Centre for Internet and Society

Workshop on 'Privacy after Big Data' (Delhi, November 12)

sumandro — 2016-11-12T10:14:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Sarai programme, CSDS, invite you to a workshop on 'Privacy after Big Data: What Changes? What should Change?' on Saturday, November 12. This workshop aims to build a dialogue around some of the key government-led big data initiatives in India and elsewhere that are contributing significant new challenges and concerns to the ongoing debates on the right to privacy. It is an open event. Please register to participate.

Invitation note and agenda: Download (PDF)

Venue and RSVP

Venue: Centre for the Study of Developing Societies 29, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054.

Location on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/CSDS/@28.677775,77.2162523,17z/.

Registration: Complete this form.

Concept Note

In this age of big data, discussions about privacy are intertwined with the use of technology and the data deluge. Though big data possesses enormous value for driving innovation and contributing to productivity and efficiency, privacy concerns have gained significance in the dialogue around regulated use of data and the means by which individual privacy might be compromised through means such as surveillance, or protected. The tremendous opportunities big data creates in varied sectors ranges from financial technology, governance, education, health, welfare schemes, smart cities to name a few.

With the UID (“Aadhaar”) project re-animating the Right to Privacy debate in India, and the financial technology ecosystem growing rapidly, striking a balance between benefits of big data and privacy concerns is a critical policy question that demands public dialogue and research to inform an evidence based decision.

Also, with the advent of potential big data initiatives like the ambitious Smart Cities Mission under the Digital India Scheme, which would rely on harvesting large data sets and the use of analytics in city subsystems to make public utilities and services efficient, the tasks of ensuring data security on one hand and protecting individual privacy on the other become harder.

As key privacy principles are at loggerheads with big data activities, it is important to consider privacy as an embedded component in the processes, systems and projects, rather than being considered as an afterthought. These examples highlight the current state of discourse around data protection and privacy in India and the shapes they are likely to take in near future.

This workshop aims to build a dialogue around some of the key government-led big data initiatives in India and elsewhere that are contributing significant new challenges and concerns to the ongoing debates on the right to privacy.

Agenda

09:00-09:30 Tea and Coffee

09:30-10:00 Introduction

Mr. Amber Sinha and Mr. Sandeep Mertia
This session will introduce the topic of the workshop in the context of the ongoing works at CIS and Sarai.

10:00-11:00 From Privacy Bill(s) to ‘Habeas Data’

Dr. Usha Ramanathan and Mr. Vipul Kharbanda
This session will present a brief history of the privacy bill(s) in India and end with reflections on ‘habeas data’ as a lens for thinking and actualising privacy after big data.

11:00-11:30 Tea and Coffee

11:30-12:30 Digital ID, Data Protection, and Exclusion

Ms. Amelia Andersdotter and Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan
This session will discuss national centralised digital ID systems, often operating at a cross-functional scale, and highlight its implications for discussions on data protection, welfare governance, and exclusion from public and private services.

12:30-13:30 Digital Money and Financial Inclusion

Dr. Anupam Saraph and Ms. Astha Kapoor
This session will focus on the rise of digital banking and online payments as core instruments of financial inclusion in India, especially in the context of the Jan Dhan Yojana and UPI, and reflect on the concerns around privacy and financial data.

13:30-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 Big Data and Mass Surveillance

Dr. Anja Kovacs and Mr. Matthew Rice
This session will reflect on the rise of mass communication surveillance across the world, and the evolving challenges of regulating il/legal surveillance by government agencies.

15:30-16:15 Privacy is (a) Right

Mr. Apar Gupta and Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj
This brief session is to share initial ideas and strategies for articulating and actualising a constitutional right to privacy in India.

16:15-16:30 Tea and Coffee

16:30-17:30 Round Table

An open discussion session to conclude the workshop.

Speakers

Mr. Amber Sinha

Amber works on issues surrounding privacy, big data, and cyber security. He is interested in the impact of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and learning algorithms on existing legal frameworks, and how they need to evolve in response. Amber studied humanities and law at National Law School of India University, Bangalore.

E-mail: amber at cis-india dot org.

Twitter: @ambersinha07.

Ms. Amelia Andersdotter

Amelia Andersdotter has been a Member of the European Parliament. She works on practical implications of data protection laws and consumer information security in Sweden, and digital rights in the Europe in general. Presently she is residing in Bangalore, where she is a visiting scholar with Centre for Internet and Society. She holds a BSc in Mathematics.

URL: https://dataskydd.net.

Twitter: @teirdes.

Dr. Anja Kovacs

Dr. Anja Kovacs directs the Internet Democracy Project in Delhi, India, which works for an Internet that supports free speech, democracy and social justice in India and beyond. Anja’s research and advocacy focuses especially on questions regarding freedom of expression, cybersecurity and the architecture of Internet governance. She has been a member of the of the Investment Committee of the Digital Defenders Partnership and of the Steering Committee of Best Bits, a global network of civil society members. She has also worked as an international consultant on Internet issues, including for the Independent Commission on Multilateralism, the United Nations Development Programme Asia Pacific and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, as well as having been a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.

Internet Democracy Project: https://internetdemocracy.in.

Twitter: @anjakovacs.

Dr. Anupam Saraph

Anupam Saraph has extensively researched India's UID number that has been widely regarded as the game changer in development programs. It has come to be linked with both public and private databases and become the requirement for access to entitlements, benefits, services and rights. Dr. Saraph, who has the design of at least two identification programs to his credit has researched the UID’s functional creep since its inception.

He has been dissecting the myths of what the UID is or is not. He has also tracked the consequences of its linkages on databases that protect national security, sovereignty, democratic status and the entire banking and money system in India. He has also highlighted the implications of its use for targeted delivery of cash subsidies from the Consolidated Fund of India. He has written and lectured widely about the devastating impact of the UID number on development programs, national security and the governability of India.

As a Professor of Systems, Governance and Decision Sciences, Environmental Systems and Business he mentors students and teaches systems, information systems, environmental systems and sustainable development at universities in Europe, Asia and the Americas. He has worked with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rijksuniversitiet Groningen, RIVM, University of Edinburgh, Resource Use Institute, Systems Research Institute among others. Dr. Saraph has had the unique distinction of being India’s only person who has held the only office of a City CIO in India, in a PPP arrangement with government, industry and himself. He has also been the first e-governance Advisor to a State government. Dr. Saraph has held CxO and ministerial level positions and serves as an independent director on the boards of Public and Private Sector companies and NGOs. He is also the President of the Nagrik Chetna Manch, an NGO charged with the mission to bring accountability in governance.

Dr. Saraph is also actively engaged in civil society where he participates in several environmental, resource and nature conservation initiatives, has authored draft legislations for river and natural resource conservation, right to good governance and has contributed to governance, election and democratic reforms. Dr. Saraph is a regular columnist in newspapers and writes on issues of governance, future design, technology and education from a systems perspective.

As a future designer and recognized as a global expert on complex systems he helps individuals and organisations understand and design the future of their worlds. Together they address the toughest challenges, accomplish missions and achieve business goals. He also supports building capacity to address the challenges of today as well as to build future designs through teams and effective leadership. Since the eighties Dr. Saraph has modeled complex systems of cities, countries, regions and even the planet. His models have been awarded internationally and even placed in 10-year permanent exhibitions.

