Centre for Internet and Society

NLSIU Conference on Access to Copyrighted Works for Persons with Disability: An enriching experience

praskrishna — 2015-12-27T16:01:44Z

National Law School of India University, Bangalore hosted a one-day national conference on the ‘Access to Copyrighted Works for Persons with Disability’, on the 26th of November, 2015 to discuss the provisions and implications of the Marrakesh Treaty as signed on the 27th of June, 2013.

The blog post authored by Abolee Vaidya and Nuhar Bansal was published in SINAPSE on December 14, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was a speaker at this event.

The Chief Guest of the conference was Ms. Aparna Sharma, who is the Joint Secretary and Registrar of Copyrights, MHRD. She pointed out at the very onset that it was very opportune for the conference to be hosted on the Constitution Day as what could have been a better day to talk about equal opportunity and non-discrimination.

The conference was roughly divided into three sessions which covered the following perspectives: a brief overview of the treaty, the Indian Copyright Law provisions and the implications of the both of them on stakeholders and beneficiaries in India. Mr. G. R. Raghavender, Director IPR, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, GoI, chaired the first two sessions and told us about how ‘Sparsh’, the 1980 film starring Naseeruddin Shah as a blind teacher, triggered his conscience.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conducted a study in 2006 on the extent of execution of Copyright provisions with regard to limitations and exceptions to Copyright for people with disability. The concluding observations were quite disappointing, which is how the talks about the Marrakesh Treaty commenced. He then gave us insights into the negotiations that went into finalizing the treaty, how the World Blind Union played an extremely instrumental role in getting the treaty through and also how Brazil recently became the 12^th country to ratify the treaty.

Mr. Raghavender further shed some light on the basic scope of the treaty:

Addressing the book famine by introducing limitations and exceptions to the rights of the Copyright holder. In this context, most states wanted to restrict the definition of ‘works’ under the treaty to ‘physical books’ and not artistic or audiovisual works. Although, that was not agreed to as audio description is crucial to modern online education in all ways. The international publishing community opposed most of the provisions during negotiation. They argued that publishing accessible copies of their published work would increase the cost of production and subsequently the market price of the work, due to which, majority of the disabled population wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway. Besides, whether the commercial want for the existent printed material in the market would be affected or the sighted consumers would take advantage of the accessible versions in the market are other issues that were brought up.
What kind of limitations and exceptions should be imposed? The developed countries opposed liberal interpretations and exceptions to the treaty. Owing to political influences, translation and public redistribution rights were also proposed to be limited and to be granted only to developing and least developed countries under compulsory Licensing, and in no other circumstances. The proposal allowed for reproduction, distribution and access to all content except audiovisual, excluding translation and public performance rights from the exception ambit. The Vienna Convention for Law of Treaties was referred to quite often for a thorough understanding.
Easier cross border exchange of works- Bigger nations wanted tie-ups with certain commercially available entities across nations for particular exchange purposes thus resulting in it becoming just a business and curbing accessibility. This was negotiated upon and dismissed.
Technological Protection Measures- Mr. Raghavendra spoke about extending the Berne Convention to digital works too so that re-encrypting digital works for the disabled does not qualify as infringement. He also stated how there needs to be more clarity as to the usage and breaking of digital locks.

Prof. T. Ramakrishna, MHRD Chair Professor on IPR , NLSIU launched their website iprindia.law.org, which is a one-stop place to find research material on Indian Intellectual Property law.

It was then followed by a presentation by the students of NLSIU on the basics of Marrakesh Treaty where it was concisely presented as to what the treaty means to the countries ratifying it.

Only 1-7% of the world’s books are available in accessible formats, largely due to Copyright hurdles and Marrakesh treaty intends to help in 2 ways:

Exception in domestic law of every ratifying country to ensure that they allow the print disabled and blind to convert texts into accessible formats without having to first take permission from the Copyright holder.
Cross border exchange of accessible version of books without permission. This will help avoid illegal duplication of transcripts and also allow countries with larger collection of such works to share it with other nations in need.
Specific articles that enable a relatively wide interpretation of the provisions to help make the texts more easily accessible.

Dr. Kalyan. C. Kankanala (Managing Partner BananaIP Counsels, visiting faculty NLSIU and guest faculty IIMB) was the first speaker of the session and he started with a recommendation for the government to make all government documents accessible as a first step of implementing the Marrakesh Treaty. He then went on to tell us how he lost vision in 1998 and found it very hard to access the curriculum related texts. Despite the best of efforts that he could muster, he was able to access barely 10% of the total material. He said that irrespective of how able you are, if your ability cannot access the fodder it is supposed to thrive on then there can be no scope for development. Today, information is available at the click of a button and your ability to succeed and not be discriminated against depends on how fast you access this information. Keeping this in mind, if there is no provision to make other more technologically advanced forms of information also accessible, it is not going to be a sustainable option. Most of the information today is in a non-literary format and to access that, a lot of other barriers have to be broken, which can result in simultaneous Copyright, Trademark and Patent infringement, which the Marrakesh Treaty cannot protect you against. To enable equal opportunity in reality, exceptions should flow under a bunch of laws and not just Copyright. What we face today is an information famine and not just a book famine. The solution lies with the publishing community. Because, the technological tools that the laws can equip us with, will fall short of some or the other parameter at some time and that defeats the aim of equal opportunity. So if the publishing community itself releases accessible versions along side their publications for the sighted consumers, we would have a sustainable solution. Also, the number of authorized entities should be made significantly high because greater the number of authorized entities, greater the chances of the publishers sensing competition and realizing that a commercial model around making accessible books available would be better for their business. He further said that the scope of definitions of terms used in the treaty are not as problematic as certain other areas like what kind of works are covered, what kind of disabilities are covered, what rights are covered and mandated. Nevertheless, the treaty has been negotiated and signed and going to bring out some sort of a positive change if not a revolution, so to say.

