Centre for Internet and Society

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

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

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews

CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions

Amulya Purushothama and Nehaa Chaudhari — 2015-09-03T02:08:34Z

This is a submission made by Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society to the Expert Committee on the Broadcast Treaty constituted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. This submission compares the definitions of various terms in the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations that is being deliberated at WIPO's SCCR at the moment, and definitions for these terms that are already present in existing international instruments.

Special thanks to CIS intern, Amulya Purushothama for her research and writing on this subject. While Amulya was acknowledged as the co author in the actual submission itself, the blurb didn't say so and this has now been changed. Download the file of CIS submission here.

Introduction

This note analyses the differences in definitional clauses across six documents, the proposed Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations [1] ("Broadcast Treaty"), the Proposal on the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organization- The Proposal by the Delegation of South Africa[2] ("Proposal by South Africa"), The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,1996 ("WPPT"), the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, 1961 ("The Rome Convention"), and the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012 ("The Beijing Treaty")

The definitions for signal, broadcasting, broadcasting organization, retransmission, fixation, communication to the public and rights management information will be studied in detail as the definitions for these concepts has varied somewhat through the years. The rest of the definitions can be found in a detailed table that follows.

The argument here is simply that by subtly broadening the definition of certain terms, the broadcast treaty grants a higher level of protection to broadcasting organization, and that these protections could possibly extend to covering the content underlying the signals.

1. Signal

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines a signal as an "electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof whether encrypted or not"[3], the alternative to this provision defines a signal as an "electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast cablecast"[4]. The proposal by South Africa, on the other hand, defines a signal as "an electric current or electromagnetic field used to convey data". Clearly the definition in the Broadcast Treaty could be extended to cover the content underlying the signal and is not as technologically neutral as the alternative definitions.

2. Broadcasting

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines broadcast as the "transmission of a signal by a broadcasting organization for reception by the public"[5], an alternative to this excludes signals sent over computer networks from the definition of a broadcast, [6] another alternative defines broadcasting as "the transmission by wireless means for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof". This definition includes satellite transmission, wireless transmission of encrypted signals where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. Transmission over computer networks is excluded from this definition as well.[7] This mirrors definitions of broadcasting set out in the WPPT[8], the Rome Convention[9] and the Beijing Treaty[10]. The proposal by South Africa defines "broadcasting" as the process whereby "the output signal of a broadcasting organization is taken from the point of origin, being the point where such signal is made available in its final content format and is conveyed to any broadcast target area by means of electronic communications" and "broadcast" is construed accordingly. Clearly the proposed definition under the Broadcast Treaty is less technologically neutral as compared to the proposal by South Africa. The proposed definition under the Broadcast Treaty also does not limit the protection granted by the treaty to the signal and unlike the proposal by South Africa does not ensure that definition excludes the underlying content being transmitted by the signal.

3. Broadcasting Organisations

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines a broadcasting organization as "the legal entity that takes the initiative for packaging assembling and scheduling program content for which it has, where necessary, been authorized by rights holders and takes the legal and editorial responsibility for the communication to the public of everything which is included in its broadcast signal." Or alternatively[11], considers broadcasting organisations and cablecasting organisations as one and the same and defines them as "the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representation thereof and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission." The proposal by South Africa defines a broadcasting organization as the "legal entity that has the responsibility for packaging, assembly and/or scheduling of program content for which it has legitimate license. Or rights of use for the transmission to the public, sections of the public or subscribers in the form of an unencrypted or encrypted output signal containing sounds, visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds". Clearly, in stark contrast to the proposed Broadcast Treaty, the proposal by South Africa ensures that cablecasting organisations aren't included within the definition of broadcasting organisations, this definition is also by far the most technologically neutral and ensures adequate protection for broadcasting organisations on all broadcasting platforms.

4. Retransmission

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines "retransmission" as "the transmission by any means by any person other than the original broadcasting organization for reception by the public whether simultaneous or delayed";[12] or alternatively defines rebroadcast as "the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public of a broadcast or a cablecast by any other person than the original broadcasting organization"; even simultaneous transmission of a rebroadcast is understood to be a rebroadcast under this definition. [13]

Under a further alternative[14] retransmission is defined as "the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a transmission … by any other person than the original broadcasting or cablecasting organization" this definition of retransmission also includes simultaneous transmission of a retransmission.

To contrast to this, the Rome convention defines rebroadcasting as the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.[15] Clearly a higher level of protection is granted to broadcasting organisations under the proposed Broadcast Treaty, one that was so far not guaranteed to them by international conventions.

5. Fixation

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines fixation as "the embodiment of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof from which they can be perceived , reproduced or communicated through a device" [16] [17],the WPPT defines fixation as "the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device";[18] and the Beijing Treaty defines audiovisual fixation as "the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds or by the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived reproduced or communicated through a device".[19] In this capacity, the definitions proposed in the Broadcast Treaty seem to be in line with the earlier international treaties.

6. Communication to the Public

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines communication to the public as "any transmission or retransmission to the public of a broadcast signal or a fixation thereof by any medium or platform".[20]or alternatively as "making the transmissions … audible or visible or audible and visible in places accessible to the public.[21] Whereas the WPPT defined communication to the public as "the transmission to the public by any medium, otherwise than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram… including making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public."[22] The Beijing Treaty defined communication to the public as "the transmission to the public by any medium otherwise than by broadcasting, of an unfixed performance or of a performance fixed in an audio visual fixation… "communication to the public" includes making a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation audible or visible or audible and visible to the public." [23] Clearly the definition has been broadened under the proposed treaty, which makes it plausible for the protection granted to broadcasters to cover the content underlying the signal as well.

7. Rights Management Information

The proposed Broadcast Treaty defines rights management information as "information that identifies the broadcasting organization, the broadcast, the owner of any right in the broadcast, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the broadcast and any numbers or codes that represent such information when any of these items of information is attached to or associated with the broadcast or the pre broadcast signal or its use in accordance with Article 6."[24] The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996, defines it as "information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public."[25]

The WPPT extends the same definition to performances and performers as it defines rights management information as "information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer, the producer of the phonogram, the phonogram, the owner of any right in the performance or phonogram, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance or phonogram, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a fixed performance or a phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a fixed performance or a phonogram to the public."[26] And the Beijing Treaty defines rights management information as "information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer or the owner of any right in the performance or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation."[27]

Clearly the current treaty extends the protection offered to rights management information to pre-broadcasting signals in addition to broadcast signals, this represents a higher level of protection granted to broadcasters under the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Detailed Table on Definitions in International Treaties

