowing spam to be stopped and tracking disease in areas. He concluded his presentation by urging citizens to become more informed, and ask for more rights. He also pointed out that privacy has yet to be spelled out and presented in a way that any person can comprehend, understand, respect, and follows

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

Should a privacy legislation regulate how much access to private citizens records is the government granted?
How can a privacy legislation be drafted and implemented, so that is practical and applicable for the common citizen?
How are court regulators going to balance the privacy rights against the need for authentication?

What will be the requirements for securing storage of biometric data?

How will a legislation or privacy policy respond to security breaches?
How will legislation answer the question of what constitutes "consent"?

What privacy principles should a privacy legislation in India enforce?
Should a privacy legislation allow an individual to be “forgotten”?
How could a privacy legislation be given either legal or social teeth in India?

Privacy and Social networking Session IV of the conference focused on privacy and social networking

Ujjvala Ballal from Inclusive Planet , a social networking site for the disabled, focused her presentation on the privacy rights of the disabled. She raised the point that disabled people have been struggling for equal access rights for many years. In the process they have lost much of the privacy that they have a right to. She went on to explain that there are many privacy issues that are unique to a disabled persons. Some of which include: the disclosure of their disability, the stigma that comes along with their disability, and the denial of services based on their disability.

Gagan K. (NLSIU Law Student) spoke on Privacy Issues in Social Networking Websites. Gagan pointed out that on social networking sites privacy issues include:

Data mining

Profiling

Third party disclosure.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

Should information pertaining to the disabled be held to higher standards of privacy, because of its sensitive nature?

How can a privacy legislation be drafted, so it is accessible to the disabled?

Could a privacy legislation construct regulations on the handling of data, in order to prevent profiling and discrimination?

Conclusion: the concluding session was a time for discussion and opinion sharing

From the closing session, and the above sessions many themes and questions pertaining to privacy came out that will need to be addressed when considering the way forward for a privacy legislation including:

Property rights and privacy

The right to be forgotten

Privacy rights of minorities

Privacy and open government data- how is it collected, transferred, stored, and reproduced
Privacy and foreigners (refugees, illegal migration, etc)

Recognizing privacy rights in a changing technological society

Privacy implications of biometric usage
Privacy rights superseding identification needs
Corporate privacy policies
Privacy rights and the disabled
Privacy rights and social networking

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-conferencebanglaore

Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND, NLSIU

rohini — 2016-04-02T18:12:41Z

Rohini Lakshané attended the Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND held at NLSIU, Bengaluru on March 21 and 22, 2015. It was organised by the MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights and Advocacy (CIPRA), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in association with Intel Technology India. This post is a compilation of notes from the conference.

Programme Schedule

Significant Takeaways
It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms. In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014. This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India. India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price. Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product. The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards. Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not. Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study. The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases. Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

SSOs and FRAND: Licensing issues

John Matheson, Director of Legal Policy (Asia Pacific), Intel

The role of licensing policy

Ensuring market access
Standards often depend on patented technology, which is accessed through the Promise to License on FRAND terms.
It is equally critical to ensure that standards can be implemented without unfair legal games.
It is essential to prevent patent hold-up.
Reasonable compensation

Patent holders remain entitled to fair compensation and benefit from the proliferation of their technologies via standardisation.

Why FRAND?

A FRAND commitment embodies certain fundamental principles that have been recognised widely by the courts and regulators.

The fundamental purpose of a FRAND commitment is widespread adoption of the standard.

Because of the peculiar nature of SEPs, the process is open to abuse.

A FRAND commitment is aimed at preventing patent holders from exploiting a hold-up value and extracting unreasonable royalties and concessions that could otherwise follow from being in a very unique position. Often, the holders of the IP have a single solution to an interoperability or connectivity conundrum that technology is facing.

Why are SEP license negotiations different from Non-SEP ones?

In the context of non-SEPs, one may be negotiating to obtain a license to a patent for a particular feature. If the licensor is being difficult, one can discard the feature to include something else. In a competitive market, this negotiation is focused on the value of the invention to be licensed. Thus one can redesign to avoid a particular claim and, in turn, avoid injunction.

On the other hand, it is necessary to either obtain a license for or infringe an SEP to manufacture the mobile device. There is no workable alternative or workaround to obtaining a license for the desired technology. With the threat of an injunction looming over the negotiations, the prospective licensee is under pressure to obtain a license. So the market negotiations for SEPs and non-SEPs are very different. One-way negotiations raise the possibility of a patent hold-up, and abuse of the standard implementer.

IP policies inevitably involve compromise.

Common areas of misunderstanding include:

Valuations or meaning of "reasonable". Valuations of IP under consideration.
Injunctive relief or exclusion orders
Discrimination or refusal to license
Patent transfer (It requires a continuation of the FRAND commitment, and shouldn't get differential treatment in the IP policy.)

Competition authorities in the US and EU have asked SSOs to reconsider policies to reduce ambiguity in the context of these areas of misunderstanding.

The ex-ante or the incremental value of the SEPs before the standard is set needs to be understood. The SSOs look at several different ways to solve a connectivity problem. The patent owners bring their patents into the standards body and claim that theirs is the best way to solve that problem. The market and consumers want an uncomplicated solution which works and is as cheap as possible. In many cases, there is one single winner, simply because we need one solution. In exchange for being the winner, the FRAND discipline is quid pro quo.

European Commission's response to two different patent lawsuits:

In the Samsung and Motorola cases, the Commission clarifies that in the standardisation context where the SEP holders have committed to:

License their SEPs
Do so on FRAND terms

It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms.

In other words, if there is a bona fide commitment on the part of the licensee to agree to that test, then it is anti-competitive to seek an injunction.

In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014.

Anyone who needs access to connectivity or needs interoperability requires to get a SEP license, and if that license is required to be obtained within a time limit, it almost -- by definition -- is not going to work. Patent licenses take years to negotiate, and they're incredibly complex. For example, a patent policy may offer up to 12 months to agree on a license, but that is not the way the market works. So we cannot expect policies that put forth time limits to work in the SEP arena. What we can expect is that the implementers make a bona fide commitment to seek a license.

Motorola vs. Microsoft, Germany:

Motorola sought injunctive relief against Microsoft in Germany. Microsoft moved its distribution centre from Germany to the Netherlands. This resulted in loss of jobs, relocation costs ($11.6 million), and annual increased operating costs of $5 million for Microsoft.

Samsung vs. Apple, Germany

Similarly, on the basis of one patent, a temporary injunction was granted on the sale of the Apple iPad and iPhone. Apple was forced to agree to terms it didn't want to agree to, so that the sale of its products would resume.

This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India.

SEP holders that make FRAND commitments should not be allowed to obtain injunctions against alleged infringers, except in limited circumstances. This formula has been adopted by the IEEE, which has solved this problem. India has the opportunity to leapfrog a lot of patent litigation by adopting the IEEE test.

Learn from what happened with Microsoft in Germany. What kind of message do you want to send to the foreign community about investing in India? Do you want to use the scare tactics of injunctions or do you want to adopt a policy that will avoid litigation?

India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price.

Reasonable Compensation Considerations

Royalty based on the smallest unit that practices the standard.
Technical value of patented technologies vs. alternatives.
Overall royalty that could reasonably charged for all SEPs.

Non-discrimination

A commitment to license every implementer of the relevant standard.

Transfer

FRAND commitments follow the transfer of a patent to subsequent proprietors.

Dr. Krishna Sirohi, Impact Innovator, GISFI, President, I2TB

As per the Make in India programme, we have to achieve zero imports by 2020. Product development in India by Indian companies will happen with collaborative research and development and IPR sharing through licenses. We are looking at national capacity building through product development and patent uses.

Global Information and Communication Technology Forum for India (GISFI) is a standards setting body involved with standardisation and research. It is a telecommunications standards development body (TSDO) set up with the approval of the DoT. It has peer relationships with ITU, OMA, TTC and a bunch of other SDOs. Internet of Things (IoT), mobility and security are its three major research programmes.

GISFI is working towards defining 5G in India. The 5G standardisation theme in India is called WISDOM (Wireless Innovative System for Dynamic Operating Mega Communications). GISFI is considering the perspective of the Indian user, the network capability, the network architecture, network development and the Indian revenue model, strategic and special purpose networks, inclusive growth, and network security.

However, some India-specific aspects such as illiteracy and lack of basic civic infrastructure need to be considered in the standardisation process.

GISFI plans and stages for 5G definition and adoption

Stage 1 (2014-2018): National agenda for strategic research, innovation and experimentation

Focus on Digital India and Make in India programmes.

Stage 2 (2016-2019): Standardisation

Stage 3 (2017-2021): Product Development

Stage 4 (2019-2023): Early Development

Technical understanding required for IPR issues

Enhancement applicable to general scenarios
- Traffic capacity
- Cell coverage
- Edge cell performance
- Intercell interference
- Network congestion
- Mobility
- Energy consumption
Enhancements targeting new use cases
- machine-type communication
- national security
- public safety services
Carrier aggregation
- Higher throughput owing to intra and inter-band transmission bandwidth of more than 20 MHz.
- Reduced network congestion owing to load-balancing across multiple carriers.
- Improvement in mobility and reduction in inter-cell interference.
Enhanced MIMO
- Improved spatial diversity and multiplexing
- Improved beam-forming
- Multiple access with multi-antenna transmission
Coordinated Multi-Point Operation (CoMP)
- Reduction in intercell interference owing to coordinated scheduling or beamforming (CS/CB)
- Transmission from multiple distribution points (base stations, RRH) in a coordinated way (Dynamic point selection, and Joint transmission)

What do SSOs handle IPR in different parts of the world and what are the issues they face?

GISFI has adopted ITU's IPR policy.

In SSOs, the FRAND principle works well only when participating entities have equal or almost equal IPR clout, and can reciprocate with their own patents every time other entities share their patents. It is difficult to create a balance between entities that only own IPR and those that only consume IPR.

Most of the members of SSOs are IPR owners. The entities that develop [technological] solutions without owning the IPRs are usually not a part of SSOs. However, additional strategies need to be implemented for realising the "Make in India" goal. The goal of zero imports by 2020 can only be achieved if a large number of small companies use these standards to develop products locally. So small manufacturers should be represented even at the highest levels of the standards development body. An IPR policy should be defined/ modified to factor in these needs.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared by ETSI

Cyber Creative Institute, June 2013: http://www.cybersoken.com/research/pdf/lte03EN.pdf

A large number of LTE patents are held by a handful of companies. There is no Indian owner of any LTE SEP.

Ericsson sued Apple in the US over infringement of its LTE patents. As of January 2015, Apple countersued Ericsson in a federal court in California and claimed that it did not owe any royalties to the latter.

Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product.

Dr. Kumar N. Shivarajan, CTO, Tejas Networks

TSDSI's (Telecommunications Standards Development Society of India) IPR policy states that a member's technology will become a part of a standard as long as the member licenses it on FRAND terms to other members.

By 2017, 70% of the global equipment spend will be on LTE.
TD-LTE subscriber base in India has been projected to reach 67 million by 2017.
Most of the data connections in India are still on 2.5G.
Smartphones have become affordable but 3G continues to languish in India; 4G yet to take off.
The number of 3G connections in India grew from 30 million to 33 million from 2013 to 2014.

Is 5G the answer to India's access problems?

The mobile industry is aiming to go beyond traditional 4G LTE in 2015 and there is increasing focus on adding new bells and whistles to 4G and realise 4G+.

LTE Licensed-assisted access (formerly LTE-Unlicensed)
LTE Direct/ Peer-to-peer
LTE-M for machine to machine communication
CoMP

Countries forming 5G groups to take an early lead:

China: IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group
Korea: 5G Forum
EU: 5G Public Private Partnership (5G-PPP)

5G in its current form is souped-up 4G.

Key India-specific requirements for 5G standard development

5G must factor in the Indian requirement for DSL-like connectivity: Always ON, low latency, affordable cost
To minimise costs, 5G must minimise the use of BTS sites and focus on spectral efficiency.
5G should allow virtual network operations enabling multiple operators to use the same physical network infrastructure.
5G must work well in Indian propagation environments: concrete buildings blocking signals, dense barriers.
5G infrastructure should be green as electricity shortfall is a problem. India has 400,000 cell towers. 10% of them are not connected to the electricity grid. More than 70% experience power outages longer than 8 hours per day, and work on diesel-powered generators. As a result, 25% of the operational costs of telcos are their energy bills. India imports 3 billion litres of diesel annually to run these cell sites.

India can try to get a headstart in owning the IPR that would eventually go into the 5G standard.

Prof. Ramakrishna, MHRD Chair, NLSIU, Bengaluru

The attitude of an SSO towards patented technology determines the objective of its IPR policy. For example, an SSO may want to:

Promote widespread implementation of a standard without unnecessary IPR implications.
Ensure transparency and certainty about the declaration of patents and patents' claims as SEPs.
Ensure that every patented technology is available at a reasonable fee, comparable to the value of the technology.

What happens when IP ownership is transferred to another owner? It continues to be a part of the SSO but things get complicated.

New owners, third parties, subsidiaries, and affiliates fall under the purview of the IPR policy, by extension.

IP and Disclosure policies of Indian SDOs

BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) and TEC (Telecommunication Engineering Centre) do not have IP policies of their own. TEC refers to the ISO/IEC IP policies wherever the technology is equivalent or the same.
GISFI disclosure requirement: Each member is required to inform GISFI in a timely manner of essential IPRs. But members are not under any obligation to conduct IP searches. GISFI's IPR policy is based on that of ETSI.
DOSTI (Development Organization of Standards for Telecommunications in India) is not functional.

IPR policy for open standards in e-governance

The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards.

Mandatory Characteristics of Open Standards:

The patent claims necessary to implement the standard should be made available royalty free for the lifetime of the standard.
The standard shall be adapted and maintained by a not-for-profit organisation.
The standard shall have a technology-neutral specification.

The RF approach and the maintenance by a non-profit may be a disincentive for IP owners.

IEEE patent policy:

IEEE invites participants to disclose patent claims essential to a standard under development. Upon disclosure, the patent holder needs to submit a letter of assurance that states:

License(s) will be made available without compensation or at a RAND rate.
A commitment to enforce the essential patent claims against any entity complying with the standard.
Or state its unwillingness or inability to license its essential patent claims.

Common patent policy for ITU-T/ ITU-R/ ISO/ IEC

Recommendations/ deliverables are non-binding -- ensure compatibility of technologies and systems on a worldwide basis.

The "code of practice":

It is desirable that the fullest available information should be disclosed although ITU, ISO or IEC are unable to verify the validity of any such information.

Major types of IPR policies:

Participation-based IPR policies

These are common in small, informal bodies such as consortia.
Members are bound by the terms of membership to commit to licensing SEPs on RAND or RF terms.
SEP holders notify the standards body in case RAND or RF licenses are not available after the draft standard has been published.

Commitment-based IPR policies
- These are commonly followed large, standards setting bodies.
- These bodies identify SEPs to a draft standard through disclosure and submission of licensing commitment.
- Parties may seek alternative solutions or work on a withdrawn standard is the the alternative solutions don't work out.

Basic building blocks of commitment-based IPR policies

Disclosure policies:

Disclosure is important for
- sending requests to SEP holders to make licensing commitments
- ensuring that experts' groups make informed decisions on inclusion of patented technologies
- providing information to prospective standards implementers about the SEP owners

Two forms of disclosure:

A call for patents is made at the start of meetings. This is more informational than binding.
Later, the member states its intentions regarding licensing the patent on RAND terms.

How disclosure obligations arise (and commitments are binding):

IEEE has by-laws that are binding on members.
ITU, IEC, and ISO: It is via a resolution or recommendation.

(Indicative list)

General disclosure procedure:

The nature of disclosure rules concerning self-owned patents depends on the status or the role of the entity.

A "submitter" is a participant in the working group making a conscious decision to submit its technology to the SSO for a license or free of royalty.
A participant in a working group may submit its technology to the SSO free of royalty, on RAND terms, on RAND terms with the right to charge a fee, or with a refusal to license it. (A working group participant who discloses technology is usually a technology expert. When someone who does not have adequate knowledge of patents discloses technology, it has complicated implications.)
A non-working group participant (third-party) may also submit its technology.

ANSI has left it to the accredited SSO to decide the terms of disclosure for participants of working groups. It has not laid out a policy in this regard. Other organisations have laid out obligations on the submitter to disclose SEPs.

Nature of disclosure terms for patents owned by third-parties:

ETSI: It is obligatory.

ITU/ ISO: Obligatory only for participants of the working groups.

IEEE: Entirely voluntary

Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not.

Working groups prefer early disclosure so that they may adopt or discard the claim as early as possible in the standard setting process.

ITU: Disclosure from the outset

IEEE: During meetings of the working group

ETSI: "Timely manner"

AFSI: At a sufficiently mature level

There is no mandate for updating the disclosure in case a standard evolves.

Most SSOs make disclosed patents public. Failure to disclose patents may result in accusations of abuse of monopoly or anti-trust/ anti-competitive activities.

It is difficult to identify all potentially essential patents due to the complexity of specifications.

Some SSOs don't require IP disclosure at all. The obligations to license on FRAND terms would be sufficient.

Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study.

It makes sense for rightsholders to go for blanket disclosures instead of disclosure of specific patents.

Vinod Dhall, ex-chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI):

Our competition law is new, so there aren't any cases pertaining to patent litigation and involving the competition law, which we can treat as precedents. In one of the mobile phone patent litigation cases in India, the implementer has approached the CCI claiming that the licensor has been abusing its dominant position in the market by charging unreasonable royalties.

The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases.

Questions-answers round:

What are the criteria for declaring a patent an SEP?

T. Ramakrishnan: SSOs have no role in declaring that a patent is an SEP. The SEP holder declares that their patent is essential to a technical standard. Most of the time, the SEP may turn out to be a non-SEP at a later stage. Statistically, 16 out 100 claimed SEPs are actually SEPs. There is no way for SSOs to tell if a patent is an SEP. IP policies of most SSOs state that they don't search [if a patent is an SEP]. The members of SSOs are under no obligation to search.

The commitment to license an SEP on FRAND terms is more important to an SSO [than determining if the patent is indeed an SEP].

Can compulsory licensing be implemented with government intervention in India so that the Central Government can fix a royalty and put an end to patent litigation?

Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

With respect to the "safe harbour" approach towards SEP-based injunctions, what does the licensee need to do to prove to the courts that it is a willing licensee, in the event that licensing negotiations fail or take a long time?

Matheson: It gets down to the licensee showing its willingness to negotiate. The licensee cannot make a half-hearted attempt and decline to negotiate or decline the licensor's offer and then disappear. They should physically engage in the negotiation. If and when it gets to a judicial environment, the judges know when people are telling stories and when parties are bona fide. They can tell a ruse when they see one, and I think it is one of the things you observe in practice.

Ramakrishnan: The licensee should be able to demonstrate that it is willing to pay the royalty and should deposit an amount towards royalty. One recommendation from AIPP states that instead of using the terms "willing licensee" and "willing licensor", use "good faith response". For "good faith" we have very well established criteria. The entire licensing process should end within 12 months of starting. If the negotiations fail or if the process takes longer, then they should agree upon an arbitrator to fix FRAND terms. These are indicators that demonstrate the licensee being a "willing licensee" or a "good faith" licensee.

Often technology changes before the legal action can be taken or the lawsuit completed, and the patent over which litigation has happened may no longer be relevant to the technology. How do patent holders deal with this situation?

S.K. Murthy, Research Scholar, NLSIU: Even if the technology becomes obsolete, damages can be claimed retrospectively.

Matheson: You have a commitment to a FRAND solution, so that when you enter the protracted negotiation, you know that at the end of it you will get a fair solution. That's not always the case when you are dealing outside the FRAND world. You're dealing with a FRAND incumbent, not with unlicensed patents.

Why is putting a time limit to negotiations not a good idea? Also, IEEE seems to have done well by taking the threat of negotiations out of its way. Is it practical in India, because injunction is still the most potent weapon to protect intellectual property rights in India currently?

Matheson: Licensing is incredibly complex. There can be claims to the validity of the patent, there are claim charts to be drawn, there is expert evidence to be put together. Litigation over patents can take 2 to 3 years. To say that there must be a solution [arrived at] within a smaller framework gives the licensor the opportunity to wait around till the end of that period and assert its patents through an injunction. If you're leaving injunction at the table, you will not have a fair solution. The licensee will always be at a major disadvantage. The IEEE solution is a good one because it has taken the time limit away, but at the same time the policies that would adopt that solution need to include the discipline to ensure that the negotiations are bona fide.

What percentage of the sale price should be provisioned by a product developer for royalties? Can a mechanism be drawn up for this purpose?

Justice Ratnakala: Definitely. Such a mechanism should be drawn up in the near future.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/conference-on-standards-settings-organizations-sso-and-frand-nlsiu

Concept Note: Network Neutrality in South Asia

praskrishna — 2015-12-01T02:34:25Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/concept-note-network-neutrality-in-south-asia

Comparison Table GDPR DPD

praskrishna — 2017-02-07T13:45:58Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/comparison-table-gdpr-dpd

Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 And Draft National IP Policy, December 2015

praskrishna — 2015-10-15T16:48:50Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015-1.pdf

Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 and Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

amulya — 2016-03-08T01:49:07Z

This is an analysis of the first draft of India's National IPR Policy with an earlier document "India's National IPR Strategy".

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs, analysed, reviewed and edited this blog post.

As part of our IPR Policy Series, we have so far CIS has submitted comments to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion on the proposed IPR Policy and the first draft of the National IPR Policy, traced the development of the National IPR Policy, evaluated how the IPR Policy holds up to WIPO’s suggestions , filed RTI’s regarding the formation of the IPR Think Tank and the functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council.

In this blog post Amulya.P compares the National IPR Strategy September 2012 prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council, the National IPR Strategy July 2014 and the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 to understand the commonalities and differences between the three.

Vision/ Mission

The vision stated in the IPR Strategy, July 2014 is “To develop India during the decade of Innovation into a major Innovative competitive and knowledge based economy by strategic utilization of IP as an engine for accelerated growth and sustainable and inclusive development.” This is comparable to the vision statement laid out in the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 (Draft Policy) that states as follows: “An India where IP led growth in creativity and innovation is encouraged for the benefit of all; an India where IPRs promote advancement in science and technology, arts and culture, traditional knowledge and bio-diversity resources; an India where knowledge is the main driver of development, and knowledge owned is transformed into knowledge shared.” The Mission Statement laid out in the Draft Policy reads as follows “Establish a dynamic vibrant balanced intellectual property system in India to : foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy, accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship, enhance socio-cultural development and protect public health, food security and environment among other areas of socio-economic importance”

Clearly the Draft Policy strives for more balance and envisions IPRs as not only a tool to ensure social welfare alongside economic growth, but also envisions IPR as a tool to ensure the sharing of knowledge.

Objectives/ Approaches

The objectives of both the September 2012 National IPR Strategy and the July 2014 National IPR Strategy are more or less to “ Transform India into an innovative economy that would be reflected in high rankings in development and innovation indices from a global standpoint and develop, sustainable and innovation-promoting IPR management system in India while ensuring that the IP system continues to have appropriate checks and balances conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations. Besides measures that need to be taken, the strategy also needs to have an implementation matrix and a time bound schedule.”