Dr. S. Elumalai, Assistant Professor, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Tamil Nadu, was the next speaker and he had some wonderful insights to offer. He said that the PWD Act qualifies a person as disabled only if he has more than 40% disability. Whereas, the Marrakesh Treaty addresses reading disability on the whole, which is very important. In fact, it also enables the caretaker and caregiver of the so disabled to claim accessibility rights under the treaty unlike any Indian legislation. He pointed out how our own government machinery is not disabled friendly, to the extent that disabled people are denied higher secondary education and professional education in government institutes. He stated that the government should help the disabled people help themselves and that can be achieved by training the authorized entities to be technologically up to date. The RTI Act talks about accessible formats of texts but the government has done little more than talking in that regard. Understanding that the disabled people are a minority and hence not a force influential enough to manipulate the demand-supply cycle of the market, it becomes all the more important for strong regulatory mechanisms to interfere. The government needs to step in and step up, the stakeholders need to be pro active, the authorized entities and the publishers should know their rights and duties and the disabled people should be made a part of the decision making process from scratch to resolve any moral right conflict that might arise between the above listed parties.

Mr. Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director CIS, was up next on the panel and brought a refreshingly dramatic change to the proceedings of the conference. He said that talks about the formation of this treaty began around 1982 and were initiated by UNESCO and WIPO. Countries such as Brazil, Ecuador, India etc. saw this treaty as an instrument that would lead to global accessibility. He then pointed out that the super nations trying so hard to restrict the scope of the treaty and exercising the power imbalance in the international arena, reminded him of colonialism. Besides that, the treaty advocates free cross border exchange of accessible information which is in principle against the colonial centralization of international relations. Therefore, the ratification of this treaty comes to him as a tiny war victory and which is why none of the major publishing countries in the world have ratified the treaty. He is strongly of the opinion that making books of any kind available to any kind of people is always good for the publishing industry. The publishers need to understand that the treaty is now providing for legal access to the converted materials as against pirated ones which was the only option until now. However, the Technological Protection Measures are not sufficient under the treaty. They do not provide for circumventing the digital lock on electronic data, as pointed out by Mr. Raghavender earlier. He further clarified that making books available in different formats does not amount to infringement as then books available in the library would also amount to Copyright infringement. Legal provisions should be present which would allow disabled people to access materials because if these provisions were absent then people would try to obtain the same materials by infringing copyrights. As of now, there are organizations that give access to readable software like Jaws. It is not a difficult task to make any work digital, the only problem arises when the work has to be made accessible and the manner in which such accessible material is to be used. It is extremely important to create awareness as how to use the accessible material by the physically disabled. When a book is published, its copy is deposited in all the 4 national libraries and when such a book is deposited, an easier way would be to convert it into electronic medium and convert that into accessible formats. Converting print into accessible medium is extremely difficult and will be much easier once it is electronic medium. He also gave an example of publishing books under the Creative Comments License that would make copies available in the accessible format. Not only should literary works be made accessible but all websites should also be redesigned and made accessible.

At this point, Dr. Kalyan brought up an interesting technicality when he asked Mr. Prakash to clarify that although making copies of any literary work is permitted under this treaty, whether the authenticity of the so called literary work would be in question or not. Because there are a number of pirated materials doing to the rounds of the market for sighted people already, and whether converting one such pirated work in an accessible version would still stand good in law. Mr. Prakash admitted that there is ambiguity in the language of the legislation in this regard, however, a liberal interpretation of the relevant provisions of TRIPS indicates that such minor discrepancies in execution can be exempted at the outset. Something, which Mr. Raghavender, in his dutiful government responsibility, disagreed with and said that all conversions should be made from authentic documents to discourage piracy.

This culminated the first two sessions of the conference and proved to be extremely informative for the participants and audience. The post lunch session of the conference exclusively dealt with the implications of the Marrakesh treaty and Domestic Copyright Law on the Stakeholders and Beneficiaries in India. Prof. Dr. T. Ramakrishna, MHRD Chair Professor on IPR, NLSIU, was the chair/moderator. The first speaker of the afternoon session, Mr. G. Marippan, Asst. Director, Dept. for the Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, Bangalore, gave us all a very bare text understanding of the various provisions under the Karnataka State Government Laws along with the different schemes in place for the benefit of the stakeholders and beneficiaries of the Copyright legislations.

Mr. Gautam Agarwal from the National Federation of the Blind pointed out that less than 1% of the total published print material in the world is available in accessible format as per NFB’s records. With the help of the Marrakesh treaty, countries will overcome legal hurdles to make things accessible and enable cross border exchange. But, he did raise questions as to how efficiently can these provisions be executed to actually help the ones in need. “Law can only facilitate us and show us the path, it is us who will have to do the walking”, he said. Conversion being permitted is merely the preliminary step. But who will do the conversion? What all texts will be converted first and what later? How exactly will they be converted? How will they be circulated? These are all the greater issues that we need to address now. Over 90% of the websites that exist are not accessible and this treaty does not provide for anything to be done about that. Which essentially makes all the online information inaccessible to the disabled. To ensure the right to read to every disabled person at the same time and at a rate as available to the other people, is the simple understanding of the concept of Equal Opportunity in this regard. He reinstated that we are 8 countries short of ratifying the Treaty to make in enforceable and suggested that Indian Government should enter in a dialogue with other nations and encourage and convince them to ratify.