Dr Saraph works with business and government executives, civil society leaders, politicians, generals, civil servants, police, trade unionists, community activists, United Nations and ASEAN officials, judges, writers, media, architects, designers, technologists, scientists, entrepreneurs, board members and business leaders of small, mid and large single and trans-national companies, religious leaders and artists across a dozen countries and various industry sectors to help them and their organisations succeed in their missions. He advises the World Economic Forum through its Global Agenda Council for Complex Systems and the Club of Rome, Indian National Association as a founder life member.

Dr Saraph holds a PhD in designing sustainable systems from the faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands.

Website: http://anupam.saraph.in.

Twitter: @anupamsaraph.

Mr. Apar Gupta

Apar Gupta practices law in Delhi. He is also one of the co-founders of the Internet Freedom Foundation. His work and writing on public interest issues can be accessed at his personal website www.apargupta.com.

Twitter: @aparatbar.

Ms. Astha Kapoor

Astha Kapoor is a public policy strategy consultant working on financial inclusion and digital payments. Currently, she is working with MicroSave. Her tasks involve a focus on government to people (G2P) payments - and her work spans strategy, advisory and evaluation with the DBT Mission, Office of the Chief Economic Advisor, NITI Aayog and ministries pertaining to food, fuel and fertilizer. She recently designed a pilot to digitize uptake of fertilizers in Krishna district, and evaluated the newly introduced coupon system in the Public Distribution System in Bengaluru.

Twitter: @kapoorastha.

Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj

Kritika Bhardwaj works as a Programme Officer at the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University, Delhi. Her main areas of research are privacy and data protection. At CCG, she has written about the privacy implications of several contemporary issues such as Aadhaar (India's unique identification project), cloud computing and the right to be forgotten. A lawyer by training, Kritika has a keen interest in information law and human rights law.

Centre for Communication Governance, NLU Delhi: http://ccgdelhi.org.

Twitter: @Kritika12.

Mr. Matthew Rice

Matthew Rice is an Advocacy Officer at Privacy International working across the organisation engaging with international partners and strengthening their capacity on communications surveillance issues. He has previously worked at Privacy International as a consultant building the Surveillance Industry Index, the largest publicly available database on the private surveillance sector ever assembled. Matthew graduated from University of Aberdeen with an LLB (Hons.) and also has an MA in Human Rights from University College London.

Privacy International: https://privacyinternational.org.

Twitter: @mattr3.

Mr. Sandeep Mertia

Sandeep Mertia is a Research Associate at The Sarai Programme, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. He is an ICT engineer by training with research interests in Science & Technology Studies, Software Studies and Anthropology. He is conducting an ethnographic study of emerging modes of data-driven knowledge production in the social sector.

Sarai: http://sarai.net.

Twitter: @SandeepMertia.

Academia: https://daiict.academia.edu/SandeepMertia.

Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan

Srikanth is a software professional with interests in Internet, follower of Internet policy discussions, volunteers for multiple online campaigns related to Internet. He is also fascinated by FOSS, opendata, localization, Wikipedia, maps, public transit, civic tech and occasionally contributes to them.

Site: http://www.srik.me.

Twitter: @logic.

Mr. Vipul Kharbanda

Vipul Kharbanda is a consultant with the Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore. After finishing his BA.LLB.(Hons.) from National Law School of India University in Bangalore, he worked for India’s largest corporate law firm for two and a half years in their Mumbai office for two years working primarily on the financing of various infrastructure projects such as Power Plants, Roads, Airports, etc. Since quitting his corporate law job, Vipul has been working as the Associate Editor in a legal publishing house which has been publishing legal books and journals for the last 90 years in India. He has also been involved with the Center for Internet and Society as a Consultant working primarily on issues related to privacy and surveillance.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-after-big-data-delhi-nov-12-2016

Workshop of River activists for building Jal Bodh - Knowledge resource on Water

Admin — 2018-08-11T01:45:18Z

To build knowledge resource on rivers in Pune district, CIS-A2K team organized a workshop in Pune on July 25, 2018.

After the River Dialogue, Jeevit nadi organisation has taken initiative to train their team of activists in open knowledge and Wikimedia Projects. Activists and researchers from Jeevit Nadi, EcoUniv, Jal Biradari, Ecological Society, Sagarmitra organisations participated in the workshop. The groups presented their work, the database and the resources with them. These include photographs, videos, training material and data collected on site. Extensive discussion was made for evolving methodology to integrate in Wikimedia Projects. This was the first iteration in the series of workshops.

The second iteration of building content on rivers in Pune district was organised on 25th July by Jeevit Nadi organisation. In this 4 hour session, 5 participants worked on category tree and structure of article on river. The editing skills for this were imparted. The images and videos available in the repository were analysed for uploading. The categorisation of media was also planned. The issues like maps of rivers and heritage places on the banks were also discussed. This team will prepare the database and organise the media files available for uploading in respective categories. The next iteration is planned in September.

Read the full details on Wikimedia Blog

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/workshop-of-river-activists-for-building-jal-bodh-knowledge-resource-on-water

Workshop of Publishers and Writers on Unicode, Open Source and Wikimedia Projects

Admin — 2018-08-11T02:08:53Z

CIS-A2K team organized a workshop on unicode, open source and wikimedia projects at Pune on July 25, 2018.

CIS-A2K has started dialogue with the publishers for the last 6 months regarding FOSS, Open knowledge and content donation to Wikimedia Projects. As a result, various publishers and writers associated with social sector have taken initiative to organise workshops. Parisar, NGO working on environmental issues organised this orientation session for 4 activists, 5 publishers and 6 writers.

The following issues were discussed with demonstrations -

Adoption of Unicode and open source softwares
Make available old reference books, out of print books on web using new technology
Strengthening of Marathi Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary etc.
Social marketing of literary books
Explore the new medium of e books
To establish a company on lines of Amazon for e-selling of marathi books

Read the event details on Wikimedia Blog

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/workshop-of-publishers-and-writers-on-unicode-open-source-and-wikimedia-projects

Workshop Details of Big Data in the Global South International Workshop

praskrishna — 2015-11-06T02:03:31Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-data-in-global-south-international-workshop-agenda.pdf

Women's Day Edit-a-thon at Jeewan Jyoti Women's Empowerment Centre, Pune

subodh — 2017-04-10T16:04:03Z

Sterlite Tech Foundation and Jnana Prabodhini joined hands with the Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team to hold a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at Jeewan Jyoti Women's Empowerment Centre, Ambawane in Pune on March 10, 2017. Subodh Kulkarni was one of the trainers. The edit-a-thon was attended by 28 students.

Background

Sterlite Tech Foundation and Jnana Prabodhini are the organisations working for Women's Empowerment in Velhe Block of Pune District Maharashtra. Jeewan Jyoti - Sterlite’s flagship initiative aims to address these issues by empowering the under privileged sections of society, especially rural women with equal learning opportunities and with professional training courses in their formative years; thereby providing them with sustainable income opportunities.

On the occasion of World Women's Day, Women's Wikipedia edit-a-thon week is arranged across the world. The organisers collaborated with The Centre for Internet & Society-Access to Knowledge Program to conduct this workshop for rural women.

Project Goal

The goal of this Wikipedia Workshop is to build resources in the field of rural development & women empowerment on Marathi Wikipedia and equip its participants with the process of contributing to Wikipedia, and to introduce it as a concept to them. Another focus of the workshop will be on village articles.