In addition to this, the September 2014 IPR Strategy Document lays down a four pronged approach- to promote respect for IP, to simulate creation of IPRs ,creation of new IP regimes to address needs of the country and strengthening protection of IP, and to facilitate commercialization of IP. The IPR Strategy of July 2014 expands on this to include the establishing of cost effective, efficient, service oriented administration, institutional capacity building and development of human capital and the integrating of IP components of national sectoral policy and the Addressing of IP issues in international fora.

The Draft Policy though has enumerated seven objectives throughout the report. They are: a) “To create public awareness about economic social and cultural benefits of IP among all sections of society for accelerating development, promoting entrepreneurship, enhancing employment and increasing competitiveness”.b) “To stimulate creation of growth of IP through measures that encourage IP generation.”c) “To have strong and effective laws with regard to IPRs that are consistent with national priorities and international obligations which balance the interests of rights owners with public interest.” d) “To modernize and strengthen IP administration for efficient, expeditious and cost effective grant and management of IP rights and user oriented services.” e) “To augment the commercialization of IP rights, valuation licensing and technology transfer.” f)”To strengthen the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IP violations, piracy and counterfeiting, to facilitate effective and speedy adjudication of IP disputes to promote awareness and respect for IPRs among all sections of society.” f) “To strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IP.”

Clearly the Draft Policy lays more emphasis on raising public awareness about the benefits of IP, strengthening the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to combat violations and on balancing different interests during the creation of new IP laws and regulations.

Raising Awareness

While the September 2012 IPR Strategy speaks of raising awareness as a tool in encouraging creation of IP and facilitating commercialization of IP, the Draft Policy envisions an elaborate awareness raising and publicity program. Some of the schemes suggested in the Draft Policy include: Adoption of the slogan “Creative India: Innovative India” and launching an associated campaign on electronic , print and social media by linking IPRs and other national initiatives such as Make in India, Digital India, Skill India and Smart Cities. Reaching out to industry, MSMEs, R&D institutions, science and technology institutes, universities, colleges, inventors, creators, farmers/plant variety users, traditional knowledge holders, designers and artisans through campaigns tailored to their needs and concerns. Promoting the idea of high quality and cost effective innovation as a particularly Indian competence leading to competitive advantage, Involving of eminent personalities as ambassadors to spread awareness of India’s IP, Using audio visual material in print/electronic/social media for propagation, Creating moving exhibits that can travel to all parts of the country, Establishing Innovation and IPR museums, announcing a National IPR day and celebrating world IPR day etc.

The Draft Policy has a much more elaborate program for awareness raising and publicity and this is reflected throughout the document with almost every stakeholder and department being involved in the awareness programme.

MSMEs

The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy both call for very similar policies with regard to MSMEs. Both lie emphasis on educating and incentivizing MSMEs to create new IP and formalize existing ones, on government intervention in setting up IP facilitation centers to bring about collaboration between the facilitation centers and the activities of existing industrial clusters, provision of access to databases on patent and non-patent literature to enable prior art research to IITs and NITs free of cost so that they can assist MSMEs or individuals with determining novelty in their inventions free of cost and other provide assistance with the patent application for a fee. While the September 2014 strategy called for identifying such institutions, the July 2014 Strategy does. Both of these strategies however, call for favorable tax treatments toward MSMEs for R&D Expenditures. Both also call for support mechanisms to offset IP costs and facilitate technology transfer through in-licensing from publicly funded research.

The Draft Policy discusses MSMEs in less detail, but still calls for creation of educational materials for MSMEs and highlighting special mechanisms for them to develop and protect IP, encouraging IP creation by establishing and strengthening IP facilitation centers especially in industrial and innovation university clusters, Introducing “first-time patent” fee waiver and support systems for MSMEs and reduce transaction costs in other ways (e.g. prior art search). It does not specifically mention favorable tax treatment to MSMEs or access to databases to determine novelty or provision of assistance with patent application or call for government intervention to better the IP facilitation centers.

Academia and Research Organisations

The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy again recommend similar strategies when it comes to academia and research organisations. They both recommend some sort of education/awareness rising targeted at researchers and innovators regarding precautions to be exercised before patent application such as not selling inventions to company at early stages / not publishing research to public etc. they also recommend promoting university startups to motivate scientists to take up technology ventures. They both promote encouraging IITs and other similar institutions to undertake research on national issues like poverty, health, food, security, energy, information technology, bio-technology etc. They both recommend that IP creation be a key performance indicator for universities and institutions that participate in publicly sponsored/collaborative research and development and that this be gradually introduced in Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions. And finally they both recommend that basic concepts of IP creation and respect for IP as part of formal education at school/college/university/vocational level including a course on IPR that is to be included in the curriculum of all technical programmes recognized by AICTE and in post grad/research programme in science and applied fields in universities.

The Draft Policy recommends all this and more. It recommends the formulation of institutional IP policy/strategy in higher education, research and technical institutions. Even though it recommends educating researchers and innovators regarding IP and precautions to be taken with respect to protecting their invention before publishing, it doesn’t go into detail or state that there is a need to protect against inventions being sold prematurely to companies. The Draft Policy also recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector are to be tapped to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and the value generated therefrom. It also recommends that IITs NITs etc. be encouraged to focus on research in areas such as nanotechnology, data analytics and ICT in addition to areas such as food security, healthcare and agriculture. Further in addition to creating educational material about IPR at school and university levels, the Draft Policy also calls for online and distance learning programs for all categories of users that focus on IPR. And for IP courses/modules to be introduced in all major training institutes such as judicial academies, National Academy of Administration, Police and Customs Academies, IIFT, Institute of Foreign Service Training, Forest Training Institutes etc., creating IPR cells and technology development and management units in such institutes. The Draft Policy also recommends that IPR be a compulsory subject in all legal educational institutions, NIDs NIFTs, agricultural universities and management institutes, and making IP teaching a part of accreditation mechanism in institutes under the purview of UGC, AICTE MCI as well as IITs and IIMs.

Large Organisations

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommends that the government encourage large organisations to take a long term view of R&D and make research investments to create strong self-reliant tech portfolio and also acquire the scale to build strategic global positions, it recommends that the government encourage these organisations to share their expertise and resources for national benefit through PPPs, development of high technology base requires strategic relationships with overseas players, it recommends that it be made mandatory for MNCs to align with innovation strategy and the National Innovation systems and that the MNCs be encouraged by the state to leverage their standing and reach to ensure inflow of best practices and investments.it also recommends sops and preferential treatment in public contracts to large Indian organisations with a strong culture of IP creation. And that these organisations be encouraged to tap open innovation platforms and tie ups with academia. The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends more or less the same strategies with regard to large organisations.

The Draft Policy recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector be encouraged to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and its value, that MNCs and large organisations develop IPR programs for their employees, that government encourage large organisations to create, protect and utilize IP in India and that the government create an industry-academia interface for encouraging cross-fertilization of ideas and IPR driven research and innovation in jointly identified areas. It makes no mention of requiring large organisations to align with the National IPR Policy, to ensure best practices but also doesn’t particularly mention tax cuts or other sops to encourage large organisations with a strong IP culture. The Draft Policy makes no mention at all of open innovation platforms. In large parts the Draft Policy is vague and lacks specifics with regard to strategies toward large organisations.

Startups and Individuals

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both make separate recommendations aimed at startups and individuals. They both recommend that information on the delivery mechanism for support services including things like venture capital funding should be made expedient and that identified public institutions should offer end to end support for creation, protection and commercialization of IP. The September 2012 Strategy also recommends that procedural mechanisms adopted for giving financial support for patent filing should be made smoother and that the assistance provided should be improved. The Draft Policy does not include any specific recommendations with regard to start ups or individuals apart from involving them in the publicity/awareness campaigns. In this measure the Draft Policy seems to fall short.

Strengthening IP Protection/ Creating New IP Regimes

The September 2012 IPR strategy generally called for improvement in institutions that grant IPRs and in institutions that are responsible for its enforcement and expansion of rights to include new IPRs.

The July 2014 IPR Strategy had a significant advance to this and recommended periodic review and streamlining procedures and process and guidelines for search, grant examination, maintenance and registration of IPRs in consultation with relevant stakeholders and benchmarked with best practices. It also recommended that full benefit be taken of global protection systems of WIPO, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Madrid System for International Registration of Marks etc. and that consequent upon amendment in 2012 of the Copyright Act, 1957, consideration be given to acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty for the blind, that avenues for international cooperation in IPR be studied. And finally it recommended that with respect to traditional knowledge and grant of patents in other countries, the Nagoya protocol is a step in the right direction and while the Patents Act, 1970, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 address the issue, a sui generis system of protection to check misappropriation is required at the international level.

The Draft Policy generally recommends that there be a review of existing IP laws to update and improve them and remove any inconsistencies, a review of IP related rules and procedures etc. to ensure clarity, simplification, streamlining, transparency and time bound process in administration and enforcement of IP rights. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government actively engage in negotiating international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders, examine accession to some multilateral treaties that are in the countries interest and become a signatory to those treaty that India has defacto implemented so that India can participate in their decision making process. The central problem here is of course that what is in the countries interest may be open to debate, the Draft Policy does not at any point for example indicate whether or not the Government would consider taking on TRIPS plus obligations, the Draft Policy does not clarify what the Governments general stance on such issues would be.

The Draft Policy further recommends that important areas of study and research for future policy development be identified, some examples provided are: a) Interplay between IP laws and other laws to remove ambiguities or inconsistencies, b) Interface between IP and competition law and policy, c) Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity, d) Guidelines for authorities whose respective jurisdictions impact the administration or enforcement of IPRs such as patents and bio-diversity, e) Exceptions and limitations and f) Exhaustion of IP rights. A prominent concern here would be data exclusivity, while the policy uses vague language and only wants these issues to be studied, Data exclusivity among others are demands made by the EU and others in Free Trade Agreements that go beyond our obligation under TRIPS and could harm the public interest.

Establishing Cost Effective, Efficient and Service Oriented IP Administrative Infrastructure

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends that IPOs be restructured to aim for ISO 9002 model to increase efficiency, quality and cost effectiveness; that after a review of the need of human resources to enable IPOs to discharged workload efficiently the required amount of manpower be employed; that recruitment training and career development of officials has to be reviewed to recruit and retain best personnel in the IPO; that the possibility of providing advisory services and value added products be studied; and recommends that there should be cooperation with IPOs in other countries in the area of capacity building, human resource development and awareness.

The Draft Policy recommends that IPOs be restructured, upgraded and be granted greater responsibility and autonomy taking into account the rapid growth and diversity of IP users and services, it also recommends an increase in manpower according to findings after a review to ensure speedy liquidation of backlog, requirements of global protection systems and productivity parameters. And that the process of recruitment training, cadre structure and career development of officials be studied and reviewed to retain the best talent to enhance efficiency and productivity. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government collaborate with R&D institutions universities, funding agencies, chambers of industry and commerce in providing advisory services which will improve IP creation and management and utilization, promote cooperation with IP offices in other countries in areas of capacity building, HRD, training, access to databases, best practices in search and examinations, use of ICT and user oriented services, enhance international and bilateral cooperation and post IP attaches in select countries to follow IP developments and advice on IP related matters.

Office of CGPDTM

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended that Grant/registration procedure to be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, that the functioning of IPOs be improved by measures such as: complete digitization of IP records and uploading for public view to improve transparency, communication with applicant/agents to be improved to bring in transparency meticulousness, database to be made searchable so that researchers can conduct effective searches to identify state of the art technology, electronic filing of applications and subsequent examination through electronic mode to be mandatory, Increase in filing fee with specific discounts for identified sectors such as MSEs.

The 2012 IPR Strategy observed that the quality of examination of IP applications needs to be improved and suggested reassessment of procedures followed in IPO to reduce timelines toward statutory actions.

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the grant and registration procedure be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, and that there be regular meetings between the CGPDTM and the National Biodiversity Authority to resolve issues that arise from implementing guidelines about grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and TK.

The Draft Policy recommended that the government establish close cooperation between IPOs and create a common web portal for ease of access to statutes regulations, guidelines, databases and for better coordination.

The Draft policy also recommended that the CGPDTM examine joining centralized access for search and examination (CASE) and WIPO digital access services (DAS), that the CGPDTM fix and adhere to timelines for grant of registration and disposal of opposition matters, create a service oriented culture, include appointing public relations officers who would make the IP office user friendly, that the CGPDTM conduct periodic audits of processes being adopted in IP administration for efficient grant and management of IP rights.

The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM implement quality standards at all stages of operations with the aim to obtain ISO certification and adopt best practices with respect to filing and docketing of documents, maintenance of records and digitizing the same including document workflow and tracking systems, and take steps to expedite digitization of the design office and enable online search and filing in the design office

The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM ensure that public records in IP office are easily available and accessible both online and offline and establish effective coordination between its office and NBA to enable harmonious implementation of guidelines relating to grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and associated TK, that the CGPDTM remove disparities among different branches of the trademark registries and patent offices and adopt standardized procedures in examination/grant of applications including maintenance of rights, implement centralized priority field wise on a national basis and provide value added services in form of helpdesks, awareness and training materials, patent mapping, licensing and technology transfer support services, ease of remote access of the international patent search mechanisms and other IP related databases. And that the CGPDTM implement incentives for MSMEs to encourage filing by the said sector like waiver of official fee, support of examiners and pro-bono legal help for the first time filing.

Administrative Departments of Other IP Institutions

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both generally recommended that the administrative departments of other IP institutions also take up similar actions as the CGPDTM.

The Draft Policy however, goes into this with some detail. The Draft Policy recommends that with regard to the office of Registrar of Copyright, the Government take measures to expedite modernization of the office both in terms of office space and infrastructure and in terms of introducing e filing facility including e- applications, electronic processing and issuance of final extracts of registrations etc. It also recommends that all copyright records be digitized and that the government introduce an online search facility and provide necessary manpower and adequate training facilities to personnel in the copyright office. It further recommends that the government take urgent measures for the effective management and administration of copyright societies to ensure transparency and efficiency in the collection and disbursement of royalties in the best interests of rights holders and that the government provide user friendly services in the form of help desks, awareness raising and training materials.

The Draft Policy recommends that the registrar of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design study the reasons for lack of interest in filings under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000 and suggest appropriate measures. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government formalize a consultation and coordination mechanism between the National Biodiversity Authority and the IPOs with a view to harmonious implementation of guidelines for grant of IP rights and access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge and benefit sharing.

Institutional Capacity Building

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the RGNIIPM act as a think tank, carry out research on IP matters, formulate and deliver training courses and develop teaching curricular for academic institutions, develop linkages with other national and international institutions involved in similar fields and develop joint training programs and conduct joint research studies on IPRs including programs for plant variety protection and issues related to traditional knowledge and bio resources. And establish IP institutes with state governments for raising awareness and training and teaching.

It also recommended that the MHRD IPR chairs provide support to all ministries and departments in policy making law making and negotiations under bilateral or multilateral frameworks. The Strategy also recommended that institutes responsible for training customs, police, judiciary, forest research institutes have IP training as an essential part of the curriculum, that National level institutes associated with creation enforcement or commercialization should be encouraged to incorporate IP training and capacity building in their operations and finally that industry, business, IP professional bodies, inventers associations, venture capital funds etc. should be encouraged to develop IP training modules for their members as well.

The Draft Policy recommends all this and more and suggests that RGNIIPM Nagpur conduct training for IP administrators , managers in the industry, academicians, R&D institutions, IP professionals, inventors, civil society apart from training the trainers, developing training modules and links with other similar entities at the international level and set up state level institutions. Further it recommended that the MHRD IPR Chairs provide high quality teaching and research, develop teaching capacity and curricula and evaluate their work on performance based criteria.

The Draft Policy also recommends that the CGPDTM provide continuous training to the IPO staff and update them with developments in procedures, substantive laws and technologies along with the RGNIIPM.

The Draft policy also recommends that the government establish national level institutes of excellence to provide leadership in IP, conduct policy and empirical research, examine trends and developments in the field of IP at the national and international level, support the government in strategic development of IP systems and international negotiations, establish links with similar institutes and experts in other countries for exchange of ideas, information and best practices and suggest approaches and guidelines for inter-disciplinary human capital development. And that the government facilitate industry associations, inventors and creators associations and IP support institutions to raise awareness of IP issues for teaching, training and skill building.

Strengthening Institutional Set-up to Improve Enforcement of IPRs and Create Respect for IPRs

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both recommend that the government encourage small and niche businesses to protect their products through trademarks, the September 2012 Strategy also adds that these businesses should be encouraged to seek international protection to participate in global competition and contribute to international trade activities. The Draft Policy recommends increasing awareness of international mechanisms and treaties (e.g. PCT, Madrid and The Hague) to encourage creation and protection of IP in global markets.

The 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 Strategy go into further detail, they recommend that the service sector be encouraged to adopt strategies for registration of trademarks to ensure competitiveness and to leverage the goodwill of strong indigenous brands that have acquired traction in international markets. They also recommend that SME clusters be encouraged to develop a comprehensive database of their products to ensure that a parent isn’t issued on unprotected innovations.

As far as GI is concerned, both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that central public bodies such as the development commissioner for handicrafts and handlooms etc. partner with the suitable state, district and Panchayat level entities to educate communities on the benefits of registering GIs, to put in place examination protocols to ensure GI owners comply with quality standards. They further recommend that these bodies develop a roadmap to build brands for better market presence for products registered as GIs and coordinate with relevant state authority on enforcement and provide periodical updates to enforcement taskforce on issues that need redressal.

The Draft Policy only recommends that the government encourage registration of GI through support institutions and assist GI producers to define and maintain acceptable quality standards and providing better marketability.

As far as designs are concerned, both the July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that the government encourage a move from informal to formal practices of protecting designs by administrative intervention, while the Draft Policy recommends the encouraging of creation of design related IP rights by identifying, nurturing, and promoting aspects of innovation protectable under the design law and educating designers to utilize and benefit from their designs , involve the NIDs , NIFTs and other institutions in sensitization campaigns.

With regard to plant varieties, both the 2014 and 2012 IPR Strategies recommend awareness generation programmes to encourage filings of new extant and essentially derived varieties. While the 2012 IPR Strategy further stated that there was a need to evaluate whether restructuring institutions/merging all IP issues under one umbrella would improve efficiency and a need for centrally managed National IP Enforcement Taskforce that could :a) Maintain database on criminal enforcement measures instituted for trademark infringement and copyright piracy, civil cases filed to be collated also, b) Mandated to deliberate upon operational issues of enforcement with the concerned Central and State agencies, c) Conduct periodic industry wise infringement surveys d) Coordinate capacity building programmes for the central and state enforcing agencies.

The Draft Policy recommends that the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority should: a) Support increased registration of new, extant and essential derived varieties and streamline procedures, b) Facilitate development of seeds and their commercialization by farmers., c) Establish links with agriculture universities, research institutions, technology development and management centers and Krishi Vikas Kendras, d) Coordinate with other IPOs for training sharing expertise and adopting best practices, e) Augment awareness building, training and teaching programs and modernize office infrastructure and use of ICT.

With regard to Traditional Knowledge, the Draft Policy also recommends that the government create a sui generis system for protecting TK which will safeguard misappropriation of traditional knowledge as well as promote further research and development in products and services based on traditional knowledge.

Creation of New IP Rights to Address Gaps

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended protection of utility models, utility patents as they have Protection of utility model. Utility patents / models proposed as they have less stringent patentability criteria, faster examination/grant, shorter term of protection as a cost effective way to incentivize incremental innovation and encourage creation of IPRs, with sector specific exemptions to ensure TRIPS compliance. And included a proposal for a predictable recognizable trade secret regime to improve investor confidence and facilitate flow of information.

The Draft Policy also recommended that the government facilitate creation and protection of small inventions through a new law on utility models, enact laws to address national needs to fill gaps in protective regimes of IPRs such as utility models and trade secrets to keep up with advancements in science and technology to strengthen IP and innovation ecosystem from example IP created from public funded research, to protect and promote traditional knowledge. As pointed out in the CIS Submission to the IPR Think Tank, the creation of utility models should by no means be assumed to be completely uncontroversial, many countries that had this system have now given it up, further this could lead to granting of frivolous patents and thereby harming development.

Facilitating Commercialization of IPRs

Both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategies have similar recommendations with respect to facilitating commercialization of IPRs; they both recommend policy interventions to create strong and transparent national strategies to encourage: licensing of rights to another entity for commercialization, cross licensing agreements, leveraging the intellectual assets for future R&D growth and improved services, sale merger acquisition of either IPR or entire business distinguished and appropriately valued by their intellectual capital, patent pooling, reinforcing stability of IP license contracts.

And they both recommend that National research laboratories and academia and public institutions to stimulate commercialization of research resultants: intervention in building strengthening institutional capacity of research led organisations to enable utilization of IP.

The 2012 IPR Strategy also recommends national level policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, that government fund (grants/loans) demonstration projects of new technologies that require large investment, suitable tax breaks for indigenously developed and commercialized products till attainment of some maturity levels, that qualification requirements during tendering process to accord acceptance to indigenously developed products where heavy development investments have been incurred, strengthening the indigenous R&D ecosystem policy frameworks should provide for flexibility in outsourcing technical expertise in niche areas and type testing of prototypes. Further it visualizes the emergence of open innovation systems and the role of voluntary SSOs.

The Draft Policy does all this and more. It recommends that the government establish an IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) as a nodal organization for promotion and commercialization of IPR, the IPPDC is supposed to, among other things, promote licensing and technology transfer of IP, devise suitable contractual and licensing guidelines to enable commercialization of IP, promoting patent pooling and cross licensing to create IP based products and services and also establishing links with similar organisations for exchange of information and ideas as also to develop promotional educational products and services for promotion and commercialization, to facilitate access to databases on Indian IP and global databases of creators/innovators, market analysts, funding agencies, IP intermediaries, to study and facilitate implementation of best practices for promotion and commercialization of IP within the country and outside. IPPDC to establish IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) in various regions The IPPDC is also tasked with identifying opportunities for marketing Indian IPR based products and services to a global audience.

The government is also recommended to provide statutory incentives like tax benefits linked to IP creation for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization, to support financial aspects of IP commercialization by: a)Enabling valuation of IP rights by application of appropriate methodologies including for better accounting as intangible assets, b) Facilitating investments in IP driven industries and services through the proposed IP exchange for bringing investors/funding agencies and IP owners /users together, c) Providing financial support to less empowered groups of IP owners or creators like farmers weavers, artisans, craftsmen etc. through financial institutions like rural banks or cooperative banks offering IP friendly loans, d) Taking stock of all IP funding by the government and suggesting measures to consolidate the same to the extent possible generating scale in funding and avoiding duplication, enhancing the visibility of IP and innovation related funds so that utilization is increased, performance based evaluation for continued funding, c) Regulating IP created through publicly funded research by a suitable law.

The Draft policy also recommends that the government promote going to market activities by: a) Creating mechanisms to help MSMEs and research institutions to validate scale and pilot through market testing, b) Providing seed funding for market activities such as participating in trade fairs, industry standards bodies and other forums, c) Providing guidance and support to IPR owners about commercial opportunities of e commerce through internet and mobile platforms. And that the government study the role of IPRs in setting standards in various areas of technology, actively participate in standards setting processes at national, international and industry SSO levels and to encourage the development of global standards that are influenced by technologies and IP generated in India

Facilitating and Encouraging Commercialization of IP Assets

The July 2014 IPR Strategy had specific recommendations to make in this regard. It recommended that the government forge links between creators and inventors , universities, industry and financial institutions for commercialization, that the government establish an IP exchange to stimulate trading of IP and creating markets for IP assets, to facilitate MSMEs to identify protect and commercialize their IP, creations through facilitation centers by providing package of services, to encourage technologies acquired under the patent pool of the Technology Acquisition and Development Fund (TADF) and licensed as per provision in manufacturing policy.

