Centre for Internet and Society

National IPR Policy Series : The Development of the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-01-22T00:48:33Z

This is the first blog post in a series of posts on India's National IPR Policy. In this post, CIS intern, Varnika Chawla traces the evolution of the National IPR Policy.

Significant changes have been implemented in the Intellectual Property regime of India since India's accession to TRIPS in 1995. This post details the timeline of the development of Intellectual Property law in India, highlighting the discourse around the formulation of a National IPR Policy. The author has also looked at the formulation of IP Strategies in different nations across the world, summarized in the infographic, observing that the trend for the same is very recent and has only emerged over the last decade.

"Intellectual Property Right is a private right recognized within the territory of a country and assigned to an individual or individuals for a specified period of time in return for making public, the results of their creativity and innovation." India has a well-established and comprehensive legislative, judicial and administrative framework for intellectual property. The decade of 2010-2020 was declared as the Decade of Innovation, with an objective of expanding the space for dialogue for inclusive growth. With the emergence of globalization, the Indian society has become more knowledge-intensive giving rise to rapid development in the field of information technology and consequently intellectual property, thereby increasing the role of the legislature as well as the judiciary to protect and promote intellectual property rights.

India gained membership of the World Trade Organization in 1995. This membership initiated a new round of revisions resulting in the upheaval of the Indian intellectual property system. All IP legislations were hereby required to comply with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement by 2000, with the exception of the Patents Act, which had an extended time limit to be compliant till 2005.

The Indian system of intellectual property rights is designed in a manner to ensure the protection of intellectual property while maintaining a balance between rights and obligations. There are several legislations which deal with the protection of intellectual property in India. These include thePatents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, theGeographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000, the Competition Act, 2002 as well as theBiological Diversity Act, 2002. India is also thefirst country to ratify theMarrakesh Treaty, 2013 for access to copyright works for visually impaired persons. India also recently acceded to the Madrid Protocol in 2013.

National IP Strategy and the Role of WIPO

A National IP strategy has been defined by WIPO as "a vehicle for creating better functional linkages between the national economic objectives, development priorities and resources, and the IP system of the country concerned."[1] It is therefore a set of policy measures undertaken by governments in order to facilitate the proper use of IP as a strategic tool, for economic, social, cultural and technological development.[2] WIPO also gave the framework of the planning process each country should implement, in its efforts to adopt an IP strategy. As per this, the process is divided into four main stages:

Government initiative
Establishment of a National IP Strategy Formulation Committee
Presentation of draft strategy before stakeholders
Government approval of National IP Strategy,[3]

WIPO can assist in the formulation of a National IP Strategy by advising the governments as well as providing technical expertise during the planning process and providing support and assistance as and when required.[4]

India's National IPR Strategy

Realizing the significance of having a strong and well-balanced IP system in the emerging economy of India, several initiatives have been undertaken by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion at the policy level to create an environment conducive for the development of intellectual property and technology. Accordingly, a draft for the National IPR Strategy, outlining a set of measures and guidelines to encourage and facilitate the effective creation, protection, management and commercialization of IP for accelerating economic, social, cultural and technological development and for enhancing enterprise competitiveness prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council on IPR was released by DIPP on September 26, 2012, inviting views from various stakeholders. It was felt that the National IP Strategy needs to be developed in a manner such that it is integrated with the overall national plan for development in order for better cooperation with IP components of specific and targeted national strategies in areas such as trade and investment, education, food and agriculture, science and technology etc.

Subsequently, a revised draft for the National IPR Strategy in India was released on July 21, 2014, detailing a vision statement, objectives and means to achieve the same.

The DIPP constituted an IPR Think Tank , as notified on November 13, 2014, in order to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy and to advise DIPP on IPR-related issues. Finally, a First Draft of the National IPR Policy was submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014 , inviting comments and suggestions from all stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015.

National IP Strategies: Around the World

WIPO Member States adopted 45 recommendations at the 2007 General Assembly, made by the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda. This also included Member States setting up "appropriate national strategies in the field of intellectual property." These recommendations were identified for immediate and effective implementation, resulting in countries beginning to adopt the same, with the objective of promoting and enforcing IP rights. The info-graphic below highlights the formulation of IP Strategies in Member States around the world.