The next speaker was Ms. Madhu Singhal, Managing Trustee, Mitra Jyothi, Bangalore. Their NGO usually provides materials in Braille and large print for persons with disability. She very passionately spoke about sensitization of the publishers as being a very strong influential force in efficient execution of the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty. She said that merely telling them what to do is not a one step solution. Instead, it is a long procedure which should ideally end in them being mandated into publishing the accessible copies. She also suggested that one database of accessible materials should be created for efficient usage of resources. This way, people across geographical boundaries will know what materials already exist and how to access them, thus reducing the cost of conversion.

Mr. Elumalai was the last speaker for the session and he had a handful of suggestions to make to authorities carrying out the execution of the treaty provisions. He suggested that, for example, if a soft copy of any material is provided to the NIC, then it should be their duty to make it into an accessible format. He also suggested that there could be a reward system in place for the publishing houses that publish accessible formats of their publications or giving tax benefits to people who help in conversion, distribution and access to the accessible formats. He said that disability is as disabling as you let it be. Not having functional body parts is not disability but not wanting to use the existent body parts is.

At the end of the discussion, Mr. Panesh Prakash just brought back some perspective when he asked how many people in the room had ever pirated or bought a pirated version of an accessible format of information. When no one raised their hand, he then pointed out that this is why the publishing community cannot hold ‘exploitation of accessible format by sighted people’ as a valid argument. The treaty might have other flaws but this defense does not apply. He said that there are close to 12 methods as to how a person can apply to the Ministry for obtaining accessible material and all of them are available on the official website, only, not in an accessible format. He let the irony sink in before concluding the session.

That marked the end of the conference, which at the end of the day had being enriching, to say the least. Listening to all the different stakeholders and policy makers and beneficiaries give their perspective over one piece of legislation only makes you realize the multi dimensional impact that laws have on people’s lives.

The Marrakesh treaty stood debated, discussed, dissed and devoured.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/nlsiu-conference-on-access-to-copyrighted-works-for-persons-with-disability-an-enriching-experience

Nineteen Books Published by Ama Odisha Relicensed under CC-by-SA 4.0

subha — 2014-12-07T03:35:46Z

Odisha's most circulated newspaper Sambad has collaborated with CIS-A2K to relicense 19 books published by its sister concern "Ama Odisha".

These books consists of books starting from biographies of notable personalities to historical research. Yesterday Sambad's chairman-editor Soumya Ranjan Patnaik signed a copyright migration document to help the Odia Wikisource community to enrich the project. In an interview to me he expresses, "technology should be used as a tool to take our language to masses". Mr Patnaik is joining "Odia Wikisource Sabha 2014", a launching event of Odia Wikisource co-organized by Odia Wikimedia community and CIS-A2K on November 28, as chief guest.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/nineteen-books-by-ama-odisha-relicensed

NIE Steps in to Grow Konkani Wikipedia

vishnu — 2014-10-10T11:26:26Z

The Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) signed a memorandum of agreement (MoU) with Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa to enhance digital literacy in Konkani in the education sector across Goa.

The Access to Knowledge (A2K) programme of CIS, in its sustained efforts to enhance the content and reach of Kokani Wikepedia (which is in incubation), has signed an MoU for a period of five years with Nirmala Insitute of Education (NIE), a Secondary Teacher Education College established in 1963 by the Society of the Daughters of the Heart of Mary in response to the then urgent need for trained teachers in post liberation Goa. The key objectives of this partnership are: a) to design, develop and execute a certificate course titled "Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia", which is aimed at middle and high school teacher-trainees and teachers; and b) to introduce Wikimedia projects into the pedagogic curriculum of NIE.

Both CIS and NIE share a mutual interest in conserving, developing and disseminating knowledge free of cost in Konkani, which incidentally is Goa’s official language. Konkani as a language faces several challenges — it has no official script. The population who speak it are dispersed across the world and have little motivation to further the cause of Konkani, and there are few educational venues that offer a formal course to study Konkani or offer Konkani based curriculum. NIE Principal Dr. Denzil Martins welcomed this MoU and said that "it will guide our teacher-trainees to upload relevant information in Konkani that can be freely accessed by the local population" and "provide the volunteer-trainees with skills that they will be able to use to contribute and enhance the free knowledge in Konkani". The MoU was signed by Dr. Denzil Martins from NIE and T. Vishnu Vardhan (Programme Director, Access to Knowledge, CIS) in the presence of staff and students of NIE and volunteers Harriet Vidyasagar and Gayathri Rao Konkar. Dr. Rita Paes, ex-Principal of NIE who worked to forge this MoU sent her best wishes.

CIS-A2K since 2013, has worked to develop partnerships with key educational institutions to promote and grow Konkani Wikipedia. It has previously worked with NIE to design and implement a program to enroll 100 B.Ed. students to increase the amount of information available in Goan villages and towns on Konkani Wikipedia. A2K has also been instrumental in convincing Goa University to re-release Konkani Vishwakosh (encyclopedia) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 , making it freely available to public, giving them the right to share, use and even build upon the work that has already been done.