The Draft IP policy recommends all of these, tasking the IPPDC with most of these tasks and also recommends that the government improve awareness of the value of copyright for creators, the importance of their economic and moral rights and the rationalization of payment mechanisms for them, and to support initiative taken by public sector research entities to commercialize their IPRs for commercialization and lastly to develop skills among scientists to access , interpret and analyze the techno-legal and business information contained in IP documents.

Enforcement and Adjudication

The Draft Policy makes very specific recommendations with regard to enforcement and adjudication, apart from suggestions that go toward creating awareness and sensitizing the public, students, industry and inventors about IP, the policy also recommends that the government establish a Multi-Agency Task Force for coordination between various agencies and providing direction and guidance on enforcement measures, creating a nationwide database of known IP offenders, coordination and sharing intelligence and best practices at the national and international levels, studying the extent of IP violations in various sectors, examining the implications of jurisdictional difficulties among enforcement authorities and introducing appropriate technology based solutions for curbing digital piracy.

The government is also tasked with working with state governments in establishing IP cells and including IP crimes under their special laws, increasing manpower and infrastructure of the enforcement agencies and building capacity to check proliferation of digital crimes, providing regular training for officials in enforcement agencies, encouraging application of tech-based solutions in enforcement of IP rights, initiating fact finding studies in collaboration with stakeholders concerned to assess the extent of counterfeiting and piracy and the reasons behind it as well as the measures to combat it and taking up the issue of Indian works and products being pirated and counterfeited abroad with countries concerned.

On improving IP dispute resolution, the Draft Policy recommends the designation of specialized patent bench in the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, the designation of one IP court at the district level depending on the number of IP cases filed, working with judicial academies to conduct regular workshops for judges, promoting ADRs in the resolution of IP cases by strengthening mediation and conciliation centers and developing ADR capabilities, creating regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located, increasing the powers of IPAB in its administration including autonomy in financial matters and selection of technical and judicial members and providing necessary infrastructure for its effective and efficient funding and also taking urgent steps to make the copyright board function effectively and efficiently and provide adequate infrastructure and manpower to it.

Work Plans

In addition to all of the above, the July 2014 IPR Strategy also recommends a work plan which includes commissioning a study on schemes and programs financed by the government including under the PP mode for innovation, signing and acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty, the NICE agreement on international classification of goods and services for the purpose of registration of trademarks, assessing the Hague Agreement regarding registration of industrial design vis a vis India’s Designs Act with a view to accede to the treaty, assessing the possibility of accepting facilitation centers run by universities/academic institutions/departments of science and technology as receiving offices for patent applications where there are no patent offices.

The Draft IP Policy also makes recommendations to integrate IP with other government Initiatives like Make in India and Digital India, and plans to integrate into these government initiatives the different schemes of the Department of Electronics, and IT for IP promotion and global protection. It further recommends the establishing of a high-level body in the government to co-ordinate, guide and oversee the implementation and development of IP in India in accordance with the National IP Policy. The body will be responsible for bringing cohesion and coordination among different ministries and departments with regard to how they deal with IP matters, laying down priorities for IP development and preparing plans of action for time bound implementation of national and sector specific IP policies, strategies and programs, monitoring the progress and implementation of the National IP policy linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables, annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and a major review of the policy ever three years.

Concluding Observations

The National IPR Strategies of 2012 and 2014 contain more or less similar recommendations, the key differences being that the 2014 IPR Strategy emphasizes the need to address IP issues in international fora and in establishing cost effective, efficient and service oriented IP administrative infrastructure. It does not, in contrast to the 2012 IPR Strategy, recommend the introduction of laws on utility models or protection of trade secrets, policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, but it does more specifically address facilitating commercialization of IP.

The Draft Policy is an important advance over the National IPR Strategy of July 2014 and September 2012. It places makes important new recommendations with regards to publicity and awareness raising, creation of legal regime with regard to traditional knowledge, utility patents and trade secrets, enforcement and adjudication- including the setting up of new courts, creation of the IPPDC and of a new high-level government body to oversee the implementation of the policy. It does however miss out on the chance to help start-ups, MSMEs and individuals in contrast to recommendations of the previous IPR Strategies. And in context of its avowed aim to turn knowledge owned into knowledge shared does little to encourage open access and focuses heavily on IP creation assuming that increase in IP would promote innovation and thereby lead to national development.

Table - Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 And Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

Sectoral Innovation Council, National IPR Strategy, September 2012, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf (Hereafter : National IPR Strategy, September 2012)

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/national_IPR_Strategy_21July2014.pdf (Hereafter: National IPR Policy, July 2014)

IPR Think Tank, Draft National IP Policy, December 2014, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf (Here after: Draft Policy)

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5

Draft Policy, p.5

[5] National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5

Draft Policy, p.5

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11 and Draft Policy, December 2014, pp.5

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, pp.5-6,

Draft Policy, p.6,

Draft Policy, p.8.

Draft Policy, p.11.

Draft Policy, p.13.

Draft Policy, p.17.

Draft Policy, p.20.

Draft Policy, p.23.

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 11, 12, 19 20

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 21

Draft Policy, p.6-8

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6-7 , 12-13 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.6-8

Draft Policy, p.5, 9-10, 15,18-19

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 13-14 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.8-9.

Draft Policy, p.8,11,24

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6, 14-15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.9-10

Draft Policy, p.7-8, 10

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10-12

Draft Policy, p.12-13,

Draft Policy, p.13

Swaraj Paul Barooah, Data Exclusivity back on the table for India, SpicyIP, March 27, 2015, Available at: http://spicyip.com/2015/03/data-exclusivity-back-on-the-table-for-india.html

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.11-12

Draft Policy, p.14

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15-16

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 16

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 12-14

Draft Policy, p. 15-16

Draft Policy,p. 16

Draft Policy, p.15

Draft Policy, p. 15-16

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.16 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14

Draft Policy, p.16

Draft Policy, p.17

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14-15

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15

Draft Policy, p.24

Draft Policy, p.23

Draft Policy, p.24

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15-16

Draft Policy, p.11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.17-18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16-17

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16

Draft Policy, p. 11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19-20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 17-18

Draft Policy, p.11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 18

Draft Policy, p.11

Draft Policy, p. 12

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20-22

Draft Policy, p.12

See, CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 18-19

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.23

Draft Policy, p. 18-19

Draft Policy, p.19

Draft Policy, p.10,19

Draft Policy, p.19-20

Draft Policy, p. 12-13

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.19

Draft Policy, pp. 10, 18-19.

Draft Policy, pp. 20-22

Draft Policy, p. 22

Draft Policy, p.22-23

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.22

Draft Policy, pp. 25-26.

Draft Policy, p.26

Draft Policy, p.27-28

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015

Comparison of General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Directive

Aditi Chaturvedi and Edited by Leilah Elmokadem — 2017-02-07T14:08:35Z

Recently, the General Data Protection Regulation (REGULATION (EU) 2016/679) was passed. It shall replace the present Data Protection Directive (DPD 95/46/EC), which is a step that is likely to impact the workings of many organizations. This document intends to offer a clear comparison between the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) a the Data Protection Direction (DPD).

Download the file here

INTRODUCTION

The GDPR i.e. General Data Protection Regulation (REGULATION (EU) 2016/679) was adopted on May 27th, 2016. It will come into force after a two-year transition period on May 25th, 2018 and will replace the Data Protection Directive (DPD 95/46/EC). The Regulation intends to empower data subjects in the European Union by giving them control over the processing of their personal data. This is not an enabling legislation. Unlike the previous regime under the DPD (Data Protection Directive), wherein different member States legislated their own data protection laws, the new regulation intends uniformity in application with some room for individual member states to legislate on procedural mechanisms. While this will ensure a predictable environment for doing business, a number of obligations will have to be undertaken by organizations, which might initially burden them financially and administratively.

2. SUMMARY

The Regulation contains a number of new provisions as well as modified provisions that were under DPD and has removed certain requirements under the DPD. Some significant changes mentioned in the document have been summarized in this section.. These changes suggest that GDPR is a comprehensive law with detailed substantive and procedural provisions. Yet, some ambiguities remain with respect to its workability and interpretation. Clarifications will be required.

2.1 Provisions from the DPD that were retained but altered in the GDPR include:

2.1.1 Scope:

GDPR has an expanded territorial scope and is applicable under two scenarios; 1) when processor or controller is established in the Union, and 2) when processor or controller is not established in the Union. The conditions for applicability of the GDPR under the two are much wider than those provided for DPD. Also, the criteria under GDPR are more specific and clearer to demonstrate application.

2.1.2 Definitions:

Six definitions have remained the same while those of personal data and consent have been expanded.

2.1.3 Consent:

GDPR mentions "unambiguous" consent and spells out in detail what constitutes a valid consent. Demonstration of valid consent is an important obligation of the controller. Further, the GDPR also explains situations in which child's consent will be valid. Such provisions are absent in DPD.

2.1.4 Special categories of data:

Two new categories, biometric and genetic data have been added under GDPR.

2.1.5 Rights:

The GDPR strengthens certain rights granted under the DPD. These include:

a. Right to restrict processing: Under DPD the data subject can block processing of data on the grounds of data inaccuracy or incomplete nature of data. GDPR, on the other hand , is more elaborate and defined in this respect. Many more grounds are listed together with consequences of enforcement of this right and obligations on controller.

b. Right to erasure: This is known as the "right to be forgotten". Here, the DPD merely mentions that the data subject has the right to request erasure of data on grounds of data inaccuracy or incomplete nature of data or in case of unlawful processing. The GDPR has strengthened this right by laying out 7 conditions for enforcing this right including 5 grounds on which the request for erasure shall not be processed. This means that the "right to erasure" is not an absolute right. GDPR provides that if data has been made public, controllers are under an obligation to inform other controllers processing the data about the request.

c. Right to rectification: This right is similar under GDPR and DPD.

d. Right to access: GDPR has broadened the amount of information data subject can have regarding his/her own data. For example, under the DPD the data subject could know about the purpose of processing, categories of processing, recipients or categories to whom data are disclosed and extent of automated decision involved. Now under GDPR, the data subject can also know about retention period, existence of certain rights, about source of data and consequences of processing. It specifically states controllers obligations in this regard.

e. Automated individual decision making including profiling: This is an interesting provision that applies solely to automate decision-making. This includes profiling, which is a process by which personal data is evaluated solely by automated means for the purpose of analyzing a person's personal aspect such as performance at work, health, location etc. The intent is that data subjects should have the right to obtain human intervention into their personal data. This upholds philosophy of data safeguard as the subject can get an opportunity to express himself, obtain explanation and challenge the decision. Under GDPR, such decision-making excludes data concerning a child.

2.1.6 Code of conduct:

A voluntary self-regulating mechanism has been provided under both GDPR and DPD.

2.1.7 Supervisory Authority:

As compared to the DPD, the GDPR lays down detailed and elaborate provisions on Supervisory Authority.

2.1.8 Compensation and Liability:

Although compensation and liability provisions under GDPR and DPD are similar, the GDPR specifically mentions this as a right with a wider scope. While the Directive enforces liability on the controller only, under the GDPR, compensation can be claimed from both, processor and controller.

2.1.9 Effective judicial remedies:

Provisions in this area are also quite similar between the DPD and GDPR. The difference is that GDPR specifically mentions this as a "right" and the Directive does not. Use of such words is bound to bring legal clarity. It is interesting to note that in the DPD, recourse to remedy has been mentioned in the Recitals and it is the national law of individual member states, which shall regulate the enforceability. GDPR, on the other hand, mentions this under its Articles together with the jurisdiction of courts and exceptions to this right.

2.1.10 Right to lodge complaint with supervisory authority:

The right conferred to the data subject to seek remedy under unlawful processing has been strengthened under GDPR. Again, as mentioned above, GDRP specifically words this as a "right" while the DPD does not.

2.2 New provisions added to the GDPR include:

2.2.1 Data Transfer to third countries:

Provisions under Chapter V of GDPR regulate data transfers from EU to third countries and international organizations and data transfer onward. DPD only provides for data transfer to third countries without reference to international organizations.

A mechanism called adequacy decisions for such transfers remains the same under both laws. However, in situations where Commission does not take adequacy decisions, alternate and elaborate provisions on "Effective Safeguards" and "Binding Corporate Rules" have been mentioned under the GDPR. Other certain situations have been envisaged under both GDPR and DPD for data transfers in absence of adequacy decision. These are more or less similar with a only few modifications.

Significantly, GDPR brings clarity with respect to enforceability of judgments and orders of authorities that are outside of EU over their decision on such data transfer. Additionally, it provides for international cooperation for protection of personal data. These are not mentioned in the DPD.

2.2.2 Certification mechanism:

Just like code of conduct, this is also a voluntary mechanism, which can aid in demonstrating compliance with Regulation.

2.2.3 Records of processing activities:

This is a mandatory "compliance demonstration" mechanism under GDPR, which is not mentioned under DPD. Organizations are likely to face initial administrative and financial burdens in order to maintain records of processing activities.

2.2.4 Obligations of processor:

DPD fixes liability on controllers but leaves out processors. GDPR includes both. Consequently, GDPR specifies obligations of the processor, the kinds of processors the controller can use and what will govern processing.

2.2.5 Data Protection officer:

This finds no mention in the DPD. Under the GDPR, a data protection officer must be mandatorily appointed where the core business activity of the organization pertains to processing, which requires regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on large scale, processing of large scale special categories of data and offences, or processing carried out by public authority or public body.

2.2.6 Data protection impact assessment:

This is a Privacy Impact assessment for ensuring and demonstrating compliance with the Regulation. Such assessment can identify and minimize risks. GDPR mandates that such assessment must be carried out when processing is likely to result in high risk. The relevant Article mentions when to carry out processing, the type of information to be contained in assessment and a clause for prior consultation with supervisory authority prior to processing if assessment indicates high risk.

2.2.7 Data Breach:

Under this provision, the controller is responsible for two things: 1) reporting personal data breach to supervisory authority no later than 72 hours . Any delay in notifying the authority has to be accompanied by reasons for delay; and 2) communicating the breach to the data subject in case the breach is likely to cause high risk to right and freedoms of the person. As far as the processor is concerned, in the event of data breach, the processor must notify the controller. This provision is likely to push some major changes in the workings of various organizations. A number of detection and reporting mechanisms will have to be implemented. Above all, these mechanisms will have to be extremely efficient given the time limit.

2.2.8 Data Protection by design and default:

This entails a general obligation upon the controller to incorporate effective data protection in internal policies and implementation measures.

2.2.9 Rights:

Under the GDPR, a new right called the " Right to data portability " has been conferred upon the data subjects. This right empowers the data subject to receive personal data from one controller and transfer it to another.

2.2.10 New Definitions:

Out of 26 definitions, 18 new definitions have been added. "Pseudonymisation" is one such new concept that can aid data privacy. This data processing technique encourages processing in a way that personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without using additional information. This additional information is to be stored separately in a way that it is not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person.

2.2.11 Administrative fines:

Perhaps much concern about GDPR is due to provisions on high fines for non-compliance of certain provisions. Organizations simply cannot afford to ignore it. Non-compliance can lead to imposition of very heavy fines up to 20,000,000 EUR or 4% of total worldwide turnover.

2.3 Deleted provisions under DPD include :

2.3.1 Working Party:

Working party under the DPD has been replaced by the European Data Protection Board provided by the GDPR. The purpose of the Board is to ensure consistent application of the Regulation.

2.3.2 Notification Requirement:

The general obligation to notify processing supervisory authorities has been removed. It was observed that this requirement imposed unnecessary financial and administrative burden on organizations and was not successful in achieving the real purpose that is protection of personal data. Instead, now the GDPR focuses on procedures and mechanisms like Privacy Impact assessment to ensure compliance.

3. BRIEF OVERVIEW

The GDPR is the new uniform law, which will now replace older laws. A brief overview has been given below:

Topic	GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)	DPD (Data Protection Directive)

Name	REGULATION (EU) 2016/679	DPD 95/46/EC
Enforcement	Adopted on 27 May 2016 To be enforced on 25 May 2018	Adopted on 24 October 1995
Effect of legislation	It is a Regulation. Is directly applicable to all EU member states without requiring a separate national legislation.	It is an enabling legislation. Countries have to pass their own separate legislations.
Objective	To protect "natural persons" with regard to processing of personal data and on free movement of such data. It repeals DPD 95/46/EC.	To protect "individuals" with regard to processing of personal data and on free movement of such data.
Number of Chapters	XI	VII
Number of Articles	99	34
Number of Recitals	173	72
Applicability	To processors and controllers	Same

4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GDPR AND DPD

This section offers a comparative analysis through a set of tables and text analysing and comparing the provisions of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) with those of the Data Protection Direction (DPD). Spaces left blank in the tables imply lack of similar provisions under the respective data regime.

4.1 Territorial Scope

GDPR has expanded territorial scope. The application of Regulation is independent of the place where processing of personal data takes places under certain conditions. The focus is the data subject and not the location. The DPD made application of national law, a criterion for determining the applicability of the Directive. Under the GDPR, the following conditions need to be satisfied for application of Regulation.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	3	4

When processor or controller is established in the Union, the Regulation/ Directive will apply if: (DPD is silent on location of processors )	1. Processing is of personal data 2. Processing is in "context of activities" of the establishment 3. Processing may or may not take place in the Union	Processing is of personal data.
When processor or controller is not established in Union, the Regulation/Directive will apply if: (DPD is silent on location of processors )	1. Data subjects are in the Union; and 2. Processing activity is related to: I. Offering of goods or services; or II. Monitoring their behavior within Union 3. Will apply when Member State law is applicable to that place by the virtue of public international law	1. Like GDPR the DPD mentions that national law should be applicable to that place by virtue of public international law; Or 2. If the equipment for processing is situated on Member state territory unless it is used only for purpose of transit.

4.2 Material Scope

The Recital under GDPR explains that data protection is not an absolute right. Principle of proportionality has been adopted to respect other fundamental rights.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	2	3
Applies to	Processing of personal data Processing is by automated means, wholly or partially When processing is not by automated means, the personal data should form or are intended to form a part of filing system	Same
Does not apply to	Processing of personal data: 1. For activities which lie outside scope of Union law 2. By Member State under Chapter 2 Title V of TEU 3. By natural person in course of purely personal or household activity 4. By competent authorities in relation to criminal offences and penalties and threats to public security 5. Under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. This needs to be adapted for consistency with GDPR 6. Which should not prejudice the E commerce Directive 2000/31/EC especially the liability rules of intermediary service providers	The provisions in DPD are similar to GDPR. In addition to Title V, the DPD did not apply to Title VI of TEU. DPD doesn't mention Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 or the E commerce Directive 2000/31/EC.

4.3 Definitions

GDPR incorporates 26 definitions as compared to 8 definitions under DPD. There are 18 new definitions in GDPR. Some definitions have been expanded.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	4	2
New Definitions under GDPR	1. Restriction of processing 2. Profiling 3. Pseudonymisation 4. Personal data breach 5. Genetic data 6. Biometric data 7. Data concerning health 8. Main establishment 9. Representative 10. Enterprise 11. Group of undertakings 12. Binding corporate rules 13. Supervisory authority 14. Supervisory authority concerned 15. Cross border processing 16. Relevant and reasoned objection 17. Information society service 18. International organizations
2 definitions that have been expanded under GDPR	1. Personal data 2. Consent
6 Definitions which have remained same in GDPR and DPD	1. Processing of personal data 2. Personal data filing system 3. Controller 4. Processor 5. Third party recipient

4.3.1 Expanded definition of personal data

Both DPD and GDPR apply to 'personal data'. The GDPR gives an expanded definition of 'personal data'. Recital 30 gives example of an online identifier such as IP addresses.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	4(1)	2(a)
New term added in the definition	A new term " online identifier" has been added. Example of online identifier is given under Recital 30. An IP address is one such example.

4.3.2 Expanded definition of consent

Valid consent must be given by the data subject. The definition of valid consent has been added under GDPR. Recital 32 further explains that consent can be given by "means of a written statement including electronic means or an oral statement". For example, ticking a box on websites signifies acceptance of processing while "pre ticked boxes, silence or inactivity" do not constitute consent.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	4(11)	2(h)
Term added in GDPR	Consent must be unambiguous, freely given, specific and informed.	The word "unambiguous" is not contained in DPD.
Means of signifying assent to processing own data	Assent can be given by a statement or by clear affirmative action signifying assent to processing.	DPD merely mentions that freely given, specific and informed consent signifies assent.

4.4 Conditions for consent

GDPR lays down detailed provisions for valid consent. Such provisions are not given in DPD.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Article	7
Obligation of controller	Must demonstrate consent has been given
Presentation of written declaration of consent	It should be in a clearly distinguishable, intelligible and easily accessible form. Language should be clear and plain.
If declaration or any part of it infringes on Regulation	Declaration will be non-binding.
Right of data subject	To withdraw consent at any time.
Right of data subject	If consent is withdrawn, it will not make processing done earlier unlawful.
For assessing whether consent is freely given	Must consider whether performance of contract or provision of service is made conditional on consent to processing of data not necessary for performance of contract.

4.5 Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services

This article prescribes an age limit for making processing lawful when information society services (direct online service) are offered directly to a child.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	8
Conditions for valid consent in this case	If child is at least 16 years old his consent is valid. If child is below 16 years consent must be obtained from holder of parental responsibility over the child.
Age relaxation can be given when	Member States provides a law lowering the age. Age cannot be lowered below 13 years.
Controller's responsibility	Verify who has given the consent
Exceptions	This law will not affect: General contract law of member states; Effect of contract law on a child;

4.6 Processing of special categories of personal data

Like the DPD, the GDPR spells out the data that is considered sensitive and the conditions under which this data can be processed. Two new categories of special data, "genetic data" and "biometric data", have been added to the list in the GDPR.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	9	8
Categories of data considered sensitive	Racial or ethnic origin	Same
	Political opinions	Same
	Religious or philosophical beliefs	Same
	Trade union membership	Same
	Health or sex life or sexual orientation	Same
	Genetic data or Biometric data uniquely identifying natural person
Circumstances in which processing of personal data may take place	If there is explicit consent of data subject provided Member State laws do not prohibit such processing
	Necessary for carrying out specific rights of controller or data subject	Under DPD these rights can be for employment. The GDPR adds social security and social protection to this list. These rights are to be authorized by Member state or Union. The GDPR adds "Collective agreements" to this.
	In the vital interest of data subject who cannot give consent due to physical or legal causes.	Same
	In the vital interest of a Natural person physically or legally incapable of giving consent	Same
	For legitimate activities carried on by not-for profit-bodies for political, philosophical or trade union aims subject to certain conditions.	Same
	When personal data is made public by data subject	Same
	For establishment, exercise of defense of legal claims or for courts	Same
	For substantial public interest in accordance with Member State or Union law
	Is necessary for: Preventive or occupational medicine Assessing working capacity of employee Medical diagnosis Healthcare or social care services Contract with health professional
	Is necessary in Public interest in the area of public health
	For public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purpose
Data for preventive or occupational medicine, medical diagnosis etc. can be processed when:	Data is processed by or under responsibility of a professional under obligation of professional secrecy as state in law	Here the processing is done by health professional under obligation of professional secrecy

4.7 Principles relating to processing of personal data

The principles set out in GDPR are similar to the ones under DPD. Some changes have been introduced. Accountability of the controller has been specifically given under GDPR.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	5	6
Lawfulness, fairness, transparency	Processing must be Lawful, fair and transparent	Does not mention transparent
Purpose limitation	Data must be specified, explicit and legitimate.	Same
Purpose limitation	Processing for achieving public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purpose is not to be considered incompatible with initial purpose.	Same
Data minimization	Processing is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary	Same
Accuracy	Data is accurate, up to date, erased or rectified without delay	Same
Storage limitation	Data is to be stored in a way that data subject can be identified for no longer than is necessary for purpose of processing	Same
	Data can be stored for longer periods when it is processed solely in public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purpose	Same However, public interest is not mentioned.
	There must be appropriate technical and organizational measures to safeguard rights and freedoms	Same Additionally, it specifically states that Member States must lay down appropriate safeguards
Integrity and confidentiality	Manner of processing must: Ensure security of personal data, Protection against unlawful processing and accidental loss, destruction or damage	Not mentioned
Accountability	Controller is responsible for and must demonstrate compliance with all of the above.	DPD states it is for the controller to ensure compliance with this Article. Unlike GDPR, DPD doesn't specifically state the responsibility of controller for demonstrating compliance.