China announced its "National Intellectual Property Strategic Principles" in June, 2008. Japan established its "Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters" in 2003, and its Intellectual Property Strategic Program in 2004, while USA legislated the " Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act" in 2008. Furthermore, the Presidential Advisory Council on Education, Science and Technology in Korea announced the " Strategy for Intellectual Property System Constructing Plan" on June 27, 2006, consisting of three aspects: Creation and Application, Law and Regulation, and Infrastructure. The European Union has adopted a " Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries", aimed at evaluating the recent major changes that have taken place in the international IP arena, preparing to meet the challenges in an effective manner. Finland adopted " The Government's Resolution on the Strategy Concerning Intellectual Property Rights " on March 26, 2009. Therefore, it is observed that the trend of National IP Strategies has only started recently, in the last decade.

Therefore we see the emerging need of an all-encompassing IP Policy arising in nations around the world, aimed at promoting a holistic environment conducive to the development of Intellectual Property.

[1] WIPO's Contribution to the Elaboration and Implementation of Strategies and National Plans for the Development of IP and Innovation , WTO Strategic Planning Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, June 13, 2014.

[2] Id .

[3] Id .

[4] Id.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-development-of-the-national-ipr-policy

Beyond Alcohol and Angel Investors: Building Business Models in an Age of Mobile Music Streaming (Conference Learnings)

maggie — 2015-02-23T12:39:36Z

This blog post is the first of a series of blogs to document, synthesize, and analyze learnings from attending various music industry trade conferences. This first post introduces the research question, and highlights learnings about the various business models which can be accessible via the mobile, and broadly how the music industry is attempting to respond to monetization challenges.

Introduction

The Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace project is conducting research on access to the mobile phone hardware, software, and content in the context of the intellectual property regimes in India and China. This chapter focuses on access to music content via the mobile phone in India with a particular focus on copyright law.

Following preliminary research, it was identified that the copyright organizing institutions in India lacked legitimacy amongst stakeholders within the music industry. For the purposes of this research, these institutions include the Copyright Act, the Copyright Board, and the copyright societies. Collectively, these institutions have received constitutionality petitions, corruption allegations, and critiques of overall ineffectiveness in regulating and balancing music copyright for the maximal benefit to society. This is of particular importance in light of new modes of digital music distribution technologies (such as mobile phones, and music streaming platforms) which have resulted in a tremendous increase in music consumption but simultaneous decrease in revenue. This is in part due to new business models for music streaming services, and the increasing complexity of music copyright and licensing management in the digital content industries.

1) How have evolving music distribution technologies accessible via the mobile phone impacted business models and licensing practices amongst stakeholders in the digital music industry?

2) What are the specific copyright challenges for each stakeholder in the digital music distribution chain? How can the copyright institutions provide for a more effective regulation and regulation of music in India?

The research methodology1 includes a series of expert interviews whose participants were identified by attending the following key music industry trade conferences in India, and remotely attending in the relevant conferences abroad:

1) 6th MixRadio Music Connects Conference in Mumbai ("MRMC")2

2) The Exchange UK Conference ("Exchange")

3) Indiearth Independent Music, Film, and Media Xchange Conference ("Indiearth XChange")

4) Future of Music Coalition Policy Summit (remote attendance) ("FMC")3

5) San Francisco Music Tech Summit (remote attendance) ("SFMT")4

This first post will highlight learnings from the above conferences5, primarily to respond to the question: What business models for digital music distribution exist in the market today? How is music production financed today? The question of how each industry stakeholder is responding to monetization challenges will also be explored. The main findings documented are mainly sourced from the MRMC and IndiEarth Xchange conferences due to their focus on India and its unique, context-specific challenges.