The course ‘Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia’ will enable the teacher participant to have a) a comprehensive understanding of changes due to digital technology to the knowledge domain; b) an introduction to various openness movements that inform the discourse on Open Educational Resources; c) exposure and training to participate on open knowledge platforms like Wikipedia; and d) practical examples and best practices of using Wikipedia and sister projects within the classroom context. The parties will also co-design and jointly implement programmes to introduce Wikipedia in the NIE curriculum. The curriculum for this workshop is positioned within the context of indian languages (particularly Konkani) and school education to ensure that any learning is practical and can be applied within the teachers immediate pedagogic environment. Speaking about the relevance of this course Gayathri and Harriet (who have been associated with NIE as volunteers) mentioned that "the Goa government has handed out tablets to all school going children in Goa. In order to use them effectively in the classroom will require teachers to rethink their role and teaching methodologies and this course is an important step towards that". Agreeing with this Denzil Martins feels that this course "will provide the teacher-trainees with ideas and inputs for using Wikipedia in creative ways in the classroom".

This partnership could bring huge momentum and scale for the growth of Konkani as participants who graduate from this course will as teachers act as anchors and mentors to teach and assign Wikipedia editing assignments in their respective schools and classrooms.

As Gayathri feels "such courses once fine tuned should be made available to teachers from all over the country and should be part of the package for introducing the digital technology in the school system. Today it ends with setting up computer labls in schools or distribution of hardware to students - they may have a 'computer teacher' but the class and subject teachers never become part of these new initiatives. Only when this happens can we move away from 'teaching computers' to using computers as tools to learn and teach, which is the primary objective of digital technology in schools".

CIS will develop this open course and welcomes anyone to partner in this effort, which will be made available for anyone to use it within their context. The efforts to build free and open knowledge platforms like Konkani Wikipedia will continue and partnerships like NIE will play a crucial role in building a robust knowledge society in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/nie-steps-in-to-grow-konkani-wikipedia

Nichole Saad from the Wikimedia Foundation visits Christ University

manasarao — 2017-12-17T19:01:04Z

Nichole Saad, Program Manager, Wikipedia Education Program, Wikimedia Foundation visited Christ University, Bengaluru to conduct a periodic review of the Wikipedia Education Program. The meeting was conducted along with CIS-A2K and Department of Language faculty: Dr. Mallika Krishnaswami, Dr. K.A. Sebastian, Dr. Rathi and Dr. Shivaprasad.

The review kicked off with an introduction to Ms. Saad regarding the work that has been going on at the University. Registrar, Dr. Anil Pinto addressed the gathering of faculty of the Department of Languages and CIS-A2K team members. Student representative Shamama was also present.

Upon giving an introduction to the University itself, Dr. Pinto spoke about the genesis of the Program which was, at its heart, a loss of interest in languages. He spoke of the various ways in which the program has engaged with language: promoting science in regional language, publishing Christ University books on Wikisource, digitising old/ rare books, in addition to editing of articles, creating articles and creating articles in their specialities. On the future of the program, he felt that moving ahead to asking "faculty member in other disciplines if they can accept assignments submitted in languages other than English(despite the fact that the medium of instruction is English)” would be a good way forward. Dr. Pinto continued, “Wikipedia is the best tool available to us to go digital. We are happy that Wikipedia builds in the process and our students also learn.” He said that there were also plans to get all PhD students to go through a Wikipedia workshop to create knowledge specific to their subject.

Speaking next, Tanveer, Program Manager, CIS-A2K, expressed his gratitude to Christ University for enabling CIS-A2K to conduct the Wikipedia Education program at the University. He pointed out that even before the WMF started thinking about the New Readers program, CIS-A2K had engaging students at Christ University who had not previously engaged with Wikipedia. This marked a shifting away from digital learning to critical thinking in knowledge production and creation.

Just as in other WEP programs, there has been an inclination towards a specific topic. For example, Pune University has been working on gender. When this all comes together, it gives a composite view of knowledge production in indian language. There is also the need to escalate the discussion to a core academic level- a fruitful engagement mode with different points of view.

CIS-A2K’s WEP interventions have also been offering certificate courses for students as well as internships in order to understand a) the work their peers have done and b) the value addition they can do. This is exciting because this results in a large outreach and lends to learn and thinking on our feet constantly. As with every intervention, there are challenges that astonish that we need to think about and integrate into our work. In conclusion, he pointed out that the WEP at Christ is a challenge that CIS-A2K relishes.

The attendees further discussed the need to not only keep the community abreast of WEP activities but to also acknowledge and understand the feeling of ownership that comes with working on Wikimedia projects. Another commendable feature of the WEP at Christ remains the fact that students take on the role of campus ambassadors. The outcomes of the program have been documented in the Kannada media with a paper presentation as well. The attendees discussed possible research outputs as well.

Finally, Ms. Saad spoke of the importance of sharing wisdom and experiences in review meetings like these. She said that the focus of the Wikimedia movement is to go to places where people don’t have access and go to marginalised communities and make education accessible to them. This has the potential to change people’s lives as they will get access to information and skills to navigate a digitally literate world. Ms. Saad also spoke about using Wikimedia projects in classrooms. She said, “it can’t happen overnight, can’t become familiar with it right away or comfortable with it. However with pioneers like Christ University in this space, who areopen minded to it, the impact is greater than just number and statistics."

During the later sessions, Ms. Saad conducted activities that enabled students to ponder the following questions:

how can technology enrich the learning of students in India?
what are WEP challenges in India
what are some of the improvements you would need to make WEP better?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/nichole-saad-from-the-wikimedia-foundation-visits-christ-university

NGOs urge PM to ‘resist pressure’ from U.S. on IPRs

praskrishna — 2016-06-04T04:16:36Z

Govt. to ensure transparency on engagements with the U.S. on IPR

The article was published in the Hindu on June 2, 2016.

A group of civil society organisations has urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to ‘resist,’ what they termed, “pressure from the U.S. and the pharmaceutical multinationals based there to amend India’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws”.