4.8 Lawfulness of processing

The conditions for "lawfulness of processing" under DPD have been retained in the GDPR with certain modifications allowing flexibility for member states to introduce specific provisions in public interest or under a legal obligation. It should be noted that protection given to child's data and rights and freedoms of data subject should not be prejudiced. Additionally, a non-exhaustive list has been laid down in the GDPR for determining if processing is permissible in situations where the new purpose of processing is different from original purpose.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	6	7
Processing is lawful when :	If at least one of the principles applies: Data subject has given consent to processing for specific purpose(s).	Same However it mentions "unambiguous" consent.
	Processing is necessary for performance of contract to which data subject is party or at request of data subject before entering into a contract	Same
	Processing is necessary for controller's compliance with legal obligation.	Same
	Is necessary for legitimate interests pursued by controller or by third party subject to exceptions (should not override rights and freedoms of data subject and protections given to child's data.)	Same
	It is necessary for performance of task carried out in public interest or for exercise of official authority vested in controller	Same It additionally mentions third party: "…exercise of official authority vested in controller or in a third party to whom data are disclosed"
	For protections of vital interest of data subject or another natural person	Same Does not mention natural person.
Member States may introduce specific provisions when:	When processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or to protect public interest
	Basis for processing for shall be laid down by: Union law or Member State law
If processing is done for purpose other than for which data is collected and is without data subject's consent or is not collected under law:
To determine if processing for another purpose is compatible with the original purpose	Controller shall take into account following factors:
	Link between purposes for which data was collected and the other purpose
	Context in which personal data have been collected
	Nature of personal data
	Possible consequences of other purpose
	Existence of appropriate safeguards

4.9 Processing which does not require identification:

This article lays down the conditions under which the controller is exempted from gathering additional data in order to identify a data subject for the purpose of complying with this Regulation. If the controller is able to demonstrate that identification is not possible, the data subject is to be informed if possible.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	11
Conditions under which the controller is not obliged to maintain process or acquire additional information to identify data subject	If purpose for processing doesn't not require identification of data subject by the controller
Consequence of not maintaining the data	Art 15 to 20 shall not apply provided controller is able to demonstrate its inability to identify the data subject
Exception to above consequence will apply when :	Data subject provides additional information enabling identification

4.10 Rights of the data subject

The General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) confers 8 rights upon the data subject.These rights are to be honored by the controller:-

1. Right to be informed

2. Right of access

3. Right to rectification

4. Right to erasure

5. Right to restrict processing

6. Right to data portability

7. Right to object

8. Rights in relation to automated decision making and profiling

4.10.1 Right to be informed

The controller must provide information to the data subject in cases where personal data has not been obtained from the data subject. A number of exemptions have been listed. Additionally, GDPR lays down the time period within which the information has to be provided.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	14	10
Type of information to be provided	Identity and contact details of the controller or controller's representative	Same
	Contact details of the data protection officer
	Purpose and legal basis for processing	Purpose of processing
	Recipients or categories of recipients of personal data	Same
	Intention to transfer data to third country or international organization and Information regarding adequacy decision or suitable safeguards or Binding Corporate Rules or derogations. This includes means to obtain a copy of these as well as information on place of availability.
Additional information to be provided by controller to ensure fair and transparent processing	Storage period of personal data and criteria for determining the period
	Legitimate interests pursued by controller or third party
	Existence of data subject's rights with regard to access or rectification or erasure of personal data, automated decision making
	Where applicable, existence of right to withdraw consent
Time period within which information is to be provided	Information to be given within a reasonable period, latest within one month.
	To be provided latest at the time of first communication to data subject, if personal data are to be used for communication with data subject
	In case of intended disclosure to another recipient , at the latest when personal data are first disclosed.
	If processing is intended for a new purpose other than original purpose, information to be provided prior to processing on new purpose.
Situations in which exceptions are applicable	Data subject already has information	Same
	Provision of information involves disproportionate effort or is impossible or renders impossible or seriously impairs achievement of objective of processing. This is particularly with respect to processing for archiving purposes in public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purpose. However controller must take measures to protect data subject's rights and freedom and legitimate interests including make information public.	Provision involves impossible or disproportionate effort, in particular where processing is for historical or scientific research. However, appropriate safeguards must be provided by Member States.
	Obtaining or disclosure is mandatory under Union or member law and it provides protection to data subject's legitimate interests	Where law expressly lays down recording or disclosure provided appropriate safeguards are provided by Member States. This is particularly applicable to processing for scientific or historical research.
	Confidentiality of data mandated by professional secrecy under Union or Member State law

4.10.2 Right to access

Both Data Protection Directive (DPD) and General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) confer right to access information regarding personal data on the data subject.

CJEU in YS V. Minister voor Immigrate Integratie en Asiel stated that it is the data subject's right "to be aware of and verify the lawfulness of the processing".

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	15	12
Data subject has the right to know about:	Purpose of processing	Same
	Categories of processing the data	Same
	Recipients or categories to whom data are disclosed	Same
	Retention period of the data and criteria for this
	Existence of right to request erasure, rectification or restriction of processing
	Right to lodge complaint with supervisory authority
	Knowledge about source of data
	To know about any significant and envisaged consequences of processing for the data subject
	Existence of automated decision making and logic involved	Same
In case of data transfer to third country	Right to be informed about the safeguards
Controller's obligation	To provide a copy of data undergoing processing. Reasonable fee based on administrative costs can be charged for this.

4.10.3 Right to rectification

GDPR and DPD both give the data subject the right to rectify their personal data. Under the GDPR the data subject can complete the incomplete data by giving a supplementary statement.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	16	12(b)
Right can be exercised when:		Processing does not comply with the Directive i.e. damage is caused due to unlawful processing (Recital 55) OR
Right can be exercised when:	When data is incomplete	When data is incomplete or inaccurate
Obligations of controller	To enforce the right without undue delay
Obligation of controller to give notification when data is disclosed to third party	Given under Art 19 Request of erasure of personal data to be communicated to each recipient of such data	Given under Article 12(c) Request must be communicated to third parties
	It should not involve an impossible or disproportionate effort	Same

4.10.4 Right to erasure

This is also referred to as the "right to be forgotten". It empowers the individual to erase personal data under certain circumstances. The data subject can request the controller to remove the data for attaining this purpose.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	17	12(b)
Obligation of the controller	To erase the data without undue delay
Conditions under which the right can be exercised		When processing does not comply with the Directive i.e. damage is caused due to unlawful processing (Recital 55) OR When data is incomplete or inaccurate
	Personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected or processed
	Data Subject withdraws consent for processing
	Data subject objects to processing and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for processing
	Data subject objects to processing for direct marketing purpose
	Personal data has been unlawfully processed
	When personal data has to be erased under a legal obligation of Union or member State law
	When personal data has been collected in offer of information society services to a child
Condition of processing under which request to erasure shall not be granted	For exercising right of freedom of expression and information
	Processing is done under Union or Member State law in public interest or exercise of official authority vested in controller
	Done for public interest in public health
	For public interest, scientific or historical research or statistical purpose.
	For establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.
Controller's obligations when personal data has been made public	Controller to take reasonable steps to inform controllers who are processing the data, of the request of erasure. All links, copy or replication of personal data to be erased. Technology available and cost of implementation to be taken into account.
Notification when data is disclosed to third party	Given under obligation of controller under Art 19: Request of erasure of personal data to be communicated to each recipient of such data	Given under obligation of controller under 12(c) : Request must be communicated to third parties
Notification when data is disclosed to third party	It should not involve an impossible or disproportionate effort	Same

4.10.5 Right to restrict processing

While DPD provided for "blocking", the GDPR strengthened this right by specifically conferring the " Right to Restrict Processing" upon the data subject. This Article gives data subject the right to restrict processing under certain conditions. Recital 67 explains that these methods could include steps like removing published data from website or temporarily moving the data to another processing system.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	18	12(b)
About this right	Data subject can restrict processing of data	Data subject is allowed to erase, rectify or block processing of personal data.
Conditions under which the right can be exercised	When accuracy of personal data is contested	Besides accuracy, the DPD also mentions "incomplete nature of data" as grounds for exercising this right.
	When processing is unlawful and data subject opposes erasure and requests restriction of data use
	When data is no longer needed by controller but is required by data subject for establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.
	Data subject objects to processing and the verification by controller of compelling legitimate grounds for processing is ongoing
Consequences of this enforcement of this right	Controller can store data but not process it
	Processing can be done only with the data subject's consent; or
	Processing can be done for establishment exercise or defense of legal claims; or
	Processing can be done for protecting rights of another natural or legal person ;or
	It can be done in public interest of Union or Member State.
Obligations of controller under Art 18	The controller must inform the data subject before the restrictions are lifted.
Obligations of controller under Art 19	Inform each recipient of personal data about the restriction.
	This obligation need not be performed if it is impossible to do so or it involved disproportionate effort.
	Inform data subject about the recipients when requested by the data subject.

4.10.6 Right to data portability

This right empowers the data subject to receive personal data from one controller and transfer it to another. This gives the data subject more control over his or her own data. The controller cannot hinder this right when the following conditions are met.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in article	20
Conditions for data transmission	The data must have been provided to the controller by data subject himself; and
	Processing is based on: Consent; or For performance of contract; and is carried out by automated means
	Data transfer must be technically feasible
Format of personal data	It should be in a: Structured Commonly-used Machine readable format
Time and cost for data transfer	Given in Art 12(3) Should be free of charge Information to be provided within one month. Further extension by two months permissible under certain circumstances.
Circumstance under which this Right cannot be exercised	When the exercise of the Right prejudices rights and freedom of another individual
	When processing is necessarily carried out in public interest
	When processing is necessarily done in exercise of official authority vested in controller
	When this Right adversely affects the "Right to be forgotten"

4.10.7 Right to Object

Both DPD and GDPR confer upon the data subject the right to object to processing on a number of grounds. The GDPR strengthens this right . Under GDPR, there is a visible shift from the data subject to the controller as far as the burden of showing " compelling legitimate grounds" is concerned. Under the DPD, when processing is undertaken in public interest or in exercise of official authority or in legitimate interests of third party or controller, the data subject not only has to show existence of compelling legitimate grounds but also that objection is justified. On the other hand, GDPR spares the data subject from this exercise and instead places the onus on the controller of demonstrating that "compelling legitimate grounds" exist such that these grounds override the interests, rights and freedom of the data subject.

GDPR also provides a new ground for objecting to processing. The data subject can object to processing when it is for scientific or historical research or statistical purpose unless such processing is necessary in public interest.

Under the GDPR the data subject must be informed of this right "clearly and separately" and "at the time of first communication with data subject" when processing is done in public interest/exercise of official authority/legitimate interest of third party or controller or for direct marketing purpose. This right can be exercised by automated means in case of information society service.

The DPD also provides that the data subject must be informed of this right if the controller anticipates processing for direct marketing or disclosure of data to third party. It specifically states that this right is to be offered "free of charge". Additionally, it places responsibility upon the Member States to ensure that data subjects are aware of this right.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	21	14
Conditions under which the right can be exercised during processing	When performance of task is carried out in public interest or in exercise of official authority vested in controller. (Art 6(1)(e)) Exception: If controller demonstrates processing is for compelling legitimate grounds which override interests of data subject For establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.	Grounds are same but the data subject also has to show existence of compelling legitimate grounds. Processing will cease if objection is justified. Exceptions: Unless provided by national legislation the data subject can object on this ground.
	For legitimate interests of controller or third party (Art 6(1)(f)) Exception: 1. If controller demonstrates processing is for compelling legitimate grounds that override interests of data subject. 2. For establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims.	Same as above
	When data is processed for scientific/historical research/ statistical purpose under Art 89(1) Exception: If processing is necessary for public interest
	When personal data is used for marketing purpose. Can object at anytime. No exceptions	Same

4.10.8 Rights in relation to automated individual decision making including profiling

This Article empowers the data subject to challenge automated decisions under certain conditions. This is to protect individuals from decisions taken without human intervention.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	22	15
This right can be exercised when decisions are based:
	Only on automated processing Including profiling; and	Same
	Produce legal effects or have similarly significant effects on data subject	Same
Conditions under which this right will not be guaranteed
	For entering into or performance of contract;	Same
	If Member State or Union law authorizes the decision provided it lays down suitable measures for safeguarding data subject's rights, freedoms and legitimate interests; Or	Same
	When decision is based on data subject's explicit consent.
Controller's obligation	Enforce measures to safeguard rights and freedom and interests
Controller's obligation	Ensure data subject can obtain human intervention, express his point of view, challenge decisions
Automated decision making will not apply when:	"Special categories of personal data" are to be processed However, if the data subject gives his explicit consent or such processing serves substantial public interest then the restriction can be waived.
Automated decision making will not apply when:	Concerns a child

4.11 Security and Accountability

4.11.1 Data protection by design and default

This is another new concept under GDPR. It is a general obligation on the controller to incorporate effective data protection in internal policies and implementation measures. Measures include: minimization of processing, pseudonymisation, transparency while processing, allowing data subjects to monitor data processing etc. The implementation of organizational and technical measures is essential to demonstrate compliance with Regulation.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Article	25
Responsibility of controller when determining means of processing and at the time of processing	Implementation of appropriate technical and organizational measures for data protection
	Ensure that by default only personal data necessary for purpose of processing is processed
Means of demonstrating compliance with this Article	Approved certification mechanism may be used. Data minimization Transparency etc.

4.11.2 Security of personal data

Security of processing is mentioned in the GDPR under Article 32. The controller and processor must implement technical and organizational measures to ensure data security. These may include pseudonymisation, encryption, ensuring confidentiality, restoring availability and access to personal data, regularly testing etc. Compliance with the code may be demonstrated by adherence to Code of conduct and certification mechanism. Further, all processing which is done by a natural person acting under authority of controller or processor can be done only under instructions from the controller.

4.11.3 Notification of personal data breach

This Article provides the procedure for communicating the personal data breach to supervisory authority. If the breach is not likely to result in risk to rights and freedoms of natural persons, then the controller is not required to notify the supervisory authority.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	33
Responsibility of controller	Report personal data breach to supervisory authority after being aware of it
Time limit for reporting data breach	Must be reported no later than 72 hours
In case of delay in reporting	Reasons to be stated
Responsibility of processor	Notify the controller after being aware of breach
Description of notification	Describe nature of personal data
	Name contact details of data protection officer
	Likely consequences of personal data breach
	Measures to be taken or proposed to be taken by controller to address the breach or mitigate its possible effect
When information cannot be provided at same time	Provide it in phases without further undue delay
For verification of compliance	Controller has to document any personal data breach. It must contain Facts , effects and remedial action taken

4.11.4 Communication of personal data breach to the data subject

Not only is the supervisory authority to be notified, but data subjects are also to be informed about personal data breaches without undue delay under certain conditions.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	34
Conditions under which controller is to communicate the breach to data subject	When breach is likely to cause high risk to rights and freedoms of natural persons
Nature of communication	Must be in a clear and plain language. Must describe the nature of breach. Must Contain at least: Name contact details of data protection officer Likely consequences of personal data breach Measures to be taken or proposed to be taken by controller to address the breach or mitigate its possible effect
Condition under which communication will not be required	If controller has implemented appropriate technical and organizational measures and these were applied to the affected data. E.g.: encryption
	Subsequent measures have been taken by controller to ensure there is no high risk
	If communication involves disproportionate effort. Public communication or similar measures can be undertaken under such circumstances.
Role of supervisory authority	In case of likelihood of high risk, the authority may require the controller to communicate the breach if the controller has not already done so.

4.11.5 Data protection impact assessment

This is also known as Privacy Impact Assessment. While DPD provides general obligation to notify the processing to supervisory authorities, the GDPR, taking into account the need for more protection of personal data, has replaced the notification process by different set of mechanisms.

To serve the above purpose, the data protection impact assessment (DPIA) has been provided under this Article.

Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	35
When to carry out assessment	When new technology is used; and Processing is likely to result in high risk to rights and freedoms of natural persons
	Automated processing including profiling involving systematic and extensive evaluation of personal aspects of natural persons; and When decisions based on such processing produce legal effects
	Large scale processing of special categories of data or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences
	Large scale systematic monitoring of publicly accessible area
Type of information contained in assessment	Description of processing operations and purpose
	Assessment of necessity and proportionality of processing operations
	Assessment of risks to individuals
	Measures to address risks and demonstration of compliance with Regulation
Sub-topics in the section	GDPR	DPD

Topic	Prior Consultation
Given in Article	36
When should controller consult supervisory authority	Prior to processing; and DPIA indicates high risk; and In absence of risk mitigation measures by controller

Data protection officer

GDPR mandates that a person with expert knowledge of data protection law and practice is appointed for helping the controller or processor to comply with the data protections laws. A single data protection officer (DPO) may be appointed by a group of undertakings or where controller or processor is a public authority or body.The DPO must be accessible from each establishment.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	37
Situations in which DPO must be appointed	When processing is carried out by public authority or body. Note: Courts acting in judicial capacity are excluded.
	Core activity involves processing which requires regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on large scale; or
	Core activity involves processing of large scale special categories of data and criminal convictions and offences

Position of Data Protection Officer

The DPO must directly report to the highest management level of the controller or processor. Data subjects may contact the DPO in case of problems related to processing and exercise of rights.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	38
Responsibility of controller and processor	Ensure DPO is involved properly and in timely manner
	Provide DPO with support, resources and access to personal data and processing operations
	Not dismiss or penalize DPO for performing his task.
	Ensure independence of working and not give instruction to DPO

Tasks of Data Protection officer

The DPO must be involved in all matters concerning data protection. He is expected to act independently and advice the controllers and processors to facilitate the establishment's compliance with Regulations.


Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	39
Tasks	Inform and advise the controller or processor and employees over data protection laws
	Monitor compliance with data protection laws. Includes assigning responsibilities, awareness- raising, staff training and audits
	Advice and monitor performance
	Cooperate with supervisory authority
	Act as point of contact for supervisory authority for processing, prior consultation and consultation on other matter

4.11.6 European Data Protection Board

For consistent application of the Regulation, the GDPR envisages a Board that would replace the Working Party on Protection of Individuals With Regard to Processing of Personal Data established under the DPD. This Regulation confers legal personality on the Board.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	68
Represented by	Chair
Composition of the Board	Head of one supervisory authority of each Member State and European Data Protection Supervisor or of their representatives. Joint representative can be appointed where Member State has more than one supervisory authority.
Role of Commission	Right to participate in activities and meetings of the Board without voting rights. Commission to designate a representative for this.
Functions of the Board	Consistent application of Regulation
	Advise Commission of level of protection in third countries or international organizations
	Promote cooperation of supervisory authorities
	Board is to act independently

4.11.7 Supervisory Authority

GDPR lays down detailed provisions on supervisory authorities, defining their functions, independence, appointment of members, establishment rules, competence, competence of lead supervisory authority, tasks, powers and activity reports. Such elaborate provisions are absent in DPD.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	Chapter VI, Article 51 -59	28

4.12 Processor

The Article spells out the obligations of a processor and conditions under which other processors can be involved.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	28
What kind of processors can be used by controller	● Those which provide sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures ● Those which comply with Regulation and Rights
Obligations of processor in case of addition or replacement of processor	● Not engage another processor without controller's authorization ● In case of general written authorization inform the controller
Processing shall be governed by	Contract or legal act under Union or Member State law.
Elements of Contract	● Is binding on processor ● Sets out subject matter and duration of processing ● Nature of processing ● Type of personal data ● Categories of data subjects ● Obligations and Rights of the controller
Obligations of processor under contract or legal act	Processor shall process under instructions from controller unless permitted under law itself. Controller is to be informed in the latter case.
	Ensures that persons authorized to process have committed themselves to confidentiality
	Processor to undertake all data security measures (mentioned under Art 32)
	Enforces conditions on engaging another processor
	Assists the controller by appropriate technical and organizational measures
	Assists controller in compliance with Art 32 to 36
	Delete or return all personal data to controller at the choice of controller at the end of processing
	Make information available to controller for demonstrating compliance with obligations. Contribute to audits, inspections etc. Inform the controller if it believes that an instruction infringes the regulation or law.
Conditions under which a processor can engage another processor	● Same data protection obligations will be applicable to other processor. ● If other processor fails to fulfill data protection obligations, initial processor shall remain fully liable to controller for such performance.

4.13 Records of processing activities

The controller or processor must maintain records of processing activities to demonstrate compliance with the Regulation. They are obliged to cooperate with and make record available to the supervisory authority upon request. DPD does not contain similar obligations.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	30
Obligation of controller or controller's representative	Maintain a record of processing activities
Information to be contained in the record	Name and contact details of: ● Controller /joint controller / controller's representatives ● Data protection officer
	Purpose of processing
	Categories of data subjects and categories of personal data
	Categories of recipients to whom data has been or will be disclosed
	Transfers of personal data to third party, identification of third party, documentation of suitable safeguards
	Expected time duration for erasure of different categories of data
	Technical and organizational security measures
Obligation of processor	Maintain a record of processing activities carried out on behalf of controller
Record maintained by processor shall contain information such as:	Name and contact details of: ● Processor /processor's representative ● Controller /controller's representative ● Data protection officer
	Categories of processing
	Data transfer to third party Identification of third party Documentation of safeguards
	Technical and organizational security measures
Form in which record is to be maintained	In writing and electronic form
Conditions under which exemption will apply	● Organizations employing fewer than 250 employees are exempted; ● Processing should not cause risk to rights and freedoms of data subjects ● Processing should not be occasional ● Processing should not include special categories of data

4.14 Code of Conduct

These mechanisms have been provided under GDPR to demonstrate compliance with the Regulation. This is important as the GDPR ( under Art 83 ) provides that adherence to code of conduct shall be one of the factors taken into account for calculating administrative fines. This is not an obligatory provision.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	40	27
Who will encourage drawing up of code of conduct	● Member States ● Supervisory Authorities ● Commission. Specific needs of micro, small and medium enterprises to be taken into account.	● Member States ● Commissions Does not mention the rest
Who may prepare amend or extend code of conduct	Associations and other bodies representing categories of controller or processors
Information contained in the code	Fair and transparent processing
	Legitimate interests of controller
	Collection of personal data
	Pseudonymisation
	Information to public and data subjects
	Exercise of rights of data subject
	Information provided to and protection of children and manner in which consent of holders of parental responsibility is obtained
	Measures under: ● Data protection by design and default ● Controller responsibilities ● Security of processing
	Notification of data breach to authorities and communication of same to data subjects
	Data transfer to third party
	Dispute resolution procedures between controllers and data subjects
	Mechanisms for mandatory monitoring
Mandatory monitoring	Code of conduct containing the above information enables mandatory monitoring of compliance by body accredited by supervisory authority. (Art 41)

4.15 Certification

Like the code of conduct, Certification is a voluntary mechanism that demonstrates compliance with the Regulation. Establishment of data protection certification mechanism and data protection seals and marks shall be encouraged by Member States, supervisory authorities, Boards and Commission. As in case of code of conduct, specific needs of micro, small and medium sized enterprise ought to be taken into account. DPD does not mention such mechanisms.