"India should stop chasing and build business models. We are already ahead... being a mobile-first market... now must lead by learning from our rich cousins - the film and television industry. " - Sridhar Subramaniam, CEO, Sony Music India⁶

Business models and monetization seemed to be the key buzz words at the 6th annual MixRadio Music Conference held in Mumbai, with industry veteran Sridhar Subramaniam, CEO Of Sony Music India giving the opening keynote speech 'How the Industry Stands Today?'. Despite Vijay Lazarus, Secretary of the Indian Music Industry preceding the keynote with a welcome speech warning of piracy as the biggest barrier to monetization. Subramaniam seemed much more optimistic, declaring 2016 as the 'year of music' despite a 10% decline in the former year due to decreased subscription in c first aller ring-back tunes 7. This was in part due to his belief that India was ahead of the game -- being a mobile-market amidst a global trend of mobile music convergence through streaming-based music consumption. Given India's increasing preference for music access in this form, Subramaniam suggested India "stop chasing and build business models" via learning from the music industry's two rich cousins -- the television and film industry.

Subramaniam outlined a strategic plan for growing the 200 million dollar music industry up to a billion in 5 years. He explained how the music industry is positioned where the TV industry was 5 years ago - giving content away for free via ad-supported revenues. This is due to the popular "freemium" business model for music streaming, which allows users to listen to music for "free" (data-consuming, supported by advertisements), with an option to upgrade to a paid tier.

Given recently overlapping ecosystems - standalone music services, device-embedded music services, and operator-supported music services - the question was whether there was enough advertising based revenue to sustain this cluttered industry. In three years, Subramaniam predicted moving from predominantly pirate-consumed music, to ad-supported to a consumer-paid revenue model.

This transition would be done via learning from the film industry through a technique called windowing. This is when the same content is released through multiple windows - for film, this is done first in a theatre, then via home video, then television, then broadcast TV. For the music industry, monetization could occur via exclusives, recommendations, personalization, quality, or regional restrictions; holding some kind of premium content behind a paid wall. This strategy according to Subramaniam's estimates could reach the billion dollar mark in 3 years with the goal of transitioning the 200 million pirated market, to 75 million ad supported, to 25 million subscribers.

" For the first time we have access [to music] from not just one, two, but three ecosystems - standalone music services, device embedded music services, and operator-supported music services." - Sridhar Subramaniam

Following the forward thinking strategy for future business models, the rest of MRMC's panels brought the conversation back to current services and ecosystems of standalone, device-embedded, and operator-supported music services. This increasingly crowded space, along with new international entrants makes the mapping of upcoming services extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the diversity of these services were attempted to be represented at MRMC, with "standalones" like streaming services Gaana, Hungama Australian-based Guvera, and RDIO (which acquired former Indian service Dhingana), along with download stores like Indian-based independent platforms OKListen, Songdew, and Insync. "Device-embedded" services were represented by Samsung with its MilkMusic service, and formerly Microsoft/Nokia owned MixRadio (which has been recently acquired by LINE messaging app8). Lastly, "operator supported" platforms was represented by Bharti Airtel who introduced their new Wynk app, only fully accessible for Airtel telecom subscribers. Multinational content aggregator Believe Digital also was present, providing insight on how the back-end aggregation of content works. A question from the audience inquiring about how to get ones' music onto the various platforms revealed content aggregators' main value -- providing smaller labels and independent artists the ability to ensure their content is distributed widely across multiple platforms.

Although the MRMC panel Streaming: Gathering Momentum hosted a variety of different streaming services, it seemed that there is increasingly less differentiation. Services like user-tracking playlist curation and recommendation, social media-inspired tagging, mood-based suggestions, friend-based recommendations, temporary offline downloads, and more were all being adopted in various forms. Business models of initial free-to-use/access with premium pricing for ad removal and full-on downloads were also becoming a standard across platforms. Some services prioritized specific stakeholders, like Guvera who described their advertiser/brand focused approach through brand play-list curation to target to certain music users.

The Global Music and Mobile panel at the San Francisco Music Tech Summit ("SFMT") highlighted challenges for music applications, with Kathleen McMahon, Vice-President at SoundHound noting the challenge of merely staying relevant in the app store, in part due to the decreasing differentiation with other services. In the streaming ecosystem, a variety of music consumption options are increasingly available through a singular platform (i.e. Hungama enabling on line streaming, download of songs, and purchase of ring-tunes). Given the principle product - the music itself - is the same, the differentiator is marked in part by the user interface, and perhaps more significantly, by price differentiation.