Definition	Broadcast Treaty 27/2 rev	Broadcast Treaty Proposal by South Africa WIPO/CR/Consult/GE/11/2/2	WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996	WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,1996	Rome Convention, 1961	Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012
Signal	Article 5, Alternative A, 5(a): "signal" is an electronically generated carrier consisting of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof, whether encrypted or not; Alternative to (a), "signal" means an electronically generated carrier capable of transmitting a broadcast or cablecast	"signal" is an electric current or electromagnetic field used to convey data;
Broadcast	Article 5, Alternative A : Article 5 (b): "broadcast" means the transmission of a signal by or on behalf of a broadcasting organization for reception by the public; Alternative to (b): "broadcast" means the transmission of a set of electronically generated signals by wireless and carrying a specific program for reception by the general public, broadcast shall not be understood as including transmission of such a set of signals over computer networks. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (a) "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting". Wireless transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent. "broadcasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks	"broadcasting" means the process whereby the output signal of a broadcasting organization is taken from the point of origin, being the point where such signal is made available in its final content format and is conveyed to any broadcast target area by means of electronic communications and "broadcast" is construed accordingly"		Article 2(f): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent;	Article 3 (f): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds;	Article 2(c): "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting", transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.
Broadcasting Organization	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (c): "broadcasting organization" means the legal entity that takes the initiative for packaging assembling and scheduling program content for which it has, where necessary, been authorized by rights holders and takes the legal and editorial responsibility for the communication to the public of everything which is included in its broadcast signal. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (c): "broadcasting organization" and "cablecasting organization" mean the legal entity that takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the transmission to the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representation thereof and the assembly and scheduling of the content of the transmission.	"broadcasting organization" means the legal entity that has the responsibility for packaging, assembly and/or scheduling of program content for which it has legitimate license. Or rights of use for the transmission to the public, sections of the public or subscribers in the form of an unencrypted or encrypted output signal containing sounds, visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds.
Retransmission	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5(d): "retransmission" means the transmission by any means by any person other than the original broadcasting organization for reception by the public whether simultaneous or delayed; Alternative to (d) rebroadcast means the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public of a broadcast or a cablecast by any other person than the original broadcasting organization; simultaneous transmission of a rebroadcast shall be understood as well to be a rebroadcast. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (d): "retransmission" means the simultaneous transmission for the reception by the public by any means of a transmission referred to in provisions (a) or (b) of this article by any other person than the original broadcasting or cablecasting organization; simultaneous transmission of a retransmission shall be understood as well to mean a retransmission.				Article 3(g): "rebroadcasting" means the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization.
Fixation	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (e) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or images or sounds and images or representations thereof from which they can be perceived , reproduced or communicated through a device Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (f) "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device.			Article 2(c): "fixation" means the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device;		Article 2(b): "audiovisual fixation" means the embodiment of moving images, whether or not accompanied by sounds or by the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived reproduced or communicated through a device.
Communication to the Public	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (f): "communication to the public" means any transmission or retransmission to the public of a broadcast signal or a fixation thereof by any medium or platform. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (e): "communication to the public" means making the transmissions referred to in provisions (a), (b) or (d) of this article audible or visible or audible and visible in places accessible to the public.			Article 2(g): "communication to the public" of a performance or a phonogram means the transmission to the public by any medium, otherwise than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram. For the purposes of Article 15, "communication to the public" includes making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public.		Article 2(d): "Communication to the public of a performance means the transmission to the public by any medium otherwise than by broadcasting, of an unfixed performance or of a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation. For the purposes of Article 11, "communication to the public" includes making a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation audible or visible or audible and visible to the public.
Pre-broadcast Signal	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (g): "pre broadcast signal" means a transmission prior to broadcast that a broadcasting organization intends to include in its program schedule, which is not intended for direct reception by the public
Rights Management Information	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (h) "rights management information" means information that identifies the broadcasting organization, the broadcast, the owner of any right in the broadcast, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the broadcast and any numbers or codes that represent such information when any of these items of information is attached to or associated with the broadcast or the pre broadcast signal or its use in accordance with Article 6.		Article 12(2): "rights management information" means information which identifies the work, the author of the work, the owner of any right in the work, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a work or appears in connection with the communication of a work to the public	Article 19(2): "rights management information" means information which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer, the producer of the phonogram, the phonogram, the owner of any right in the performance or phonogram, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance or phonogram, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a copy of a fixed performance or a phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a fixed performance or a phonogram to the public.		Article 16(2): "rights management information" which identifies the performer, the performance of the performer or the owner of any right in the performance or information about the terms and conditions of use of the performance, and any numbers or codes that represent such information, when any of these items of information is attached to a performance fixed in an audiovisual fixation.
Transmission	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (i), "transmission" means the sending for reception by the public of visual images sounds or representations thereof by the way of an electronic carrier	"electronic communications" means the emission, transmission or reception of sounds , visual images or other visible signals whether with or without accompanying sounds by means of magnetism, radio or other electromagnetic waves, optical electromagnetic systems or any agency of a like nature, whether with or without the aid of tangible conduct.
Program	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 , alternative to (j), "program" means a discreet package of one or more works protected by copyright or related rights in the form of live or recorded material consisting of images, sounds or both.
Cablecast	Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (k) "cablecast" means the same as "broadcast" when the transmission is by wire and excluding transmission by satellite or over computer networks. Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (b): "cablecasting" means the transmission by wire for the reception by the public of sounds or of images or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof. Transmission by wire of encrypted signals is "cablecasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the cablecasting organization or with its consent. "cablecasting" shall not be understood as including transmissions over computer networks.
Performers				Article 2(a) :"performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore	Article 3(a): "performers" means actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works;	Article 2(a): "performers" are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons, who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore.

[1] See Working Document for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Prepared by the Secretariat, Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, 27^th Session, Geneva, April 28- May 2, 2014, SCCR/27/2/REV. (Hereafter The Broadcast Treaty.)

[2] The Proposal on the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Proposal by the Delegation of South Africa, Informal Consultation Meeting on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Geneva, April 14 and 15, 2011, WIPO/CR/Consult/Ge/11/2/2. (Hereafter, The South African Proposal)

[3] Article 5, Alternative A, 5(a), the Broadcast Treaty.

[4] Article 5, Alternative A, Alternative to (a), The Broadcast Treaty.

[5] Article 5, Alternative A, Article 5 (b), The Broadcast Treaty.

[6] Article 5, Alternative A, Alternative to (b), The Broadcast Treaty.

[7] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (a) The Broadcast Treaty.

[8] See Article 2(f) of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996.(Hereinafter, WPPT) that reads as: "broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent"

[9] See Article 3 (f) of the Rome Convention, 1961 (Hereafter The Rome Convention), that reads as: '"broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds.'

[10] See Article 2(c) of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, 2012(Hereafter The Beijing Treaty), that reads as '"broadcasting" means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting", transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent.'

[11] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (c) The Broadcast Treaty.

[12] Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5(d) The Broadcast Treaty.

[13] Alternative to Article 5(d), The Broadcast Treaty.

[14] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (d), The Broadcast Treaty.

[15] Article 3(g), The Rome Convention, 1961.

[16] Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (e), The Broadcast Treaty.

[17] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (f), The Broadcast Treaty.

[18] Article 2(c), WPPT.

[19] Article 2(b), The Beijing Treaty

[20] Article 5, Alternative A to Article 5 (f), The Broadcast Treaty.

[21] Alternative B for Article 5, Article 5 (e), The Broadcast Treaty.

[22] Article 2(g), WPPT.

[23] Article 2(d), The Beijing Treaty.

[24] Article 5 (h), The Broadcast Treaty.

[25] Article 12(2), The WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996.

[26] Article 19(2), WPPT.

[27] Article 16(2), The Beijing Treaty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions

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

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:56:14Z

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

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

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, chair.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair

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

Beyond the Language Tussle

teju — 2014-12-10T14:08:02Z

It might be more productive to see the ongoing Sanskrit versus German controversy as a welcome opportunity to discuss the real and persistent problems of our education system, not all of which have to do with which languages children get to learn.

The Op-ed was published in the Hindu on December 6, 2014.

The ongoing Sanskrit vs. German controversy is being seen by some as the sign of a sinister conspiracy to change educational options, and by others as a much-needed corrective to bring back “Indian culture” into the schools. It might be more productive to see it instead as a welcome opportunity to discuss the real and persistent problems of our education system, not all of which have to do with which languages children get to learn. The attempt to implement the teaching of Sanskrit in schools seems to be supported by a remarkably uninformed view about what sort of language policy we require today. And this is not to say that previous governments had any greater insight into how to handle either the medium of instruction problem or the issue of how many languages to teach and at what level.