Sub Topics in the Section	GDPR	DPD

Article	42
Who will issue the certificate	Certification bodies or competent supervisory authority on basis of approved criteria.
Time period during which certification shall be issued	Maximum period of three years. Can be renewed under same conditions.
Who accredits certification bodies	Competent Supervisory bodies or National accreditation body.
When can accreditation be revoked	When conditions of accreditation are not or no longer met. OR Where actions taken by certification body infringe this Regulation.
Who can revoke	Competent supervisory authority or national accreditation body

4.16 Data Transfer

4.16.1 Transfers of personal data to third countries or international organizations

Chapter V lays down the conditions with which the data controller must comply in order to transfer data for the purpose of processing outside of the EU to third countries or international organizations. The chapter also stipulates conditions that must be complied with for onward transfers from the third country or international organization.

4.16.2 Transfer on the basis of an adequacy decision

Under GDPR, transfer of data can take place after the Commission decides whether the third country, territory, specified sector within that third country or international organization ensures adequate level of data protection. This is called adequacy decision. A list of countries or international organizations which ensure adequate data protection shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the website by the Commission. Once data transfer conditions are found to be compliant with the Regulation, no specific authorization would be required for data transfer from the supervisory authorities. The commission would decide this by means of an "Implementing Act" specifying a mechanism for periodic review, its territorial and sectoral application and identification of supervisory authorities. Decisions of Commission taken under Art 25(6) of DPD shall remain in force. DPD also provides parameters for the same.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in article	45	25
Conditions apply when transfers take place to	Third country or international organization	International organization not mentioned.
Functions of the commission	Take adequacy decisions	Same
	Review the decision periodically every four years
	Monitor developments on ongoing basis
	Repeal, amend or suspend decision
		Inform Member States if third country doesn't ensure adequate level of protection. Similarly, member state has to inform the Commission.
Functions of Member State		Inform Commission if third country doesn't ensure adequate level of protection.
		Take measures to comply with Commission's decisions
		Prevent data transfer if Commission finds absence of adequate level of protection.
Factors, with respect to third country or international organization, to be considered while deciding adequacy of safeguards	Rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, access of public authorities to personal data, data protection rules, rules for onward transfer of personal data to third country or international organization etc.	Circumstances surrounding data transfer operations: nature of data; purpose and duration of processing operation; rule of law, professional rules and security measures in third country; country of origin and final destination; professional rules and security measures;
	Functioning of independent supervisory authorities, their powers of enforcing compliance with data protection rules and powers to assist and advise data subject to exercise their rights.
	International commitments entered into. Obligations under legally binding conventions.	Same
When adequate level of protection no longer ensues	The Commission, to the extent necessary: repeal, amend or suspend the decision. This is to be done by the means of an implementing act. No retroactive effect to take place	The member state will have to suspend data transfer if Commission finds absence of adequate level of protection.
When adequate level of protection no longer ensues	Commission to enter into consultation with the third country or international organization to remedy the situation	Same

4.16.3 Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards

This article provides for a situation when the Commission takes no decision. (Mentioned above under Transfer on the basis of an adequacy decision). In this case, the controller or processor can transfer data to third country or international organization subject to certain conditions. Specific authorization from supervisory authorities is not required in this context. Procedure for the same has been mentioned.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in article	46
When can data transfer take place	When appropriate safeguards are provided by the controller or processor; AND On condition that data subject enjoys enforceable rights and effective legal remedies for data safety.
Conditions to be fulfilled for providing appropriate safeguards without specific authorization from supervisory authority	Existence of legally binding and enforceable instrument between public bodies or authorities
	Existence of Binding Corporate Rules
	Adoption of Standard Protection Clauses adopted by the Commission
	Adoption of Standard data protection clauses by supervisory authorities and approved by Commission.
	Approved code of conduct along with binding and enforceable commitments of controller or processor in third country to apply appropriate safeguards and data subject's rights OR Approved certification mechanism along with binding and enforceable commitments of controller or processor in third country to apply appropriate safeguards and data subject's rights.
Conditions to be fulfilled for providing appropriate safeguards subject to authorization from competent authority	Existence of contractual clauses between: Controller or Processor and Controller, Processor or recipient of personal data (third party)
	Provisions inserted in administrative arrangements between public authorities or bodies. Provisions to contain enforceable and effective data subject rights.
	Consistency mechanism to be applied by supervisory authority
Unless amended, replaced or repealed, authorization to transfer given under DPD will remain valid when:	Third country doesn't ensure adequate level of protection but controller adduces adequate safeguards; or Commission decides that standard contractual clauses offer sufficient safeguards

4.16.4 Binding Corporate Rules

These are agreements that govern transfers between organizations within a corporate group

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	47
Elements of Binding Corporate Rules	Legally binding
	Apply to and are enforced by every member of group of undertakings or group of enterprises engaged in joint economic activity. Includes employees
	Expressly confer enforceable rights on data subject over processing of personal data
What do they specify	Structure and contact details of group of undertakings
	Data transfers or set of transfers including categories of personal data , type of processing, type of data subjects affected, identification of third countries
	Legally binding nature
	Application of general data protection principles
	Rights of data subjects Means to exercise those right
	How the information on BCR is provided to data subjects
	Tasks of data protection officer etc.
	Complaint procedure
	Mechanisms within the group of undertakings, group of enterprises for ensuring verification of compliance with BCR. Eg. Data protection audits Results of verification to be available to person in charge of monitoring compliance with BCR and to board of undertaking or Group of enterprises. Should be available upon request to competent supervisory authority
	Mechanism for reporting and recording changes to rules and reporting changes to supervisory authority
	Cooperation mechanism with supervisory authority
	Data protection training to personnel having access to personal data
Role of Commission	May specify format and procedures for exchange of information between controllers, processors and supervisory authorities for BCR

4.16.5 Transfers or disclosures not authorized by Union law

This Article lays down enforceability of decisions given by judicial and administrative authorities in third countries with regard to transfer or disclosure of personal data.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	48
Article concerns	Transfer of personal data under judgments of courts, tribunals, decision of administrative authorities in third countries.
When can data be transferred or disclosed	International agreement between requesting third country and member state or union. E.g.: mutual legal assistance treaty

4.16.6 Derogations for specific situations

This Article comes into play in the absence of adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards or of binding corporate rules. Conditions for data transfer to a third country or international organization under such situations have been laid down.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	49	26
Conditions under which data transfer can take place	On obtaining Explicit consent of data subject after being informed of possible risks	On obtaining unambiguous consent of data subject to the proposed transfer
	Transfer is necessary for conclusion or performance of contract. The contract should be in the interest of data subject. The contract is between the controller and another natural or legal person.	Contractual conditions are same. DPD also includes implementation of pre contractual measures taken upon data subject's request.
	Transfer is necessary in public interest	Same
	Is necessary for establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims	Same
	To protect vital interest of data subject or of other persons where data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent	Includes vital interest of data subject but doesn't include "other person". Condition for consent is also not included.
	Transfer made from register under Union or Member State law to provide information to public and is open to consultation by public or person demonstrating legitimate interest.	Same
Conditions for transfer when even the above specific situations are not applicable	Transfer is not repetitive
	Concerns limited number of data subjects
	Necessary for compelling legitimate interests pursued by controller
	Legitimate interests are not overridden by interests or rights and freedoms of data subject
	Controller has provided suitable safeguards after assessing all circumstances surrounding data transfer
	Controller to inform supervisory authority about the transfer
	Controller to inform data subject of transfer and compelling legitimate interests pursued
		Member may authorize transfer personal data to third country where controller adduces adequate safeguards for protection of privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals

4.17 International cooperation for protection of personal data

This Article lays down certain steps to be taken by Commissions and supervisory authorities for protection of personal data.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	50
Steps will include	Development of international cooperation mechanisms to facilitate enforcement of legislation for protection of personal data
	Provide international mutual assistance in enforcement of legislation for protection of personal data
	Engage relevant stakeholders for furthering international cooperation
	Promote exchange and documentation of personal data protection legislation and practice

4.18 Remedies, Liability and Compensation

4.18.1 Right to lodge complaint with a supervisory authority

This article gives the data subject the right to seek remedy against unlawful processing of data. GDPR strengthens this right as compared to the one provided under DPD.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	77	28(4)
Right given	Right to lodge complaint	Under GDPR the data subject has been conferred the "right" specifically. This is not so in DPD. DPD merely obliges the supervisory authority to hear claims concerning rights and freedoms.
Who can lodge complaint	Data subject	Any person or association representing that person
Complaint to be lodged before	Supervisory authority in the Member State of habitual residence, place of work or place of infringement	Supervisory authority
When can the complaint be lodged	When processing of personal data relating to data subject allegedly infringes on Regulation	When rights and freedom are to be protected while processing. When national legislative measures to restrict scope of Regulations is adopted and processing is alleged to be unlawful.
Accountability	Complainant to be informed by Supervisory authority on progress and outcome of complaint and judicial remedy to be taken up	Complainant to be informed on outcome of claim or if check on unlawfulness has taken place

4.18.2 Right to an effective judicial remedy against supervisory authority

The concerned Article seeks to make supervisory authorities accountable by bringing proceedings against the authority before the courts. GDPR gives a specific right to the individual. DPD under Article 28(3) merely provides for appeal against decisions of supervisory authority in the courts.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	78 (1)
Who has the right	Every natural or legal person
When can the right be exercised	Against legally binding decision of supervisory authorities concerning the complainant

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	78(2)
Who has the right	Data subject
When can the right be exercised	When the competent supervisory authority doesn't handle the complaint Or Doesn't inform data subject about progress / outcome of complaint within 3 months

The jurisdiction of court will extend to the territory of the Member State in which the supervisory authority is established (GDPR Art 78(3)). The supervisory authority is required to forward proceedings to the court if the decision was preceded by the Board's decision in the consistency mechanism. (GDPR 78(4))

4.18.3 Right to effective judicial remedy against a controller or processor

The data subject has been conferred with the right to approach the courts under certain circumstance. The GDPR confers the specific right while DPD provides for judicial remedy without using the word "right".

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in	Art 79	Recital 55
Right can be exercised when:	1. Data has been processed; and 2. Processing Results in infringement of rights; and 3. Infringement is due to non compliance of Regulation	Similar provisions provided under DPD: When controller fails to respect the rights of data subjects and national legislation provides a judicial remedy. Processors are not mentioned.
Jurisdiction of the courts	Proceedings can be brought before the courts of Member States wherein: 1. Controller or processor has an establishment Or 2. Data Subject has habitual residence
Right cannot be exercised when	1. The controller or processor is a public authority of Member State And 2. Is exercising its public powers

4.18.4 Right to compensation and liability

GDPR enables a person who has suffered damages to claim compensation as a specific right. DPD merely entitles the person to receive compensation. Although Liability provisions under GDPR and DPD are similar, the liability under GDPR is stricter as compared to DPD. This is because DPD exempts the processor from liability but GDPR does not. For example, DPD imposes liability on controllers only.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	82	23
Who can claim compensation	Any person who has suffered material or non material damage	Similar provisions. But DPD doesn't mention "material or non-material damage" specifically.
Right arises due to	Infringement of Regulation	Same
Right granted	Right to receive compensation	Same
Compensation has to be given by	Controller or processor	Compensation can be claimed only from controller
Liability of controller arises when	Damage is caused by processing due to infringement of regulation	Same
Liability of processor arises when	1. Processor has not complied with directions given to it under Regulation OR 2. Processor has acted outside or contrary to lawful instructions of controller
Exemptions to controller or processor from liability	If there is proof that they are not responsible	Exemption for controller is same
Liability when more than one controller or processor cause damage	Each controller or processor to be held liable for entire damage

4.19 General conditions for imposing administrative fines

GDPR makes provision for imposition of administrative fines by supervisory authorities in case of infringement of Regulation. Such fines should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In case of minor infringement, "reprimand may be issued instead of a fine" ^{^[1]}. Means of enforcing accountability of supervisory authority have been provided. If Member state law does not provide for administrative fines, then the fine can be initiated by the supervisory authority and imposed by courts. However, by 25 May 2018, Member States have to adopt laws that comply with this Article.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	83
Who can impose fines	Supervisory Authority
Fines to be issued against	Controllers or Processors
Parameters to be taken into account while determining administrative fines	Nature, gravity and duration of infringement and Nature scope or purpose of processing and Number of data subjects affected and Level of damage suffered
	Intentional or negligent character of infringement
	Action taken by controller or processor to mitigate damage suffered by data subjects
	Degree of responsibility of con controller or processor. Technical and organizational measures implemented to be taken into account.
	Relevant previous infringement
	Degree of cooperation with supervisory authority
	Categories of personal data affected
	Manner in which supervisory authorities came to know of the infringement and Extent to which the controller or processor notified the infringement
	Whether corrective orders of supervisory authority under Art 58(2) have been issue before and complied with
	Adherence to approved code of conduct under Art 40 or approved certification mechanisms under Art 42
	Other aggravating or mitigating factors like financial benefits gained losses avoided etc.
If infringement is intentional or due to negligence of processor or controller	Total amount of administrative fine to not exceed amount specified for gravest infringement
Means checking power of supervisory authority to impose fines	Procedural safeguards under Member State or Union law. Including judicial remedy and due process

Article 83 splits the amount of administrative fines according to obligations infringed by controllers, processors or undertakings. The first set of infringements may lead to imposition of fines up to 10,000,000 EUR or 2% of total worldwide turnover.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Article	83(4)
Fine imposed	Up to 10,000,000 EUR or in case of undertaking, 2% of total worldwide turnover of preceding financial year, whichever is higher
Infringement of these provisions will cause imposition of fine (Provisions infringed)	Obligations of controller and processor under:
	Art 8 Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services
	Art 11 Processing which does not require identification
	Art 25 to 39 General obligations , Security of personal data , Data Protection impact assessment and prior consultation
	Art 42 Certification
	Art 43 Certification bodies
	Obligations of certification body under: Art 42 Art 43
	Obligations of monitoring body under: Art 41(4)

Second set of infringements may cause the authority to impose higher fines up to 20,000,000 EUR or 4% of total worldwide turnover.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Article	83(5)
Fine imposed	Up to 20,000,000 EUR or in case of undertaking, 4% of total worldwide turnover of preceding financial year, whichever is higher
Infringement of provisions that will cause imposition of fine (Provisions infringed)	Basic principles for processing and conditions for consent under:
	Art 5 Principles relating to processing of personal data
	Art 6 Lawfulness of processing
	Art 7 Conditions for consent
	Art 9 Processing of special categories of personal data
	Data subject's rights under: Art 12 to 22
	Transfer of personal data to third country or international organization under: Art 44 to 49
	Obligations under Member State law adopted under Chapter IX
	Non Compliance with supervisory authority's powers under provisions of Art 58:
	Imposition of temporary or definitive limitation including ban on processing (Art 58 (2)(f))
	Suspension of data flows to third countries or international organization (Art 58(2) (j))
	Provide access to premises or data processing equipment and means (Art 58 (1) (f))

4.20 Penalties

Article 84 makes provision for penalties in case of infringement of Regulation.

The penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

Sub-topics in this section	GDPR	DPD

Given in Article	84
When will penalty be imposed	In case of infringements that are not subject to administrative fines
Who imposes them	Member State
Responsibility of Member State	To lay down the law and ensure implementation. To notify to the Commission, the law adopted, by 25 May 2018

^{^[1]} Recital 148 , GDPR

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comparison-of-general-data-protection-regulation-and-data-protection-directive

Comparative Transparency Review of Collective Management Organisations in India, United Kingdom and the United States

maggie — 2015-08-21T17:12:10Z

This Transparency Review seeks to compare the publicly available information on the websites of music collective management organizations (“CMOs”) operating within India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. A total of 10 CMOs were selected, which included a range of non-profit, government registered organizations to for-profit, private organizations, managing works on behalf of record labels, publishers, composers, lyricists, and music performers. This exercise intends to contribute to the growing body of research on the relationship between transparency and effectiveness of CMOs. It concludes with recommendations and learnings which may lead to more transparent and effective functioning of copyright societies in India, and management of music copyright overall.

The research paper was co-authored by Maggie Huang, Arpita Sengupta, Paavni Anand.

Taking into account the needs of users and members of CMOs, the following pieces of information was determined to be useful to report on the websites: : membership lists, governing directors, user types, tariff rates, royalty distribution schemes, and annual revenue reports. Collectively, the presence of these became rough parameters for transparency. The authors then reviewed each website to determine whether this information was made publicly available, and whether such disclosure was voluntary or mandated by law. As a proxy for effectiveness, percentage of revenue distributed as royalties was calculated for those who made their annual revenue report available.

Broadly, the review found that India's 2012 Copyright Amendment Act and 2013 Copyright Rules were by far the most stringent regarding registration, operations, rate setting, and reporting. Despite India's strict laws, it appears there is little compliance, particularly by PPL which failed to report the mandated tariff rates, royalty distribution policy, and its annual revenue report. ISRA had all the information sought on their website except for the crucial annual revenue report. IPRS however clearly made an effort to comply, with all information sought, provided.

Relative to India, CMOs in the United Kingdom were regulated less strictly, with U.K.'s 2014 Copyright Regulations allowing self regulation provided CMOs follow guidelines to comply with the operating code of conduct. All six indicators were available on websites of both UK PPL and PRS for Music, although the latter required user authorization to access membership/repertoire data.

In comparison, the U.S. seems to have the most lax reporting standards of the three, really only mandating basic reporting for CMOs administering statutory licenses. However, similar to India, rate-setting in the U.S. for certain digital broadcasts are subject to significant government control, in addition to anticompetetive measures which prevent partial withdrawal of rights from certain CMOs’ blanket licenses. Availability of information varied, with BMI and Sound Exchange complying with the more demanding parts of US legislation and disclosing all information sought, while ASCAP and HFA were missing tariff rates and user types respectively. SESAC was the least informative, with governing directors absent, and more crucially, their annual revenue report.

To determine relative efficiency, the authors calculated the percentage of royalties distributed per total revenue for those CMOs which published their revenue reports. All distributed royalties ranged between 80%-90%. Though not necessarily the most accurate measure, there appeared no significant correlation between the percentage of distributed royalties, and amount of information found; therefore a correlation between effectiveness and information transparency remain unknown.

However, throughout the exercise, the limitations of the research design became clear, leading to its own learnings for future research. Methodologically, the more attention should have been paid to spanning a wider spectrum of legal control, drawing clear lines of which types of CMOs to include in the study, being careful not to equate presence of information with usability or effectiveness, deeper assessment of the legal provisions, and the inclusion of membership exclusive data as part of the exercise.

Nevertheless, the comparative review process did produce several learnings that Indian CMOs could adopt for enhanced transparency and potentially improved effectiveness as well. These recommendations are as follows:

Publish the full repertoire of works the CMO is authorized to license, and its corresponding rights holder information in a searchable format;
Provide a platform for collectively identifying the rights-holder of orphan works (works which are registered whose royalties are collected, but ownership information is unknown);
Guide new users and potential members through a more user-friendly designed page with simplified, accessible introduction to music licensing;
Increase clarity surrounding royalty distribution policies;
Publish updated annual revenue reports; and
Clarify the dispute resolution processes.

This review concludes by suggesting future research through stronger methodological design, further exploring membership exclusive data, assessing effectiveness outcomes between multiple, competing licensing bodies versus a single, state-granted monopoly society, and the possibility of alternative compensation schemes for music financing and production.

MOTIVATIONS FOR RESEARCH: MUSIC COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT IN THE MOBILE MUSIC AGE for the PERVASIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT

Managing copyright in the digital age is one of the most contentious issues today amongst music industries globally. Innovation in digital technologies has opened up formerly restricted production and distribution channels, resulting in a proliferation of music like never before.

The mobile phone is one of these innovations, particularly since becoming the most preferred music listening device in India. [1] The overarching utility of the mobile phone has made it the object of study for the Centre for Internet and Society's Pervasive Technologies project[2], which seeks to identify intellectual property levers which can enhance access to affordable mobile devices' hardware, software, and content within India and China.

Access to music content[3] via the mobile phone is one of the chapter's primary focus, with a research objective of balancing access to music for internet and mobile consumers, while ensuring the protection of rights and remuneration for artists and creators.

The initial phases of this research found that new stakeholders such as device manufacturers, telecom operators, and streaming services were developing business models based on a free, ad-supported service with a paid premium tier, ultimately resulting in high royalty payouts and low profit margins. However, artists in India and worldwide are raising grievances due to decreasing royalty revenue, putting to question whether these business models are sustainable in the long term.

We had hoped to answer these questions within the Indian context, but the findings were ultimately inconclusive. This was primarily due to two reasons: 1) lack of data transparency at multiple levels of the music distribution chain, and 2) a copyright management system heavily in flux due to poor enforcement of the ambiguous 2012 Copyright Amendment Act. The copyright societies in India embodied both these issues in India, resulting in a need to study these institutions further as one of the main objects of research.

INTRODUCTION to COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS and the NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY

Music copyright societies, commonly referred to as collecting agencies or collective management organizations ("CMOs") provides music rights holders (authors, owners, and performers of lyrics, compositions, and sound recordings) the ability to authorize the licensing of their copyrighted works to another body (the CMO) who can collect royalties from the numerous sources of usage on behalf of its members. If the law allows, these CMOs are also able to collectively negotiate for rates as well. Royalties derived from these licenses are often collected and distributed by CMOs as a source of income for the creators of musical works, after administrative costs are deducted.

CMOs and their rights-holder members represent a principle-agent relationship as agent-CMOs collects royalties from users on behalf of its principle rightsholder-members. However, if a conflict of interest arises, the inherent information asymmetry may give rise to abuse. In the case of CMOs, this standard principle-agent problem has manifested in forms ranging from inefficient administration overhead, to more dubious acts of corruption and collusion.

Economic theory tells us that the key to a free and fair market is "perfect information", or when stakeholders are equipped with the relevant information needed to make market decisions. Information enforces accountability, an idea that sparked the Right to Information movement in India. This is why transparency is especially critical in the music industry, characterized by complex revenue and consumption patterns, an intricate copyright law framework and stakeholders with varying levels of bargaining power.

Given many CMOs operate as state-granted monopolies which exclusively administer specific class of works, it is important that the collection and distribution of royalties occur in a transparent manner so members and regulators can scrutinize its functioning to ensure greatest effectiveness. For countries which allow competition between CMOs, transparency in operations and revenue data can provide users and members the ability to make an informed choice, and the opportunity for other competing players to enter the market.

Within India, transparency has been a recurring issue due to allegations of mismanagement and corruption[4] of the copyright societies. This was one of the motivations for the 2012 Copyright Amendment and subsequent2013 Copyright Rules which attempted to address, amongst other issues, regulations around transparency for registered copyright societies in India.