Primary Goals

To introduce Wikipedia as an encyclopedia for research and a concept to new editors.
To Promote Marathi Wikipedia Community & promote the use of regional languages in Wikipedia.
To have an open interaction within the editors, existing as well as new.
To spread the awareness of Wikipedia as a powerful tool.
To develop articles on gender & environment related issues

More info on Wikimedia Blog

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/womens-day-edit-a-thon-in-pune

Withdrawal of Journal Access is a Wake-up Call for Researchers in the Developing World

subbiah — 2023-11-01T12:39:56Z

Guest blog by Leslie Chan, Barbara Kirsop, Subbiah Arunachalam (Trustees for the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development). This article was published in Speaking of Medicine PLoS Medicine community blog on January 17, 2011.

The news that several publishers have withdrawn access to health journals from the academic communities in Bangladesh has come as a wake-up call about the limitations of the HINARI programme. Many on the HIFA-2015 (Healthcare Information For All by 2015) forum feel this annoucement is a disaster, and that the only way to resolve the situation is to launch a concerted effort to restore journal access to those in Bangladesh.

In our opinion, this would be a retrograde step since, owing to the commercial nature of the journals in question, the same situation will inevitably arise in the future. Donor programmes do nothing to build research capacity, and access is governed by marketing decisions rather than research needs. The Electronic Publishing Trust for Development has been working in partnership with many other organisations (including Bioline International, SciELO, MedKnow Publications, and Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS) ) to promote the development benefits of open access journals and archived articles in open access institutional repositories.

But in the face of powerful UN organisations (WHO, UNEP, FAO) and commercial publishers of prestigious journals offering ‘free access’ it has been difficult to persuade dependent communities that open access is sustainable and could do much to strengthen research in poorer countries.

We would like to make the following points:

HINARI is primarily about access to knowledge from the North by the South. The underlying assumption that this is all that is needed must be challenged. Using Virginia Barbours firefighting analogy, information about useful techniques involving high tech equipment and sophisticated training may be made freely available on the web, but it may not be applicable to firefighters in poor countries where the infrastructure is missing. The information may be irrelevant and therefore of little use. Meanwhile local knowledge about how to prevent and fight fires (or in our case, carry out new research) is not recorded and shared because of lack of infrastructure. Even when it is recorded and “published”, it is largely inaccessible because of the low visibility of “local” journals. So the sharing of locally relevant research information can never be solved by HINARI, even if accession to all the withdrawn journals (Northern journals) were restored.
The current scholarly communication system is controlled by the North and how knowledge is legitimized, validated, and rewarded is based on criteria set by the North. This structural inequality is a long-standing problem for research and dissemination from the South. It follows that the need for open access is more pressing for researchers and front line health workers in the developing world, because it promises not only access, but participation in research exchange and new forms of knowledge dissemination. Programs such as HINARI have actually slowed down progress towards open access in these parts of the world because – coming with the legitimacy of the UN organizations – they have diverted attention from the need to build truly local and sustainable infrastructure. More importantly, they have diverted attention from looking at alternative mechanisms for knowledge creation and sharing.
Open source digital repository software and journal publishing systems are now widely used and scholars and research bodies in the developing world are starting to take advantage of these tools and share experiences. There are also a variety of sustainability models for the equal distribution of research publications that are beginning to emerge, and these need to be nurtured and discussed more broadly at the local and the national level.
Health knowledge (and indeed all publicly funded knowledge) is a global public good and as such, requires a different funding and global governance system. The current approach, whereby each institution purchases its own subscriptions is one reason why we have a highly dysfunctional system of paying for scholarly publications. At a pre-International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) conference in 2010, Leslie Chan proposed a “1%” challenge” to library directors. If all the major research libraries around the world were to set aside 1% of their acquisitions for commercial licenses into a global open access fund, there would be hundreds of millions of dollars available to support diverse open access initiatives around the world. This is one of many possible scenarios that could solve funding for open access. The dismay felt in many developing countries caused by the announced withdrawal of access to information in Bangladesh signals the need to think differently and collectively.
It should be recognised that when publications are made freely available, usage by developing countries is very high indeed, proving the overwhelming need for all information to be available open access and on a sustainable basis. As an example, the link to statistics of usage of the Venezuelan University de Los Andes institutional repository, see http://goo.gl/S1p9N, shows how important these resources have become. Similarly high usage figures are recorded by organizations provindg an open access platform for local journals, eg SciELO, Bioline International and MedKnow Publications. Pre-open access local journals become post-open access international journals, with records showing that improved submissions, impact and sales of hardcopy versions follow from increased visibility and access.
Where is the leadership of the WHO in this important debate? Where are the other UN agencies? Since open access to all publicly funded research, not only in health, but in agriculture, the environment and all other aspects of research is urgently required to help solve global problems, these organisations should be leading the way.

The following links to websites and articles may be of interest to readers concerned about access to research information by the academic communities in the developing world:

Bioline International

SciELO

MedKnow Publications

Electronic Publishing Trust for Development

Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS)

Publications

[i] “The chain of communication in health science: from researcher to health worker through open access”. Open Medicine 2009; 3(3):111-119

[ii] “Open Access: a giant leap towards bridging health inequities. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2009;87:631-635

[iii] “Access to Scientific Knowledge for Sustainable Development: Options for Developing Countries”. Ariadne Issue 52 (July 2007).

Competing interests: Leslie Chan, Barbara Kirsop and Subbiah Arunachalam are trustees of the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development, which promotes open access. Leslie Chan is the Director of Bioline International.

Read the original article here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/withdrawal-of-journal-access

With digitisation at the forefront, government departments need to be cautious about digital security

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T08:33:37Z

The huge leak of Aadhar data from four websites belonging to a central ministry and the Andhra Pradesh government has been on the government radar for a while. The leak, caused by poor security protocols, had left around 130 million numbers and their allied information, like bank and post office account details, open to access for several months. As the last website finally plugged loophole, violation echoed in Supreme Court.

The blog post by Manas Pratap Singh was published by NDTV on May 4, 2017.

Deliberate revelation of Aadhaar can lay people open to financial fraud and it is a punishable offence and this is what the Electronics and Information ministry has reminded all government departments.

"Aadhaar numbers and demographic information and other sensitive personal data" collected by "ministries/departments, state departments" have been published online, read a letter from the ministry dated April 24.

Such publishing, it added, "is in clear contravention of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act 2016 and constitutes an offence punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years". Such outing of financial information is also a violation of IT Act, it said.

Besides asking web managers to sensitise the ministries, the letter also said that display of such information be stopped immediately.

On May 1, a report by non-profit research organisation Centre for Internet & Society said two of the websites from where the data leak took place, belongs to the Union Ministry of Rural Development.

One stored data for the MNREGA - the mammoth Central scheme for rural employment which caters to 25.46 crore people. The other was the National Social Assistance Programme, another Central scheme under which pension is provided to the elderly people, widows and persons with disabilities.

Amber Sinha, co-author of the CIS report, told NDTV, "For portals that had not masked data, we informed the relevant authorities and asked them to take down the available information."

