Centre for Internet and Society

Odia Wikipedia to digitize 14 books

praskrishna — 2014-04-04T10:40:56Z

On the occasion of the 79th Odisha Day, the Odia Wikipedia has decided to take up a new project for the digitization of 11 books of the eminent Odia author Dr Jagannath Mohanty.

The article was published in the Odisha Sun Times Bureau on March 27, 2014. Subhashish Panigrahi is quoted.

On the occasion of the 79th Odisha Day, the Odia Wikipedia has decided to take up a new project for the digitization of 11 books of the eminent Odia author Dr Jagannath Mohanty.

In a release, programme officer (Access to Knowledge) of Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru Subhashish Panigrahi said the Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) would take up the digitization project where KISS students would type them on WikiSource, a sister project of Wikipedia.

These books include children’s literature, travelogues and biographical essays penned by Dr Mohanty.

Digitization of three more books: two in Odia-”Jati, Jagruti O Pragati” (book on people and culture of Odisha), “Bhasa O Jatiyata in Odia” ( a book based on research on Odia language) and an English book on the literary heritage of Odia, “Classical Odia” will be also be inaugurated on this day.

All these digitised books will be made available on the Internet with open access through free licenses. More than 5000 pages will be digitized in these two projects, Panigrahi said.

He said several public and private organizations have started taking the effort seriously after Odia got classical status recently.

Stating that the Odia language is lagging behind since it is not being accessed and used by the people due to the relatively inadequate and low content, Panigrahi said there is a great need for making content available in regional languages for a better sharing of knowledge with the new generations.

With a view to discussing the need for many new tools and technological advancement, a seminar would be held at Jayadev Bhawan in the city here on March 29.

Prof Udayanath Sahu, writer Asit Mohanty, litterateur Dr Lenin Mohanty would participate and discuss about spell check for Odia, use of Odia language in the media and tools for typing in Odia.

It may be mentioned that the Odia Wikipedia has become a useful tool to access vast amount of knowledge in Odia.

Available for free at https://or.wikipedia.org , it is an online encyclopedia that has about 5000 articles. Unlike conventional encyclopedias anyone can create and edit Wikipedia articles by abiding few basic guidelines.

About 20 Wikipedians are contributing articles on diverse topics. Wikipedia has a self correcting mechanism of experienced editors guiding new ones to proofread and correct language and add citations.

So far, about 25 outreach programs have been organized in over 10 educational and community organizations to educate people \with two Wikipedia education programmes running for 3-4 months.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/odisha-sun-times-odia-wikipedia-digitize-14-books

ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଦିବସ: ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ଭିତ୍ତିରେ ରାଜ୍ୟ ଗଠନର ୭୯ ବର୍ଷ

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T08:30:47Z

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ସମ୍ପାଦକମାନଙ୍କ ତରଫରୁ ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରଠାରେ ଏହି ୨୯ ତାରିଖରେ “ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଦିବସ ୨୦୧୪” ପାଳନ କରାଯାଉଛି ।

Click to read the original published in Odishan.com on March 27, 2014.

ଏହି ଦିନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିଶୁ ସାହିତ୍ୟିକ ଡଃ ଜଗନ୍ନାଥ ମହାନ୍ତିଙ୍କ ୧୧ ଖଣ୍ଡ ପୁସ୍ତକର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପ ପ୍ରସ୍ତୁତ କରିବା ନିମନ୍ତେ ଏକ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପର ଆରମ୍ଭ କରାଯିବ । ପାଖାପାଖି ୩୦୦୦ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ଡିଜିଟାଇଜ ହେବାକୁ ଥିବା ଏହି ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟି କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଇନଷ୍ଟିଚ୍ୟୁଟ ଅଫ ସୋସିଆଲ ସାଇନ୍ସେସ (କିସ) ତରଫରୁ ସ୍କୁଲ ପିଲାଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଛାତ୍ରଛାତ୍ରୀମାନଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଆଗାମୀ କିଛି ମାସ ଭିତରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରାଯିବ । ଏହି ବ‌ହିଗୁଡ଼ିକ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ରହିଛି କିଛି ଶିଶୁସାହିତ୍ୟ ବହି, ଡଃ ମହାନ୍ତିଙ୍କ ଆମୋଦଦାୟକ ଅନେକ ଭ୍ରମଣ କାହାଣୀ ଓ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିଶୁସାହିତ୍ୟର ଇତିହାସ । ଏହି ଦିନ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅଧ୍ୟୟନ ଓ ଗବେଷଣା ସଂସ୍ଥା ଦ୍ୱାରା ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ଓ ଜନଜୀବନର ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଇତିହାସ ସଂକଳିତ ତିନୋଟି ବହି-”ଜାତି, ଜାଗୃତି ଓ ପ୍ରଗତି”, “ଭାଷା ଓ ଜାତୀୟତା” ଓ ଏକ ଇଂରାଜୀ ବହି “Classical Odia”କୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବା ନିମନ୍ତେ ଆଉ ଏକ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପର ଶୁଭାରମ୍ଭ କରାଯିବ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ଅନେକ ପୁସ୍ତକ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ନ ଥିବା ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ତଥ୍ୟ ଖୋଜିବା ଓ ଜ୍ଞାନ ଆହରଣ ପାଇଁ ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ପ୍ରତିବନ୍ଧକ ବୋଲି ବିଶିଷ୍ଠ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାବିଦ ପଦ୍ମଶ୍ରୀ ଡଃ ଦେବୀପ୍ରସାଦ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ କହିଛନ୍ତି । ଆଗରୁ ସୃଜନିକା ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନ ତରଫରୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ପାଖାପାଖି ୭୪୦ ଖଣ୍ଡ ପୁରାତନ ପୁସ୍ତକର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ସଂସ୍କରଣ ପ୍ରସ୍ତୁତ କରାଯାଇଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ କେବଳ ସ୍କାନ କରାଯାଇଥିବା ଏହି ସମସ୍ତ ପୁସ୍ତକର ଲେଖାସବୁ ଖୋଜିବା ସମ୍ଭବ ନୁହେଁ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ତରଫରୁ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଶିକ୍ଷାନୁଷ୍ଠାନର ଛାତ୍ରଛାତ୍ରୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ନେଇ କର୍ମଶାଳା ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଏହି ଉପାଦେୟ ବହିକୁ ପୁନଃ-ଟାଇପ କରି ମାଗଣାରେ ବିନା କପିରାଇଟରେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ରଖାଯିବ । ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଏଥିନିମନ୍ତେ ଉଇକି-ପାଠାଗାର ନାମକ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯିବ ।