Thus, in light of new transparency and operations regulations for India, and inconclusive research findings due to sparse data, the authors sought to review the transparency of various CMO websites and their corresponding regulatory measures in the hopes of answering the following questions:

1. How does India's level of CMO transparency compare to other countries?

2. Is disclosure of information a result of regulatory pressures or voluntary?

3. What kind of learnings and recommendations can be made from the voluntary information disclosure and/or legal regulatory environments of other countries?

METHODOLOGY

Selecting countries for comparison

Since one of the broader goals of this review was to identify legal and/or industry led proposals for increased CMO effectiveness in India, the authors wanted to select case study country samples which were relevant and useful for the Indian context, while also considering differing legal and regulatory regimes.

The United States was chosen due to its competitive CMO structure where multiple CMOs administering the same class of musical works, and representing similar kinds of rights-holders can co-exist as private entities. Aside from statutory rate-setting of sound recording broadcasts, and anticompetitive consent decrees for ASCAP and BMI, the United States seem to have little to no regulation overall surrounding CMO operations and management.

The United Kingdom was selected due to its recent growing interests in the Indian music industry. This was demonstrated by the high volume of British attendants at recent Indian music industry conferences , several of which were directly sponsored by UK Trade & Investment as a music trade export mission.[5] In addition, U.K.'s CMO structure seemed to be more streamlined, with class of works separately managed under two main music CMOs.

Indian research participants of ongoing research also expressed interest in registering their musical works with CMOs in the U.S. and U.K. given increasing market demand, higher currency exchange, and increased reliability of royalty receipts. This was further indication of relevant country case studies for a comparison with India.

Identifying the Relevant CMOs

Due to challenges enforcing India's 2012 Copyright Amendment Act, and subsequent ambiguity of copyright societies' registration statuses, the selection criteria for CMOs consisted of those organizations which generally issued music licenses and collected royalty revenue on behalf of other rights-holder members.

In India, the following three CMOs were identified for this review: the Indian Performing Right Society ("IPRS") which collects on behalf of composers, lyricists, and publisher-members[6]; the Phonographic Performance Limited ("PPL") which exclusively controls public performance and broadcasting rights for its music label members[7]; and the Indian Singers Rights Association ("ISRA") which is currently the sole officially registered copyright society collecting on behalf of singers for their Performer's Rights. [8]

The status of IPRS and PPL as registered societies are ambiguous due to recent reports of registration withdrawal [9]; therefore compliance to Section 33 of the Copyright Act is uncertain. However, the authors chose to uphold the same standards in this review due to similarity in purpose and functioning.

In the U.S., the identified CMOs included the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers ("ASCAP"), Broadcast Music, Inc, ("BMI") and SESAC (originally the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers) which are all competing Performing Rights Organizations collecting on behalf of songwriters and music publishers for public performance rights. SoundExchange is responsible for managing digital sound recordings for copyright owners (mostly music labels) and performing artists; while Harry Fox Agency ("HFA") collects mechanical royalties on behalf of publishers and songwriters when their compositions are reproduced.

In the U.K., two CMOs were identified: PRS for Music which manages public performance rights on behalf of songwriters, composers, and music publishers; and Phonographic Performance Limited ("PPL-UK"), which manages the rights of performers and record producers. Unlike the United States and India, each society exclusively manages separate categories of works. Although technically a compulsory collective licensing scheme is mandated under Indian copyright law for musical works incorporated in cinematograph films or sound recordings, ambiguity in India remains due to the unregistered/deregistered yet still functioning licensing bodies.

Identifying the comparative parameters

To compare CMOs transparency, the authors sought to develop a feasible proxy to determine their website's degree of disclosure. This was done considering two main stakeholders who most often access CMO websites: rights-holders, and users. The rights holders are owners and/or authors of a copyright or related right (i.e. performer's right) who is a member, has sought membership, or is a potential member of the CMO. The user is any person or organization who seeks to use the copyrighted work and is hence made to pay a fee for such use. This fee is generally based on the licensing agreement, struck between the CMO and the user on behalf of their collective rights holders.

Thus, the following information was identified to be useful for comparative assessment: list of members, governing directors, usage types, tariff rates, royalty distribution policy, annual revenue report, and percentage of distributed royalties. The justifications, and comparative findings are outlined below.

FINDINGS

List of members

Publishing members lists is useful for potential users since it can collectively reduce search costs for ownership information, making the process of licensing and royalty collection more efficient overall. In addition, users approached for licensing payment can also verify that the CMO is indeed authorized to administer those works. This has been a recurring issue in recent history for CMOs in both the United States [10] and India[11], which have reported extortion-like licensing demands for songs which may not have been even owned by their member rights-holders. Some have been alleged to demand licenses for broad, undefined catalogs like entire genres of music.[12] Having members lists published can prevent these discrepancies.

In India, all identified CMOs published their membership lists in accordance with Rule 66, section 1(c) of the Copyright Rules, which mandates the disclosure of members lists explicitly on the website.

In the U.S., all CMOs have published their membership data either as full lists or in the form of a searchable repertoire database corresponding with the specific work. This presentation format was similar in the U.K. although PRS for Music restricted access to authorized users. Nevertheless, this disclosure went beyond U.K.'s Copyright Regulations which only require the number of rights holders represented, whether as members or non-member rights holders to be published in the annual report. To the authors' knowledge, the U.S. does not seem to have an equivalent law as such.

Several CMO websites in the U.S. and U.K. also feature a search for owners of orphan works - copyrighted songs within their catalog in which the due rights-holders are unable to be contacted, or simply unknown due to a multitude of reasons, including lack of data collection, transfer of rights, unknown inheritance from deceased rights holders, amongst others. Many of these CMOs hold undistributed royalties for these works, bringing to question whether rights-holder members truly give genuine authorization for their continued licensing.

India's CMOs could enhance their transparency by adopting the repertoire format of membership disclosure which corresponds with each copyrighted work. It could also provide a platform to collectively identify orphan works' due rights-holders.

Country	CMO	List of Members Available on Website?	Regulation?
India	IPRS	Yes	Copyright Rules, 2013, Rule 66 Code of Conduct for Copyright Societies. Section (1): Every society shall make available on its website... c) List of all members in the general body
	PPL	Yes
	ISRA	Yes
United States	ASCAP	Yes, members can be searched through a database[13]	N/A
	BMI	Yes, members can be searched through a database.[14]
	SESAC	Yes, member list available through repertoire search and as downloadable full list.[15]
	SoundExchange	Yes
	HFA	Yes, artists can be individually searched via HFA's 'Songfile' database[16] but not available as a whole
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Yes, repertoire search database including member/label search exists.[17]	The Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies )Regulations , 2014 Reporting Requirements 6. The code of practice shall require the relevant licensing body to publish an annual report which includes: a) the number of right holders represented, whether as members or through representative arrangements including, where possible and if applicable, an estimate of the number of non-member right holders represented by any Extended Collective Licensing Scheme
	PRS for Music	A database exists but restricted to authorized users

Governing directors

For rights holder members, knowledge of the governing members directing the functioning of the CMO can help ensure decision making occurs in a representative, accountable manner. In 2011, it was found that IPRS and PPL of India were governed by the same Board of Directors [18], despite theoretically managing distinct sets of rights and representing different rights-holder members. Stopps (2013) in WIPO's 'How to Make a Living from Music' states that democratic governance is highly desirable if not essential, since the board structure should ideally reflect the rights they administer.[19]

In India, all CMOs comply with the 2013 Copyright Rules which mandates the publishing of Governing Council members on its website. All CMOs in the United States, with the exception of SESAC have published information on their governing or executive board. SESAC does highlight the appointment of the CEO within its 'news' section, but not in an easily accessible location.

In the UK, the governing directors are disclosed, though not explicitly mandated for disclosure on the website. Copyright Regulations does require the appointment procedure of the Directors and their remuneration be included in the Annual Report. India's 2014 Copyright Rules appears relatively stringent in comparison given the process is specified in detail rather than a self-regulated process.

Country	CMO	Governing Directors Available on Website?	Regulation?
India	IPRS	Yes	Copyright Rules, 2013, Rule 66 Code of Conduct for Copyright Societies. Section (1): Every society shall make available on its website… d) Names and address of chairman, other members of the Governing Council and other officers in the society Copyright Rules 59 Management of Copyright Society (1) Every copyright society shall have… a) General body…b) Governing Council with Chairman… c) a CEO… (3) The Chairman shall be elected by two third of the majority….
	PPL	Yes
	ISRA	Yes
United States	ASCAP	Yes	N/A
	BMI	Yes, management
	SESAC	Appointment of CEO announced under 'News' section.[20] No other members found
	SoundExchange	Yes
	HFA	Yes
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Yes	Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations, 2014 requires the procedure for appointment of Directors, and the list of remuneration of the Directors to be included in the Annual Report.
	PRS for Music	Yes

User Categories

The categorization of users simply allow potential licensees to understand when they would be legally required to purchase a music license given the scope and scale of their business/usage. User categories can range from restaurants, internet streaming, radio broadcasting, and live performance; to the physical reproduction of a musical composition or sound recording (for example through photocopying of sheet music or burning of CDs).

All CMOs identified had user categories displayed on the websites, with some presenting the distinctions through search options while others outlined usage types as a general list. Only India's Copyright Rules mandated the publishing of different categories of users as part of their tariff scheme.
U.S.'s HFA did not not distinguish licensing requirements by user type, but did communicate when a license would be needed through simple questions regarding usage.

Country	CMO	User categories Available on Website?	Regulation?
India	IPRS	Yes	According to Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, it is mandatory for Indian CMOs to publish on their website the different categories of users in their Tariff Scheme
	PPL	Yes
	ISRA	Yes
United States	ASCAP	Yes	N/A
	BMI	Yes, Search bar for user types available
	SESAC	Yes
	SoundExchange	Yes
	HFA	Not specifically, but section on 'What kind of license do I need' delineates user types
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Yes	N/A
	PRS for Music	Yes

Tariff Rates

Tariff rates are the costs of licenses issued by the CMOs. The calculation of these rates are done in a myriad of ways, ranging from being fixed by statutory provisions, set collectively by CMOs, or negotiated privately in a willing buyer-willing seller market. Some rate-setting considerations have included anticipated number of listeners, physical size of establishment, time of music use, number of loudspeakers, etc. Due to similarities in mode and scale of usage, most fixed tariff rates such as blanket licenses offered by CMOs are distinguished by different categories of users, most fixed tariff rates are divided accordingly.

In a market like the U.S. where CMOs compete to sublicense similar kinds of rights, publishing tariff rates can enable comparison of licensing fees for the most cost effective choice.[21] It can also allow users to forecast licensing expenses and adjust their business models or anticipated usage accordingly. Lastly, transparent cost calculations as opposed to hidden negotiated rates can prevent price and user discrimination, since licensees can verify the accuracy of their license charge.

In India, IPRS and ISRA complies to Rule 56 (2) of the Copyright Rules 2014 which mandates the publication of rates distinguished by categories of users, mode of exploitation, user group, durations of use, and territory. In U.K., both CMOs comply with Section 5(c) of their Copyright Regulations 2014 which mandates the publication of 'tariff rates in a uniform format' on the website as part of the monitoring and reporting requirements. In the U.S., all CMOs with the exception of ASCAP publish their tariff rates.

Although the U.S. does not seem to mandate the explicit disclosure of rates, both U.S. and India set statutory rates for certain uses of sound recordings. In the U.S. for example, the rates for ephemeral sound recordings akin to non-interactive, radio-like services are set by the Copyright Royalty Board under S17 USC 112 and 114. Similarly, in India, a statutory rate is also fixed by the Copyright Board for radio broadcasting.

As an anticompetitive measure, music consent decrees in the U.S. also mandate that ASCAP and BMI provide licenses on equivalent, non exclusive terms. This means that while its members can still individually refrain from joining a CMO in its entirety, partial withdrawing of their works from blanket licenses are not allowed.[22]

Despite fairly affordable statutory rates for use in non-interactive services, interactive streaming which seeks to host popular content often still requires direct licensing agreements from major record label conglomerates. Due to the importance of acquiring that content, these labels are often able to negotiate exclusive deals with hidden terms. Evolving music consumption patterns and an inconsistent rate-setting landscape have raised grievances, particularly amongst songwriters. In the U.S., this has led to the Copyright Office's review and reconsideration of the music licensing landscape in recent months, while in India, the cost of content acquisition remain a source of debate by the services.

Country	CMO	Tariff Rates Available on Website?	Regulation?
India	IPRS	Yes, listed as per usage types	Section 33A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Rule 56 of the Copyright Rules, 2013: ...must indicate separate for categories of users, media of exploitation, user group, durations of use and territory, etc.
	PPL	No
	ISRA	Yes
United States	ASCAP	No, must request	No regulation mandating the disclosure of tariff rates. Consent decrees for BMI/ASCAP as an anticompetitive measure mandates offering of licenses to services on equivalent, non exclusive terms. Statutory rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board under 17 U.S.C. 112 and 114.
	BMI	Yes
	SESAC	Yes
	SoundExchange	Yes
	HFA	Yes, rate charts published[23]
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Yes	The Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014 Section 5 of its Specified Criteria mandates 'provide details of tariffs in a uniform format on its website.
	PRS for Music	Yes

Royalty distribution policy

The royalty distribution policy typically outlines the process and manner of royalty distribution, specifying how royalty is split between member-rights holders and the CMO. It usually notes the frequency of payments as well. Since one of the main reasons a rights-holder seeks membership within a CMO is to ensure their royalties are received on a consistent basis without themselves having to track down all users of their work, a transparent distribution policy is of utmost importance.

In India, IPRS and ISRA published the distribution policy on their website in compliance with Rule 58 of the Copyright Rules. Upon review of both, it was interesting to note the lack of detail in India's policies. Although it is specified in the Act, ISRA does not convey on its website clearly the distribution of percentages, nor the administrative cut it seeks to take. IPRS was very unclear about their frequency of payments, noting that "The distribution of Royalties shall be carried out promptly from time to time", despite the Copyright rules stipulating that the frequency be set at every quarter.

In the U.S., S . 370.5 (c )of the Code of Federal Regulations for statutorily set sound recordings do state that online-published Annual Reports must have information on how royalties are collected, distributed, and spent as administrative expenses. All CMOs seem to comply.

In the UK, Section 6 of the 2014 Copyright Regulations Specified Criteria mandates reporting of the distribution policy in its annual report. Both identified CMOs comply.

Country	CMO	Royalty Distribution Policy Available on Website?	Regulation?
India	IPRS	Yes, although quite vague, unclear frequency of payments[24]	Rule 58 of the Copyright Rules 2013 outline the terms of the Royalty Distribution Policy
	PPL	No
	ISRA	Yes, but vague, unclear re: distribution of percentages and administrative deduction.
United States	ASCAP	Yes, it outlines exactly how it is calculated	For designated collection and distribution companies for use of sound recordings under statutory licenses: S . 370.5 ( c ) of the Code of Federal Regulations , as part of the annual Report, Collectives must indicate how royalties are collected and distributed.
	BMI	Yes, in the Royalty Policy Manual
	SESAC	Yes
	SoundExchange	Yes
	HFA	Yes, rate charts[25] and commission rates revealed.
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Yes	The Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014 Section 6 Reporting Requirements of its Specified Criteria mandates the publishing of the distribution policy in its annual report.
	PRS for Music	Yes

Annual revenue report

The annual revenue report provides an overview of total income, which is particularly important for a CMO acting as a non-profit organization. Rightsholders can assess what the rest of the revenue is being used for, and cross-verify whether the self-reported data is true. For market and policy researchers, the annual revenue report can also provide the breakdown of which licensing services or catalogs are being used. An externally audited revenue report also enhances trust in the organization and ensures reliable financial transparency. Thus, the publication of the annual revenue report forms one of the most important benchmarks of transparency.

In India, only IPRS has published their 2013-14 annual revenue report in compliance with Rule 66 of the Copyright Rules which mandates the publishing of an annual report and audited accounts on their website. None of the other CMOs seem to have done this.

In the United States,S . 370.5 (c ) of the Code of Federal Regulations mandates that CMOs collecting and distributing for statutorily licensed sound recordings must publish their annual revenue report. CMO SoundExchange complies, while HFA does so voluntarily. ASCAP and BMI also post their reports on occasion with a few years missing, but SESAC's report seems to be absent, possibly due to private incorporated company status.

In the UK, both CMOs comply with the 2014 Copyright Regulations under Rule 6 mandating the publication of an annual report.

Country	CMO	Annual Revenue Report Available on Website?	Regulation?
India	IPRS	Yes, for year '13-'14	Rule 66 of the Copyright Rules, 2013, CMOs mandate the publishing of an annual report and audited accounts on their website.
	PPL	No
	ISRA	No
United States	ASCAP	Yes, until 2013	For designated collection and distribution companies for use of sound recordings under statutory licenses: S . 370.5 ( c ) of the Code of Federal Regulations .
	BMI	Sporadically posted
	SESAC	No (possibly because privately held company?)
	SoundExchange	Yes
	HFA	Yes
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Yes, until 2013	In UK, the Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations, 2014 under Rule 6 requires that every CMO publish an annual report containing the annual financial statements, collections from the different licenses and the distribution of royalties.
	PRS for Music	Yes, until 2014

Percentage of Revenue as Distributed Royalties

Given the main function of CMOs are to secure royalties for rights-holders, the percentage of revenue as distributed royalties was calculated using numbers from the latest published annual revenue reports. Although there are differences in CMO mandates and subsequently their investment on litigation and advocacy for example, the proportion of revenue as distributed royalties was used as a simplified proxy of effectiveness for this review. [26]

For those CMOs who published their annual revenue reports, it was found that the percentage of revenue as distributed royalties seemed to range between 80-90%. Given the controversies surrounding collecting societies in India, it was admittedly surprising that IPRS' distributed royalty percentage averaged almost 1% higher than comparable societies in the UK. It is also interesting that the United States seem to have the most efficient CMOs, with two rounding to 90%.

Country	CMO	Data reported on Website	Percentage of Revenue as Distributed Royalties
India	IPRS	From 2013/14 annual revenue report: Net royalties payable: Rs 396743413 / License fees total revenue Rs 470934348:	0.84246013204 = 84.25%
	PPL	N/A	N/A
	ISRA	N/A	N/A
United States	ASCAP	Self reported 88cents/dollar goes back to artists. 2014 Revenue Report: Total receipts: 945 385 Total distribution to members: 850 984	850 984/945 385 = 0.90014544339 90.01%
	BMI	Self reported numbers from press release: "For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, BMI reported revenues of $898.7 million and royalty distributions to our affiliates totaling $749.8 million."	749.8 / 898.7 = 0.83431623456 83.43%
	SESAC	N/A
	SoundExchange	Self reported from pre-audit 2013 fiscal report[27]: Total Royalties Collected $656 Total gross distributions $590	590 / 656 = 0.8993902439 89.94%
	HFA	N/A but self reported 11.5% commission[28]	N/A
United Kingdom	PPL UK	Self reported from 2013 financial statement:[29] Total license fee income: £176.9 m Net distributable revenue: £148.4m	0.83889202939 83.89%
	PRS for Music	Self-reported from 2014 annual revenue report[30]: Our royalty revenues for the year were £664.3m, of which we distributed £565.6m to members.	565.6/664.3 = 0.85142255005 85.14%

LIMITATIONS & LEARNINGS

The major limitation of this review is rooted in its various methodological weaknesses, ranging from the sampling of countries, inclusion of ambiguous CMOs, possible bias towards Indian copyright law during the parameter design, limitations of distributed royalties percentage as an effectiveness proxy, lack of measurable factors when attempting to evaluate 'ease of website use', and somewhat shallow legal research. Nevertheless, these were part and parcel of the learnings which stemmed from this review.

Limitations in Country Selection Process

The selection of countries to be assessed was not very methodologically sound. After further literature review, it seems a more representative sample could have been selected. Dr. Fabrice Rochelandet in his 1996 conference paper ' Are Collecting Societies Efficient? An evaluation of collective administration of copyright in Europe' categorized legal supervision systems in the following spectrum: lack of control, control at request, setting up control, permanent control, and extreme control. [31]

Rochelandet (1996) identifies UK as having 'control at request' since decisions surrounding operations are generally left up to the CMO themselves, exemplified by the freedom to develop their own functioning and code of practices, which then must be approved. Control at request is also demonstrated by rights-holder members ability to procure certain documentation upon request, and call upon the tribunals for dispute resolution if desired.

Using this taxonomy, India would likely span across 'setting up control', 'control at request', and possibly 'permanent control'. Setting up control is fitting since the 2012 Copyright Amendment mandates the registration of any organization in the business of issuing and granting licenses for underlying musical works (composition and lyrics) as a 'copyright society'. Typically this requires extensive documentation on procedural and governance matters, most of which is predetermined in detail in the 2012 Copyright Act and 2014 Rules. Permanent control may also apply since the Central Government has powers to cancel the registration of any copyright society and legally cease its functioning. Additionally, quite substantial regulations determine rate setting process and even calculation, as well as distribution of royalties. Lastly, control at request may also be fitting since similar to the UK system, an internal dispute resolution is legally mandated. However, any dispute can also be brought to the quasi-judicial Copyright Board if unable to settle matters internally.

The United States appears as if it would deviate from former examples of more involved legal supervision since it would likely be characterized by 'lack of control'. Few requirements exist regarding specific operations of licensing bodies, with the exception of rate setting for ephemereal sound recordings and anticompetitive consent decrees, the U.S. does provide a contrasting comparative system.

Although these examples do span across part of the spectrum of legal control, a future case study country could include one which mandates complete control such as in the case of Italy with a single state granted monopolist or New Zealand in which a single clearance license is offered to reduce complexity and transaction costs for music users.[32]

Limitations of CMO Identification

Throughout the methodology design, one of the main challenges was deciding which CMOs to include in the review. Due to lack of in-depth knowledge of U.S. and U.K.'s music licensing space, the initial survey and selection included bodies irrelevant to music licensing specifically. Due to the ambiguity in India, all organizations who were involved in some form collective licensing were initially included, including private entities like Novex Communications, and the South Indian Music Companies Association, due to their seeming similarities in functioning. However, they were eventually excluded in the final review to include only those which have received registered society status, or are currently registered as such.

There was also a lack of distinction made between licensing bodies specifically managing underlying works like music composition and lyrics, sound recording (phonographic rights), and performance rights. Although interesting insights may have been able to be drawn between similarly managed members and rights, the disaggregated rights management in the U.S. made these categorizations and comparisons challenging.

Part of the confusion stemmed from the vast variety of CMO systems and characteristics. Ficsor (2003) distinguishes these differences from four varying viewpoints: the level of collectivization, rights' owners freedom of choice, scope of rights and rights-owners covered, and the freedom of CMOs to set rates and other licensing terms.[33] The level of collectivization range in terms of representation, authorization, and even distribution of royalties/returns. The freedom of rights owners' have range in the ability to choose joint management of rights, or even which CMO to manage their rights -- assuming the option is not restricted by their respective copyright laws. The scope of rights and rights owners covered by a CMO varies from exclusively managing its own members rights, occasionally managing other members rights, and occasionally managing all similar members rights with no ability to opt out. Lastly, the freedom of CMOs to set rates and licensing terms range from free negotiations with the possibility of an arbitration body, to legally fixed predetermined rates and conditions.