Education budget cut

Far more disturbing than the Sanskrit-German debate was the news last week that the new Central government has decided to cut Rs.11,000 crore from the Education budget (The Hindu, “Social sector funds slashed,” Nov. 27). The favouring of physical infrastructure over “the social sector” (health, education, social security, nutrition, etc.) disregards the intangible factors that go into strengthening knowledge bases and the setting up of infrastructure in the first place. One of the implicit casualties of the massive cut in the Education budget is a proposed 12th Plan programme to revitalise Indian language resources in higher education. The rationale for this programme was that generation of knowledge in Indian languages would not only create new intellectual resources but transform the teaching-learning process in positive ways. The access-equity-quality triangle emphasised by policymakers could effectively be strengthened through a focus on Indian languages. Since the default medium of instruction at the tertiary level was actually a local language rather than the “mandatory” English, the deliberate blindness of successive governments to this fact was depriving students across disciplines of good quality resources. This linguistic divide affects the majority of tertiary students in the country. Thus, investing in Indian language materials at the basic and advanced levels is a sustainable (not to mention cost-effective) way by which Indian higher education could be strengthened.

“The long-term objective should be to make the student bilingually proficient, so that he is able to bridge effectively the conceptual worlds of the local and the global.”

We should note here that the emphasis is not on how many languages the student learns but on whether s/he is developing cognitive capabilities. This too has been a serious blind spot in modern Indian education over the decades, right up to the recent May 2014 Supreme Court judgment on the non-enforceability of mother-tongue instruction. The Court invoked the right to freedom of speech and expression in this instance to say that children and parents could choose the language in which the child wanted to be educated. With all respect to the learned judges, one wonders if they sought expert opinion in the matter or merely relied on their common sense. If they had done the former, they might have found out that worldwide research has proved that the most effective teaching and learning happens through the use of the mother tongue. If exposing a child to English at a very young age is dictated by opportunism and a skewed sense of what makes social mobility possible, this choice flies in the face of language and education research as well as the most enlightened pedagogic practices available. If mother tongue or Indian language education is not practical today, it’s because of the enormous lack of good educational resources in those languages, another need that state initiatives have failed to address adequately.

Parallel with China

Since, these days, China is the favourite country of comparison for us, we should pay attention to the fact that students in China start learning English in the fourth standard and for the most part study all their subjects in Mandarin. In my experience, the English fluency of the average Chinese undergraduate ranges from functional knowledge of English to complete proficiency, with an emphasis on reading and writing rather than speaking. Even those with functional knowledge are far more capable of dealing with the world of higher education today than most students I encounter in India. The single most important variable here would have to be that of mother tongue instruction combined with later exposure to a language that gives students access to resources not so readily available in Chinese. It’s a different matter that Internet use is so heavily policed in China. However, every person I know inside and outside the university has figured out how exactly to access the resources they want, which is much more than can be said of Indian students who don’t experience government-imposed firewalls. So, again, is the ability to navigate the digital domain related to language skills or critical skills?

Lack of clarity

The inability to create a systematic curricular exposure to language and critical skills is perhaps what prompts periodic outbursts like the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) directive to replace German in Kendriya Vidyalaya schools with Sanskrit. Combined with this lack of application is what can only be seen as the extraordinarily resilient prejudices about what constitutes “Indian culture.” We routinely tend to forget that this is a modern concept, mobilised by colonialist as well as nationalist perspectives on our society. Lack of clarity about what education is for leads to muddled thinking about what should be done in the space of education. We should not confusedly believe that the primary task of education is to pass on ways of living — we do that in almost every domain of social engagement. The task of education is to foster and strengthen cognitive capacities that can equip students to produce original knowledge on their own terms, for which we are likely to need bilingual and trilingual education. Debating whether we should learn Sanskrit instead of German is a distraction from the real tasks that lie ahead. We need to reorient the language debate to focus not on learning the language (any language) but learning how to think.

Language use analysis

The CBSE circular of June 30, 2014, instructing its affiliated schools to observe ‘Sanskrit Week’, introduced the topic by stating that “Sanskrit and Indian culture are intertwined as most of the indigenous knowledge is available in this language.” It’s shocking to see that people in the business of education are unaware about the fundamental histories of language use in our country, and that mere assertion can pass for accurate information. Apart from the facile collapsing of “culture” onto “knowledge,” the circular’s statement about Sanskrit as the language of indigenous knowledge appears as a sweeping generalisation when you look at it from the point of view of medical, artisanal or performing arts knowledge forms. Even if we stay with just one example, that of indigenous medicine, and even if we stay with the venerable Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and its Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), a quick overview of the books listed would show that the languages of indigenous knowledge include Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Tamil in addition to Sanskrit. The library currently lists 137 Tamil books on Siddha, for example, with 157 Sanskrit books on Ayurveda. Some of this knowledge is also available in Malayalam, like the important works on vishavaidyam.

Coming to contemporary language use in India, it would be important to note that just as modern Kannada, Marathi or Telugu for example have drawn on Sanskrit to build their vocabulary, they have equally strongly drawn on other languages. Here are some sample Kannada words that reveal the original language coiled inside the present day usage: adalat, vakila, javabu, ambari, gulabi, sipayi, taakathhu, firyadu, bunadi, najooku (Persian/Urdu). This kind of sampling could be replicated for any contemporary Indian language, and an exhaustive mapping exercise might reveal fascinating borrowings and transformations that gesture well beyond language use.

Most of our languages cannot sustain teaching and research in the context of the modern university and its disciplines. We need to create critical vocabularies across several conceptual domains. Students need to learn the ability to distinguish between levels of meaning, to contextualise/translate, and to create new concepts that capture the life of our societies and our institutions. And in doing this, they have to learn to draw on multiple linguistic resources.

Ensuring the entry of Indian language resources into the mainstream of our higher education system is a long-delayed project. By bringing these resources into a national educational structure, we will be (a) expanding the analytical abilities of these languages, and (b) making the curriculum more relevant to the society we live in. The long-term objective should be to make the student bilingually proficient, so that he is able to bridge effectively the conceptual worlds of the local and the global.

(Tejaswini Niranjana is with the Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. She is also a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-hindu-december-6-2014-tejaswini-niranjana-beyond-the-language-tussle

The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?

praskrishna — 2015-01-09T02:31:55Z

Nehaa Chaudhari was one of the speakers at this side event held on December 10, 2014.

See the details on Knowledge Ecology International website.

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) will convene a side event entitled, "The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem?"; the event will take place in Room B of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) from 13:30 to 15:00. Speakers include: Nehaa Chaudhari, (Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi/Banglaore), Jeremy Malcolm, (Senior Global Policy Analyst, Electronic Frontier Foundation), James Love, (Director, KEI) and Viviana Munoz Kieffer, (Coordinator, Innovation and Access to Knowledge Programme, South Centre).

Background

Since its first SCCR (Nov 2-10, 1998) WIPO and member states have been asked to resolve the requests for new legal protections for broadcasting organizations. All participants to the SCCR were asked then "to submit, by the end of March 1999, proposals and/or views in treaty language or in other form."

Since then the rights of broadcasting organizations have been on the agenda. While the committee is still trying to identify precisely the problems Broadcasters' rights (or right?)to be solved (piracy in its broadest definition?), the proposal for a new international norm setting may create a new layer of post fixation rights in content that broadcasters do not create, license nor own.

The demandeurs i.e. some of the broadcasting organizations representatives and some member states are listing endless rights such as transmission, retransmission or deferred transmission whether simultaneous or near simultaneous on demand of a broadcast signal to the public, as well as transmission over the internet. Most of these rights exist in some form or another in most WIPO member states. However, for many SCCR participants, if the committee truly wants to move forward on this new norm setting exercise it must focus on a narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the core need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.

After 15 years of negotiations, formal and informal, text based or not, it is time to answer some of the following questions:

Would adding a new layer of rights over content on the internet be consistent with the committee's mandate to limit protection to the broadcaster's signal?