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଭାଷାର ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇବା ପରେ ସରକାର ଓ ଅନେକ ସଙ୍ଗଠନମାନଙ୍କ ତରଫରୁ ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଅନେକ ନୂଆ ନୂଆ ଯୋଜନା ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଛି । ତେବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ଲେଖାମାନ ଏବେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଅନେକ ପରିମାଣରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଯାହା ବିଶ୍ୱଦରବାରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆର ସ୍ଥିତିକୁ ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ଦୁର୍ବଳ କରିରଖିଛି । ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଅନେକ ଶିଶୁ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରୁ ଶିଖିବା ପସନ୍ଦ କଲେଣି ଯାହା ଭାଷା ଶିକ୍ଷଣର ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ବିରାଟ ପରିବର୍ତ୍ତନର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତାକୁ ଦୃଢ଼ୀଭୂତ କରିଛି । ଏହି ସମସ୍ତ ବିଷୟକୁ ଆଖିରେ ରଖି ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ବନାନ ସୁଧାରିବା, ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଗଣମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟନ୍ୟ ମାଧ୍ୟମ ଭାଷାର ବିକାଶରେ କି କି ପଦଃକ୍ଷେପ ନେଇପାରିବେ ସେ ବାବଦରେ ପ୍ରଫେସର ଉଦୟନାଥ ସାହୁ, ବରିଷ୍ଠ ସାମ୍ବାଦିକ ସମ୍ପଦ ମହାପାତ୍ର, ଓଡ଼ିଶା ରିଭିଉ ପତ୍ରିକାର ସମ୍ପାଦକ ଓ ସାହିତ୍ୟିକ ଡଃ ଲେନିନ ମହାନ୍ତି ପ୍ରମୁଖ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିବେ ।

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ or.wikipedia.org ଠାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏକ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । ଏଥିରେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଭଳି କିଛି ହାତଗଣତି ସମ୍ପାଦକ ନଥାଏ ଏଥିରେ ସମସ୍ତଙ୍କୁ ସମ୍ପାଦନାର ସୁବିଧା ଦିଆଯାଇଥାଏ । ତେବେ କେତେକ ନୀତିନିୟମ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଏଥିରେ ଅଦରକାରୀ ଲେଖା ସବୁକୁ ଅଭିଜ୍ଞ ସମ୍ପାଦକମାନେ ସୁଧାରିଥାନ୍ତି । ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଅଧୁନା ୨୦ ଜଣ ସମ୍ପାଦକ ସକ୍ରିୟ ଭାବେ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ଭାଷା, କଳା, ଲୋକସଂସ୍କୃତି ଓ ଜଗତର ବାକି ଅନେକ ବିଷୟରେ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗମାନ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାରେ ସମ୍ପାଦନା କରୁଛନ୍ତି । ୫୦୦୦ ଗୋଟି ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗରେ ସମୃଦ୍ଧ ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାର ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଭାବେ ବାକି ତିନୋଟି ଭାଷା-ଅସମୀୟା, ପଞ୍ଜାବୀ ଓ ମାଲାୟାଲାମ ସହ ୨୦୦୨ରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ତେବେ ୯ରୁ ଅଧିକ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଏହା ସମ୍ପାଦକଙ୍କ ଅଭାବରୁ ସ୍ଥାଣୂ ହୋଇ ରହିଥିଲା । ୨୦୧୧ରେ କିଛି ଯୁବା ଏହାକୁ ଆଉଥରେ ସକ୍ରିୟ କରିଥିଲେ । ତା’ପରଠାରୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ୧୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଶିକ୍ଷାନୁଷ୍ଠାନ ଓ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ସହରରେ ୨୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ କର୍ମଶାଳାମାନ କରିସାରିଛି । ଏହି କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମର ଦ୍ୱିତୀୟ ଅଧିବେଶନରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ସମ୍ପାଦନା କରିବାକୁ ଆଗ୍ରହୀ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିମାନଙ୍କ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଏକ କର୍ମଶାଳାର ଆୟୋଜନ ମଧ୍ୟ କରାଯାଇଛି ।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/odishan-march-27-2014-odisha-day-2014

Wikipedia taps students for Kannada content

praskrishna — 2014-04-03T10:01:27Z

Conducts workshops in Ujire, Moodbidri for training in vernacular editing.

The article by Renuka Phadnis was published in the Hindu on March 24, 2014. Dr. U.B.Pavanaja is quoted.

Wikipedia is tapping college students in tier II and III cities in India to increase vernacular content on the web-based encyclopaedia.

U.B. Pavanaja, Programme Officer – Indian Language, Access to Knowledge, Centre for Internet Studies (CIS), Bangalore, says there is adequate content on Kannada, Kannadiga, Karnataka on Kannada Wikipedia but on science and technology, the content is a little less.

To fill this gap, he is conducting workshops to teach students to turn volunteers for Wikipedia in far-flung places like Ujire and Moodbidri.

On Sunday, 47 students attended a workshop at Shri Dharmasthala Manunatheshwara (SDM) College in Ujire. And most of them immediately donned the volunteer’s cap. “More people who write Kannada should contribute to Wikipedia in Kannada,” says Shalini, a student of M.A. in Mass Communication and Journalism (MCJ) at SDM College, after the workshop.

Murali Krishna, also a journalism student of SDM College, says typing in the language was “a bit difficult” but some practice will make it simpler. “I had no idea about (editing) Kannada Wikipedia,” he says.

On Saturday Mr. Pavanaja — who has been editing the Kannada Wikipedia for the past 10 years — conducted a similar workshop for 30 students at Alva’s College, Moodbidri.

Mr. Pavanaja says contributions peaked in between 2006 and 2008, then declined “due to many reasons” and “picked up last year”. There was a significant increase in the number of editors after 500 students of Christ University, Bangalore, were trained in editing at a workshop held in January this year.

He says Kannada Wikipedia has very few women editors. Of the 557 editors of Kannada Wikipedia, who have contributed 16,670 articles till now, 226 are active editors and, of them, five men and three women editors are “very active”.

Bhaskar Hegde, Head of the Department, MCJ, SDM College, said he got the workshops organised at the college after hearing about them from friend Niranjan Vanalli (Chairman, Department of MCJ, Mysore University). He said, “This is the second workshop here. The students are enthusiastic and it sharpens their writing skills.”

Mangalore will host a workshop to get people to contribute to Tulu Wikipedia. U.B. Pavanaja, Programme Officer – Indian Language, Access to Knowledge, Centre for Internet Studies (CIS), Bangalore, said a workshop will be held in Theosophical College, Balmatta, on April 6.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-march-24-2014-wikipedia-taps-students-for-kannada-content

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ତିନି ବର୍ଷର ସକ୍ରିୟ ଅବଦାନ ୧୦ ବର୍ଷର ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପକୁ ପୁନର୍ଜୀବନ ଦେଲା

subha — 2014-03-20T11:20:59Z

The post is about the journey of Odia Wikipedia and the last three years of active contribution

Click to read the original published on the website of the Brokenscooter

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ୨୯ ଜାନୁଆରୀରେ ଏହାର ୧୦ ବର୍ଷ ପୂରଣ କଲା । ୨୦୦୪ରେ ଏହା ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାର ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଭାବେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହେଇଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ, ଏଥିରେ ପ୍ରକୃତ ଅର୍ଥରେ ଲେଖାଲେଖି ୨୦୧୧ରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହେଇଥିଲା । ସେତେବେଳେ ୫୫୦ଟି ଯାହିତାହି ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ଏବଂ କହିବାକୁ ଗଲେ ଜଣେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସକ୍ରିୟ ସଭ୍ୟ ନଥିଲେ । ତତ୍କାଳୀନ ପରିସ୍ଥିତିରେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଖରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିବା ଲାଗି ଉଇକିଆଳିଙ୍କୁ ବହୁତ ଅସୁବିଧାର ସମ୍ମୁଖୀନ ହେବାକୁ ପଡୁଥିଲା । ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ତଥା ବିଶେଷ ଭାବେ ସୋସିଆଲ ମିଡ଼ିଆ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବା ଓ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଲେଖିବା ପାଇଁ ଅଧିକ ଇନପୁଟ ପ୍ରଣାଳୀ ଆସିବା ଦ୍ଵାରା ଏହି ଗୋଷ୍ଠୀଗତ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟି ଲୋକଲୋଚନାକୁ ଆସିବାକୁ ଲାଗିଲା । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ଫେସବୁକ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ଏବଂ ଗୋଠ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକମାନଙ୍କର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖିବା ପାଇଁ ଏକ