Panelists also spoke of interesting licensing challenges, one being the complexity of differing rates between web-streaming verses mobile streaming, wifi-data transfer, verses 3G access. This copyright challenge was also exemplified when a panelist lamented on the challenges of licensing in various geographic territories, asking "Should I be able to listen to my Spotify subscription wherever I go? Is this not possible purely because of rights and not technology? Do borders even make sense anymore?" These specific challenges will be discussed in an upcoming post highlighting copyright and licensing challenges, but it is worth mentioning here as a barrier to potential technological innovation and ultimately success and survival of these platforms.

" [MCNs are] the new age record label...except far more equitable and less exploitative." - Samir Bhanghra, Managing Director and Co-Founder, Qyuki ⁹

Despite the increasing competition and services, one particular streaming platform which need not be concerned is the audio-video streaming service YouTube, which has a reach of 1 billion consumers, averaging to a viewership of 450billion mins per month 10. Framed as the new broadcast company for user-uploaded content, this viewership directly translates into advertising revenue for the platform, with brands sponsoring specific content creators ("YouTubers") themselves. An interesting new stakeholder which is in part facilitating this phenomena are multi-channel networks ("MCNs"), who was represented in the MRMC Indian MCNs panel by MCNs Qyuki, Digital Quotient, Ping Network and YouTubers All India Bakchod. The MCNs described their business model as a relationship-service, which acts as an aggregator and optimizer of various YouTube channels. With back-end analytics and advertising strategies, MCNs aim to optimize monetization opportunities by focusing on maximizing CPM (clicks per impression) and identifying brand sponsors. Despite the seemingly disruptive service, Tammay Bhat of All India Bakchod was skeptical about the need for such service, asking "How will an MCN actually help me get more money and sustain? As a creator, brands are coming directly. They are so accessible and it's not that difficult. Perhaps it could help smaller creators but..."

Smaller creators and independent artists was definitely one of the target clientele for Qyuki. Samir Bhangra, co-founder of MCN Qyuki's held workshop They Say You Can Monetize Content Digitally - Really? at the IndiEarth Xchange ("the Xchange") independent music film, and media trade conference. He appealed to the independent artists by illustrating the potential reach of the one billion YouTube viewers, and explained some useful back-end analytics which can allow for more strategic and effective monetization. According to Bhangra, the CPM in India is about 1Rs per view, with the possibility of doubling or tripling this if viewed in the United States. Qyuki in particular sought to optimize monetization through ad-funded support (via CPM and brand sponsorship), payment via the MCN themselves for content creation, and 'forward integration' through increasing demand for live and digital gigs through increasing regular viewers. Bhangra even went as far as hailing Qyuki and MCNs as the "new age record label" which would allow content creators full creative control.

"Well, I support piracy so..." - Sohail Arora, Founder, KRUNK¹¹

For independent artists, social media tools like YouTube, Facebook, and other direct-to-fan digital services are of even greater importance considering the relative lack of accessibility to mass-media marketing power. In the XChange workshop Driving Your Career with Social Media, Sohail Arora, founder of booking agency and general artist management company KRUNK focused on search-engine optimization strategies for various social media platforms This included tips such as tagging influencers via social media, strategic timings of content posting, unique release and distribution of music, diversity in content posts, suggestions for increased fan engagement, and more.

The rise of new technologies seem to have brought an increased role and importance to not just social media tools, but also artists managers as well to utilize these services effectively as one of their duties. This new role and its various responsibilities was highlighted by the The Exchange Music Trade Conference ("the Exchange") in the panel The Role of Artist Management Agencies. Considering the diversity of distribution options available, and the difficulty of controlling content usage once released, I asked artist manager Arora for his thoughts on some musicians' strategies of giving away free music downloads. He responded by stressing that freely giving away music was an essential marketing tool for his artists. The ability to download and share would in turn translate to an increased number of fans, quantifiable, measurable social media support (via "likes" and "follows"), and subsequently increased ticket sales, attendance for live shows, and brand sponsorship. This perspective resulted in an interesting conversation/debate with the audience, one member of whom was Marti Bharath, producer/composer of electronic act Sapta who believed that giving away music for free led to piracy, and a devaluation of music. In response, Arora unashamedly stated that he supported piracy, which temporarily halted that conversation during the time-crunched presentation.