Would the new international right (or rights) have an impact on consumers and creative communities globally?

Would the new instrument have the necessary exceptions for quotations or news of the day?

Would the extension of the rights under discussion to cable television (and services which already require subscriber fees) create a redundant layer of protection to services already protected under other legal regimes and thus be anticompetitive?

Would the protection of over the air broadcast signal be sufficient for broadcasters? If not why not?

Download the transcript here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/kei-10-december-2014-the-broadcasting-treaty-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem

AdaCamp Bangalore: "Nothing could be more open and encouraging than this"

praskrishna — 2015-02-12T01:53:43Z

I can say this conference was the most truly touched feminist endeavor I have ever witnessed or thought of. An inspiration to last through. — Rupali Talwatkar.

Rohini Lakshané delivered a session on digital security. For more info see the details on Ada Initiative website

Session on Imposter Syndrome:

Impostor syndrome is a common reaction to doing publicly visible and publicly criticised work like that done in open technology and culture. Impostor Syndrome is the feeling that you aren't actually qualified for the work you are doing and will be discovered as a fraud. It is prevalent among women in open tech/culture, many of whom have been socialised to value other's opinion of their work above their own, and to do things "by the book."
http://adainitiative.org/what-we-do/impostor-syndrome-training/

Session on Open Street Maps:
https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/yAxa2Kwkfm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/ada-camp-bangalore

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:44:18Z

Also presented during the afternoon plenary, here are 3 statements by public interest organizations, the TACD, EFF and CIS:

The article was published in Knowledge Ecology International on December 9, 2014.

TACD: Thank you very much the transAtlantic consumer dialogue is concerned that the discussion on this treaty whereas in the past due to the lack of definitions we called it an unidentified flying object, now, as the definitions get a bit clearer, we feel it's becoming a more identified flying object in the air as a transmission and precisely because it's becoming identified some of these definitions we consider are concerning us and we are worried about these definitions because we think these definitions and these protections of rights could mean a threat to access to culture, a threat even to freedom of speech, and a threat to the public domain. And we are talking about a public domain, about public broadcasting signals.
And we think these threats are coming from a scope that is much broader than is recommendable. It is a scope that could take into account a lot of the digital rights that millions of young people around the world are fighting for and defending. And I think this sensitivity of digital rights of mixing, of the type of things that go on every day millions of times on the Internet should not be threatened by this treaty. So how can we avoid that? We could avoid that by avoiding any post fixation rights.

We could avoid it by a very narrow definition of simultaneous or near simultaneous traditional broadcasting signals to the public in the air. We could -- broadcasting should mean, similar to the Rome Convention, the transmission by wireless over the air means for public reception of sounds, of images and of words.
As well, what is a signal? What is a signal? A signal obviously could not just mean everything. A signal means an electronically generated carrier over the air with sounds and images, and what we really need, what we really need is to narrow down the scope to a point where we don't see this as something that can be a threat to the creativity, innovation, new business models at a time when we know that the new business models need that flexibility, what we don't need is yet another layer of bureaucratic costly rights that will be burdensome for the future of the Internet.

So for that reason, for consumers, for Internet users, for culture, for new innovation, we would like really to call for this very narrow definition of the scope. Thank you very much.

The call for a narrow based possible treaty was echoed by EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/danger-post-fixation-rights-wipo-b...

>> Electronic frontier foundation: This year marks the tenth anniversary of EFF discussions over the WIPO treaty for broadcasting organisations. And during that time our position has been constant that any such treating should be limited to addressing the unauthorized simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission of traditional broadcast untiles to the public without assigning new exclusive rights in the content of those signals. We also note it would be possible to include a right to prohibit the transmission of prebroadcast signals within a snail based approach and without assigning any new exclusive rights. Although this has been [decided?] in the past when WIPO dwed at the 2007 assembly to follow a signal based approach. Current discussions on post fixation rights have backtracked from this commitment and it's that more than anything else that has led these negotiations to become more protracted.
Creating new exclusive rights in post broadcast fixations would impede access to public domain material and material over which copyright limitations and exceptions may apply. This is because some material may not be readily available other than from broadcasts such as in the case of broadcast of sport or use events. It would impede the use of technological innovations that add val you to broadcast. Especially if it curtailed the use of circumvention devices this could affects digital media players and new innovations we can't even envision yet especially those running on free and open source marredware and software. So EFF urges WIPO members to be disciplined in their add harns to a narrow signal based approach as we see this as the only way that a treaty for broadcasting ors organisations can be conclude in 2015 or at all. Thank you.

The CIS made a technical analysis of the "charts" that cannot (yet) be provided to the public also here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed...

> CIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This intervention will be based on your chart detailing the concepts corresponding to the various definitions we are discussing here today. We believe that there are certain elements to these concepts that are inconsistent with the broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach and over the course of the next few minutes, I would like to briefly discuss these.
First, Mr. Chair, in the first column, and broadcasting or cable casting organisation in the traditional sense where communication of the signal has been listed under the scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, as we have submitted in other statements before this community, before this committee, communication itself we believe is a concept that is an element of copyright, and it's distinction broadcast rights char related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, we, therefore, believe could be broadcast or transmitted and accordingly under the element that deals with the scope of responsibility, we are of the money opinion that it should read broadcast or transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal, and the focus should not be communication to the public.

A concept that's also been discussed in certain alternatives to the definitions under Article 5 which accordingly we would loss not favor. Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column in broadcasting and cable casting transmission, we have three observations. Fist, under the means of transmission, we believe the transmission over computer networks is wide enough to encompass IP based tran missions and, therefore, should be excluded in order for the treaty to be consistent with the signals based approach.

Second, on the reception of the broadcast or cable cast prance mission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase general public. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public, say, family members, could be covered under the term public but would be excluded from the term general puck public which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not, which also flows into the thought column on the signal, and whether the signal itself is encrypted or not, encrypted or not.

And which would also then relate to whether broadcasting organisations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decription. Mr. Chair, we don't think there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decription. Given that signal theft is a crime, having a spect decription might result in an absurdity where it would cover decrypting and unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter where the transmission by the retransmitter was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, in the third column and on the meaning of the signal, we submit that our preferred definition would be one where the definition of a signal is confined, and is understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or a cable cast and not one which has the capability of such transmission as has been stated in your third chart.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-public-interest-organizations-statements-regarding-the-broadcasting-treaty

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

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:55:51Z

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

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, Mister Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Odia Wikipedia: Article in Dhatri

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T01:34:23Z

This article was published in Dhatri on December 1, 2014.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/article-in-dhatri

Odia Wikisource campus project at Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences

subha — 2015-08-16T15:42:56Z

The Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team organized a closing ceremony, on December 3, to conclude the three months campus project for Odia Wikisource at Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences, Bhubaneswar.

Students who were part of nine teams led by nine faculty members were assessed based on the team performance and the team led by one of the faculties, Nilima Samant, was awarded as the best performer. Similarly Preetinanda Roy, a faculty member, who also happened to be the project coordinator was awarded as the best performer among all. The institute's CEO Dr. Prasanta Kumar Routray felicitated the awardees and all the faculties and students who took part in the project. Other senior members from Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences management also joined.


Odia Wikisource campus project at Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) closing ceremony. This is a group photo after the event. Photo by Subhashish Panigrahi (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license).

Addressing the audience Dr Routray said, "we are extremely thankful to Subhashish and CIS-A2K for this great support. If these students could learn Odia typing in such a short span and digitize 4 books then we should get more valuable content in their native languages digitized."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/odia-wikisource-campus-project-at-kiss

ICT for Development

praskrishna — 2014-12-28T03:26:03Z

Dr. U.B. Pavanaja was a speaker at this event organized by Christ University on December 3, 2014 in Bangalore.