ସାମାଜିକ ଦ୍ଵାର ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ଲେଖା ହୋଇ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଥିବା ଲେଖା ଏହି ଭାଷାରେ ପ୍ରାୟତଃ କିଛି ନାହିଁ ବା ବହୁତ କମ । ଅନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଲୋକମାନଙ୍କ ତୁଳନାରେ ଏହି ଭାଷାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଥିବା ଛବି, ଭିଡ଼ିଓ ଓ ଅଡ଼ିଓ ମିଡ଼ିଆଗୁଡ଼ିକ ବହୁତ କମ । ଏବେ ମଧ୍ୟ ବହୁତ ଲୋକ ସେହି ପୁରୁଣା ଚୋରା ଅପରେଟିଂ ସିଷ୍ଟମକୁ ସେମାନଙ୍କ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଛନ୍ତି ଯାହାକି ସମସ୍ତ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପର ଉନ୍ନତିରେ ଏକ ବଡ଼ ବାଧା ପାଲଟିଛି । ଅଧୁନା ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଅନଲାଇନ ଅବଦାନ ଓ ଅନେକ ଗୁଡ଼ିଏ ଇନପୁଟ ପ୍ରଣାଳୀ ଆସିବାକୁ ଲାଗିଛି । ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଓଡିଆରେ ଇଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ବ୍ୟବହାର କରି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜିବା ଆରମ୍ଭ କଲେଣି । ଏହି କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ବହୁତ ଗୁଡ଼ିଏ ଲେଖା ଓ ପାଠକ ଦେଇ ଏକ ପ୍ରମୁଖ ଭୂମିକା ଗ୍ରହଣ କରିଛି । ମାସିକ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ଦେଖା ଯାହାକି ବର୍ଷ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଲଗାତର କମ ଥିଲା ତାହା ୧୦୦୦ରୁ ୪,୦୦,୦୦୦ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ହେଲାଣି ଯାହା ବେଳେବେଳେ ୫,୦୦,୦୦୦ ମଧ୍ୟ ପହଞ୍ଚିଛି । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଲେଖାଥିବା ସମସ୍ତ ୱେବସାଇଟ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ଏହା ସର୍ବାଧିକ । ଦୁଇଦିନ ଧରି ଅଧିକ ଲୋକମାନଙ୍କୁ ଆକର୍ଷିତ କଲାଭଳି ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ସହ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଏହାର ଦଶମ ଜନ୍ମତିଥି ପାଳନ କରିଛି । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିଆଳିଗଣ ୨୮ ଜାନୁଆରୀରେ କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଇନଷ୍ଟିଟ୍ୟୁଟ ଅଫ ସୋସିଆଲ ସାଇନ୍ସେସ ଏବଂ ୨୯ ଜାନୁଆରୀରେ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆନ ଇନଷ୍ଟିଟ୍ୟୁଟ ଅଫ ମାସ କମ୍ୟୁ ନିକେସନ ଏହି ଦୁଇଟି ଶିକ୍ଷାନୁଷ୍ଠାନଠାରେ ଏକଜୁଟ ହୋଇ ଏଥିରେ ସାମିଲ ହୋଇଥିଲେ ।

Odia Wikimedia community is organizing Odisha day on the 29th of this month in Bhubaneswar. More details: http://or.wikipedia.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-odia-completes-10-years

Vachana Sanchaya: 11th century Kannada literature to enrich Wikisource

subha — 2014-03-20T11:13:22Z

Kannada Wikipedian Omshivaprakash, Pavithra and I co-authored this article on digitizing Vachana Sahitya, a 11th century Kannada literature on WikiSource.

Pavithra Hanchagaiah and Omshivaprakash HI, Wikimedians from India are co-authors with Subhashish Panigrahi in this article. This was originally posted on Wikimedia blog and published by GlobalVoices on March 18, 2014.

In the poetry of Kannada (an Indic language), Vachana sahitya is a form of rhythmic writing that evolved in the 11th Century C.E. and flourished in the 12th century, as part of the “Lingayatha” movement. More than 259 Vachanakaras (Vachana writers) have compiled over 11,000 vachanas. 21,000 of these verses which were published in a 15 volume “Samagra Vachana Samputa” by the government of Karnataka have been digitized. Two Wikimedians along with a Kannada linguist and author O. L. Nagabhushana Swamy are involved in the Unicode conversions, corrections and writing preface for these verses. The entire work is now available as a standalone project called “Vachana Sanchaya” and ready to enrich Kannada Wikisource.

This project was started a year ago when Kannada Wikimedian Omshivaprakash was trying to help Professor O.L. Naghabhushana Swamy and Kannada author and publisher Vasudhendra access the vachana (verses) of Vachana Sanchaya. Swamy had trouble using publicly available content on Vachanas since the data was in ASCII standard and searching text was a huge problem. I (Pavithra Hanchagaiah) started to help gather information about vachanas and document it in Unicode by writing scripts for open source software. Further discussions were had to get thousands of vachanas in the form of a database, so that they could be easily searchable with an index. This demanded us to build a platform supporting all these activities, which would help the linguistic researchers, students and members of the general public who have an interest in reading and studying Vachana literature. With this idea, Omshivaprakash started designing the model, and his colleague Devaraju started building it. In the meantime I was running various scripts to fix errors in conversion of ASCII text to Unicode, confirming that the data was ready to consume by the modules developed for concordance. We spent weekends & holidays executing this project from home. With the constant feedback and guidance from Mr. Swamy and Vasudendra, we learned how concordance of text is used by researchers and what would make it easier for them to research on Vachana Sahitya. Omshivaprakash worked on the architecture of the platform, decided the infrastructure requirements – free and open source software technologies were used to keep the platform active while managing the entire project. I provided critical hacks for digitization and gave feedback through suggestions.

Working System Currently, the system has around 200,000 unique words in its repository. Vachana Sanchaya is meant for research rather than just a repository of text on the web. While you search the words on our system, you can see who has used the word in all Vachanas. To make the research more readable, we highlight the text searched in each Vachana that would be displayed. To repeat the search for a specific Vachanakara (poet) you just need to click on his name on the graph on the results page. We have used MediaWiki’s jquery-ime input tool architecture that helped us provide a feature to directly enter Kannada text in Unicode for searches. So just type, and get results!	Vachana Sanchaya Website Screenshot

Working System

Currently, the system has around 200,000 unique words in its repository. Vachana Sanchaya is meant for research rather than just a repository of text on the web. While you search the words on our system, you can see who has used the word in all Vachanas. To make the research more readable, we highlight the text searched in each Vachana that would be displayed. To repeat the search for a specific Vachanakara (poet) you just need to click on his name on the graph on the results page. We have used MediaWiki’s jquery-ime input tool architecture that helped us provide a feature to directly enter Kannada text in Unicode for searches. So just type, and get results!