" Independent Music is... anything that is not Bollywood" - Nikhil Udupa - MTV Indies. "If you liked it, good. If you didn't, not my problem" - Verhnon Ibrahim, Consultant¹²

Despite the numerous social media tools and online opportunities available for self-promotion, the reach of mass media and its role as a marketing tool was not forgotten amongst the independent music scene.

In the Making Space for Culture panel, an interesting conversation arose on what it meant to be an "independent" artist. It seems that it boiled down to those who were mostly unconnected to the larger institutional support of the music industry like major labels and traditional media -- radio, newspapers, magazines, and television. On the one hand, there was a sense of ambivalence as to whether or not their work would ever appeal to the tastes of the masses. One panelist had asked - would popularization of a certain artist or music remove the label of being "independent"? Nikhil Udupa of MTV Music defined independent music in India as anything that was not Bollywood, due to its dominance in the Indian music market and overall appeal to the masses. Music industry veteran Verhnon Ibrahim conveyed the notion of an independent artist by expressing the somewhat indifference to likeability when reflecting on his days while in a heavy metal band: "If you liked it, good. If you didn't, not my problem". He seemed to imply that appeal to the masses was essentially irrelevant, and almost more revered due to a sense of being able to maintain artistic integrity and authenticity.

The title of the panel itself - Making Space for Culture - was interesting, seemingly alluding to the opinion that mass-consumed, popular music was perhaps not as "cultured" . The main grievance and topic of conversation was that independent music, film, and media did not receive adequate airtime space on traditional media - television, radio, and even print. This premise was probably the only agreement during the panel, as conversation soon evolved to heated debates on whether media created trends or merely picked up on them; and whether there was lack of quality independent content for full-time curation of independent channels, a sentiment expressed by Nikhil Udupa from MTV Indies. This panel's conversation also touched upon a sense of entitlement which independent artists held, in which audience member Guru Somayji of Bangalore-venue CounterCulture expressed his agreement. This echoed the comment from an audience member earlier in the day who stated "musicians do not deserve to be paid... venue spaces do not deserve to make money. There is no entitlement. You only make money when people are breaking down the door to listen to you."

Amidst a crowd of independent musicians and artists hoping to devote their lives to creating their art in a financially feasible way, there was an understandably ill response from the audience. The main criticism was the lack of broadcasters' efforts in finding quality content, and allowing independents a chance to perform in large venues and mass media channels. Verhnon Ibrahim, consultant and industry expert on the Making Space for Culture Panel attempted to explain that radio, television, and other traditional forms of media and communication was a mass-market game, whose purpose was to ultimately to sell ads. He cited radio's high cost of royalty payments to explain the need to curate for the majority so advertisers will get the most reach. Ibrahim stressed the need to demonstrate quantifiable forms of "deserving" - number of Facebook likes, YouTube views etc. to demonstrate virality and fan following, so the media would have to pick up on ones' popularity.

"It's public knowledge that vast sums of money in royalties have not been collected... [due to a] situation of buying out rights, but even labels and rights holders say hundreds of thousands of pounds are not making their way back." - Terry Mardi, Managing Director, Asian Music Publishing¹³