The tremendous variety of CMO characteristics and the lack of bright lines in defining control factors for this review's selection meant that major music publishers, music services who directly issue payment, and even content aggregators who collate and distribute works for a certain fee could have been included. However, the decision to include only those officially recognized and legally registered as CMOs enhanced the feasibility of this review.

Limitations of Parameter Selection

While reviewing the parameters for transparency, it soon became clear that there were several limitations to the information identified. These include heavy influence in its development from India's context and legal provisions, an assumed value in transparency for transparency's sake, lack of specificity when surveying 'ease of website use', overly simplified proxy for efficiency measurement, a relatively shallow review of the law, and lack of assessment of membership data.

While selecting the comparative parameters, the process of developing a feasible transparency proxy may have been tilted towards the context and legal developments of India. This appeared to be the case when the first round of data collection was inconsistent with further reviews due to what appeared to be differences in the terms being sought - terms used in the Indian Copyright Act - rather than the substance of the content. This is indicative of how India's laws heavily influenced the development of the parameters.

Exposure to mistrust and lack of data in the Indian context may have also led authors to a somewhat presumed ideal of transparency for transparency's sake, implying in a weak correlation between publicly available information, the more effective the website and possibly the CMO . However, Schroff (2014) noted that information overload could occur if a potential licensee is uncertain what they are looking for.[34] From an efficiency point of view, search costs may actually decrease if less information is provided upfront, but better presented in more accessible language and format to guide the user to the relevant information.

Following review of the websites for a list of members, it appears that a more fruitful parameter may have been the publication of actual works and affiliated creators, rather than only the rights-holder members themselves. A grievance occasionally raised is the lack of recognition of composers and producers within a song, since it is typically the singer (or in the case of Indian film music, the actor and the film) who the audience associates with the work. Thus, a full repertoire list could be a useful addition for Indian websites to consider.

The selection of governing directors as a marker of transparency may have also been influenced by India's recent concerns surrounding copyright societies' leadership. Although it is a useful indicator, private, for-profit CMOs which have exclusive membership does not necessarily have the same burdens of a compulsory collective licensing scheme in which representation is necessary. What may be more useful for members is ensuring a dispute resolution process is easily accessible so that any grievances can be taken up through proper channels.

Identifying a relatively simple proxy for effectiveness and efficiency was also challenging. Many CMOs in their annual reports highlighted figures such as 'administrative costs', 'operation costs', 'cost to income ratios', and other similar indicators to report expenses outside of royalty licensing, collection, and distribution. However, due to differences in calculations, a simplified proxy was developed to assess the effectiveness of their core purpose of royalty distribution. However, this calculation does not account for absolute sums, year on year growth, taxation, and other non-monetary benefits. In addition, the differing years, geographies, and class of works makes comparison not very methodologically sound.

The authors had initially included 'ease of website use' as part of the review. However, this parameter was not very clearly developed and defined, and thus reviewed subjectively by different research assistants with varying assessments. Nevertheless, closer attention was paid to web design and user interface to enable greater efficiency in searching for relevant information. Future assessments could measure the number of clicks or amount of time it takes to find a certain piece of oft-sought information.

The assessment of each country's relevant laws was based on whether reporting the information online was mandated by law. However, throughout the exercise it soon became clear that beyond reporting standards, more interesting distinctions such as the level of control and specificity to which the law sought to determine functioning and operations of the CMOs. Although this was briefly touched upon throughout the review, further research should be explored in this area.

Lastly, data the authors did not seek due to logistical limitations were membership-exclusive information. Recent complaints about royalties of streaming services have resulted in the publishing of
numerous HFA and SoundExchange royalty reports by their rights-owners. These reports outline the services and songs from which they have received their royalties, allowing for more informed debate and discussion of royalty payouts and business models of the various digital services. Ongoing research surrounding copyright management in India have found that detailed reports on how royalty was calculated, or from which works/services they were generated are often absent upon receipt of their royalty cheques.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite India's strict legal provisions and control regarding registration, operations, rate setting, and reporting, it appears there is little enforcement and even less compliance, particularly by Phonographic Performance Limited which failed to report tariff rates, royalty distribution policy, and its annual revenue report. The Indian Singers Rights Association published all parameters sought with the exception of their annual revenue report, leaving authors without data needed to calculate the percentage of distributed royalty. The Indian Performing Rights Association provided all information sought in this review, with an 84.25% of revenue as distributed royalties as calculated from its 2013/14 annual revenue report.

Relative to India, CMOs in United Kingdom were regulated less strictly, allowing self-developed codes of conduct providing adherence to certain broad guidelines on operations and reporting. It appears the government only imposes rules in the absence of adequate self-regulation. U.K.'s Phonographic Performance Limited displayed all six indicators sought, with 83.9% as distributed revenues from its 2013 financial statement. PRS for Music did not make its members list and repertoire open to the general public, but did publish all other parameters with 85.1% of distributed revenues as calculated from its 2014 annual revenue report.

To the authors' knowledge, the U.S. has the least operations regulation for CMOs with the exception of reporting laws for those issuing statutory licenses. Anticompetitive consent decrees also prevent partial withdrawal from blanket licenses to ensure non-discrimination towards select services. Despite relaxed regulation, BMI and SoundExchange reported all identified parameters, while ASCAP and HFA reported five, with SESAC only having four. ASCAP, Sound Exchange, and BMI were the only ones to have published their annual revenue report, with percentage of revenue royalty calculated to 90.0%, 89.9%, and 83.4% respectively.

It is important to reiterate however that information transparency demonstrated by CMOs website does not necessarily indicate effectiveness. Though not necessarily the most accurate indicator, there appeared no significant correlation between the percentage of distributed royalties, and amount of information found. All three countries have recently, or are currently undergoing regulatory reviews and reform to enhance copyright management. India's Copyright Amendment Act and Copyright Rules was a response to allegations of corruption and collusion of copyright societies. The legal status of certain CMOs and other private authorized agents not included here are ambiguous. Though they seem to function similarly to private CMOs in the US, whether they will be obliged to comply with copyright societies regulation is uncertain. The United States' Copyright Office has recently undergone a major study of the music licensing landscape. One of the major grievances highlighted was the disparity between negotiated sound recording rates and statutory rates of licenses for works of composers and publishers for the rapidly growing use of internet radio streaming. This disparity is furthered by the aforementioned Consent Decrees. In early 2014, the European Commission had also adopted the Collective Rights Management Directive with the main objectives of increasing transparency and efficiency of CMOs, and to facilitate cross-border licensing for music online. Thus, transparency and increased effectiveness of CMOs particularly in light of the digital age are being made a priority within legislation; and hopefully, in execution as well.

Recommendations

Through reviewing other CMO websites, a few learnings were found which could be adopted by Indian CMOs for enhanced transparency and effectiveness:

Publish a full repertoire of works the CMO is authorized to license with corresponding rights holder information. This recommendation stems from other CMO websites which present their administrable works in a searchable database, allowing users the ability to efficiently identify whether the work they seek to use are covered by the license.
Provide a platform for collectively identifying the due rights-holder of orphan works. This recommendation was a feature found in several other websites which lost contact with the rights holder through failure to update ownership information in the case of rights transfer, changes in contact details ,passing of the original author, unknown inheritance, and more.
Guide new users and potential members through a more user-friendly designed page with simplified, accessible introduction to music licensing. As exemplified by the layout of other websites, the webpage could be subdivided between information useful for prospective or current licensees, and prospective or current member rights-holders. Basic questions framed in accessible language can guide the website user to the correct information.
Increase clarity surrounding royalty distribution policies. During the review, IPRS and ISRA's royalty distribution scheme were noticeably vague. Although ISRA noted the most crucial elements, certain details like how "reliable statistical data" were to be procured and calculated in the case of missing log sheets was absent. IPRS was even more obscure, noting their frequency of royalty distribution would occur "promptly, from time to time."
Publish updated annual revenue reports. This document is probably one of the key indicators of how a CMO is doing financially, and it is important that these are made available so CMOs remain transparent and accountable to its rights-holder members and users.
Clarify dispute resolution processes. This is important particularly for those jurisdictions which do not allow much choice, if at all, between various institutions and rate-setting processes. Membership and representation would ideally provide and promote proper channels for raising and addressing grievances prior to seeking legal remedies.

Further Questions

Although a few insights were found through this review, the numerous limitations indicate a better designed exercise asking different, more nuanced questions may uncover some more fruitful conclusions. Future research could explore membership-exclusive data, and how reporting is presented across CMOs. From a legal standpoint, a more detailed analysis of regulations across different jurisdictions may shed light on different international standards of transparency and reporting. Additionally, given that the highest percentage of distributed royalties were from CMOs based in the U.S., the correlation leads to the question of whether more relaxed reporting requirements, or perhaps a competitive CMO structure can actually contribute to increased effectiveness? Lastly, given the increasingly complex licensing environment and continued creation of rights due to technological innovations, the feasibility of this system to monitor and finance music should be questioned as well. Further research on alternative compensation schemes considering tax-based, or patron-based financing will increasingly become more feasible and important systems to explore.

WORKS CITED

Agarwal, Devika. "After IPRS, PPL next to Claim It Is Not a 'Copyright Society.'" SpicyIP, n.d. http://spicyip.com/2015/03/after-iprs-ppl-next-to-claim-that-it-is-not-a-copyright-society.html.
Andrew. "Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations." CREATe, October 1, 2014. http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2014/10/01/transparency-and-the-collective-management-organisations.
ASCAP. "Ascap Clearance Express (ACE) Search." ASCAP We Create Music, n.d. https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx.
Basheer, Shamnad. "Indian Copyright Collecting Societies and Foreign Royalties: Whither Transparency?," November 18, 2008. http://spicyip.com/2008/11/indian-copyright-collecting-societies.html.
BMI. "BMI Search." BMI, n.d. http://www.bmi.com/search.
Centre for Internet and Society. "Research Proposal: Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace.," n.d. http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcis-india.org%2Fa2k%2Fpervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF4hnAUXGIRMcUozZfs5QOFwvO55A.
FICCI & KPMG. "The Stage Is Set: FICCI-KPMG Indian Media and Entertainment Industry Report 2014." Industry Report. FICCI-KPMG, 2014. https://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/Topics/FICCI-Frames/Documents/FICCI-Frames-2014-The-stage-is-set-Report-2014.pdf.
Ficsor, Mihali. Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights. Geneva: WIPO, 2002. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/855/wipo_pub_855.pdf.
Future of Music Coalition. "ASCAP - BMI Consent Decrees." Future of Music Coalition, October 3, 2014. https://futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/ascap-bmi-consent-decrees.
Harry Fox. "Songfile Search." Songfile, n.d. https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/termsofuse/publictermsofuse.do.
HFA. "HFA Commission Rates." HFA, n.d. https://www.harryfox.com/publishers/commission_rate.html.
---. "Rate Charts," 2014. https://www.harryfox.com/find_out/rate_charts.html.
Huang, Maggie. "Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music," December 26, 2014. http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-management-in-age-of-mobile-music.
IPRS. "Distribution Scheme As Per 17-5-2013." Indian Performing Right Association, 2012. http://www.iprs.org/cms/IPRS/DistributionScheme.aspx.
---. "The Indian Performing Right Society Limited.," n.d. http://www.iprs.org/cms/.
ISRA. "About ISRA." ISRA Copyright, n.d. http://isracopyright.com/about_isra.php.
Philipes, Richard Hayes. "How One Independent Musician Defeated BMI." Woodpecker.com, 2003. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html.
PPL. "About Us." Phonographic Performance LImited, n.d. http://www.pplindia.org/aboutus.aspx.
---. "PPL Member/Label Search," n.d. http://repsearch.ppluk.com/ars/faces/pages/licenseSearch.jspx?_afrWindowMode=0&_afrLoop=6609527708771000&_adf.ctrl-state=17ajb42h7o_4.
PPL UK. "Annual Review 2014." Annual Revenue Report, 2014. http://www.ppluk.com/Documents/Annual%20reviews/PPL_Annual_Report_2014.pdf.
PRS for Music. "PRS for Music 2014 Review." Annual Review, 2014. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/About%20MCPS-PRS/financial-results/prs-for-music-financial-review-2014.pdf.
Reddy, Prashant. "Did the Big Music Companies on IPRS & PPL Collude to Deny Lyricists and Composers Crores of Rupees in 'Ringtone Royalties? - An Investigation." Http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html. Spicy IP, February 14, 2011. http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html.
Reid, Harvey. "ASCAP & BMI - Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?" Wooedpecker.com, 1993. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html.
SESAC. "Repertory Seearch." SESAC, n.d. https://www.sesac.com/repertory/RepertorySearch.aspx?x=100&y=22.
---. "SESAC Announces the Appointment of John Josephson as Chairman and CEO of SESAC," July 31, 2014. http://www.sesac.com/News/News_Details.aspx?id=2109.
Smirke, Richard. "U.K. Music Industry Sets Trade Mission to India." Billboard, September 4, 2014. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6243633/ukti-aim-bpi-trade-mission-india-mumbai.
Sound Exchange. "Sound Exchange Draft Annual Report 2013." Annual Report. Sound Exchange, 2013. http://www.soundexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2013-Fiscal-Report-PRE-AUDIT.pdf.
Stopps, David. "How to Make a Living from Music." Creative Industries. WIPO, 2013. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/939/wipo_pub_939.pdf.

[1] FICCI & KPMG. "The Stage Is Set: FICCI-KPMG Indian Media and Entertainment Industry Report 2014." https://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/Topics/FICCI-Frames/Documents/FICCI-Frames-2014-The-stage-is-set-Report-2014.pdf

[2] Centre for Internet and Society. "Research Proposal: Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace.," http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcis-india.org%2Fa2k%2Fpervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF4hnAUXGIRMcUozZfs5QOFwvO55A.

[3] Huang, Maggie. "Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music," December 26, 2014. http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-management-in-age-of-mobile-music.

[4] Reddy, Prashant. "The Background Score to the Copyright (Amendment) Act." NUJS Review 5, no. 4 (2012). http://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/01_prashant.pdf.

[5] Smirke, Richard. "U.K. Music Industry Sets Trade Mission to India." Billboard, Sept 4, 2014. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6243633/ukti-aim-bpi-trade-mission-india-mumbai.

[6] IPRS. "The Indian Performing Right Society Limited.," http://www.iprs.org/cms/.

[7] PPL. "About Us." Phonographic Performance LImited, n.d. http://www.pplindia.org/aboutus.aspx.

[8] ISRA. "About ISRA." ISRA Copyright, n.d. http://isracopyright.com/about_isra.php.

[9] Agarwal, Devika. "After IPRS, PPL next to Claim It Is Not a 'Copyright Society.'" SpicyIP, Mar 30 2015. http://spicyip.com/2015/03/after-iprs-ppl-next-to-claim-that-it-is-not-a-copyright-society.html.

[10] Reid, Harvey. "ASCAP & BMI - Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?" Wooedpecker.com, 1993. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html.

[11] Basheer, Shamnad. "Indian Copyright Collecting Societies and Foreign Royalties: Whither Transparency?," November 18, 2008. http://spicyip.com/2008/11/indian-copyright-collecting-societies.html.

[12] Philipes, Richard Hayes. "How One Independent Musician Defeated BMI." Woodpecker.com, 2003. http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html.

[13] ASCAP. "Ascap Clearance Express (ACE) Search." ASCAP We Create Music, https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx.

[14] BMI. "BMI Search." BMI http://www.bmi.com/search.

[15] SESAC. "Repertory Seearch." SESAC, https://www.sesac.com/repertory/RepertorySearch.aspx?x=100&y=22.

[16] Harry Fox. "Songfile Search." Songfile,

https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/termsofuse/publictermsofuse.do.

[17] PPL. "PPL Member/Label Search," http://repsearch.ppluk.com/ars/faces/pages/licenseSearch.jspx?_afrWindowMode=0&_afrLoop=6609527708771000&_adf.ctrl-state=17ajb42h7o_4.

[18] Reddy, Prashant. "Did the Big Music Companies on IPRS & PPL Collude to Deny Lyricists and Composers Crores of Rupees in 'Ringtone Royalties? - An Investigation." http://spicyipindia.blogspot.in/2011/02/did-big-music-companies-on-iprs-ppl.html. Spicy IP, Feb 14 2011.

[19] Stopps, David. "How to Make a Living from Music." Creative Industries. WIPO, 2013. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/939/wipo_pub_939.pdf.

[20] SESAC. "SESAC Announces the Appointment of John Josephson as Chairman and CEO of SESAC," July 31, 2014. http://www.sesac.com/News/News_Details.aspx?id=2109.

[21] Although it is important to note that each work can only be registered exclusively to one society, so the catalogs won't be identical.

[22] Future of Music Coalition. "ASCAP - BMI Consent Decrees." Future of Music Coalition, October 3, 2014. https://futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/ascap-bmi-consent-decrees.

[23] HFA. "Rate Charts," 2014. https://www.harryfox.com/find_out/rate_charts.html.

[24] IPRS. "Distribution Scheme As Per 17-5-2013." Indian Performing Right Association, 2012. http://www.iprs.org/cms/IPRS/DistributionScheme.aspx.

[25] HFA. "Rate Charts," 2014. https://www.harryfox.com/find_out/rate_charts.html.

[26] However, it is important to note the major limitations of these numbers in making any sort of conclusions due to data acquired from different years, varying geographies, without accounting for differing mandates and non-royalty collection activities. More reflections on this in the Limitations and Learnings Section

[27] "Sound Exchange Draft Annual Report 2013." Annual Report. Sound Exchange, 2013. http://www.soundexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2013-Fiscal-Report-PRE-AUDIT.pdf.

[28] "HFA Commission Rates." HFA, https://www.harryfox.com/publishers/commission_rate.html.

[29] PPL UK. "Annual Review 2014." Annual Revenue Report, 2014. http://www.ppluk.com/Documents/Annual%20reviews/PPL_Annual_Report_2014.pdf.

[30] PRS for Music. "PRS for Music 2014 Review." Annual Review, 2014. https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/About%20MCPS-PRS/financial-results/prs-for-music-financial-review-2014.pdf.

[31] Rochelandet, Fabrice. "Are Copyright Collecting Societies Efficient? An Evaluation of Collective Administration of Copyright in Europe." Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2002.

[32] Resnikoff, Paul. "New Zealand Invents the 'Single Music License' for ALL Performances…." Digital Music News, September 30, 2013. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/09/30/newzealand.

[33] Ficsor, Mihali. Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights. Geneva: WIPO, 2002. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/855/wipo_pub_855.pdf.

[34] Andrew. "Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations." CREATe, October 1, 2014. http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2014/10/01/transparency-and-the-collective-management-organisations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparative-transparency-review-of-collective-management-organisations-in-india-uk-usa

Community Prioritisation of Content Donation: Kannada Wikisource

hasan — 2015-12-15T07:42:09Z

CIS-A2K has initiated a community consultation in order to prioritise and streamline the work on Wikisource projects across FLA. Due to the commitment of volunteers from the respective FLA and the institutional partnerships that A2K has developed we have been able to bring a large corpus of content under free licence into our Wikisource projects. CIS-A2K promotes both content donation and content acquisition strategies in order to bring in free licence content.

The re-releasing of the content under CC-BY-SA is a difficult task no doubt, but the even more difficult task is to get the donated content digitised and made available on Wikisource. As this activity involves three intermediary steps of scanning the original document, uploading the same on commons.wikimedia.org and finally recreate the same page on Wikisource by typing.

It is common knowledge that Indian Language Wikimedia communities consist of very few volunteers and in many communities it is Wikipedia that is the chief attraction for volunteers. This compounds the problem towards work that has to be done on Wikisource. To overcome this problem CIS-A2K has initiated a community consultation and prioritisation effort. CIS-A2K consults community in form of posts on Village pump, mailing lists and other channels of communication and update them about the overall content donated towards Wikisource projects and requests for suggestions and feedback as to the plan to digitse and bringing the content on Wikisource.

For the month of November, 2015 CIS-A2K discussed the plan with the Kannada community Wikimedians and proposed a plan of aggregating all the content that has been donated towards Kannada Wikisource and copyright lapse content that has been identified by Wikimedians. A2K team is currently utilising its institutional partnership with Christ University in digitising the content of Sri. Niranjana a prominent Kannada author that was donated by Prof. Tejaswini Niranjana. As a result of this collaboration with the community A2K team shall be posting a comprehensive list of the content donated to Kannada Wikisource along with copyright lapse books that are available digitally on Digital Library of India and Osmania University Digital Library and other such platforms.

This consultation process with the Kannada Wikimedia community also seeded an idea of creating a 'Book Bank' for Kannada Wikimedians. The objective of the book bank is to provide authentic references, citation material and other primary sources of information for content generation. As a first step towards building of the proposed book bank, we have purchased encyclopaedic material on Stone Inscriptions found in Karnataka, Women writers of Karnataka, Literary history of Karnataka and Kannada Dictionaries. The material acquired under 'Book Bank' will serve as resources for community and will be provided to the community members upon request for the same.

Following lists provide information about the current status of projects undertaken on Kannada Wikipedia:

Projects which are active on Wikisource:

Vimochane - 50 pages to be typed out of 355
Abhaya - 63 to be typed of 326 pages
Doorada Nakshatra - 23 typed out of 175
Rangammana Vathara - 23 to be typed of 209 pages
Ekangini - 41 typed of 228 pages
Kalyanaswami - 100 typed of 251

These books are scanned and uploaded on Kannada Wikisource

Books to be uploaded on Wikisource:

Chirasmarane
Mrutyunjaya
Deekshe
Navodaya
Palike banda panchamruta
Swami Aparampara

Books available to be scanned:

Banashankari
Nandagokula

CIS-A2K has visited the following libraries in order to optimise the efforts put into Kannada Wikisource:

1) Central Library, Cubbon Park, Bangalore

2) Kannada Shaitya Parishat, Chamarajpet, Bangalore

3) B.M. Shri Pratishtana Library, Bangalore

4) Gokhale Institute of Public Affairs, Basavanagudi, Bangalore

The visits have resulted in identifying many books that were hitherto unavailable with A2K team. We are in process of getting these books and digitise them so that they can be uploaded on Kannada Wiisource. A2K team is hopeful that the increased levels of activity and consultation held with the community will help the overall progress of Kannada Wikisource project.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/community-prioritisation-content-donation-kannada-wikisource

Community Digest: Tulu Wikipedia Goes Live after Eight Years in Incubator; News in Brief

Subhashish Panigrahi and Ting-Yi Chang — 2016-08-26T15:21:58Z

Eight years after being created in the Wikimedia Incubator, the Tulu-language Wikipedia is now live as the 23rd Indic language Wikipedia.

The blog post was published in the Wikimedia blog on August 24, 2016.

Available at https://tcy.wikipedia.org, the project has a total of 1285 articles contributed by 198 editors.

Tulu is spoken by between three and five million people principally concentrated in the states of Karnataka and Kerala in south-west and south India (respectively), with more in the US and in Gulf countries. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Executive Director Katherine Maher announced that the project would go live in her keynote at WikiConference India 2016.

Tulu Wikipedia was started in the Wikimedia Incubator back in 2008 with a one or two editors, but neither the project nor the community remained active except sporadic edits. Without any meetups and outreach, it was difficult for those editors to work as a community to bring the project live from Incubator. The Centre for Internet and Society’s Access to Knowledge program, a catalytic program funded by the Wikimedia Foundation to support and grow Indian language Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects in the Indian subcontinent, started building a Tulu-language community in 2014. They and the community conducted Wikipedia editing training workshops at St. Aloysius College in Mangaluru, who opened their doors to introduce the Wikipedia Education Program (WEP). As part of the WEP, students started editing Wikipedia as part of their syllabus with the leadership and guidance of Dr. Vishwanatha Badikana, assistant professor of the Kannada-language department at St. Aloysius, who himself became an active Tulu Wikipedia editor. Similarly, many students from both the institutions also contributed articles of diverse subject areas.