Download the presentation on ICT4D.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/ict-for-development

Article on Odia Wikipedia in Odiapua

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T02:38:11Z

The article was published in Odiapua on December 1, 2014.

ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର (୨୮ ନଭେମ୍ବର): ବିଶ୍ୱବ୍ୟାପୀ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ବହୁଭାଷୀ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ନିର୍ମାଣରେ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ସୃଷ୍ଟି କରିଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ "ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର" ଆଜି ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର ଠାରେ ଉନ୍ମୋଚନ ହୋଇଯାଇଛି । ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ or.wikisource.org ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏହି ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଦୁଇବର୍ଷ ତଳେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତ ସମେତ ଭିନ୍ନ ଭିନ୍ନ କବି ଓ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ଆହୁରି ୩୧ ଗୋଟି ରଚନାରେ ଭରା । ଆଜି ସ୍ଥାନୀୟ ଜୟଦେବ ଭବନରେ ଏକ "ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର ସଭା ୨୦୧୪"ରେ ଏହାକୁ ଉନ୍ମୋଚନ କରି ବରିଷ୍ଠ ଭାଷାବିଦ ଦେବୀପ୍ରସନ୍ନ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ ଏହା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରେ ଥିବା କିମ୍ବା ପାଠାଗାର ଯାଇ ବହି ଆଣି ପଢ଼ିବାର ସୁଯୋଗ ପାଉନଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖୁବ ଉପଯୋଗୀ ହେବ ମତ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିଥିଲେ । ଦୈନିକ "ସମ୍ବାଦ"ର ସମ୍ପାଦକ ସୌମ୍ୟରଞ୍ଜନ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ ଏଥିରେ ମୁଖ୍ୟ ଅତିଥି ଭାବେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟକୁ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ମାରକ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ମିତ କରି ଏହାକୁ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ଉନ୍ନତିରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବା ଉପରେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ୱାରୋପ କରିଥିଲେ । "ଆମ ଓଡ଼ିଶା" ଦ୍ୱାରା ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବିଷୟର ୧୯ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବହି ସେ ଏହି ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଜରିଆରେ ଡିଜିଟାଲକରଣ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ବିତରଣ କରିଥିଲେ । ଆଗକୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ସହ ମିଶି ସେ ସମ୍ବାଦ ତଥା ଆମ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ଓ ସଂସ୍କୃତିଭିତ୍ତିକ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମ କରିବା ବିଷୟରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉଲ୍ଲେଖ କରିଥିଲେ । ଏହି ସଭାର ସଭାପତିତ୍ୱ କରି ବିଶିଷ୍ଠ କବି ଓ ଚିନ୍ତକ ଡ ହରପ୍ରସାଦ ଦାସ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ରହିଥିବା ଶୂନ୍ୟସ୍ଥାନ ପୂରଣ କରିବା ପାଇଁ ଯୁବପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଆହ୍ୱାନ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ।

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହିର ଅଭିଲେଖ କାମର ବିଶାଳ ଶ୍ରେୟ ସବୁବେଳେ ସୃଜନିକାକୁ ଯାଇଥାଏ । ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ୧୮୪୦-୧୯୪୦ ଭିତରେ ଛପା ଅନେକ ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲକରଣ ଭଳି ଐତିହାସିକ କାମଟିଏ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଏ କାମକୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର ଆଉ ପାଦେ ଆଗେଇ ନେବ ବୋଲି ଆଶା ସଂଚାର ହୋଇଛି । ଏଥିରେ ବହିର ସ୍କାନ ସହିତ ଟାଇପ କରା ଲେଖା (typed text) ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ନାମକ ଏକ ବିଶ୍ୱସ୍ତରୀୟ ମାନକରେ ରହିଥାଏ ଯାହାଫଳରେ ଜଣେ ବହିଟିଏ କମ୍ପୁଟର, ଟାବଲେଟ କି ମୋବାଇଲରେ ପଢ଼ିପାରିବ, ସେଥିରେ ଲେଖା ନେଇ ଆଉ କେଉଁଠି ଉଦ୍ଧୃତି ଦେଇପାରିବ ବା ଛପାଇ ପାରିବ । ସ୍କାନ କରା ବହିଠାରୁ ଏଥିରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ବହିସବୁ ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ହାଲୁକା ଓ ଏଥିରୁ ପିଡିଏଫ କରି ଜଣେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ବିନା ମଧ୍ୟ ବହି ପଢ଼ିପାରିବ ବୋଲି ସେଣ୍ଟୃ । ଆଗକୁ ବହିର ଲେଖା ଶୁଣିବାର ବାଟ ମଧ୍ୟ ଆସୁଛି । କପିରାଇଟ ନଥିବା ଅନେକ ବିରଳ ବହି, ଭାଗବତ, ମହାଭାରତ ଭଳି ପୋଥିପୁରାଣଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ନୂଆ ଅନେକ ବହି ଏଥିରେ ସ୍ଥାନ ପାଇପାରିବ । ପଦ୍ମଶ୍ରୀ ଡ ଦେବୀପ୍ରସନ୍ନ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ, ରାମକୃଷ୍ଣ ନନ୍ଦ, ଡ ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ ମହାନ୍ତି, ଡ ସୁବ୍ରତ ପୃଷ୍ଟି ଓ ନିର୍ମଳା କୁମାରୀ ମହାନ୍ତି ଆଦି ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ଅନେକ ଗବେଷଣାଭିତ୍ତିକ ବହିରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ବିନୟ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ, ଭାରତ ମାଝି ଓ ମନୋଜ ପଣ୍ଡାଙ୍କ ସାହିତ୍ୟ କୃତି ତଥା "ଆମ ଓଡ଼ିଶା" ଓ "ସମଦୃଷ୍ଟି" ଭଳି ପ୍ରକାଶନ ସଙ୍ଗଠନର ବହିମାନ ସତ୍ୱାଧୀକାରୀଙ୍କ ଉଦାର ଅନୁମତି କ୍ରମେ ଏଥିରେ ସ୍ଥାନୀତ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ସର୍ବାଧିକ ୧୨୦୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଥର ସମ୍ପାଦନା କରି ପାହାପାଖି ୪ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବହିକୁ ପୁନଟାଇପ କରିଥିବା ପଙ୍କଜବାଳା ଷଡ଼ଙ୍ଗୀ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରେ ରହି ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ମହାନ କଳା-ଚଳଣି-ଭାଷା ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧରେ ଅଧିକ ଜାଣିବାର ଶ୍ରେଷ୍ଠ ବାଟ ବୋଲି ଅଭିହିତ କରନ୍ତି । ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରରେ ଥିବା ଉଇକିଆଳି ଓ ବେଙ୍ଗାଳୁରୁର ସେଣ୍ଟର ଫର ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଏଣ୍ଡ ସୋସାଇଟି ସହାୟତାରେ ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରର କିସ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନର ୯ ଜଣ ଶିକ୍ଷକ ଓ ପାଖାପାଖି ୫୦ ଜଣ ଛାତ୍ର ଏଯାବତ ୪ଟି ବହି ଟାଇପ କରିସାରିଲେଣି । ପିଲାମାନେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ଓ ଏଥିରେ ଟାଇପ କରିବା ଶିଖିବା ଭବିଷ୍ୟତରେ ତାଙ୍କ ଚାକିରିରେ ସହାୟକ ହେବ ବୋଲି କହନ୍ତି ଏହାକୁ ପରିଚାଳନା କରୁଥିବା କିସର ଶିକ୍ଷକ ପ୍ରୀତିନନ୍ଦା ରାୟ । ଆଉ କେଉଁଠି ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ଟାଇପ ହୋଇ ନଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତକୁ odia.org ରୁ ଆଣି ତାକୁ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ରୂପାନ୍ତର ୭ ଜଣ ନୂଆ ଉଇକିଆଳି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ସ୍ଥାନୀତ କରିବା ସତରେ ଏକ ଐତିହାସିକ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ । ଆଗକୁ ଆମେ ବିରଳ ପୋଥି ଦୁଷ୍ପ୍ରାପ୍ୟ ଓ ଛପାଯାଉନଥିବା ବହିମାନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବୁ ବୋଲି କହନ୍ତି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ପରିଚାଳକ ମୃତ୍ୟଞ୍ଜୟ କର ।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/odiapua-december-1-2014-article-on-odia-wikipedia

A Seminar on E-publishing of Odia Books

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T02:41:26Z

A seminar was organized by Molybtech Technology Solutions on November 30, 2014 for the betterment of Odia language and writers at Bhanja Kala Mandap.

Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the seminar as a speaker and shared his knowledge with the audience.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/seminar-e-publishing-odia-books

National IPR Policy Series : Comments on the Proposed Intellectual Property Rights Policy to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

nehaa — 2015-04-12T11:39:16Z

On 13 November, 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had released a Call for Suggestions for India's proposed National IPR Policy. This is the Centre for Internet and Society's (CIS) submission for the same.

Submitted by CIS with inputs from Pranesh Prakash, Director, Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer, Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer and Amulya P., Intern. Click to view the PDF.

I. Preliminary

I.1. This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society ("CIS")[1] on the proposed National Intellectual Property Rights Policy ("National IPR policy") to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. ("DIPP").

I.2. CIS commends the DIPP for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy. CIS' comments are as stated hereafter.

II. Principles

II.1.1. The characterization of intellectual property rights may be two- fold- first, at their core, intellectual property rights, are temporary monopolies granted to inter alia, authors and inventors; and second, they are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. This dual nature and purpose of intellectual property protection is particularly critical in developing economies such as India. Excessive intellectual property protection could result in stunted innovation and negatively impact various stakeholders. [2] It is therefore our submission that the development of the IPR Policy be informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and access to medicines.

II.1.2. These comments will evaluate the recent developments in the intellectual property regime in India and point out instances for possible reform.

II.1.3. These comments have been divided into five sections, dealing with patents, openness, open access to scholarly works, copyright, and negotiating free trade agreements in that order.

III. Detailed Comments

III.1. Patents

III.1.1. Key Issues Regarding Patents

III.1.1.1. The key issues involving patents in India include compulsory licensing, uncertainty in software patenting, slow pace of examination of patent applications, inter alia.

III.1.1.2. CIS submits that the Indian intellectual property regime contains numerous safeguards to ensure that monopolies of intellectual property are not exercised to the detriment of the public and that the National IPR Policy should continue to reflect these ideals.

III.1.2. Software Patents and Dual Monopoly

III.1.2.1. Presently, software in India may be copyrighted and computer related inventions are patentable. CIS is of the opinion that this results in an ambiguity that could potentially result in a dual monopoly over the same subject matter. This ambiguity around the legality of software patents and the scope of patents on computer related inventions has existed since the Parliament introduced the term "per se" to section 3(k) through the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002, persisting despite repeated attempts[3] to bring about clarity in the law (the most recent one being the Draft Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions, released in 2013 by the Indian patent office).

III.1.2.2. CIS believes that software is currently adequately protected under copyright, and does not merit patent protection. The software industry in its infancy grew by leaps and bounds in the absence of patents, and imposing twenty year monopolies is stunting the development of software, especially, in an industry where technology changes every two to five years.

III.1.2.3. Therefore, CIS is of the opinion that the National IPR Policy should recognise the danger of software patenting, and encourage the adoption of and development of alternatives to a strict intellectual property regime, for instance, Free/Open Source/Libre Software.

III.1.3. Compulsory Licensing of Patents

III.1.3.1. CIS believes that the current regime allowing for compulsory licensing of patents in India helps achieve a balance between the two concerns of rewarding inventions and making them available to the public during times of need, of the rights of the patent holder with his obligations to ensure availability of products at a reasonable price by allowing third parties who do not own the patent to license the use of the patent during the term of protection.[4] CIS believes that such a balance cannot be arrived at merely by market mechanisms. CIS further believes that achieving such a balance is important for a developing country like India as we have special concerns regarding access to healthcare and access to technologies that will protect our national interest.[5]

III.1.3.2. Therefore CIS submits that the National IPR policy should continue to make positive allowances for government involvement in this space, through the compulsory licensing of patents in certain situations.

III.1.4. Alternative Licensing Mechanisms

III.1.4.1. CIS believes that government participation in the patenting regime ensures that all interests are taken on board and the social costs of patents are kept in mind. CIS is of the opinion that the National IPR policy should be formed after careful consideration of alternative patent licensing mechanisms that could help achieve a balance between the interests of different stakeholders particularly because as a developing economy we have greater needs for access to medicines and technologies to ensure economic development.[6]

III.1.4.2. On patent pools: In the interests of ensuring development of technology and innovation while balancing the social costs of patents, CIS submits that the National IPR Policy should consider alternative licensing mechanisms such as patent pools which present an efficient legal arrangement to the different problems that arise when companies have complementary intellectual property rights and these rights are essential to new technologies being used and employed[7]. Such a licensing could be done with government participation to ensure standard royalty rates and standard agreements.

III.1.4.3. On tailoring patent strengths: Our patent system provides for a one size first all approach to patent terms. CIS believes that the National IPR Policy could suggest the adoption of a more studied approach to differential patent strengths that properly balances out the benefits of the innovation against social costs of patents both in the form of monopoly pricing and threats to subsequent pricing is required to ensure that our patent system is fair equitable and in our national interest.[8]

III.1.4.4. On royalty caps: CIS believes that the National IPR policy could encourage bringing back royalty caps for certain sectors as a means of regulating the market and ensuring that access to technologies is unharmed. CIS believes that this will serve the larger national interest and ensure technological development.[9]

III.2. Openness

III.2.1. Free and Open Source Software

III.2.1.1. Free and Open Source Software ("FOSS") has emerged as a key agent in information technology policy making in India. There has been an increased importance of free and open source software in education, governmental agencies, as recently demonstrated by the Indian Government's decision to shift to open source software, in sync with the Digital India initiative.[10]

III.2.1.2. CIS believes that the IPR policy should encourage free and open software in education, governmental agencies etc. CIS believes that this shift in open source software is necessary to keep our IPR policy in sync with developments in the digital world.

III.3. Open Access to Scholarly Works

III.3.1. Open Access Policies and Scientific and Scholarly Works

III.3.1.1. The benefits of implementing an open access policy with regard to scientific and scholarly works are manifold. Providing open access to scholarly research will ensure percolation of cutting edge research into the society. It has been often argued that restricted access to government funded research is unethical, since scientific research conducted by government agencies is partly, if not entirely, funded by the taxpayers' money.

III.3.1.2. Government Initiatives Towards Open Access

III.3.1.2.1. CIS believes that the steps taken in this regard by the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science to make scientific research publicly available by developing an open access policy are laudable, especially from the view of increasing access to research undertaken at these institutions.

III.3.1.2.2. There are several other government agencies which have implemented open access policies, namely, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Institute of Mathematical Sciences. CIS believes that this is step in the right direction

III.3.1.2.3. Copyright is the key instrument to effect open access policies. CIS believes that the work should be appropriately copyrighted to allow for free and open access to any interested person.