Although several independent musicians raised grievances about the lack of avenues to perform in, and the reoccurring problem of being paid on time, there seemed to be a hesitancy when discussing business strategies and the challenges of copyright due to technological innovation. In the independent space, this was anecdotally demonstrated by one panelists' response when asked about the impact of technology on the distribution strategies for their art, and on financial returns for their livelihood. He responded: "Those are two separate things... one is about making money and making a living. The other is about making an art form. These are two separate things." Within the larger industry conference MRMC, there seemed to be a lack of representation by musicians and content creators. Yet, one particularly vocal audience member, and later panel member of the UK Exchange was Terry Mardi, Managing Director of Asian Music Publishing. Numerous times throughout both conferences, he raised the controversial issue of missing royalty payments in India, and the absence of royalty collection and distribution by unregistered copyright societies IPRS and PPL. In MRMC, this issue was ever so briefly touched upon in a panel when Bollywood playback singer Natalie Di Luccio who's worked closely with A.R. Rahman mentioned that she had never received a contract outlining her rights and her royalty dues. Although there was very little curated conversation about this issue, coffee breaks demonstrated a clear gravitation towards those vocal and concerned about the issue, while many stakeholders, particularly the few musicians in the room seemed to find this a significant gap in voices not heard and expressed in MRMC. At IndiEarth, Vivek Ragpolan, representative of the Music Composers Association of India briefly commented as an audience member about the need to take collective action regarding composers and overall musicians' rights, stressing the importance of independent artists also being included within the new provisions of the Copyright Amendment Act. Though this issue of royalty licensing will be reviewed in a future post, this brief mention demonstrates the challenge of monetization and livelihood at multiple levels -- significantly for content creators, but also for the music platforms themselves.

"It seems like the pricing model is wrong... it's the only way to explain the drop in revenue" - Tarun Malik, Apps & Content Strategy, Samsung ¹⁴

Across different platforms, panels, conferences, and countries, one particular question seemingly common to all was that of price points band business model viability. Tarun Malik, Apps & Content Strategy of Samsung in Biggies Give Their View commented on the growth of the industry. Despite an increase in overall consumption, he noted - "It seems like the pricing model is wrong...it is the only way to explain the drop in revenue". Atul Charumani, formerly Head of Content with OnMobile and currently Managing Director of Turnkey Music stated that "in no other industry where the content is produced at such a high cost, is the product given away for free." In the Global Mobile and Music Panel at the San Francisco Music Tech Summit, the moderator asked a panel of music distribution service providers - "What is the value of music? Does music have intrinsic value at this point? Or is it just how it is presented?" In response, Dean Bolte, Managing Director of Omniphone expressed that the value of music was different for every person, and that some people were willing to pay more for access than others. The priority is to ensure that those who value music more have the opportunity to express through payment, since anything was better than zero. Beyond competition between music service apps, Bolte noted that the competition for funds also occurred across app categories, noting a generation of youth conditioned to acquire music for free through Napster, yet pay for additional levels in games. He closed the panel with the insight that "the product needs to be better than the sword".

The targeting of youth and young adults was also conveyed by the somewhat surprising pervasiveness of brands, who had a larger than anticipated presence for a music industry conference. The UK Exchange demonstrated the potential of partnerships in its Brands & Music - When They Combine Forces panel. MRMC panel The Brand Sponsor also invited the Taj hotel (who seem like an unlikely sponsor) an opportunity to express its interest in supporting the discovery of new talent. Aditya Swami from MTV & MTV Indies said that brands can communicate through music, and create conversations with their consumers. Subramaniam, CEO of Sony Music mentioned the importance of funding through brands and advertising in the MRMC keynote How the Industry Stands Today, while IndiEarth's Taking it Live panel opened the day with a conversation about live venues seeking sponsorship from alcohol, clothing and other 'lifestyle' companies. Even the MCNs in the MRMC Indian MCNs panel discussed one of its main services as the securing of brand sponsorship.

"Independent music in India would not exist if it weren't for alcohol sponsorships" - Tej Brar, Artist Manager, Only Much Louder ¹⁵

Music platform MixRadio, the title sponsor of MRMC was an understandably suitable partner, since it closely correlated to the main music product. Yet, particularly in India, it soon became apparent that alcohol brands have a very significant role in financing the music industry. This was highlighted when liquor-brand Bacardi received an award during MRMC for 'excellent brand association'. It was later learned in an interview that liquor and cigarette brands are not legally able to advertise in India, hence the popularity of alcohol sponsorships for live music festivals, venues, and club nights. Tej Brar, EDM Artist Manager for Only Much Louder believed that independent music would not exist in India if it weren't for alcohol brands. This is an interesting phenomenon considering just a decade ago, the idea of synchronizing ones' music with a corporate brand would be akin to "selling out". However, in today's increasingly digital world, especially in India where non-film musicians don't have much of a presence, brand sponsorship is one of the main 'monetization strategies' for music production. The last important significant financier to mention are investors, showcased in the MRMC panel Of All Things Finance. These "angel investors" play an instrumental role in backing many of the technology start-ups and other streaming services while experimenting with various business models. Yet whether these investment decisions are one that would reap sustainable returns is still a question to be answered.