The Rural Development ministry has now decided to form an expert group on IT and cyber security, which will be headed by Kiran Karnik, a former chief of Nasscom. The ministry, however, is yet to comment on the data leak.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-may-4-2017-manas-pratap-singh-government-knew-of-mega-aadhaar-leak-ministries-were-warned

WIPO To Negotiate Treaty For The Blind In June; ‘Still Some Distance To Travel’

praskrishna — 2012-12-21T11:50:04Z

In a swift 15 minute session this morning delegates at the World Intellectual Property Organization extraordinary assembly agreed to convene a high-level meeting in Morocco in June to finalise a treaty on international exceptions to copyrights on books in special formats for visually impaired people.

This article by Catherine Saez was published in Intellectual Property Watch on December 18, 2012. Rahul Cherian is quoted.

After long informal discussions yesterday with the assembly chair, Ambassador Uglješa Zvekić of Serbia, the decision document [pdf] was issued this morning.

WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said, “It is a great decision. Of course we are all aware that there is still some distance to travel before we have a treaty, but this decision, I think, places us one further step along the road and in a very good position to be able to deliver the objective, namely a very positive outcome of this exercise, with a good treaty that improves the situation of visually impaired persons and the print disabled.”

The General Assembly decided that a diplomatic conference should be convened in June 2013, in Morocco, with a mandate to negotiate and conclude a treaty.

Furthermore, the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will meet in a special session for five days in February to expedite further text-based work on the draft treaty, document SCCR/25/2 [pdf] “in order to reach sufficient level of agreement on the text.”

The assembly also directs "the Preparatory Committee to meet at the end of the February SCCR meeting to decide, if needed whether additional work is required with the objective of holding a successful Conference in June 2013," the decision says. It also states that the preparatory committee will invite observers.

The assembly decision has five paragraphs. With respect to paragraph 4 of the decision (on the special work session in February), Zvekić said, “we agreed to state for the record that in this paragraph, the phrase ‘additional work’ means additional work by either the SCCR or the preparatory committee, so that the preparatory committee can decide that either itself, the SCCR, or both may have additional work to do in order to prepare a revised text for the diplomatic conference.”

Document SCCR/25/2, which contains the draft articles as approved by the last SCCR session in November, "will constitute the substantive articles of the Basic Proposal for the Diplomatic Conference," the decision says, “with the understanding that any Member State and the special delegation of the European Union may make proposals at the Diplomatic Conference.”

The assembly also established a preparatory committee, which met at the close of the assembly this morning to work on modalities of the diplomatic conference, such as the draft rules of procedure, the list of states and organisations to be invited, and the agenda, dates, venue and other organisational questions.

Blue Sky with Some Clouds

The new consensus on a diplomatic conference and on a legally binding treaty to create exceptions and limitations to copyright for the benefit of visually impaired people cannot eclipse the fact that the draft text still reflects profound divisions between countries.

In February, delegates will have to tackle remaining issues, such as the inclusion of the three step test and commercial availability, on which they currently are at a standstill. Both inclusions are favoured by developed countries, in an effort to protect their right holders.

Yesterday morning, the delegation of Barbados said the treaty should be effective, and “while acknowledging the importance of safeguards,” it is important that “provisions in the text would not unduly restrict authorised entities from making accessible formats available under national law exceptions.”

“Provisions should not render the text nugatory through exposing authorised entities to possible liability and making their work administratively burdensome,” the delegate said.

In a press release [doc] issued today by the World Blind Union (WBU), Maryanne Diamond, leader of the WBU Right To Read campaign, said, "The decision of the WIPO Extraordinary General Assembly today is a very significant milestone on the road to a treaty. It means governments have kept the work on track to agree a binding and effective treaty in 2013, which if completed would allow blind people to access many thousands more books."

"The work is far from over, though. We urge all parties to now negotiate a simple, binding and effective treaty. A good treaty will really help us to end the book famine in which only some one to seven percent of books are ever made accessible to us," the release said.

Rahul Cherian, from Indian WBU member Inclusive Planet, also said in the release that "the objective of this treaty must be that of helping blind and print disabled people to get accessible format books, especially in developing countries. To achieve this goal, it must be workable and simply worded so that blind and print disabled people and their organisations can use it to really make a difference."

Currently in many countries, copyright law prevents charities from making accessible copies of books, and from sending them to others in countries speaking the same language, the release said. "The WIPO treaty sought by the World Blind Union would remove these copyright barriers and open up a new world of reading to blind people."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-catherine-saez-december-18-2012-wipo-to-negotiate-treaty-for-the-blind-in-june

WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 2 of 3)

nehaa — 2014-03-20T04:52:53Z

From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th session. This blog post (Part 2 of 3) summarizes Days 3 and 4 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts.

Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs.

26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes

Day 3

The Chair commenced proceedings by noting the need to take stock of the work done over the course of the first two days of proceedings. He stated that we needed to see the points of agreement as well as sticking points that persisted in order to chart a path towards resolution. There was an urgent need for clarity.

The floor was opened to Delegations and Regional Groups. The document before the countries is the one on draft conclusions for the discussions surrounding the Broadcast Treaty.

Belarus starts by expressing its support for the document before it and is ready to engage with any proposals that nations might have on it. Poland wanted the wording changed to broadcasting an cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense, but expressed its support for the document otherwise. A few other delegations, such as the one from Trinidad and Tobago, also expressed unease at the terminology of ‘traditional broadcasting organizations” in the document and much preferred broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense. Notwithstanding these concerns, there was considerable support for the draft conclusions.

The EU wants its discussions on transmissions over the internet to also be included as a part of the draft conclusions.

Libraries and Archives

Trinidad and Tobago expressed its full support for the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. They were keen to “close this gap to strengthen the copyright system as well as the human and collective rights for the benefit of creators and users alike”. It stated that the progress made in this regard was entirely consistentwith the Millennium Development Goals and the Development Agenda of WIPO. The CEBS group also came out in support of this framework. Further, it added that it would benefit greatly from the sharing of national experiences in this matter. It was stated that the modern copyright system should have a licensing system that is supportive of libraries, archives and other every day research. CEBS was sceptical however of the need to enter into any sort of international treaty in this regard. The delegate from Bangladesh pointed out the acute need for this limitation and exception particularly from the perspective of a developing nation in dire need of free flow of information. In this context, the Indian delegate was invited to make comments. The EU put on record its opposition to any sort of binding international instrument in this regard, and they wished to see this desire reflected in the title of the document. Iran called for the commencement of text-based negotiation since it was fairly clear that there was a need for an international instrument in this matter. Colombia concluded by stating that access to knowledge should be the guiding principle for the exceptions and limitations. It was very important for the libraries to fulfil the public interest for there to be copyright protection to its activities. It stresses however the need to continue to provide incentive and legitimate copyright protection even within this framework.

Day 4

Discussions continued on the first topic of preservation as found in the SCCR/26/3 which focusses on exceptions and limitations enabling libraries and archives. For this session, the Chair outlined the issue up for comments as the right of reproduction and safeguarding copies.