However, the community is fairly small and needs a way to grow outside the institution. “A series of eight how-to video tutorials have been created to help editors to learn about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, manual of style and overall editing. Many students have contributed in creating these tutorials”, Badikana says, and the existing set of editors are doing their best to spread the word about the project. In an interview with the media portal Daijiworld, Bharathesha Alasandemajalu, an active editor based in Oman, said, “anyone can write or edit articles on the Tulu Wikipedia but it should not be plagiarised. The photos should be one’s own or uploaded with valid permission from the owner. This will help the future generation to know more about the language and act as a source of information on Tulu language and culture.”

One of the biggest challenges in growing the project—apart the community’s limitations within institutional frameworks and having just a handful of editors outside—is the lack of codification of the project as per Unicode compliance. Unicode is a global standard for scripts, and the modern Tulu script (derived from the original Tigalari script) is not yet encoded in Unicode. As a result, all the articles in the Tulu Wikipedia are written in the Kannada script, as the speakers are mostly based in the state of Karnataka and speak Kannada as a second language.

Despite a long linguistic heritage, Tulu is still struggling to be widely used, especially in its native script. Badikana says that he is really hopeful that he will see more Tulu speakers start contributing to the language’s Wikipedia, as he feels that growing language content online would be the best thing to do while working in a conventional classroom.

In brief

Ongoing India At Rio Olympics 2016 Edit-a-thon promises to plant one tree for every 20 new articles created

India this year has a great participation in the Rio Olympics; some of the participating athletes have brought medals and glory for the country and some lost in the tight competition. But for Wikipedia, every single athlete matters! An edit-a-thon is being organized by Wikimedia India in collaboration with not-for-profit “Sankalp Taru”, publication house Niyogi books. Several Indian-language Wikipedia communities are participating in creating Wikipedia articles related to the Rio Olympics and India’s participation in it. A unique goal is set for this edit-a-thon where a tree will be planted for every 20 new articles created and it could also be monitored online. The edit-a-thon started officially at 0:00 UTC on 29 July 2016 and will go on 23:59 UTC on 18 September 2016. Apart from several other rules for participation, the rule also discourages pure machine translation of the articles as historically there has been disastrous impact of Google Translate for many Indian language Wikipedias.

Wiki Loves Monuments returns to India after three years

Wiki Loves Monuments, the global photo competition that is organized by the Wikimedia communities in September with the focus of getting good quality photographs of monuments of historical interest, will be organized in India. “The aim of the contest is to ask the general public—readers and users of Wikipedia, photographers, hobbyists, etc.—to take pictures of cultural heritage monuments and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and its other sister projects.”, shared Abhinav Srivastava, Executive Committee member of Wikimedia India which is the official organizer of the event. More details about participating in this event could be found in the event page.

WikiConference India 2016, the largest Wikimedia community gathering of the year in South Asia comes to an end

Organized by the Wikimedia communities in India, the WikiConference India 2016 was the largest Wikimedia gathering in the subcontinent of this year. After a long break of five years, the event has about 250 participants including over 100 scholarship recipients from four countries representing Wikimedia projects in 20 Indic languages. As reported in the Signpost, nearly 25% of scholarship recipients were women, and the inclusion of speakers of ~20 languages. There were 89 accepted submissions including workshops, presentations, The event also included an edit-a-thon to improve the content related to Punjab, Punjabi language and culture as a gesture of respect to the place where the event was organized. Over 2000 articles have been created by more than 150 editors in 12 different language Wikipedias.

A gender gap-focused panel, led by formed Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees member Bishakha Datta, was held on the second day of the conference to share the research and outreach experiences in different communities (featuring Kannada, Tamil, and Marathi communities). Researchers proposed new strategies and practices in tackling the systematic and social barriers for Indian women joining Wikimedia projects. Other presenters shared tips and event-organizing experience on various outreach activities—from edit-a-thons and photo-thons in the International Women’s Month to student-led events in college institutions—demonstrating respective communities’ efforts on the local, national, and global scales. The panel was followed by a Wikiwomen’s Lunch meetup attended by most female Wikipedians at the conference along with Bishakha, Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees member Nataliia Tymkivand WMF staff members.

Ashutosh Sarangi, the youngest Wikimedian from the oldest Indian-language Wikipedia community

At the closing ceremony WikiConference India 2016, Ashutosh Sarangi was awarded as the youngest Wikimedian at the conference by , two days after Katherine congratulated the Odia Wikipedia for celebrating its 14th birthday, where the project happens to be the oldest of all Indian-language Wikipedias. Ashutosh, a 6th grade student, is the son of Pankajmala Sarangi, the most active Odia Wikisourcer, and is active in Odia Wikisource with 226 edits for digitization of two books so far. “Living and studying in New Delhi where Hindi is predominantly the primary language, having a conversation in our native language Odia itself is so difficult. I am proud to be a mother who not only teaches Odia language to her kids but also helps them contribute to the open Internet. At some point of time, these valuable books Ashutosh has contributed in digitizing on Odia Wikisource will be of great read for others”, she shares. Long time Hindi-language Wikipedian Raju Suthar has mentioned in a news article in Hindi newspaper the Sanjivani saying, “Ashutosh has won everyone’s heart as the youngest Wikimedian in this conference. Asaf Bartov and Nataliia Tymkov have awarded him for his contribution”. Ashutosh started contributing to Odia Wikisource in February this year on the day of the second workshop in New Delhi.

MediaWiki hackathon at WikiConference India 2016 has seven important outputs

The MediaWiki hackathon that was running at the WikiConference India in the leadership of Santosh Shingare was productive to engage with several participants and bring as many as seven most important outcomes:

WikiSpeak, an easy-to-use Android (source code) and web app (source code) that read the the Wikipedia articles in native languages.
Edit Tamil Wiktionary, android app that helps create entries in Tamil-language Wiktionary from a spreadsheet created with a .tsv extension. The app checks for existing entries and creates only entries that are not existent. (source code)
Commons audio uploader, Android app that helps a user to log in using Mediawiki credentials, create audio recordings using their phone microphone, and upload them on Commons. (source code)
Wikipedia articles on Google map, web application that can show Wikipedia articles with geo-cordinates in Google Maps when the phone’s location is enabled for Google Maps. The application is responsive enough to adjust the portion of the Wikipedia article it displays on the screen, and works for all the Indian languages. (source code)
OCR (Native Application) : Convert scanned book copy to Indian language text with google doc (Tested for Hindi and Malayalam).
Communication platform[WebRTC] (Web Application) : Community used this to talk or conference (Audio/video web conferencing application)
Notification (Event based) : showing popup on event eg (If recent changes happen, It will show popup which article was updated)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/community-digest-tulu-wikipedia-goes-live-after-eight-years-in-incubator-news-in-brief

Community digest: Konkani language speakers are separated by scripts but unite by Wikipedia; news in brief

subha — 2016-08-07T03:11:06Z

Konkani-language Wikipedians on what they think of Wikipedia as a binding factor for native speakers who speak in different variations of the same language and write in different scripts.

This was published on Wikimedia Blog on August 4, 2016

I reached out to a few Goan Konkani Wikipedians to learn about their experience with the project, especially after it went live in 2015. In the interview they share what they think of Wikipedia as a binding factor for native speakers that are currently dispersed in many states, speak in different variations of the same language, and write in different scripts.

Subhashish Panigrahi (SP): Hi The Discoverer [a long time contributor to Wikipedia who is actively contributing to the Goan Konkani Wikipedia], you have been actively contributing to the Goan Konkani Wikipedia since 2006 even before it went live in 2014. What potential do you see in the Goan Konkani Wikipedia bringing Konkani speakers from the states of Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala?
User:The Discoverer (TD): Even though my first contributions were in 2006, I have been moderately active on Wikipedia all these years.

I do agree with you that Konkani Wikipedia has the potential to bind people across borders. As you have rightly pointed out, Konkani is remarkable in that, for the small geographical area where it is a native language, it has developed a large number of dialects, in addition to being used in multiple scripts. Unfortunately, in the offline world, we see that there are disagreements over certain Konkani scripts being favored or not favored in terms of official recognition. Konkani Wikipedia can not only be a platform in bringing together Konkani speakers from many regions but can also be the unifying factor among the Konkani people.

SP: How do think Wikipedia could be a good platform to help unifying the Konkani people?
TD: For Konkani Wikipedia to succeed, it is not just a ‘good idea’ for Konkani speakers writing in various scripts to work together on one Wikipedia, but it’s also a necessity and a challenge at the same time. It’s a necessity, because as things stand, no one script has a strong enough community to run a Wikipedia by themselves. It’s a challenge because not everyone can read every script, and it’s important for all the users of a Wikipedia to be able to understand all the content on that site.

SP: Very rightly spotted. And how do you think the Wikipedia community and the CIS-A2K program should work together to tackle this challenge?
TD: We need an automatic script converter (see the script converter resource page for Konkani on Meta and task on Phabricator) that could make the lives of the editors easier. Most people cannot read more than two scripts. Most users are currently depending on an external site for transliteration when the user cannot read the script used in a Wikipedia article. That’s painful and a user might also would not know about a third party converter. An automatic script converter on Wikipedia would enable people to read any page in the script of their choice in a single click. This is where CIS-A2K can really help Konkani Wikipedia, by helping to implement the script converter. In addition to the script converter, CIS-A2K could also study various multi-script Wikipedias in existence and prepare a list of such features that are used in these Wikipedias to deal with multiple scripts, so that Indian multi-script Wikipedias can consider implementing such a feature as well.

Konkani Wikipedia is facing another challenge right now in growing the community as there are only handful of active editors. And we need contributors from varied walks of life to add more diversity to the community. The boost that was needed initially to make Konkani Wikipedia live—thanks to institutions like Goa University (GU) and Nirmala Institute of Education (NIE) and CIS-A2K for bringing in many student-editors—needs more intensity now. Students from GU and NIE were mainly from the Konkani language and teaching disciplines. If you consider other larger Wikipedias, like the English Wikipedia, they owe their success to editing by people from a diverse backgrounds, and also to the fact that the people are comfortable with the basics of markup and coding and were able to build templates, etc. Today, there is almost no one who is working on templates and other similar technical stuff for Konkani Wikipedia. Here too, CIS-A2K can help by reaching out to Konkani speakers with a background in computing—for instance, students of Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA), Master in Computer Application, Computer Science and engineering. This will help build a community that is technically adept at creating templates and dealing with more advanced types of content for the Wikipedia.

The Konkani Wikipedia can also take advantage of software extensions like VisualEditor and Flow that the knowledge of markup and other technicalities that the user needs to have, so that users who are uncomfortable with editing markup can focus on just adding content with a much more simple and user-friendly interface.

In these ways, participation of people from different regional and vocational backgrounds can form a vibrant editing community leading to the growth of the Konkani Wikipedia.

In brief

WikiConference India 2016 to be held at Chandigarh during August 5–7: The second WikiConference India (WCI) will be held on August 5-7 in Chandigarh, India. After the first WCI in 2011, this will be the largest gathering of the Wikimedians from the Indian subcontinent. A team of volunteers representing several Wikimedia communities across the country and three Wikimedia affiliates—Wikimedia India, Punjabi Wikimedians and Centre for Internet and Society’s Access to Knowledge program—are working together to make this event a success. Over 100 scholarships have been offered to noteworthy contributors from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Various talks, meetups and workshops are planned for the three-day event, and a needs assessment survey has been put in place for ensuring any hackathon needs are addressed.
Punjab edit-a-thon: A month-long edit-a-thon has been running in 12 Indic language Wikipedias and one European language Wikipedia (the Ukrainian) to enrich the content related to Punjab, the Punjabi people, and their language and culture. So far, more than 1000 articles have been created by about 100 Wikipedians. As we have already surpassed the dream target of 1000 articles, we are planning to extend the edit-a-thon through WikiConference India so many can participate during the event.
Campaign for relicensing copyrighted books under Creative Commons licenses: A campaign has been started to relicense Telugu-language books of several noted authors from “all rights reserved” to a Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC BY-SA) license. This campaign was started on June 19 and copyright migration process is complete for 17 books so far. Once the copyright migration is over the books—ranging from historical figures and popular personalities to regional history—are going to be digitized on Wikisource. “I don’t want these works to be in bookshelf and get wasted by termites. My wish as an author and researcher is to make these works available to future historians who can make use of it, so that our people get to know the local history” shares Kanuri Badarinadh, a historian, novelist and journalist who has donated some of his books.
Train-the-trainer and Mediawiki training program for capacity building of community leaders from Indian subcontinent: After two iterations of the Train the Trainer in 2013 and 2015, CIS-A2K organized the third program during June 15-17 at Bengaluru. The Mediawiki training was designed to help groom technical leadership skills of the technical contributors of the communities. A total of 45 participants, that were selected by a collaborative consultation with the community, took part in these events. The trainers for both the events consisted of subject experts from the Wikimedia community, the free knowledge movement, the free and open source software community and CIS-A2K program staff. A series of small Mediawiki trainings will follow soon that will be led by the trained participants.
Indian women in Science edit-a-thon: Organized by IndiaBioscience, a not-for-profit working for research and advocacy on the life sciences in India, this edit-a-thon began with an introduction to the series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that have been running to expand Wikipedia’s reach on Indian women with contribution to Science. There was a Q&A session Professor Vaishnavi Ananthanarayanan followed by introduction to Wikipedia editing, its policies and guidelines, and brief on copyright, and Creative Commons licensing. 11 new articles were created and 11 existing articles were expanded in English, Hindi and Odia-language Wikipedias.
Indigenous South-Asian language gets a new open Unicode font: A new font for the Ol chiki script (used to write the Santali language) along with input tools are getting ready to be released soon. Santali is spoken by over 6 million people in South Asia over Bangladesh and Nepal and six states in India. This project, supported by the Centre for Internet of India, will help native language speakers type in Unicode across platforms, and also using Universal Language System in all Wikimedia projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/community-digest-konkani-language-speakers-are-separated-by-scripts-but-unite-by-wikipedia-news-in-brief

Comments to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Report on Gender and Privacy

Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon and Pallavi Bedi — 2019-10-27T04:08:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/comments-to-the-united-nations-human-rights-commission-report-on-gender-and-privacy

Comments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014

Nirmita Narasimhan and Anandhi Viswanathan — 2014-10-30T16:13:45Z

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”), the following are the comments and recommendations on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014 (“RPD Bill”). It was submitted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee in October 2014.

I. Definitions

Section 2(c) “Barrier”: - definition to include attitudinal barriers: Should read as follows: “Barrier means any factor which hampers the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society, including attitudinal, communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social or structural factors which hampers the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society.”

Section 2(f) “Communication”: - definition to include sign language: Should read as follows: “Communication includes means and formats of communication, languages, display of text, Braille, tactile communication, signs, large print, accessible multimedia, written, audio, plain-language, sign language, human reader, augmentative and alternative modes and accessible information and communication technology.”

Section 2 (h) “establishment” to include private establishments as well. The UNCRPD places an obligation on State Parties to take ‘appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any person, organization or private enterprise’ [Article 4(1)(e)]. It also requires that State Parties promote the employment of persons with disabilities in the private sector through appropriate policies and measures, which may include affirmative action programmes, incentives and other measures [Article 27(1)(h)]. Thus it is important that ‘establishments’ as covered under the RPD Bill, which would refer to rights relating to employment of persons with disabilities, reservation of jobs and provision of reasonable accommodation should include state as well as private establishments. The intention to ensure the representation of persons with disabilities in the private sector was also recognised by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind. Therefore the definition should read as follows:

‘Establishment’ means and includes:

Department and Ministries of Government;

Local authorities and authorities or bodies owned, controlled or aided by the Central or State Government;

Any statutory or non-statutory body created, owned, financially or administratively controlled or aided by the Central or State Government or any such body performing public functions which are primarily welfare activities and includes Government Companies as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;

Any company, firm, cooperative or other society, association, trust, agency, institution, organization, union, landlord, industry, supplier of goods or services, factory or other non-statutory body which is not covered under clause (i) to (iv)

Insertion of the term “discrimination on the basis of disability” Since the term is widely used across the document, it is important to define it. A suggested definition of the term based on the definition available in the e-Accessibility Tool Kit for Policy Makers is as follows: “Accessibility is a measure of the extent to which any infrastructure, product or service can be used by a person with a disability as effectively as it can be used by a person without that disability.”

Section 2(x): definition of specified disability to be deleted.

Section 2(t): Definition of “Reasonable Accommodation” to be altered: 'disproportionate or undue burden’ to be deleted. Because there is no definition given as to what would constitute an undue burden or what would be disproportionate, along with the fact that this can be used as an exit route for public authorities and private employers to evade their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation. Most other disability rights legislations including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 do not have this qualification in the definition of reasonable accommodation. The definition should instead read as follows: "Reasonable accommodation" means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others. It can include but is not limited to:

(A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;

(B) and job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.”

II. Voting and other Rights

i. Expansion of Section 10:

It is not sufficient to only make polling stations accessible. Section 10 needs to be expanded to include the following:

To make all voter registration stations and facilities accessible to persons with disabilities
All materials and communication must be made available in multiple formats.

Election Commissions to take special measures to promote participation of persons with disabilities in the electoral process- both in terms of casting votes, as well as standing for elections.

ii. Section 11 (4) to be expanded to include Section 11 (4) (c):- to include the following: “The enjoyment of equal right to conduct their own financial affairs and avail of forms of financial credit such as bank loans, mortgages, insurance etc., should be on the same terms and conditions as other customers without discrimination or on special terms which may be advantageous to persons with disabilities.”

III. Education

Section 17 - addition of a sub section requiring the appropriate government to promote alternate teaching methods using new forms of information and communications technologies and pedagogic techniques.
All children with disabilities should have access to and training in the use of computers and educational and knowledge materials in accessible formats.
Appropriate government should promote harmonization of syllabus to enable sharing of accessible resources across the state and recognize and support the efforts of disability and other organizations in imparting training to disabled children.
The present draft limits the provisions of this Act to educational institutions funded by the appropriate government- this needs to be expanded to include all educational institutions, private and public.
The government should also accordingly revise existing schemes for providing financial aid to such families having children with disabilities to keep abreast of present financial needs along with launching new ones.
Section 16(g) - aids and ATs should be provided free of cost till the completion of school education and not just until 18 years since very often children with disabilities start their education late.
Section 15 on education - private schools should also be required to employ special educators for students with disabilities and all private educational institutions- both for school as well as higher education should admit students with disabilities without discrimination if they meet the requisite criteria.

IV. Employment

Section 19 (1) proviso - permitting for exemption of any establishment to be deleted.
Section 33 (3) - The age relaxation in upper age limit has been reduced to five years from the current norm of 10 years. This should be revised to 10 years.

V. Access

Section 40 - provides that the government shall provide for access to transport by retrofitting old modes of transport where “technically feasible and economically viable”. This can potentially lead to a situation where transport is not made accessible on the ground that it is too expensive or technically not feasible. In such instances, persons with disabilities cannot be deprived of access to transport. We thus recommend the insertion of the following clause to section 40 (1)(b): “Where a facility cannot be retrofitted because it is too technically challenging or expensive, there must be made available an alternate means of accessing that transport or facility.” Coupled with insertion of a time frame of 3 years for making all modes of transport accessible – like in the US model.

Section 41 – The following should be inserted

Accessibility of websites: All websites must conform to the current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines formulated by the World Wide Web Consortium and all government communication must be accessible electronically as well as in print.

There should be a periodic audit for accessibility of all Government websites and training must be imparted to technology developers to create and maintain accessible products, interfaces and content. Research must be ongoing to develop new and open source assistive technologies for all disabilities and in all languages and for this purpose tenders must be invited from the public as well as private sector.

To insert a new section on Procurement- “Appropriate Governments must ensure that there is a procurement policy in place which mandates that all products (hardware and software), goods and services procured by them must conform to accessibility requirements and this should be introduced in the license terms of service contracts itself.”
Section 44 (1) to refer to all “buildings accessible to the public” instead of “public buildings” - This is to ensure that it is not only government buildings that are made accessible but also all buildings available to the public such as hospitals, hotels, libraries, shops, banks etc., whether public or private, are made accessible. The UNCRPD places an obligation on State Parties to take ‘appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any person, organization or private enterprise’ [Article 4(1)(e)]. It also specifically requires that State Parties ensure that ‘private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities’ [Article 9(2)(b)].
To insert a new sub-section in Section 44 for periodic audit of buildings: “The Central Government must establish a system for periodic audit of all building and physical spaces and use these reports for measuring pace and extent of rectification and adherence to the standards.”
Section 45- the blanket time frame of 2 years is too ambiguous for service providers and has to be revised. The National Commission or relevant authority (for example TRAI in the case of telecom operators) may determine a reasonable time frame for provision of accessible services and such time frame may be a little more in case of rectification/ retrofitting as the case may be. The Rationale for this is that the time to provide accessible billing facilities for mobile phones or making a website accessible would be barely a matter of months, while for something else may be a year, hence such a blanket provision of time of 2 years should be avoided.

VI. General Comments

Restore section on women and girls with disabilities, which was present in the 2011 draft. The present Act does not contain specific section for them, just mentions them in a diluted manner across the legislation.
Same for children with disabilities- addition of a dedicated section for them- as present in previous draft.
Section 23(1) - the words 'within the limit of its economic capacity and development' must be removed because it is an exit route for states from formulating anything more than the minimum necessary schemes in this area. Our experience with the previous Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) 1995 Act has demonstrated that almost all the sections with 'within the economic limits' were not complied with by all states and proved ineffectual. Furthermore, the enjoyment and exercise of the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities cannot hinge on the economic capacity of states. All states will have the minimum capacity required - it is a question of priority.
Section 28 needs a sub section, which incorporates the copyright fair dealing exception to make all copyrighted cultural works accessible to persons with disabilities.
Appropriate governments should ensure that one member from the Disability Advisory Committee should be able to participate on all key policy making committees to ensure that the disability perspective is adequately represented across all government initiatives.
Section 61(b) and 67(b) should be deleted since they state unsoundness of mind as a reason for disqualification, which goes against the spirit of the UNCRPD.
Similarly Sections 76(1)(c) and 89(1)(c) should be deleted since they cite physical/ mental incapacity as a disqualification from holding office.
Sections 103 and 104 should include offences committed by the Government, public officials and government companies respectively in the discharge of their duties.
Section 73(2) - The chairperson of the National Commission has to necessarily be a person with disability.
Section 86 (2) on the Chairperson of the state commission- should be made mandatory that the Chairperson should be a person with disability
Duties and Responsibilities of Appropriate Governments: The clause “every appropriate government should set up a help line and other resources to assist persons with disabilities” should be included.
Access to emergency services: The appropriate governments should ensure that:

i. Persons with disabilities have instantaneous access to all emergency services such as ambulance, fire engine, hospital and police and to this end ensure that measures are taken to make these accessible to them;

ii. Steps are taken to ensure that during times of disasters such as floods and earthquakes, mitigation, rescue, relief and reconstruction measures take into account the needs of persons with disabilities and especially women and children with disabilities.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/comments-to-rights-of-persons-with-disablities-bill-2014