III.4. Copyright

III.4.1. Exceptions for Fair Dealings

III.4.1.1. The 2012, Amendment Act extended fair dealing exceptions in several ways; to sound recordings, videos, to the making of three dimensional works from two dimensional works,[11] to storing of electronic copies at non-commercial public libraries, [12] to rights of commercial rental.[13] While the Act touched upon some of the burning issues with regard to limitations and exceptions to copyright, CIS believes that it did miss out on laying down clear rules for issues like exceptions for educational institutions, libraries and archives which is currently being negotiated at the standing committee of the WIPO as an international instrument,[14] parallel importation of books for non-commercial libraries, and extending the current exceptions for education to distance education and digital education. CIS is of the opinion that while this was a step in the right direction the IPR policy should continue the trend of extending exceptions for fair dealing and should encourage forming general guidelines for fair dealings as it would help achieve goals of education and scientific and cultural progress.

III.4.1.2. CIS believes that it would be beneficial if general guidelines for fair dealing were provided for. These guidelines must not take away from existing fair dealing exceptions under the law, but should act as a framework to understand what constitutes fair dealing. CIS submits that this coupled with support for the International Treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives[15] and for International Treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions [16]would help serve national interest as it would help reduce the freezing effect by reducing the costs of using copyrighted work legitimately and ensure social and cultural progress. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage the international instruments aimed at providing for exceptions and limitations for fair dealings.

III.4.2. Exceptions for Government Produced Works

III.4.2.1. CIS believes that the current exceptions for use of government produced works are far too limited and taxpayers must be free to use the works that they have paid for.[17] CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage the broadening of exceptions with regard to government produced works.

III.4.3. Compulsory Licensing

III.4.3.1. The Act allowed for compulsory licensing of foreign works[18] and put in place statutory licenses for broadcasters[19] CIS believes that this was a positive step that will encourage cultural and scientific education in India. CIS submits that compulsory licenses for copyrighted works help achieve goals of education, of scientific and cultural progress. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage compulsory licensing of copyrighted works in certain situations for the promotion of access to knowledge and information.

III.4.4. Protection of Authors/ Performers Rights

III.4.4.1. The Act allowed for protection of author's rights regarding storing of their work in electronic medium[20] and for protection of rights of performers both commercial [21] and moral.[22] CIS believes that while this is in itself a positive step, there is need to ensure that such moral rights are not abused by authors or rights holders to stop discourse or to stop fair use and adequate measures to ensure the same must be put in place to avoid excessive intellectual property rights. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should discuss limitations to moral rights of authors and performers to make room for fair dealings.

III.4.5. Users Rights Regarding Cover Versions Of Songs

III.4.5.1. The Act allows for users to make cover versions of a sound recording required provided they comply with rules regarding notices and royalties. CIS believes that this is potentially problematic as even recording companies have acknowledged that the non-commercial cover versions help in increasing the popularity of the original and therefore help in the growth of the film and music industry and this new law could possibly stop individuals from making such cover versions due to fear of violating the law and therefore harm the film and music industry. Therefore, CIS believes that the National IPR policy should consider measures to provide more rights to the users in order to ensure development of the music and film industry; CIS believes that this is an instance of excessive intellectual property and is harmful to all stakeholders involved.

III.4.6. Relinquishment of Copyright and Creative Commons

III.4.6.1. The amended Section 21 of the Act now only requires a simply public notice from the author to relinquish his copyright as opposed to an application to the registrar of copyrights. CIS believes that this is a positive step as now the requirement under the rules can easily be satisfied by using a Creative Commons Zero license.[23] CIS submits that the National IPR policy should undertake similar steps to encourage the usage of creative commons licenses and thereby facilitate access to knowledge.

III.4.7. Term of Protection of Copyrights

III.4.7.1. The Act provided for an extension of term of copyright for photographs to almost double its earlier duration, [24] CIS believes that this is possibly harmful as it could lead to copyrighted works not entering the public domain for unnecessarily long periods of time and thereby harm progress in science and culture. In this regard CIS further believes that since the term of protections provided under our copyright law for all works extends beyond our international obligations, The National IPR policy should try to ensure that scientific and cultural development are not hindered by excessive terms of protection that go beyond the minimum owed under our international obligations.

III.4.8. Protection Of Rights Management Information

III.4.8.1. The amendment Act provided for protection of rights management information (RMI) and provided for both criminal and civil remedies in instances of unauthorised alteration or removal of RMIs.[25] CIS believes that these provisions are unnecessary as India does not have obligations to do so under international treaties and there is no actual demand for these rights as it is yet unclear how these rights help authors or performers. CIS submits that these provisions increase the costs for users who want to legitimately break these digital locks to obtain accessible formats for the information and that so long as the rights holder does not have an obligation to ensure that their works are accessible, provisions such as these cripple creativity and stunt industry growth.[26] Therefore CIS submits that the National IPR policy should help achieve a balance of concerns of users who want to legitimately break these digital locks on the one hand and the need to prevent digital piracy on the other.

III.4.9. Intermediary Liability

III.4.9.1. CIS submits that due to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, there is a freezing effect on free speech on the internet as these rules are procedurally flawed and go against the principles of natural justice.[27] CIS believes that such a restraint on free speech harms creativity and innovation, to this end CIS submits that the National IPR policy should ensure free speech is not unfairly hindered by rules regarding copyright infringement.

III.4.10. Criminalization of Copyright Infringement

III.4.10.1. Individual non-commercial infringement of copyright is a crime under Section 63A of the Copyright Act [28] and is punishable by imprisonment which can extend to three years or a fine that can extend up to rs. 2,00,000/- CIS believes that this is an instance of excessive intellectual property protection; CIS is of the opinion that the civil remedies available for copyright enforcement are enough for copyright protection and that the criminal remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957 function only to ensure that there are obstacles to free and legitimate use of copyrighted material. CIS believes that such provisions are harmful for innovation within India and impose unnecessary costs on users.[29] Therefore CIS believes the National IPR policy should reconsider the question of criminalisation of copyright infringement and should ensure that any penal consequences are proportional to the act committed.

III.4.11. Concluding Remarks on Copyrights

III.4.11.1. In conclusion while India has what some call the most balanced approach to intellectual property law in the world today, [30] one that balances both the interests of the author and the copyrights holder as well as the end user and the overall public interest, there is room for improvement as far as adapting to the internet age is concerned, especially considering the easy appeal of forming an intellectual property regime that is excessive and in the end harms all the concerned stakeholders.

III.5. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)

III.5.1. Need for Transparency Regarding FTA Negotiations

III.5.1.1. India has lately been negotiating Free Trade Agreements with several developed nations, these are closed door negotiations and the texts of the meetings are not available to the public. CIS believes that these texts should be made available to the public to ensure transparency and to ensure all stakeholders know of any developments, CIS believes that public knowledge of the positions of various actors in any negotiation process will help ensure that such positions are taken keeping in mind the interests of all stakeholders and will ensure that any outcome from such negotiations will be in national interest.[31] CIS therefore submits that the National IPR policy should encourage transparency with regards to negotiations for free trade agreements.