Azerbaijan, speaking for the first time, stated that it took cognizance of the importance of exceptions and limitations and supported an international instrument on it. The purpose of limitations and exceptions should be to allow librarians and archives to preserve the documents. The documents protected should be used solely for research purposes and must be in accordance with fair practice. Australia clarified the role of preservation to be the continuing availability of physical and digital works already held in the collections of a library or archive for the benefit of present or past users. Critical to be very specific when talking about preservation in order to prevent the proliferation of rights. It stated that it was yet to be convinced of the need for an international instrument. Belarus noted that it supported the need for an international legislation. It supported the formulation of rules in this regard on the basis of the three step test, in order to maintain the balance of interests at play. It is imperative that strict rules of interpretation are employed while introducing this into domestic legislation in order to avoid ambiguous approaches that will lead to the abuse of the freedoms codified. The non-commercial and non-profit making nature of libraries and archives were emphasized. In explaining the merits of the three step test that would facilitate the entry of this international document into domestic law, Poland shared its national experiences in this regard with the group. Brazil suggested that the concern of proliferation of works voiced by many countries could be resolved by engaging in deliberations that result in clear definitions. It suggested that the intervention made by Canada be made into an annex as a subject that can discussed in the text in the future. Russia noted that the Berne Convention is the bedrock of international intellectual property and copyright law and coupled with reference to national legislation would help in reaching a common understanding on preservation. Morocco was in support of an international legislation since dealing with the problem nationally would be woeful piecemeal approach. Senegal pointed out definitional issues that were plaguing the discussion. If there was no common ground on the idea of a library and an archive, then the discussions on exceptions and limitations would not break any new ground. Therefore, the discussions appeared to be proceeding on two tracks – nature and scope of the exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and the need for an international instrument that went beyond national legislation. The Chair opened comments on the latter track since that is foundational. The United States reiterated its opposition to any agreement that transcended national legislation. It also wished to introduce a bit of complexity in its discussions by pointing out that its domestic copyright law had no understanding of a library or archive. Therefore, it was going to be difficult to come to an understanding at the international level when national legislations themselves have not reached that point in their trajectory. Both El Salvador and Ecuador tacitly stated that they were in favour of an international legislation by continuing the discussion on merits. El Salvador opined that there was some degree of good faith involved and that was unavoidable in the pursuit of the desire to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. Greece stated that limitations and exceptions should only be applicable when an additional copy is not available in the market. Significantly, it stated that libraries and archives could enter into agreements with the rights holders by themselves. A flexible international framework was what Greece was aiming at, not an international legislation that went beyond national legislation. Both Greece and the EU suggested using the EU Copyright Directive as a starting point for defining libraries and archives. It asked for the flexibility it already had within the EU framework to be respected. Italy stated that it saw no international interest in a transnational agreement on exceptions and limitations. India emphasized the point that there was an international interest in preserving the culture of countries. The international dimension was in the context of cross-border cultural exchange. Congo came out in support of an international agreement as well. There was some degree of opposition from Greece that questioned India on why either manuscripts on cross-border cultural exchange had anything to do with preservation. In its opinion, those two goals could be achieved even without the formation of an international agreement on exceptions and limitations. India responded by clarifying that it did not use the example about ancient manuscripts in the context of copyright but the existence of an international interest in the matter of preservation. The issue of preservation of works within a library are for present and future use. This use, in today’s globalized world, is not just for the citizens of that country but for researchers the world over. In order to allow for thus cultural exchange, it was imperative that the copyright of the work not come in the way. Hence, there was the need for an international, and not merely national, legislation on the issue.

On France’s concern about Ecuador’s vague understanding of fair use, Ecuador clarified that this would be the same as in the Berne Convention and the three step test would apply. Finland, Jordan and Senegal then shared their countries’ national experience in this regard.

The Chair concluded the discussion on the first topic by articulating what he saw as a principle that is in the common agreement of all. In order to ensure that libraries and archives can develop their public service of the preservation of works in order to preserve knowledge and heritage, we need exceptions and limitations. Certain circumstances and guarantees are yet to be discussed and disagreements persist but none that threaten the need for a discussion.

Topic 2 – Right of Reproduction and Safeguarding of Copies

The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and the United States.

The EU opened the discussion with the suggestion that the title of this topic should only be focussed on the right to reproduction. This was in light of the nature of the proposals made by the various groups and nations. Ecuador situated the debate on the right to reproduction within the broader framework of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was imperative, it stated, that a right for libraries be carved out in order to facilitate the important social role they discharge. France added to the concern voiced by the EU in stating that it felt that safeguarding was already covered within the ambit of the previous topic. Brazil responded to this by drawing a clear cut distinction between the first and second topics. The right of reproduction was applicable to libraries while safeguarding was for archives. Both the role of the library and that of the archive merit discussion, it was emphasized, and both should equally be included in the second topic. Senegal supported the idea of an inclusive topic that mentions both the right of reproduction and safeguarding of copies. It stated that a distinct right of safeguarding was crucial at a time when vital cultural artefacts are vulnerable to destruction. The example of the museum in Timbuktu that was ravaged by militants leading to the irreparable loss of invaluable manuscripts was cited in support.

Italy voiced a two-pronged opposition to the very idea of articulating a right to reproduction. First, it stated that allowing for reproduction, even in University libraries, would open the floodgates to copyright violations. It was afraid that copyrighted material would be reproduced within the library which would then lead to that material appearing on for a not envisaged within the rubric of the treaty. Second, it was against the extension of the idea of research to private research. The transmission of the reproduced material to third parties would lead to a loss of revenue to the rights holder in question. To Italy, the latter was even more egregious since the former at least allowed for the possibility of, via the money paid for the reproduction, monetary compensation of the rights holder. The latter however had no room for this to be effected.

Belarus supported the EU position on the exclusion of safeguarding from the present discussions. Further, Belarus stressed that it wanted a caveat to the exception for scientific and educational research. It wanted the kind of material that would fall under the exception to be limited to “just articles or short works or excerpts from books” since “the student or researcher probably doesn’t need the whole book”.

Brazil assuaged the concerns of the right holders by pointing out that its proposal in paragraph 2 makes national legislation the focus. Fuether, it added that with respect to the international dimension to the rights, the GA had already stated that there would be an “international legal instrument”. Therefore, the multilateral nature of both the subject matter and scope of the negotiations is beyond the pale of doubt.

The representative from the International Council of Museums noted that all of the rights were equally applicable to museums as well. Very often, museums suffered from a lack of uniformity and harmonization of rules across multiple jurisdictions. This was the need it saw for an international treaty on the issue.

The Chair summed up the discussions. Despite the emergence of any sort of consensus, most countries had agreed for a need to have exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. Further, a right to reproduction of works for libraries was recognized to facilitate the reproduction of certain works under certain conditions for the purposes of research. The scope of none of these terms have been agreed upon by states nor has there been much agreement on whether this extends to distribution of the material and to what extent. The EU and the USA mentioned that they did not think there was a need for an international agreement on this and the GA wording was not binding in any sense.

Topic 3 – Legal Deposit

The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group and India on this. This was not received very warmly by the delegates. Most thought it was out of the place in the current discussions. The US opposed the need for any discussion at the international level since the issues in question were codified in domestic law to varying degrees. Therefore, it could not be said that it was “ripe for harmonization”. Colombia found the concept of legal deposit “strange” in a document on exceptions and limitations.

Topic 4 – Library Lending

The Secretariat noted that there were proposals from the African Group, India, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay.