Vachana Sanchaya Website Screenshot

Public Response

We are glad to see people accessing vachanas from our Facebook, Twitter and Google+ channels. There have been approximately 500,000 pageviews to our site in the first few months of our platform’s public launch. Interestingly, commonly searched Kannada words like “ಕರ್ಮ”(Karma en:Work/Deed) , “ಸತ್ಯ” (Sathya -en:Truthfulness ) and “ನದಿ” (River) have resulted in quick and easy results.

Plans for the future

ಆಂಗೀರಸ, ಪುಲಸ್ತ್ಯ, ಪುಲಹ, ಶಾಂತ,ದಕ್ಷ, ವಸಿಷ್ಠ, ವಾಮದೇವ, ನವಬ್ರಹ್ಮ, ಕೌಶಿಕ, ಶೌನಕ, ಸ್ವಯಂಭು, ಸ್ವಾರೋಚಿಷ, ಉತ್ತಮ, ತಾಮಸ, ರೈವತ, ಚಾಕ್ಷಷ, ವೈವಸ್ವತ, ಸೂರ್ಯಸಾವರ್ಣಿ, ಚಂದ್ರಸಾವರ್ಣಿ, ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಸಾವರ್ಣಿ, ಇಂದ್ರ ಸಾವರ್ಣಿ ಇವರು ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ಮಂದಿ ಪ್ರಪಂಚ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಸಹಾಯ[ದ]ವರು. ಹತ್ತೊಂಬತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಪುಣ್ಯನದಿಗಳು. ಅದು ಎಂತೆಂದಡೆ: ಗ್ರಂಥ

Our system is extensible with respect to adding new feature – we have a review desk for researchers to help us with the review of content. Later we will also be adding required references to Vachanas from various research works that have been done around this literature. The content is available to the public through OpenData API and will be distributed as public domain through Wikisource once the review work is complete. This will open up the system for students, developers, researchers and anyone interested in working around building linguistic tools for Kannada and other Indic languages. This system is meant to evolves around other works rather than having to change and re-invent the wheel for more such projects. Vachana Sahitya will further help us to initiate Natural Language Processing (NLP) projects if more researchers get together to tag the words, glossary etc in the coming days. We can also fulfill the need of various language tools like spelling and grammar checker for users through crowd-sourcing the development. The next projects under the “Kannada Sanchaya” are Sarvagnana Vachanagalu and Dāsa Sanchaya which are in the pipeline with initial phases of work underway. Our idea is to extend this platform from Vyasa to Muddanna and possibly the contemporary literature work available in the public domain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/vachana-sanchaya-11th-century-kannada-literature-to-enrich-wikisource

Broadcast Treaty: An Overview

nehaa — 2014-03-20T09:55:45Z

In this blog post, CIS intern Varun Baliga, a third year law student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, presents an overview of the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, currently being deliberated by nations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR).

Negotiations on the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”) (draft circulated for discussion at the 26^th SCCR available here- http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_26/sccr_26_6.pdf) were initiated for the purpose of protecting such organizations from signal piracy. For a broadcasting organization, their signal is the prime source of revenue. Therefore, state intervention at the international level was required to quell the transnational issue of signal piracy. Moves by a majority of nations indicated that the mood was in favour of drafting a treaty that would codify certain protections for broadcasting organizations in the form of rights. The obvious concerns that arose were the nature and scope of those rights. Overbroad rights often posed significant obstacles to the free flow of information. A number of developing nations were concerned that the latest move was a further entrenchment of the colonization of information and knowledge. It was in the common interest to balance the dire need to combat signal piracy in order to maintain the integrity of the business of broadcasting organizations while at the same time ensuring that it doesn’t come at the cost of the access to the information itself.

From the perspective of the Global South, the focus of the text was Article that protected possible action that states may take in the public interest. The South was interested in elevating the status of the public interest to that of an aspiration that states must seek to live up to. So, public interest must continue to guide even negotiations that seek to protect the interests of multinational corporations. The Broadcast Treaty also protects against the restriction of free flow of technology and access to the same in Article 4. One of the sticking points of negotiations has been the nature and scope of the protection that is to be offered to broadcasting organizations. India, among other countries, has advocated for a strict signal-based approach to the protection. It opines that protection should be offered to the signal alone and not the subject matter that is carried by the signal. Many nations of the developed world look at this as a distinction without a difference. There has also been a strong push from the South to limit protection only to transmission and not cover the retransmission of signals within the aegis of the treaty. Another cleavage of opinion has been on definitional concerns that have plagued the negotiations ever since they commenced. Institutions such as Knowledge Ecology International among others have noted with caution the wide meanings conferred on beneficiaries of protection. Understanding broadcasting organizations and cablecasting organizations in an all-encompassing way would result in not just the proliferation of rights, thereby harming the sanctity associated with the concept, but would also lead to the manifestation of those rights on contexts that harm free speech and access to information. For example, the protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations on the internet could play out in a pernicious fashion, particularly since the internet space has long been one of open and free access.

Many countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa, have questioned the need for the treaty in the first place. Adopting this position doesn’t mean a devaluation of the harms of signal piracy. On the other hand, questions have been raised as to whether the creation of rights is the most effective, or even the right, solution. The harms of this problem-solution mismatch mean that the stakes are high; therefore, subjecting this treaty to critical scrutiny assumes great importance.

India, South Africa and the entire bloc has also argued against the inclusion of webcasts and netcasts in the spectrum of rights being conferred on broadcasting organizations. Broadcasting and webcasting work on completely different investment models and don’t work on the same kind of infrastructure. For that and other speech and access reasons, protection should be given, it was argued, only for traditional transmission of the signal. Consensus was ultimately achieved with the US agreeing that the focus of the treaty should be “true signal piracy, real-time transmission of the signal to the public without authorization".[1]

The Centre for Internet and Society has expressed its reservations about the treaty in no uncertain terms in the past. The underlying philosophy has consistently been a robust signal-based approach to the treaty. A consequence of this would be no term of protection for signals since the rights would exist only for infinitesimal amount of time that the signal does. The absence of a term of protection would also preclude concerns about harm to free flow of information from creeping up. CIS noted that there was a need for greater clarity on the meaning of ‘mere retransmissions’ which would not be granted any rights in the April 2007 Non-Paper circulated for the delegates. When the transmission is over a computer networks, there should be inkling of doubt as to the exclusion of both transmission and retransmission from the ambit of protection. Finally, it has called for a different structure of limitations and exceptions to be conceptualized for the treaty. A simplistic transplantation of the Berne Convention provisions would be ignorant of the particular needs of broadcasting. It is critical that the limitations and exceptions be actualized in a manner that is enabling and empowering for the most vulnerable stakeholders.

[1]. http://keionline.org/node/1701

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/broadcast-treaty-an-overview

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

nehaa — 2014-03-20T04:52:53Z

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

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

26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes

Day 3

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

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

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

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

Libraries and Archives

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

Day 4

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

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

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

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

Topic 2 – Right of Reproduction and Safeguarding of Copies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic 3 – Legal Deposit

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

Topic 4 – Library Lending

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

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

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

Additional Links

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

Open Source Project Brings 11th Century Kannada Verses Online

subha — 2014-04-06T06:00:47Z

The post was co-authored by Pavithra Hanchagaiah, Omshivaprakash H L and Subhashish Panigrahi and published in the March issue of Foss Force.

Click to read the original published on the website of Foss Force here.