III.5.2. FTAs with Developed Nations and TRIPS Plus Standards

III.5.2.1. Leaked drafts of the European Union- India FTA negotiations have revealed that provisions on intellectual property protection were extensive and affected the pharmaceuticals sector, these provisions, if agreed upon, could go well beyond India's obligations under the WTO and under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. In fact, developed countries including the US [32] and EU[33] have tried time again and again to encourage developing countries to adopt standards of IP protection in bilateral or regional trade investment agreements that go beyond TRIPS [34]

India has repeatedly indicated to the WTO that it was not willing to commit to an agreement beyond TRIPS.[35] These commitments could include data exclusivity protection measures, ever-greening of patents etc. [36]

CIS believes that despite the growing pressure from developed nations regarding various FTAs,[37] India must hold its ground and ensure that concerns about India's national interest and the difference in the development levels of the European Union or other developed countries and developing countries like India are kept in mind while negotiating obligations under international agreements. Therefore CIS believes that the National IPR policy should ensure that TRIPS plus standards are not acceptable to India as they will undermine our national interest and hinder development at the national level.[38]

III.5.3. Shift from Multilateral Forums to Bilateral FTA negotiations

III.5.3.1. CIS believes that the trend of shift in negotiations from a multilateral forum such as the WIPO or the WTO to a bilateral or a regional forum [39] is harmful as certain flexibilities are built into the TRIPS and therefore multilateral negotiations based on TRIPS will help pursue India's interests better. And therefore when possible, India must prefer negotiations at multilateral forums as opposed to bilateral or regional treaties, CIS believes that the National IPR policy should reflect the same preferences. [40]

IV. Concluding observations

IV.1. On patents, CIS submits that the National IPR policy reconsider software patenting, that encourage open source software, continue and strengthen that compulsory licensing and consider and study alternative licensing mechanisms as means to achieve a balancing of the interests of different stakeholders.

IV.2. On openness, CIS submits that the IPR policy should encourage free and open software in education, governmental agencies etc.

IV.3. On open access to scholarly work, CIS commends the work done by government agencies so far and submits that the IPR policy should encourage open access to scholarly works.

IV.4. On copyright, CIS submits that the IPR policy work toward strengthening and extending fair dealings provisions, supporting international instruments that strengthen fair dealing, encourage compulsory licensing. CIS submits that the IPR policy should work towards ensuring that protections for copyright such as terms of protection, intermediary liability, protection of rights management information, criminalisation of copyright infringement etc., do not harm other legitimate interests of users or unnecessarily restrict free speech.

IV.5. On FTAs, CIS submits that the IPR policy encourage transparency with regard to FTA negotiations, ensure that TRIPS plus standards are not accepted as they would harm national interest and to encourage multilateral negotiations over bilateral free trade agreements.

IV.6. CIS welcomes the initiative of the DIPP to form a National IPR policy, CIS believes that it is essential that such an IPR policy avoid excessive intellectual property rights protection and is formed keeping in mind goals of development and national interest.

IV.7. CIS is thankful to the DIPP for the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR policy and would be privileged to work with the government on this and other matters in these areas.

[1] www.cis-india.org (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[2] The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Interest concluded after the Global Congress on Intellectual property and Public Interest in August 2011 attended by over 180 experts from 32 countries articulate this position perfectly. Available at: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Washington-Declaration.pdf (Last Accessed:29/11/14)

[3] Shashank Singh, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions: Mapping the Stakeholders' Response, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[4] N.S. Gopalakrishnan, Compulsory License Under Indian Patent Law, MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol.22, 2015, pp.11-42.

[5] Raadhika Gupta, Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS: How Far it Addresses Public Health Concerns in Developing Nations, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.15, September 2010, pp.357-363. Available at: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10211/1/JIPR%2015(5)%20357-363.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[6] Id.

[7] Nehaa Chaudhari, Pervasive Technologies: Patent Pools, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[8] One of the measures along which we could have differential patent strengths could be the time for the invention to reach the market, see, Benjamin N Roin, The case for Tailoring Patent Awards Based on the Time-to-Market of Inventions, UCLA Law Review, Vol.61, 2013, Available at: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10612849/Case%20for%20Tailoring%20Patent%20Awards%203-15-13.pdf?sequence=1 (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[9] Sunil Abraham, Patented Games, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games (Last Accessed: 30/11/14.

[10] See Nabi Hasan, Issues and Challenges in Open Source Software Environment with Special Reference to India, Available at: http://crl.du.ac.in/ical09/papers/index_files/ical-43_144_317_1_RV.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[13] Zakir Thomas, Overview of Changes to the Indian Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vo.17, July 2012, pp.324-334.

[14] See conclusions of the chair at the 23^rd session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the WIPO, Available at: http://www.eifl.net/wipo-sccr23-conclusions (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[15] For draft proposal of the treaty see IFLA, Treaty proposal on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[16] See The Draft WIPO Treaty on Exceptions and Limitations for the Persons with Disabilities, Educational and Research Institutions, Libraries and Archives, proposal by the African Group (document SCCR/22/12).Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_22/sccr_22_12.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[17] See Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

[21] Id.

[23] CIS, Comments on Draft Copyright Rules, 2012, available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012 (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[24] See Pranesh Prakash, Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012

[26] Pranesh Prakash, Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[27] Rishabh Dara, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet, 2011, Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[28] Section 63A, Copyright Act 1957.

[29] See Right to Share: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Copyright in the Digital Age, Article19, Available at: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3716/en/ (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[30] V Premanath, S Sivaram, Intellectual Property Systems in India: Progressing towards Greater Maturity and Diversity, Available at: http://iimahd.ernet.in/users/anilg/files/Articles/Emerging%20IPR%20Consciousness,%20vikalpa.pdf (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[31] Jan Wouters, Idesbald Goddeeries, Bregt Natens etc, Some Critical Issues in the EU -India Free Trade Agreement Negotiation, Working Paper No.102,KU Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers/new_series/wp101-110/wp102-wouters-goddeeris-natens.pdf , February 2013, p.16.

Monika Ermert, Lack of Transparency in EU-India FTA Talks Spurs Requests for Halt, ip-watch, Available at: http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/09/03/lack-of-transparency-in-eu-india-fta-talks-spurs-requests-for-halt/ .

[32] The current policy of the US Trade Representative is seen to be reflected in the 2002 Trade Act available here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3009enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3009enr.pdf See HR3009.

[33] The current trade strategy for the EU can be found here http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/july/tradoc_152643.pdf .

[34] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, Available at: http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/ciprfullfinal.pdf , p.174.

[35] C. Correa, 'Negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement European Union-India: Will India Accept Trips-Plus

Protection?', (2009) Oxfam Deutschland and Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst Analysis,

http://www.oxfam.de/files/20090609_negotiationofafreetradeaggrementeuindia_218kb.pdf .

[36] S. Sharma, 'the EU-India FTA: Critical Considerations in a Time of Crisis', (2009) Centad Working Paper.

[37] Asit Ranjan Mishra, India to negotiate FTAs with emerging market nations, Livemint, Available at: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RlJNxUXovjNVaRzQt9KXmO/India-to-negotiate-FTAs-with-emerging-market-nations.html .

[38] Sisule F Musungu and Graham Dutfield, Commission Multilateral Agreements and a TRIPS -Plus Word: the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), Available at: http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/WIPO_Musungu_Dutfield.pdf.

[39] For Trends, See Beginda Pakpahan, Deadlock in the WTO: What is next? Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum12_e/art_pf12_e/art19.htm .

[40] See Amit Sengupta, Do not trade away our lives, Vo.9, No.2, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012, Available at: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/88/1047 .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp

Odia books now available online

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T02:16:19Z

Book lovers can now read Odia books online with the launching of the Odia Wikisource, a sister project of Odia Wikipedia, here on Friday.

The article was published in the Pioneer on November 30, 2014

The Odia Wikimedia community, a volunteer community that contributes to Odia Wikipedia and its sister projects, in collaboration with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) formally launched the facility.

Odia Wikisource houses scores of Odia language books online and is available for free at https://or.wikisource.org. It is not just an online library but it focuses on bringing rare and old books that are out of copyright. Notably, the CIS-A2K, a domain of the CIS, has been instrumental in encouraging many notable authors in the State to change their license terms to Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-by-SA) license, a license that allows public access and ability to reuse the content to expand the knowledge base in Odia language on internet.

Besides, a discussion on setting of a roadmap for Odia book digitization was held on the occasion. Later, a documentary on ‘Odia: Silalekharu Mobile’ was screened followed by an award ceremony.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/the-pioneer-november-30-2014-odia-books-now-available-online