Ecuador explained in great detail that the reason behind this was to allow for libraries to lend copyrighted works to its users or to another library. Very often, research necessitates the movement of the physical copy of a particular work. In other instances, the presence of a particular copyrighted work in a specific library has great symbolic and cultural value, apart from its patent value for research activities. In furtherance of its earlier objections, Italy explained that lending could also lead to egregious copyright violations. Along these lines, it objected to the idea of digital lending since it went against the grain of lending because returning a digital copy was not possible or meaningful. The International Federation of Libraries, representative from civil society, pointed out that there were technological tools that would prevent the unintended and harmful proliferation of lent digital copies. Digital lending could take place by passing along a password encrypted digital copy that would expire after a set period of time.

Greece furthered the harm that this would have on copyrighted works by asking why anybody would want to get the original if lending is applied to the realm of films via digital transmission. Responding to the African Group proposal, it asked how this was in conformity with the three step test. The US responded by drawing a positive causal link between lending and commercial purchase of the product. Again, the Chair summed up by stating that agreement was that exceptions and limitations must extend to library lending but agreement on the scope and nature of this extension evaded consensus.

Additional Links

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2

WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) 26th Session- Consolidated Notes (Part 1 of 3)

nehaa — 2014-03-20T04:49:55Z

From December 16 to 20, 2013, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) met for the 26th Session. This blog post (Part 1 of 3) summarizes Days 1 and 2 of the proceedings of the 26th SCCR, based on my notes of the session and WIPO's transcripts.

Many thanks to Varun Baliga for putting this together, and to Alexandra Bhattacharya of the Third World Network for her notes and inputs.

26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes of the Proceedings

Day 1
There are three salient issues outlined as part of the agenda – i) work towards a treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations, ii) exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives and for iii) educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. [1] The number of days to be spent deliberating on each issue was also outlined – two days each on the first two issues and one day on the last issue i.e. exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.

The Chair of the SCCR was elected to be Mr. Martin Moscoso, head of copyright for Peru and Chair of the Drafting Group for the Marrakeech Treaty.

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators
Trinidad and Tobago
The representative commenced his speech by pledging the commitment of the Latin American and Caribbean group of states to work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It emphasized the need for coherence between the activities of this group and the Millennium Development Goals of the UN and the Development Agenda of WIPO. Effecting the vision articulated by the agenda of this SCCR will help bring about this coherence. Finally, he added that the Group wished to discuss the broadcasting treaty on the basis of the mandate offered by the 2007 General Assembly. This mandate was to pursue a “signal-based approach” to the drafting process of any new treaty.

Poland
On behalf of the Central European and Baltic states, the representative reaffirmed the group’s support for establishing standards for the protection of broadcasting organizations in the form of a binding treaty. To this end, the Group put forth its proposal for a Diplomatic Conference in 2015 to the end of negotiating and implementing such a treaty. Finally, best practices were also emphasized and, pertinently, the Group indicated that it understood that the digitalized and globalized business and information economy of the contemporary necessitated a licensing of rights that was adequately reflective of its needs.

Japan
On behalf of Group B, Japan emphasized the importance the Group placed on text based discussions to the developing treaty mechanism for the protection of broadcasting organizations. It noted that any further understanding or future negotiations must rest on a common understanding of critical foundational issues such as definitions, scope of application of the instruments and the spectrum of rights or protections to be granted. Finally, an offer to share experience for the optimum functioning of limitations and exceptions was made. It was the opinion of Group B that the extant copyright framework enabled the limitations and exceptions to play out both in the digital and analogue world.

Bangladesh
On behalf of the Pacific Group, Bangladesh underscored the importance of situating all countries’ concerns and deliberations on the bedrock of the social and economic development needs of the Pacific Group nations. It identified the responsibility of countries to ensure that the limitations and exceptions were articulated in a manner that copyrighted works were made available to individuals in need. Thus, its vision was for an inclusive and comprehensive framework that catered to the needs of all stakeholders, particularly the most vulnerable and needy. To this end, it saw new international legal instruments as the means.

Russia
The Russian representative supported the 2015 Diplomatic Conference time frame and emphasized the value of transparency throughout the course of the proceedings.

Algeria
On behalf of the African Group, the signal-based approach was affirmed as the basis for any treaty. The needs of the developing countries were also given special importance. While the exchange if best practices and experience is helpful, the Group does not see it as a substitute for tangible, binding treaty provisions.

European Union
Representative called for the provisions of the Marrakeesh Treaty to be implemented. The existing treaty framework was understood to be sufficient for the full realization of the limitations and exceptions in the various realms envisaged by the outlined agenda. It was necessary, it opined, for copyright to continue to remain a key incentive for creative processes. In light of this, no further international legal instruments were necessary. Finally, the licensing of rights was also within the scope of this body.

Protection by Broadcasting Organizations
The working document for the treaty for the protection of broadcasting organizations[2] was declared to be the basis for any future text-based deliberation.

Proposal by Japan – SCCR/26/6[3]
The Representative outlined the purpose behind the proposal at the very outset as a step forward from the common understanding regarding the privacy of the broadcasting towards establishing the contours of the scope of application. The proposal was for the introduction of Article 6bis that included two things – first, that signal transmitted over computer networks be included within the aegis of the treaty with an exception carved out for on demand transmission signal and second, flexibility for states in deciding to afford protection for transmission signals over networks by the broadcasting organizations; in other words, the idea of national treatment in the realm of transmission signals.

While welcoming the Japanese proposal, the US Representative noted that the text was still open to changes. Given limited time for deliberations on this, he culled out three points of focus that would aid a streamlined approach to the text: beneficiaries of protection, objects of protection and the scope of the rights.

The EU had two questions directed at the Japanese proposal: whether the two alternatives proposed by Japan (simultaneous and unchanged transmission) have a different or same meaning and whether the nature of the protection is an entirely optional one or at least partially mandatory? Japan later clarified that if the former alternative had webcasting as subject to the protection of the treaty and the latter used the scope of application of this treaty.

Iran highlighted the issue of conflict of treaty protections with the legitimate interests of other stakeholders and urged that this conflict situation should never arise. Further, it added that the definition of broadcasting should not be an anachronistic one and should adapt to the needs of today’s broadcasting organizations and should, in no way, hinder free access to knowledge and information by society.

Venezuela adopted a diametrically opposite stance to most other countries on the issue. It was not of the opinion that broadcasting organizations are entities worthy of rights protection. It stated that the treaty seemed to be more for the benefit of multi-national organizations rather than member states and its citizens.

Day 2
The Chair outlined the agenda of the meeting as comments on Articles 6 and 7 which is to do with the scope of the treaty and beneficiaries respectively. Further, it was also put forth that the session would attempt to resolve and break common ground on the various discussions had in the regional groups in the previous day. Finally, deliberations would be focussed on Article 5 followed by Article 9.

The Japanese delegate outlined the conclusions of his groups’ deliberations. They want both beneficiaries and broadcasting to be included within the scope of the treaty. The country is of the view that all obligations should be made optional rather than obligatory. There is also general consensus, subject to final wording and definition of on demand, for an exceptions to be culled out for on demand transmission. Belarus expressed its wish for the scope of the treaty to be extended to both broadcasting and cablecasting organizations. It states in no uncertain terms that the signal should be protected. The proposal was to use the terminology broadcasting organizations and rights holding organization. Signals transmitted over satellite must also be protected in the model envisaged by this Group. Its application to the internet was also affirmed; pertinent, since this is a sticking point between the views of the nations and that of important third party stakeholders to this deliberative process. It did mention a clear caveat that these rights should, in no way, affect the rights of the author of the work or that of the users. Responding, in some sense directly to the words of the Venezuelan delegate’s comments the previous day, the Belarusian delegate stressed that his Group does support the idea of conferring rights on broadcasting organizations.