The appeal comes ahead of Mr. Modi’s U.S. trip next week when the issue of greater protection and enforcement of IPR may come up for discussions. The group also wanted the NDA Government to ensure transparency regarding its engagements with the U.S. on IPR issues by tabling a White Paper in Parliament.

They said the recently announced National IPR Policy “sees the generation of IPRs as an end in itself. However, in reality, promotion of IPRs has not only limited the ability of developing countries to obtain critical technologies for their economic and social development but has also seriously impacted their peoples’ lives by making essential goods such as medicines, seeds, and textbooks unaffordable.”

In a letter, the organisations urged the Prime Minister to reconsider the implementation of the IPR Policy and send it back to the drawing board.

Group members

The civil society groups include Forum Against FTAs, Third World Network, National Working Group on Patent Laws, Gene Campaign, New Trade Union Initiative, Navdanya, Software Freedom Law Centre, Centre for Internet and Society, Lawyers Collective, All Indian Drug Action Network and Initiative for Health & Equity in Society.

The IPR Policy would send a clear message to Washington that India’s intellectual property rights regime is not regressive, Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said recently.

Ms. Sitharaman, however, said India does not recognise “unilateral measures” such as the U.S. Special 301 Report that tried to create pressure on countries to enhance IPR protection beyond the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of IPRs (TRIPS). The Report had retained India on the ‘Priority Watch List’ in 2016 for not addressing “long-standing and systemic deficiencies in its (India’s) IPR regime.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ngos-urge-pm-to-2018resist-pressure2019-from-u-s-on-iprs

NGOs tell PM not to succumb to pressure from US on IPR

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T05:04:03Z

A group of NGOs have appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to succumb to pressure from the US on the issue of intellectual property regime (IPR).

The article was published in the Economic Times on June 7, 2016

More than 10 eminent NGOs in a statement urged Modi to reconsider the implementation of the National IPR Policy and send the policy back to the drawing board.

It urged the Prime Minister to "withstand the pressure from the US government and corporations and to defend the people's interests" and to reject any demand to either initiate negotiation on free trade agreements and/or bilateral investment treaty with the US or joining the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The NGOs are Forum Against FTAs, Lawyers Collective, All Indian Drug Action Network, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, Third World Network, National Working Group on Patent Laws, Gene Campaign, New Trade Union Initiative, Navdanya, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Centre for Internet and Society.

The NGOs also urged Modi to ensure transparency and accountability in the engagements with the US on IP issues by tabling a White Paper in Parliament.

"We are concerned that the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy adopted by the Cabinet ignores India's experience of implementing a regime of IP protection that balances the rights of the IP holders and public interest, by proposing an 'IP maximalist' agenda," the NGOs said.

They alleged that the IP maximalist agenda in the policy fully ignores the socio-economic needs of people of India and serves the profit motives of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) that own an overwhelming majority of the world's IP.

"We urge the government to reconsider this anti-people policy," the NGOs said.

"We understand the primary intent of the policy is to respond to the aggressive demands of US government, backed by the corporate interests especially the pharmaceutical companies, to amend India's IP laws that include several safeguards to protect the public interest," it said.

"The government of India should remain committed to the welfare of its people's interest and should not succumb to the pressures that it is being subjected to. Above all, the government must fulfill its obligation to protect the rights of the citizens that have been guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, right to health, right to education, and right to food," they said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ngos-tell-pm-not-to-succumb-to-pressure-from-us-on-ipr

NGOs tell PM not to succumb to pressure from US on IPR

praskrishna — 2016-06-10T02:23:46Z

The news from PTI was mirrored in the Economic Times on June 7, 2016. CIS was one of the NGOs that have advised the Prime Minister of India on IPR.

A group of NGOs have appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to succumb to pressure from the US on the issue of intellectual property regime (IPR). More than 10 eminent NGOs in a statement urged Modi to reconsider the implementation of the National IPR Policy and send the policy back to the drawing board. It urged the Prime Minister to "withstand the pressure from the US government and corporations and to defend the people's interests" and to reject any demand to either initiate negotiation on free trade agreements and/or bilateral investment treaty with the US or joining the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The NGOs also urged Modi to ensure transparency and accountability in the engagements with the US on IP issues by tabling a White Paper in Parliament.

"We are concerned that the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy adopted by the Cabinet ignores India's experience of implementing a regime of IP protection that balances the rights of the IP holders and public interest, by proposing an 'IP maximalist' agenda," the NGOs said.

They alleged that the IP maximalist agenda in the policy fully ignores the socio-economic needs of people of India and serves the profit motives of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) that own an overwhelming majority of the world's IP.

"We urge the government to reconsider this anti-people policy," the NGOs said. "We understand the primary intent of the policy is to respond to the aggressive demands of US government, backed by the corporate interests especially the pharmaceutical companies, to amend India's IP laws that include several safeguards to protect the public interest," it said.

"The government of India should remain committed to the welfare of its people's interest and should not succumb to the pressures that it is being subjected to. Above all, the government must fulfill its obligation to protect the rights of the citizens that have been guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, right to health, right to education, and right to food," they said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/economic-times-june-7-2016-ngos-tell-pm-not-to-succumb-to-pressure-from-us-on-ipr

NGOs tell Modi not to succumb to US pressure on intellectual property

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T05:14:48Z

A group of NGOs have appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi not to succumb to pressure from the US on the issue of intellectual property regime (IPR).

The article by Rinku Patel was published in India Tribune on June 7, 2016.