Vachana sahitya is a form of rhythmic writing in Kannada poetry that evolved in the 11th century C.E. and flourished in the 12th century as a part of the Lingayatha movement. More than 259 Vachanakaras (Vachana writers) have compiled over 11,000 vachanas. 21,000 of these verses which were published in a 15 volume set, “Samagra Vachana Samputa,” by the Government of Karnataka, a state in South West India, have been digitized. Two Wikimedians along with Kannada linguist and author O. L. Nagabhushana Swamy are involved in the Unicode conversions, corrections and writing the preface for these verses. The entire work is now available as a standalone project called Vachana Sanchaya and ready to enrich Kannada WikiSource.


Palm leaf of 11th and 12th Century with Vachana poems in Kannada language

This project was started a year ago when Kannada Wikimedian Omshivaprakash was trying to help Professor O. L. Naghabhushana Swamy and Kannada author and publisher Vasudhendra to easily access the vachana (verses) of Vachana Sanchaya. Swamy had challenges in using publicly available content on Vachanas since the data was in ASCII and searching text was a huge problem. Pavithra Hanchagaiah started helping to collect information about about vachanas and document them into Unicode by writing scripts to customize open source software to convert the Kannada fonts from ASCII into Unicode.

After further discussions, it was decided to get thousands of vachanas into a database, making them easily searchable with an index. This required us to build a platform on which this could be done. The fruits of our labors will help linguistic researchers and students as well as the public at large, anybody who’s interested in reading and studying Vachana literature. With this idea, Omshivaprakash started designing the model and his colleague Devaraju started building it. In the meantime, Pavithra was running various scripts to fix errors in the conversion of the ASCII text to Unicode, confirming that the data was ready to be consumed by the modules developed for the concordance. We spent weekends and holidays executing this project from home and would sync up once in a while online.	Pavithra Hanchagaiah and Omshivaprakash H L

After further discussions, it was decided to get thousands of vachanas into a database, making them easily searchable with an index. This required us to build a platform on which this could be done. The fruits of our labors will help linguistic researchers and students as well as the public at large, anybody who’s interested in reading and studying Vachana literature.

With this idea, Omshivaprakash started designing the model and his colleague Devaraju started building it. In the meantime, Pavithra was running various scripts to fix errors in the conversion of the ASCII text to Unicode, confirming that the data was ready to be consumed by the modules developed for the concordance. We spent weekends and holidays executing this project from home and would sync up once in a while online.

Pavithra Hanchagaiah and Omshivaprakash H L

With constant feedback and guidance from Mr. Swamy and Vasudendra, we learned how a concordance of text is used by researchers and what would make it easier for them to do their research. Omshivaprakash worked on the architecture of the platform, decided the infrastructure requirements and managed the entire project. Free and open source software technologies were used for keeping the platform active. Pavithra was involved in providing critical hacks for digitization and offered valuable input through suggestions, feedback and Q&A.

Working system

At present, the system has around 200,000 unique words in the repository. It was an extensive learning process, as we used our free time to solve real time issues. Moreover, it was a work of the Kannada language that needed quick attention. Vachana Sanchaya is meant to be more than just a repository of the text online; it’s meant to be a tool for researchers.

For example, as a user searches the words on our system, he or she can see who has used the word in which Vachanas. To improve readability, the searched text string is highlighted in each Vachana that is displayed. To repeat the search for a specific Vachanakaara, the user needs only to click on his or her name on the graph provided on the result page. We have used the MediaWiki jquery-ime input tool architecture that helps us provide the user with the ability to directly enter Kannada text in Unicode for a search.

Public response

We are glad to see people accessing vachanas from our Facebook, Twitter and Google+ channels. Thousands read them every day and it has become a part of many people’s daily routine. There have been more than 50,000 page views on social networks and 500,000 page views on our site in the first few months after our platform’s public launch. Some of the most commonly searched Kannada words are “ಕರ್ಮ”(Karma en: Work/Deed), “ಸತ್ಯ” (Sathya en: Truthfulness) and “ನದಿ” (River).

ಆಂಗೀರಸ, ಪುಲಸ್ತ್ಯ, ಪುಲಹ, ಶಾಂತ,
ದಕ್ಷ, ವಸಿಷ್ಠ, ವಾಮದೇವ, ನವಬ್ರಹ್ಮ, ಕೌಶಿಕ, ಶೌನಕ, ಸ್ವಯಂಭು, ಸ್ವಾರೋಚಿಷ, ಉತ್ತಮ, ತಾಮಸ, ರೈವತ, ಚಾಕ್ಷಷ, ವೈವಸ್ವತ, ಸೂರ್ಯಸಾವರ್ಣಿ, ಚಂದ್ರಸಾವರ್ಣಿ, ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಸಾವರ್ಣಿ, ಇಂದ್ರ ಸಾವರ್ಣಿ ಇವರು ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ಮಂದಿ ಪ್ರಪಂಚ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಸಹಾಯ[ದ]ವರು. ಹತ್ತೊಂಬತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಪುಣ್ಯನದಿಗಳು. ಅದು ಎಂತೆಂದಡೆ: ಗ್ರಂಥ

– An example of a vachana from the Vachana Sanchaya project.

Plans for the future

Our system is extensible with respect to adding new features. We have a review desk for researchers to help with the review of content. Later we will be adding required references to Vachanas from various research works on this literature. The content is available for the public through OpenData API and will be distributed in the public domain through WikiSource once the review work is complete. This will open up the system for students, developers, researchers and anyone interested in working to build linguistic tools for Kannada and other Indic languages.

This system will evolve so it can be used for other literature projects. Vachana Sahitya will further help us to initiate Natural Language Processing (NLP) projects if more researches get together to tag the words, glossary, etc. We can also add various language tools such as a spell checker and grammar checker through crowd-sourcing development. The forthcoming project under the “Kannada Sanchaya” are Sarvagnana Vachanagalu and Dāsa Sanchaya which are already in the pipeline. Our idea is to extend this platform to include works from antiquity (Vyasa, for example) to the early 20th century (e.g., Muddanna) and possibly even include contemporary literature that’s available in the public domain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/foss-force-open-source-project-brings-11th-century-kannada-verses-online

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

nehaa — 2014-03-20T04:49:55Z

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

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

26th SCCR – Consolidated Notes of the Proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afternoon Session

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

004: A License to Share

nehaa — 2014-03-20T05:38:34Z

In this blogpost Devika Agarwal, a 4th year student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, takes a first look at the Creative Commons 4.0 Licence.

With the increasing amount of information being uploaded online every day, it becomes imperative to facilitate the sharing of this information legally. Creative Commons (CC) license is a tool developed especially with the objective of allowing widespread dissemination of information in a manner so as not to infringe the copyright of a person over the work.

A CC license is a valid license. It is ‘non-exclusive’ in nature; this means that the author of a work is free to enter into a different licensing agreement with anybody he wishes despite holding a CC license (the different licensing contracts must also be ‘non-exclusive’ in nature). Simply put, licensees of a CC license will be governed by the terms of the CC license unless they have a different agreement with the license holder.

In India, works licensed under the CC license include digital copies of educational material by NCERT.

With the first version of the license being published in 2002, Creative Commons has witnessed a number of changes to help serve the needs of internet users better. Version 4.0 of the Creative Commons License was released on November 25, 2013.