India reminded the nations present that the 2007 mandate, on the basis of which this meeting was being conducted, was for work towards a treaty for the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations using a signal-based approach. A question was raised as to whether the current discussion transcended the limits of this mandate. Chair noted this observation and asked for the views of other states’ on the matter of mandate. The response of the delegate from Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean states was non-committal in his answer as he briefed the chair about the difference of opinion on this matter within his group.

Moving on to the scope of the application of this treaty and the beneficiaries, it was the view of the CEBS Group, as articulated by the Polish delegate, that the protection afforded by the treaty should be effective, contemporary and technology neutral, else its purpose would be defeated by its obsoleteness. It reiterated that the transmission via the internet must also be included within the scope of the treaty, because that is a major route of circumvention that could be used to undermine the raison d’etre of the treaty. It was also of the opinion that the difference of opinion on webcasting could be overcome using the opt-in system envisaged by the Japanese proposal. CEBS was also of the firm view that, notwithstanding any foundational disagreements, those on demand transmissions that are based on multiple transmissions at the same time should be included within the scope of the protection. On behalf of the African Group, Senegal concerned about questions of mandate. It said that the strict, textual or broad, liberal interpretation of the words of 2007 mandate should be a sine qua non to any further deliberations. The Chair noted this concern and said that the floor was open to this issue as well. The EU stated that simulcasting should be the basic minimum and obligatory minimum, of any protection. It stated that it was open to discussing the extension of the protections to other transmission as its saw merit in such extension. Finally, it clarified that since current discussions were on transmissions and the scope of protection they were well within the 2007 mandate – protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.

The Chair then turned over the floor for comments by individual countries. Senegal commenced by posing a question to Belarus on the nature of reservations that it envisaged in light of its proposal to protect transmissions, no matter what its nature. Belarus responded that the protection definitely extends to transmissions over the internet but that does not preclude a discussion on deferred retransmissions. Reservations should ideally be outlined be provided for in the treaty itself. However, they can also be in the form of national legislation but it made it clear that such a stance would be a compromise for its Group and would be considered only if nations thought it necessary.

The floor was yielded to Canada. It noted that it is encouraged by the deliberations it had witnessed so far surrounding the various proposals received. It emphasized the value of the optional approach envisioned by Japan, as it embodied the critical component of successful negotiations – the embracing and incorporation of difference of opinion. Russia underscored its support for the unified approach of Belarus. Russia also wished to implement the kind of model that was in the Audiovisual Treaty and the Marrakeech Treaty. It wanted a reservation in the treaty itself that would establish a minimum standard of protection for cablecasting organizations as per national legislation. This would balance out the views of those in favour of an optional system against those who prefer an entirely mandatory one. Mexico welcomes the Japanese proposal and seemed to be generally in favour of it. Australia outlined three distinct issues. It was in favour of protection of transmission over the internet and saw simulcasting as a minimum obligatory protection. Its support for the Japanese proposal would depend on the definition of on demand services. Finally, Australia underlined that this entire discussion should be careful in how it understood the idea of traditional broadcasters and cablecasters. Keen to introduce an air of pragmatism to talk about the 2007 mandate, Kenya pointed out that the concept of transmission has undergone a change since 2007 and since the mandate was one that was conferred by the countries present at this discussion, there was no need to be very rigid about it. It wanted a technology neutral approach. Kenya was also keen on clarity on whether this international treaty was meant to build in existing international protections or was intended to be a stand-alone replacement for any protections that may exist for certain or all countries. It welcomes the flexibility that the Japanese proposal offered. The discussion veered in the direction of mandate yet again as India noted that any change to the mandate must be done by the GA alone. Else, the reinterpretation could be in such a manner as to allow for a treaty to emerge under the rubric of this mandate with countries reserving the freedom to enter into another treaty on the same matter in the future. It spelled out that it was crucial to remain within the confines of the GA mandate through the course of these proceedings.

The US delegate opined that the proceedings were completely in conformity with the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It reiterated its 2007 desire to have a clear common definition of a broadcasting and cablecasting organization. Notwithstanding that, simply because of a different mode of transmission, internet and webcasting do not fall outside the ambit of protection. As far as the signal based approach is concerned, the US interpreted that to mean the signal itself and nothing to do with the content – an issue the nations are grappling with at present.

Further, the delegate suggested a refocus on the prime problem facing broadcasters i.e. signal piracy. The suggestion is to give the broadcasters control of the retransmission. This would avoid protection for the content being broadcast and would not fall into the trap of post-fixation rights. An argument was also made for retransmission over any medium in a technologically neutral system. Such retransmission would be limited to simultaneous or near simultaneous (a term that needs definition) only to the extent necessary where the delay is meet technical requirements of delivery or to account for time differences. This would also include prebroadcast signal. There are clear advantages to this approach, as noted by the delegate

Short and simple.
Avoids a proliferation of superfluous rights.
Dos not overlap with the rights in content and does not create additional, unnecessarily layers of protection and authorization.
Affirms and codifies the kind of protection that broadcasters require to fortify against signal piracy.
Greater range of rights that could also be codified at the domestic level.
Could avoid the need for any defined term whatsoever.
The potential impact on consumer or private use also covered.

Japan adopted a self-confessed cautious approach to obligatory protection for transmission across computer networks due to the absence of a unified domestic viewpoint on the matter. South Africa was also of the opinion that the protection should not go beyond broadcasters and cablecasters. Colombia, however, was of the opinion that the protection should cover both traditional and non-traditional signals due to the advance in technology in the future that the treaty must anticipate. A broad and flexible approach was therefore preferred by this delegate. India expressed a desire to introduce an alternative.

Afternoon Session

Inclusion of transmission over the internet within the scope of the treaty
Whether or not simulcasting is within the mandate of this meeting
Inclusion of transmission of original programming by webcasting in the treaty
Deferred and unchanged transmission of broadcasting programmes within transmission over the internet

These four topics have witnessed some form of input or discussion thus far.

Comments on Article 9
Article 9 relates to protection of broadcasting organization and embodies two alternatives – A and B. Alternative A provides for a short list of exclusive rights, a limited right to authorize including retransmission of signal to the public by any means. Alternative B provides for a broader list of exclusive rights, including post-fixation rights and the exclusive right of fix and right of retransmission by any means and making available to the public.

In response to the US proposal articulated earlier, India put forth an alternative.

On the table for comments at this juncture are the US Proposal, the Indian alternative and the alternatives A and B to Article 9.

The EU stated that its position would fall closer to Alternative B than A. It was important for the EU to have broad rights of retransmission of broadcasts on all platforms. Retransmissions should be both simultaneous and based on fixations. They also wanted fixed broadcasts – the right of retransmission where the recipient pf the transmission chooses the place and the time of such transmission – to be included within the treaty. With respect to performance of broadcast signals ij places accessible to the public, the EU stressed that it should be limited to places accessible to the public on payment of an entrance fee as envisioned by the Rome Convention. Protection for prebroadcast signals was also sought, thereby covering a comprehensive list of protections.