The NGOs are Forum Against FTAs, Lawyers Collective, All Indian Drug Action Network, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, Third World Network, National Working Group on Patent Laws, Gene Campaign, New Trade Union Initiative, Navdanya, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Centre for Internet and Society.

The NGOs also urged Modi to ensure transparency and accountability in the engagements with the US on IP issues by tabling a White Paper in Parliament.

They alleged that the IP maximalist agenda in the policy fully ignores the socio-economic needs of people of India and serves the profit motives of Multi National Corporations

“We understand the primary intent of the policy is to respond to the aggressive demands of US government, backed by the corporate interests especially the pharmaceutical companies, to amend India’s IP laws that include several safeguards to protect the public interest,” it said.

“The government of India should remain committed to the welfare of its people’s interest and should not succumb to the pressures that it is being subjected to. Above all, the government must fulfill its obligation to protect the rights of the citizens that have been guaranteed by the constitution, in particular, right to health, right to education, and right to food,” they said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-tribune-rinku-patel-june-7-2016-ngos-tell-modi-not-to-succumb-to-us-pressure-on-intellectual-property

NGOs circulate letter at WIPO SCCR/36 raising serious concerns about draft Broadcasting Treaty

sinha — 2018-05-29T10:42:48Z

At the 36th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), negotiations on the Broadcasting Treaty continue - this time with a sense of urgency to present results of the 20 year negotiations to the UN General Assembly, scheduled in September this year. There remain long-pending issues within the Treaty, which have largely been ignored or weakly acknowledged by the Committee. In view of the threats that this Treaty poses to Access to Knowledge and the mission of educators, archivists, researchers, libraries and creators, NGOs at WIPO (including CIS) have circulated the letter below.

Joint NGO letter on the proposed WIPO treaty on broadcasting

May 28, 2018

Dear Delegates to WIPO SCCR 36

We are concerned that negotiations on a broadcasting treaty have not clarified a number of important issues, nor addressed core concerns from civil society and copyright holders.

At the outset, we are supportive of measures to address the legitimate concerns of broadcasters as regards piracy of broadcast signals. We are looking forward to seeing appropriate measures to address such challenges, provided they are well defined and limited to solving those problems, and avoid unintended consequences to impede access to and use of works, or harm copyright holders.

Our primary concerns are the following:

Term of protection/post fixation.
Limitations and Exceptions.
Public Domain works or works freely licensed by creators.
Confusion over an ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries.
Streaming on demand.
Works originated on the Internet.
Role of large Internet companies in streaming video.
Non-discriminatory and reasonable licensing terms

Term of protection/post fixation

Chairman Daren Tang’s text (SCCR/35/12) proposes a 50 year term of protection for the rights, which is a proposal backed by some broadcast groups and countries supporting the broadcasters. [1] Clearly, this implies the broadcasters will obtain post fixation rights in works they did not create nor license. A 50 year term of protection makes a mockery of the notion that this is a signal based treaty or is only concerned with signal piracy, as it effectively extends the protection beyond the term of copyright, and is a recipe for disaster as regards orphan works (just as individual countries are in the process of trying to solve the orphan works problem). To protect against signal piracy, a short term of 24 hours would make more sense than 5 decades from the date of every broadcast.

Under no circumstances should post fixation rights apply to every mere re-transmission of a broadcast signal -- a policy that would in practice result in perpetual protection of the signal, and give broadcasters more durable protections than copyright holders.

Limitations and Exceptions

There have been a number of proposals as regard limitations and exceptions, but almost no debate in the SCCR has ensued on this crucial issue. The proposals for exceptions in the Chairman’s text are narrow, and give broadcasters more robust rights than copyright owners or performers themselves.

If the broadcasters’ right does not extend to post fixation rights, or has an extremely short term, the exceptions language may be less important. But since broadcasters are seeking rights that last for half a century, i.e. post fixation rights, the exceptions become extremely important.

For any treaty involving post fixation rights, the exceptions in the broadcast treaty should include both mandatory and permissive exceptions. Mandatory exceptions should include those in Berne (news of the day and quotation), as well as for education and training purposes, personal use and preservation and archiving. The agreement should also permit non-mandatory exceptions that address both specific uses and more general frameworks such as fair dealing or fair use. Compulsory licenses should not be prohibited. If the treaty creates a layer of rights for entities that do not create, own or license the underlying works, this layer should not be used to prevent legitimate reuses of the copyrighted works.

In no event should the exceptions for broadcasting rights be less enabling for users than the exceptions that apply to copyright.

Public Domain works or works freely licensed by creators

In no cases should the treaty give broadcasters post fixation rights in works that are in the public domain, or openly licensed.

Confusion over an ever-expanding definition of beneficiaries

There is confusion over who will be the beneficiaries of the treaty. The General Assembly mandate is to limit the treaty to broadcasting in the traditional sense (see page 57 of WIPO/GA/34/16), yet during the SCCR negotiations, BBC and several Spanish language broadcasters have pressed to include Internet streaming services, under the theory that WIPO would create special rights that television broadcasters would have, even when the context was delivered over the Internet, that other entities using the Internet would not have. This assumption needs to be examined critically, to ensure it is not a naive and unrealistic assumption that a right can be given to one set of businesses and denied to another doing the same thing. And, if the right ends up being given to everyone streaming anything on the Internet, how does this change the evaluation of the costs of managing the rights, and unintended consequences?

Streamed on demand

The BBC, the Spanish language broadcasters and some others have asked that the right extend not only to live broadcasts, but also to material later streamed on demand to individuals. If the treaty extends to materials streamed on demand to individuals, there is no longer a special case for broadcasters. Millions of entities and persons stream content on demand, without a special broadcaster right, often over platforms like YouTube. It’s absurd to create a special right for streaming works on demand over the Internet, just because the company doing the streaming is a broadcast company and the work was once broadcast.