A more global license

What sets the latest version of the Creative Commons license apart from its precursors is the fact that CC license 4.0 is an ‘international license’. The earlier versions of CC license required the license to be “ported” to the different jurisdictions; ‘porting’ was a process which involved the translation and legal adaptation of CC’s core license suite (also known as ‘generic’ license suite’ ) to conform to the languages and copyright laws of individual jurisdictions). This means that earlier one had to obtain a CC license ported to one’s country; the “ported version of the license” was a modification of the generic CC license, suited to meet the copyright requirements of a particular country.

The CC license 4.0, on the other hand, is an international license, i.e., the 4.0 license is ‘jurisdiction neutral’ in nature and a single version of the license exists for all persons.

Sui generis database rights:

The CC license 4.0 also provides explicitly for protection to sui generis databases in jurisdictions which recognize copyright related to sui generis databases. Sui generis databases were not expressly covered by the earlier versions of the CC license. (India does not extend copyright protection to sui generis databases).

Non-attribution

The one element common to all the CC licenses is ‘attribution’ or acknowledgement of the licensor as the author of the work by “giving appropriate credit and providing a link to the license. Where the earlier licenses provided that a licensor may request a licensee to remove attribution from adaptations of the work (in order to preserve anonymity), the 4.0 license extends the right of ‘non-attribution’ of a licensor to works which have not been adapted.

This right of attribution is recognized under section 57 (1) (a) of The Copyright Act, 1957 in India which states that “even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim authorship of the work.”

30-day period to remedy breach of CC license terms

A significant change in the CC 4.0 version is that unlike the earlier licenses which terminated the CC license in case of failure to comply with the license terms, the 4.0 licenses allow a 30-day period to the licensees to remedy the breach, after which the license shall resume.

The terms incorporated in the 4.0 license are aimed at making the license more compatible with the copyright laws of various jurisdictions and at the same time ensure that information can be shared with more freely, thus preserving the spirit of Access to Knowledge.

(Creative Commons re-launched its India chapter in November last year.)

Similarly, right of ‘non-attribution’ is recognized under section 21 of The Copyright Act, 1957 which provides for relinquishment of copyright by the author. This may be done “by giving notice in the prescribed form to the Registrar of Copyrights or by way of public notice.” A CC license where attribution has been removed at the instance of the licensor will serve as a ‘public notice’.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-license-to-share

NGO Profile: Third World Network

puneeth — 2014-03-14T13:32:07Z

In the second blog in this series, I profile the work of the IP team of Third World Network (TWN) at the various International Organisations in Geneva.

About the Organisation

Third World Network is an organisation that engages in research and advocacy relating to development, developing countries and North-South affairs. Their mission is to bring about a greater articulation of the needs and rights of peoples in the South, a fair distribution of world resources, and forms of development which are ecologically sustainable and fulfil human needs.[1] As an international NGO, they have a strong presence in Geneva representing third world interests in many of the International Organisations that are located here.

International Organisations in Geneva

TWN attends meetings at the WIPO, WHO and is part of APBREBES which has observer status at UPOV. It also follows the activities of the WTO TRIPS Council (although it is not an observer). Their work is centred on development issues and issues affecting developing countries in particular and largely revolves around meetings/sessions held by these organisations.

Work at the WIPO

TWN closely follows all the main WIPO Committees including the Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) and the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR).

Activities
TWN’s main activities with regard to WIPO consists of monitoring and reporting on developments in various WIPO committees and also providing relevant technical assistance and expertise on various issues being discussed. Members of the team also document the proceedings of relevant meetings, which is then used to produce analysis for public consumption.

TWN also produces documents summarizing the issues to be discussed before a meeting as part of their advocacy efforts. This helps raise awareness regarding issues that may affect developing countries. They sometimes engage in capacity building through policy research to engage with representatives from developing countries in order to better inform policy makers.

Publication

TWN publishes reports and analysis of the proceeding of the WIPO meetings via its mailing list –IP Info.. The published articles are available on their website.

[1]. See http://www.twnside.org.sg/twnintro.htm

I would like the thank Alexandra Bhattacharya for agreeing to do the interview which was the primary source of this blog.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngo-profile-third-world-network

Design!Public

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T11:14:52Z

Centre for Knowledge Societies is organizing this event in partnership with Grameen Foundation India, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UNDP, et.al. Sunil Abraham is a speaker at this event to be held in New Delhi on March 14, 2014.

Design Public is a high-level conversation among a select group of thinkers, decision-makers and opinion-leaders who seek to transform India into an innovation society. It brings together influential actors from all sectors of society to deliberate the best ways in which innovation can serve the public interest. The larger goal of the Conclave is to serve as an enabling platform for building the necessary partnerships and consortia that will bring this agenda to practical realization.

Schedule

8.30	Registration and Coffee Background Track: Hamsa Dhwani
9.00	Breakfast Dialogue: Three Perspectives to Citizen-Centricity by Shazia Ilmi Somnath Bharti Namrata Mehta Aditya Dev Sood and Sunil Abraham Three distinct approaches to Governance Innovation are seen in India today: citizen activism, the open data and open governance agenda, and the integration of design and innovation into government processes. Representatives from each of these spaces begin the day with an open and friendly public dialogue.
10.20	Word of Welcome
10.30	Session One: The Elements of Governance Innovation by Sumandro Chattapadhyay Raman Jit Singh Chima Arndt Husar Esko Kilpi Chakshu Roy Divya Datta Namrata Mehta How are people thinking about Governance Innovation around the world in terms of process, data and systems change? What is the success of various Lab models and how do they exactly work? What is the relevance of these approaches to the Indian scenario?
12.00	Session Two: Social Innovation through Partnership with Private Sector by Nehal Sanghavi Daniel Radcliffe Louise Pulford Chandni Ohri Ada Wong Aditya Dev Sood How can we promote social innovation through new partnerships between the social and private sectors? How can we take advantage of the new Companies Act to develop new alliances and partnerships across sectors that will actually drive innovation? How does the concept of social innovation fit into these needs?
01.00	Networking Lunch Talk and connect with people outside your comfort zone!
02.00	Convene for Working Group Breakouts
02.30	Working Group One: Design a Social Innovation Exchange for India by Mike Knowles Nehal Sanghavi Daniel Radcliffe Louise Pulford Chandni Ohri Abhimanyu Nowhar Ada Wong Aditya Dev Sood The Social Innovation Exchange is a global organization with several regional hubs, such as SIX Asian in Hong Kong. What if there were to be a SIX India? What would be its mandate? What activities and goals should it pursue?
02.30	Working Group Two: Building an Action Plan for a Civic Innovation Lab The assembled group of thought leaders at this Design Public Conclave have the potential to reorganize as a new non-partisan community dedicated to achieving governance innovation. For this to be possible, however, they must first breakout into articulating challenges and goals in each of the three areas identified below.
03.30	WGII Breakout Two Alpha: A New Agenda for Citizen-centric Innovation by Sumandro Chattapadhyay Soaib Grewal Ambrish Arora Usha Alexander Ishan Khosla MP Ranjan Sunil Abraham How can design and innovation methods benefit the citizenry? How can mobile networks and different kinds of data be used to create better urban experiences? How can India’s new urban activism better align with design and data approaches?
03.30	WGII Breakout Two Beta: Institutionalizing a Civic Innovation Network by Lysander Menezes Suhas Mhaskar Rajesh Khati Shweta Banerjee Arndt Husar Jatin Modi Esko Kilpi Rajesh Sawhney Chakshu Roy How do we bring together the natural allies of Civic Innovation into a larger network? Which government agencies, startups, and social development organizations need to work together towards this goal? How could Civic Innovation be operationalized? What institutions, individuals and networks might support Civic Innovation?
04.30	Coffee Jam with Music
05.00	Public Presentations from Each Breakout by Prashant Bhushan Balasubramanian Munuswamy Harsh Shrivastava Anant Shah MP Ranjan Sukumar Ranganthan Thought leaders and decision makers critique and review public presentations made by each of the breakout sessions. An open dialogue ensues.
05.30	Dialogue: Framing Conclusions and Charting Next Steps An open dialogue to articulate possible next steps, possible coalitions, alliances, research programs and funding prospects for these areas of work.
07.00	Cocktails, Dancing and Dinner After a heavy day at the office, you deserve to twist that spine.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/design-public-2014

Report on the 9th Session of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement

puneeth — 2014-03-14T13:54:36Z

The 9th Session of the Advisory Committee on Enforcement ended here in Geneva last week. In this report, I look at the major issues discussed at the Session and the deadlock over future work of the Committee.