The EU wanted to know whether the near to simultaneous transmission would be included within the US proposal. It thought the US proposal was based on a single right and was narrow vis-à-vis the EU one, but it expressed a willingness to engage. On the Indian proposal, the EU wished to enquire whether computer retransmissions would be protected against, given its ease.

Ecuador stated that it wished to add “and cablecasting” to India’s proposal Article 9(1)(i) after the mention of traditional broadcasters. India indicated that this addition was agreeable.

Japan mentioned that Alternative B was preferable to it since it had flexibility built into it thereby allowing for better harmonization and incorporation in the domestic law. Further, it stated that signal piracy had three major classifications – unauthorized access or useof prebroadcast signal, programming carrying signals and fixed broadcast. Finally, it clarified that simultaneous and near simultaneous transmission are protected under the Japanese proposal.

South Africa had two quick comments – that it was interested in the US proposal and preferred Alternative B. The EU also noted with interest the Indian proposal and expressed keen interested to engage with the same.

Both Senegal and Poland affirmed their preference for Alternative B in the deliberations on Article 9.

Iran steps in and articulates the stance that India has taken in a cogent manner. It noted the concern that if the content owner does not grant the right to broadcast over a computer or internet, then piracy could result in the absence of protection for the broadcasting organization. It is important to understand that a broadcasting organization is the owner of the signal. Therefore, if the broadcasting organization is not allowed to rebroadcast or retransmit over certain networks due to the contract then this would defeat the purpose of the treaty. Critically, this point is to do with the need for affirming the right of the broadcaster to prevent his own signal from getting used elsewhere without authorization.

India then went to make two critical clarifications on definitions. Broadcast means the transmission of a set of electronically generated signals by wireless and carrying a specific programme for conception of the general public and it should not include the transmission of signals over computer networks. Broadcasting organization means the legal entity taking the interior of packaging, assembling, scheduling of the programme and converting of the signals with the authorization of the owner of the copyright and related rights for broadcast for the reception of the public. Article 5 of the Indian proposal was distributed to all members and comments were invited. The meeting was adjourned to give time to the regional coordinators.

[1]. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_1_prov.pdf

[2]. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_24/sccr_24_10_corr.pdf

[3]. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf

Meeting Documents for the 26th SCCR are available at this link.

Videos/Webcast of the 26th SCCR can be seen here.
CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities here.
CIS Statement on the proposed treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1

WIPO Signing Ceremony for Marakkesh Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-05-02T23:18:49Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-marakkesh-treaty

WIPO SCCR Text (April 30, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-25T04:03:05Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts-day-3.txt

WIPO SCCR Text (April 28, 2014)

praskrishna — 2014-05-05T00:35:07Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2014-04-28_sccr.txt

WIPO SCCR 43: Notes from Day 1

shweta — 2023-04-28T12:01:31Z

Member states delivered opening statements and deliberated on the progress, substantive provisions, and method of work on the draft broadcasting treaty text. This blog post summarises positions and contentions that supported: 1)The need for balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers 2) Questions around fixation and signal piracy 3) Need for consensus and towards a diplomatic conference

Opening Statements by Group Coordinators

Uruguay on behalf of the GRULAC spoke about the Marrakesh treaty and highlighted how this was the first treaty that looked at human rights and copyright. Uruguay also mentioned the need to look at exclusion and the need for dissemination of knowledge.

On behalf of the Baltic states, Poland expressed their interest in discussing the Limitations and Exceptions (L&E) agenda, with focus on persons with other disabilities, as well as conveyed their interest in examining the T oolkit on Preservation.

The African group coordinator Ghana, highlighted the need to look at the contribution to Sustainable Development Goals, they also showed support for Senegal and Congo on their work on artist copyright and resale rights.

Singapore made the statements on behalf of the Asia and the Pacific Group (APG) group coordinator Indonesia, they commented on the need to work towards a fair and balanced broadcast treaty, and to narrow existing gaps which would require a delicate balance. They also stated that the treaty needs to be comprehensive and inclusive, with limitations and expectations for Libraries, Archives and Museums and areas of cultural importance, as well as access to broadcast content for education and research.

Agenda Item 5: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations

The need for Balance between rights of broadcasters and that of users and researchers

China, Ghana, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, in their statements highlighted the need for balance between the rights of the broadcasters with suitable limitations and exceptions. Iran in their statements also highlighted the work of libraries, archives and museums in education. Iran also highlighted that different parameters for Limitations and Exceptions in member states' national legislations has the potential to cause barriers in the free flow of data for researchers and educators.

Colombia spoke about their concerns regarding the fixation rights laid out in the treaty and the working of limitations and exceptions under Article 11. Colombia stated that the use of the term “may” in Article 11 could result in countries ignoring the limitations and exceptions provisions when they adopt this treaty into their national legislations. They suggested the changing of the wording in Article 11 from “may” to “shall” to reflect a balanced and progressive treaty.

Nigeria in their statement highlighted the difficulties that were faced by students and educators during Covid 19, when schools and libraries were closed. They also shed light on how limitations and exceptions were not granted uniformly.

Pakistan also emphasised on the need to look at the interests of educators, and supported the inclusion of mandatory limitations and exceptions while protecting the rights of the creators.

Questions around fixation and signal piracy

The Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) group, The United Kingdom (UK) , Canada, Tajikistan and The United States of America and Japan in their statements mentioned the need to protect broadcasters especially with respect to stopping piracy. The CEBS group stated that in the era of rapidly evolving technologies and changing digital environments there was a need to extend international protection against piracy to different types of transmissions of broadcasting organizations, including those over computer networks. Similarly, the United Kingdom also highlighted the rapid advancements in technology, which enables signal piracy through redirecting. The UK stated that Article 7 of the draft treaty did not provide sufficient protection, an issue that needed more deliberations.

Need for consensus and progress towards a diplomatic conference

Pakistan, China, Kingdom of Eswatini, The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) in their statements mentioned that they were looking forward to a diplomatic conference. Pakistan highlighted the need for open and inclusive negotiation in the diplomatic conference.

India expressed that the scope of protection in the revised draft is more comprehensive and in line with technological developments. The definition of the term broadcasting has also been made more comprehensive with the inclusion of the word “any means”. The definition provided for fixation has been provided along with the rights of fixation under Article 7, which may be the most relevant steps to prevent unauthorised exploitation by a third party to the values represented by the signal. India also stated that the treaty is capable of covering piracy in the digital environment and includes broadcasting of all types of broadcast. India also stated that they support the finalisation of the treaty, maintaining the interest of all member states on fundamental issues.

Presentation by the Chair and Vice Chair

On Article 11 the Chair stated that the list could be made clearer, and also clarified that the list is not a closed list. With respect to the works in the public domain the Chair clarified that the broadcasting and distributing of works in public domain, only the work carrying the signal will be under the treaty.
With regard to the scope of fixation the Chair clarified that the scope of fixation is only for the entity emitting the signal. The focus of the treaty is to limit the rights to signal based rights.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-43-notes-from-day-1

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

sinha — 2022-05-12T08:41:01Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic, which will endure in the long term as well.

In India, researchers at public and private institutions in both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021, submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research collaborations.

At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.

We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward laid in the Proposal.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item