Works originally streamed on the Internet

Even more expansive are the proposals by the same broadcasters to extend the broadcasters’ right to works originally streamed on the Internet, thereby eliminating any distinction between broadcasters and every other Internet user.

Role of large Internet companies in streaming video

While many delegates see this as a treaty that will benefit local broadcasters, that is likely only to be true in the short term. And even in the short term, the more ambitious versions of the treaty are also designed to create economics rights for large foreign corporations that “schedule the content” for cable and satellite channels, such as Disney, Vivendi, and Grupo Globo. In the longer run, the treaty appears to be creating a new legal regime that will create rights for the giant technology firms largely based in the United States, that are creating global platforms for video and sound recording content, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Google/YouTube Tv (https://tv.youTube.com/), Hulu tv (https://www.hulu.com/live-tv), Yahoo, Twitter, Sling TV, Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/moviestv/), Spotify (Based in Sweden), Apple Music, Google Play Music, and Pandora, all companies that could qualify as broadcasters by owning a single broadcast station.[2]

The existing content on the YouTube platform is enormous and Google is hardly a struggling company, so it seems odd that WIPO is rushing to create a legal regime that appears to give Google even greater rights over works they never created or licensed that it already has.

Non-discriminatory and reasonable licensing terms

To the extent that a broadcast treaty creates rights of any kind that impact users outside of the robust limitations and exceptions we favor, member states should have the flexibility to require licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, or remuneration rights regimes, as an alternative to exclusive rights,

Conclusion

The 2007 GA mandate asked the SCCR to consider “convening of a Diplomatic Conference only after agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection has been achieved.” The WIPO GA has asked the SCCR to “update the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense.” At the SCCR, the definition of “in the traditional sense” is now used less and less, and “future proofing” the protection more and more, without any real understanding of how a new WIPO treaty will upset the existing arranges and rights that copyright holders and users now enjoy. In particular, WIPO needs to discuss the role of giant largely U.S. based Internet platforms now delivering video or audio content, and how any new rights for companies that deliver third party owned content will redistribute income between right holders and platforms and between countries, and impede access to works.

Sincerely,

Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS-India)

Civil Society Coalition (CSC)

COMMUNIA International Association on the Digital Public Domain

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL)

Fundación Karisma

Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights

Innovarte

Instituto Proprietas

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)

Le Conseil international des Archives (CIA)/ International Council on Archives (ICA)

Public Knowledge (PK)

Third World Network (TWN)

[1] “The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting [or cablecasting] organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the programme-carrying signal was transmitted.”

[2] Christopher Harrison, Why Pandora bought an FM radio station, the Hill. June 11, 2013. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/304763-why-pandora-bought-an-fm-radio-station. Or be acquired by or merge with a broadcast or cable organization, such as Yahoo’s pending acquisition by Verizon.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngos-circulate-letter-at-wipo-sccr-36-raising-serious-concerns-about-draft-broadcasting-treaty

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

NGO Profile: Knowledge Ecology International

puneeth — 2014-03-11T16:10:57Z

As CIS’ observer in Geneva, I will be profiling NGOs and other prominent actors at the WIPO. In the first in a series of blogs, I profile the work of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) at the various International Organisations in Geneva.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) is an NGO that searches for better outcomes, including new solutions, to the management of knowledge resources. KEI is focused on social justice, particularly for the most vulnerable populations, including low-income persons and marginalized groups.[1]

KEI has a strong presence in Geneva and their works revolves around the International Organisations that are located here. Their Geneva office is run by Thiru Balasubramaniam, who previously worked with the WHO.

International Organisations in Geneva

KEI is active in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva. At the WHO KEI is represented at the World Health Assembly and the WHO Executive Board. KEI was alsoan active participant at the Intergovernmental Committee on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), which existed from 2006-08.

At the WTO, KEI is engaged in work around TRIPS council meetings- this includes technical assistance to Members and research and analysis of the outcomes of these meetings (the TRIPS Council unlike the WIPO is not open to Observers). KEI along with other NGO’s are also looking towards a possible Treaty on the Supply of Global Public Goods.

Work around WIPO

KEI is active at the following WIPO Committees: the General Assembly, the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP), the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Their work in these areas is outlined below:

KEI has been actively involved in the Development Agenda at the WIPO from the beginning. They have actively participated in shaping discussions related to the transfer of technology and access to knowledge (A2K). Jamie Love, the Director of KEI was commissioned by the WIPO to author a paper on Alternatives to the Patent System. KEI had also mooted the idea for a Global Conference on Open Collaborative Research in 2003. The idea had widespread support from the scientific community, which saw fruition with the organization of the conference in January, 2014.

KEI was instrumental in the conception and passage of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (TVI) at the WIPO. They are currently engaged in work surrounding the Broadcast Treaty and Limitations & Exceptions for Libraries and Archives. KEI’s stance[3] on the former is that the proponents of the Treaty have not made a strong enough case in favour of the Treaty and that it could potentially impede access to knowledge and create barriers to the enjoyment of the internet. On the latter, they believe that the Berne appendix must be revisited to recraft it to strengthen the education exception and that the Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries (1976) should also be used as a way for developing countries to serve their education and libraries needs.

Publication

KEI’s publications and Research Notes can be accessed here. In addition, they run two Listserves on IP-Health and A2K which can be accessed here.

I would like to thank Thiru Balasubramaniam, KEI’s representative in Geneva for agreeing to do the interview which was the primary source of this blog.