The 9^th Session of the Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) was held from 3^rd-5^th March here in Geneva. The Meeting featured presentations from Member States, NGOs and IP experts from around the world on the use of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms for the settlement of IP disputes.

About ACE

Unlike other Committees, the ACE is a knowledge sharing platform where Member States discuss their experiences in relation to the enforcement of intellectual property. The Committee’s Mandate is limited to discussing technical assistance and coordination in the field of enforcement and specifically excludes norm setting. There is little debate and most of the proceedings are based on presentations.

9^th Session

Ambassador Thomas Fitschen, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Germany, was elected as the Chair of the 9^th Session of the ACE, and was a proactive chair during the session, encouraging States to resolve disagreements through compromise and ensuring the session ran on time. Ms Ekaterine Egutia, Deputy Chair of the National Intellectual Property Center (SAKPATENTI) of Georgia, and Mr Wojciech Piatkowski, First Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Poland were elected as Vice-Chairs.

The presentations kicked off with Mr Trevor Cook from Wilmer Hale who made an informative presentation about the resolution of international IP disputes through ADR. In all the Session saw 22 presentations on two broad issue areas:

Practices and operation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems in IP areas; and
Preventive actions, measures or successful experiences to complement ongoing enforcement measures with a view to reducing the size of the market for pirated or counterfeited goods.[1]

Notable among the presentations is the growing cooperation between private actors and States in the enforcement of IP rights, and the use of outreach programmes at the grassroots level to increase awareness about IP rights. The issue, however is whether these programmes paint a holistic picture of IP rights- with due regard for flexibilities or merely stress on the importance of enforcement of rights.

Discussion

Developing countries raised issue with the fact that the ACE was becoming enforcement centric and not enough attention was being paid to coordination and technical assistance. They stressed the relation between development and enforcement of IP in developing countries. The delegation of Egypt on behalf of the Development Agenda (DAG) Group in particular highlighted the fact that Development Agenda Recommendation 45 and other items directly related to the competencies of the ACE, but the ACE had to expand the scope of its discussions to make them consistent with the objective of building respect for IP, which is broader and more inclusive than sheer IP enforcement.[2]

However, the Delegate of the Czech Republic on behalf of the CEBS (Central Europe and Baltic States) Group stated that IP enforcement was a key tool to development and allowed countries to be more competitive and was in line with Recommendation 45. Echoing the sentiment, the delegate of Japan on behalf of Group B (which comprises Japan, US, EU and other developed countries) stated that the core agenda of ACE, namely, the exchange of experiences on enforcement contributed to Recommendation 45, and that the strength of IP enforcement mechanisms in a country were becoming an important factor for investors to invest in a country- and this in turn contributed to the overall development of the country.

Future Work

There was agreement on proposals 1 and 2 (which were already discussed during the current session) with respect to future work of the Committee, as under:

Continuation of practices and operation of alternative dispute systems in IP areas
Preventive actions, measures or successful experiences to complement ongoing enforcement measures with a view to reducing the size of the market for counterfeit or pirated goods.

However, there was a deadlock on item 3; and there was insufficient time to discuss items 4 and 5. Item 3, proposed by the DAG Group related to exchange of information and national experiences on WIPO’s enforcement-related technical assistance to build respect for IP[3] . The disagreement was on extending legislative and administrative assistance to prevent abuse of IPR enforcement procedures and to use the flexibilities of the IP system. Group B objected to this as they believed it sent the wrong message. But the proposers were keen on the holistic treatment of IP and the importance of public interest considerations with respect to enforcement.

Item 4, proposed by Group B related to the exchange of information and national experiences on awareness building activities as a means for building respect for IP, especially among school aged children and students. Item 5, proposed by Poland, the US and UK was about the specialization of the judiciary and intellectual property courts. These issues will be discussed under future work of the committee at the next session of the ACE to be held in 2015.

[1]. See http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/news/2014/news_0003.html

[2]. See Chair Summary of the 9th Session (yet to be made public, in file with the author).

[3]. Italicised text represents the exact wording of the proposal.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-ninth-session-of-wipo-advisory-committee-on-enforcement

Open Education Week: Interview with Subhashish Panigrahi

noopur — 2014-04-04T09:20:49Z

Noopur Raval interviewed Subhashish Panigrahi from the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge team about sharing information resources and attribution in academia.

Subhashish Panigrahi works as a Programme Officer for Community and Program Support, Access To Knowledge (A2K) for Centre for Internet and Society. Supported by a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, the Access to Knowledge program promotes participation in Indian language Wikipedia projects. As a part of his role, Subhashish interacts with school and university students from different parts of India regularly. In this interview, he reflects on how students are aware (or not) of attribution.

Read the original published on Commons Machinery website here.

What is the general trend around sharing information resources and attribution among students and teachers?
It is funny to know most students I have spoken to rely on photocopied notes provided by their teachers and try to keep the writing style and sentence structure same as the notes. They don’t know that copying answers or quotes amounts to plagiarism. It is the same for many teachers who teach them to keep the beauty of the author’s writing without modifying it. Also, when I visit universities and interact with professors and students, most consider Google and Wikipedia their best friends, primarily for the quick access to information and imagery. I get a lot of questions about the proper procedure of inserting images that appear in Google search in Wikipedia entries. Many student projects are focused on getting the best pictures available on the internet which means they may download copyrighted images (with watermarks) and modify them. With music and video, it is even worse.

Does the current situation become problematic when you encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia?
It often does. For instance, when we initiated the India Education Program (IEP), as a part of Wikipedia Education Program (WEP), to include editing Wikipedia articles as part of academic curricula. Started in 2011 as a pilot program in the city of Pune, IEP engaged with over 1000 students on English Wikipedia. But the lack of education about copyright violation, and a habit of copying notes from books and other sources affected the program outcome. Many articles were copied from books and internet portals without even paraphrasing, which is completely against Wikipedia policies.

What could be the possible reasons for the lack of basic awareness about how to share information among these students?
Self-taught knowledge about the Internet and the idea of the Internet as a place with few restrictions could be a few of the reasons for these problems. Frequently, social media platforms do not have barriers to downloading and sharing content produced by people in your network. With mobile devices, all incoming content is downloaded and stored on your phone. Often, people crop incoming images or modify them and share them in small networks. Although they do it in good faith, information keeps getting reused very rapidly without any credits or metadata.For a new media educator like me, it is easy to explain why and how to contribute to Open Knowledge projects like Wikipedia…but attribution, and why appropriate attribution is crucial to information sharing, are very difficult things to teach. Most students feel like it is not really important to attribute correctly as long as you are not using it for profit or with bad intentions.