[1]. See http://www.keionline.org/about

[2]. The proposal can be accessed here: http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/kei_wto_agreement_on_public_goods.pdf

[3].Interview with Thiru Balasubramaniam on file with the author.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international

New Release of IPR Chapter of India-EU Free Trade Agreement

pranesh — 2011-09-22T12:34:05Z

A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made publicly available now for the first time, provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.

A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made publicly available for the first time (PDF, 296Kb), provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement. The consolidated draft which was prepared to serve as the basis of talks that took place from July 12-14, 2010, in New Delhi, reveals parties' negotiating stances in response to preliminary positions put forth earlier (see IPR Chapter May draft).

In particular, this draft reflects India's rejection of many EU proposals that would require India to:

exceed its obligations under the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), e.g by providing data exclusivity for pharmaceutical products;
impose radical enforcement provisions, such as liability of intermediary service providers, border measures for goods in transit, and raised norms for damages and injunctions; or
require legislative change, e.g., on data protection, and to accommodate the full EU demands on geographical indicators.

A chart compiled by CIS comparing proposed language by India and the EU in several provisions with TRIPS can be found here (PDF, 402 Kb).

Sources close to the negotiations have also confirmed that during the July talks India reiterated its refusal to go beyond TRIPS, and its refusal to discuss issues that require changes to Indian law. India appears to have also reiterated that it could not finalise FTA copyright provisions before passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill in the Indian Parliament.

It is hard to assess the current state of the negotiations on IP or to measure the outcomes of subsequently held talks without access to recent drafts, a public record of deliberations, or the schedule of full and intersessional rounds taking place. However, from press and other statements attributed to the European Commission and Indian officials after the December 2010 EU-India Summit in Brussels, it appears that:

both parties plan to conclude the FTA, the biggest ever for the EU, by Spring 2011;
the EU has not relaxed its pursuit of at least some "TRIPS plus" provisions such as data protection for pharmaceuticals
a mutually agreed solution to India's WTO case against the EU over the seizure of generic medicines may be round the corner. Its impact on the FTA is open to speculation.

Because the India-EU FTA is likely to set a new precedent for future trade agreements between developed and developing countries, and with enormous stakes for patients across the globe, India and the EU need to get it right and ensure no provision runs counter to the interests of millions of citizens.

For further information about the text, contact Malini Aisola <malini.aisola@gmail.com> or Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta

New Release of IPR Chapter

praskrishna — 2011-08-22T13:27:08Z

pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf

New Avenues: Media Wiki Groups

noopur — 2013-01-05T01:46:41Z

This blog post is a brief recap and snippets of my conversation with Harsh Kothari, a volunteer on Gujarati Wikipedia on what we've been doing to help with MediaWiki groups.

Earlier in December, Harsh posted an e-mail to announce India's first MediaWiki group in Ahmedabad. The group is in its final stage of approval. The e-mail also generated curiosity among community members, some of whom had discussed starting similar technical initiatives earlier on the list.

I came across the idea of MediaWiki groups while Harsh, Yuvi Panda, Sheel and I were trying to conduct a mini hackathon in Delhi. The mini hackathon was a great success and very helpful to Harsh and Sheel. That is when we realized that the best way of repeating such training sessions would be to help foster the interaction of all technical volunteers within a city. Harsh told me Quim Gil from the Wikimedia Foundation had already proposed this and it would be best if I helped him frame a proposal for a MediaWiki group in India. I was told by Yuvi and Harsh that from their discussions on IRC with Quim they all agreed that local groups would serve better than a single national group given the expanse of India.

I thought this post would lend some perspective on how we could go about supporting technical outreach in India specifically for two reasons one, because Indian language Wikipedias could massively benefit from increased functionality — new gadgets, referencing and more. Apart from this, as we all might have encountered during our outreach sessions in technical colleges, there is great interest among students in contributing to MediaWiki but not enough resources or people who could spread the word.

A local MediaWiki group could serve multiple purposes supporting the relevant language Wikipedia as well as attracting and fostering a FOSS community in their city. It could also take up the responsibility of conducting events — small and large including hackathons, workshops and more. Especially in the context of smaller cities, towns and large university campuses, setting up a technical group similar to a LUG would be very beneficial. There will definitely be challenges, as questions come by and none of these groups can follow a standard model. But, I believe a major advantage of technical groups would mean faster resolution of bugs, more frequently updated infrastructure and consequently more activity on relevant Wikipedias. I have contributed to the proposal and am helping shape the first group. In case you want to set one up in your city or university, or wish to be put in touch with people who can help please do write to me at noopur@cis-india.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/new-avenues

National IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response

Akshath Mithal — 2015-11-24T15:02:17Z

The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.

I. Introduction

On 24^th December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the first draft of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a press release dated 30^th December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details here).

II. Research Methodology

In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a SpicyIP post and will provide an analysis of the same.

The spreadsheet that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.

On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.

III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis

A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:

Research organisations/NGOs.
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.
Scholars/Academia.

A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.

Categories	Stakeholders
Research organisations/NGOs	Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations	Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).
Scholars/Academia	Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.

Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.

IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus

There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.

The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.

The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.

All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.

A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.

Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.

The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.

V. International Treaties

The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.

The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.

Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.

VI. Utility Models

A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.

This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.

The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘jugaad’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.

VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities

Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.

The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.

VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities

A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.

On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.

The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.

The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.

IX. Trademarks

Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.

X. Trade Secrets

In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.

The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.

This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.

XI. On Specialised Courts

A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.

XII. Conclusion

The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.

On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.

It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response