How do you deal with it individually and as a part of the A2K team?

It is crucial for educators, academics and everyone else to include education about Copyright and Copyleft in their syllabus so that students and faculty alike can know how not to violate copyright. At the same time, I think schools and universities are a great place to educate students about Open Access journals and the entire culture of knowledge producing/sharing beyond commercial gains.I often cite the example of one of my pictures that got featured in many international magazines and newspapers including The Conservation magazine and The Huffington post, which would not have happened if I hadn’t let the copyright go. I tell students that the biggest perk of contributing works in Creative Commons licenses is having a wide audience, especially young people. People release published information in free licensing when they hear about the opportunity to get enormously popular.

Similarly, BBC and Al-Jazeera have set great examples of mass donating imagery and video footage under CC. In one of our recent collaborations at the A2K program, the Goa University, on our request, changed terms of their licenses for a Konkani language Encyclopedia to Creative Commons license that has brought many volunteers to digitize and enrich the Konkani Wikipedia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/commons-machinery-march-14-2014-noopur-raval-open-education-week-interview-with-subhashish-panigrahi

Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation to Host Design Public

praskrishna — 2014-04-04T08:08:10Z

The conclave in its 5th edition will feature Aam Aadmi Party members Rajmohan Gandhi and Somnath Bharti along with Sunil Abraham in conversation with Dr. Aditya Sood about different approaches through citizen centric governance.

The information was posted on BusinessWire India on March 11, 2014. Source : Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation

Adianta School of Leadership and Innovation is setting up the stage for yet another conclave to establish a dialogue around innovation with ‘Design Public’. The key aspect of the conclave would be a dialogue between Raj Mohan Gandhi, Member- Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) & Grandson of Mahatma Gandhi; Somnath Bharti, Former Law Minister Delhi, Member- Aam Aadmi Party (AAP); Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society and Dr. Aditya Dev Sood, Founder & CEO, CKS about different approaches through citizen centric governance.

The fifth edition of the Design Public Conclave which will be held on Friday, March 14^th, 2014 at Vihara Campus, is being produced by the Center for Knowledge Societies, the Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation, the Startup Tunnel, the Bihar Innovation Lab, and the Financial Innovation Alliance, in partnership and with the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Grameen Foundation, CGAP, UNDP's GCEPA and the Social Innovation Exchange (SIX).

Over the past three years, Design Public has emerged as the premier location for high-level conversations about the public role and social impact of design and innovation in India. It has attracted some erudite and high profile speakers and discussants across regions, society and sectors of industry. The fifth edition of Design Public will focus on “Social Innovation through Partnership with Private Sector” and “The Elements of Governance Innovation” as both are relevant in present day context. The discussions will set the stage for recommendations and suggestions around promotion of social innovation through new partnerships between the social and private sectors, promoting social enterprises and beneficial social consequences of private sector activity with specific focus on the new companies bill and how it brings centre stage new opportunities for promoting social innovation. Focus on “The Elements of Governance Innovation” will focus on the importance of distinguishing governance innovation from policy work, the key constituencies involved in governance innovation and how better collaboration can create more meaningful impact.

The conclave will see two Keynotes touching both the aspects by Esko Kilpi, Writer and Theorist of the Networked Society and Arndt Hussar, UNDP-GCPSE, Singapore, respectively. Apart from the Keynotes, there would be other speakers which include Ada Wong, Chair, SIX, Hong Kong; Nehal Sanghavi, Advisor, USAID, India; Rajesh Sawhney, Founder, Global Superangels Fund, India; Louis Pulford, Director of SIX (Social Innovation Exchange) and Prof. M.P. Ranjan, Design Chair, CEPT University.

Apart from the keynotes, the conclave will also feature two working groups and three breakout sessions followed by presentations from each breakout and a dialogue for framing conclusions and charting next steps.

The working groups will focus on designing a Social Innovation Exchange for India and building an action plan for Governance Innovation respectively. The breakouts will be explaining Open Data in the Indian context, opening out closed systems of Governance and developing start-up opportunities in Governance Innovation.

Other key participants for the fifth edition of Design Public conclave include Abhimanyu Nowhar, Founder, The Kiba Design; Ambrish Arora, Head, Lotus Design; Balasubramanian Munuswamy, Private Sector Development Advisor, Department for International Development (DIFD), British High Commission; Chakshu Roy, Heads, Outreach Initiatives, PRS Legislative Research; Chandni Ohri, CEO, Grameen Foundation, India; Daniel Radcliffe, Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Gautam Gandhi, New Business Development for Emerging Markets, Google; Harsh Srivastava, Chief Operating Officer, Centre of Civil Society; Ishan Khosla, Founder, Ishan Khosla Design; Jatin Modi, Founder, FrogIdeas, India; Karan Malik, Associate, Advisory Research, Dasra; Lysander Menezes, Team Leader, Maternal Child Health & Nutrition, PATH; Namit Arora, Writer & Activist; Nehal Sanghavi, Advisor, USAID, India; Rajesh Khati, Founder & Principal Consultant, Clearway Advisors; Ramanjit Chima, Senior Policy Analyst, Google; Sanjay Rishi, President, MCS, Usha International Ltd.; Shweta Banerjee, CGAP, India; Soaib Grewal, Founder, Bold Capital, India; Somnath Bharti, Member-AAP and Former Law Minister, Government of Delhi; Suhas Mhaskar, Senior General Manager & Head, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.; Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Researcher, The Sarai Programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and Usha Alexander, Writer and Instructional Designer.

About Design Public

Over the past three years, Design Public has emerged as the premier location for high-level conversations about the public role and social impact of design and innovation in India. It has attracted speakers and discussants from all regions of the world, from all estates of society and from diverse sectors of industry. Out of the conversations held here, many new initiatives have emerged, including the Bihar Innovation Lab, the Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation, among others. There has been wide coverage of the themes and ideas emerging from Design Public in the media and blogosphere, including in the New York Times, Economic Times, Times of India, and Mint Newspaper. High value participants in the past have included Arun Maira (Planning Commission), Sam Pitroda (National Innovation Council), Geoff Mulgan (NESTA, UK), Ashok Alexander (BMGF), Rohini Nilekani (Arghyam), Yamini Aiyer (Accountability Initiative), Ashwin Mahesh (Lok Satta Party), Samanth Subramanaian (Writer), Vish Palekar (Mahindra Group), Jeby Cherian (IBM), Riku Makela (Tekes, FI), among many others.

About Adianta

The Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation promotes a radical and empowering educational approach that promotes Learning by Doing. It is a collaborative effort between some of the world’s leading innovation organizations, including the School of Design at the Technische Universiteit Delft (Netherlands), NESTA (UK), The Social Innovation Exchange (Global), and the Center for Knowledge Societies (India). With a distinguished team of advisors, international faculty and a global network of over 100 mentors, the Adianta School provides an unprecedented quality of international education right here in India.

For News Release background on Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation click here

Media Contact Details

Abhishek Shivam, Greyhound Neo, +919582199990 , ashivam@greyhoundgroup.com Priyanka Ahuja, Brand Manager, Adianta School for Leadership and Innovation, outreach@adianta.org

Call

Send SMS

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/businesswire-