Conclusion

It seems in this mobile first market, India has the opportunity to lead the way in developing business models that grow the industry through multi-tiered windowing of music streaming. Strategically, in an ecosystem still rampant with piracy, moving consumers towards legal access to music can facilitate new sources of revenue. This opportunity has also given rise to new intermediaries like YouTube and multi-channel networks. time will tell whether their contribution will legitimately grow the industry or simply take away more pieces of what seems to be a shrinking profit pie. Independent artists are able to use new direct-to-fan distribution platforms such as YouTube, amongst others to share their works. Yet, it is clear that the sustenance of a livelihood off of digital sales and distribution is extremely difficult. It is interesting to note that the bulk of financing for music seems to be trending towards live shows and brand sponsorship. However, despite increase in digital music consumption, the distribution of the revenue needs to be further studied and understood. Given the ease of replication, this will require a further in-depth understanding of licensing and copyright management in India today.

1 See the research methodology here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-management-in-age-of-mobile-music last accessed Jan 22, 2015

2 All of the panels from this conference can be found online here: http://musicconnects.indiantelevision.com/y2k14/videos.php last accessed Jan 20^th 2015

3 See here for the IndiEarth website: http://www.xchange14.indiearth.com/ last accessed Jan 20 ^th 2015

4 Watch and/or listen to the Future of Music Coalition panels here:https://futureofmusic.org/events/future-music-summit-2014 last acccesed Jan 19 ^th 2014

5 All data in this solely from public conference panels; including quotes, etc. Does not include any individual interview data.

6 As quoted from the MixRadio Music Connects Keynote panel:

7 Though it was not mentioned in the speech, it is useful to understand the initail demand for CRBTs was not necessarily genuine, for the fall in revenue was due to the crackdown by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to prevent false billing by telecom and value-added-service providers.

8 See http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/12/19/messaging-app-lines-first-acquisition-music-streaming-service-mixradio/

9 As heard in the MixMusic Radio Connects panel Indian MCNs on Nov 5^th 2014

10 According to Samir Bhangra in MixRadio Music Connects' Indian MCNs panel on Nov 5^th 2014

11 As heard at the IndiEarth Xchange conference in the Driving Your Career with Social Media panel on Dec 5^th 2014

12 Stated at IndiEarth Xchange Conference in the Making Space for Culture panel on Dec 4^th 2014

13 As heard at UK The Exchange Submerge conference on Nov 7^th 2014

14 As stated on the MixRadio Music Connects panel Crystal Ball Gazing: Bigges Give Their View on Nov 5^th 2014

15 In a conversation at the IndiEarth Music Xchange Conference on Dec 5^th, 2014

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/beyond-alcohol-and-angel-investors

Seventh Global Intellectual Property Convention

praskrishna — 2015-02-12T16:59:01Z

The Seventh Global IP Convention took place in Mumbai from January 15 to 17, 2015. Rohini Lakshané attended the event.

Agenda

Time	Detail
08.00 09.00	Registration
09.00 10.30	Inaugural Session (Majestic I & II)
10.30 11.00	Coffee Break and Networking Session
11.00 12.30	Plenary Session I: Power of IP: Gateway to Growth (Majestic I & II)
12.30 13.30	Lunch Break & Networking Session
13.30 15.30	Technical Session: I, II & III
15.30 16.00	Coffee Break and Networking Session
16.00 18.00	Technical Session: IV, V & VI

For more info on the event, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/seventh-global-ip-convention

Centre should partner local communities in 'Digital India': Expert

praskrishna — 2015-01-16T02:34:54Z

The central government needs to partner communities at the grassroots level and integrate the country's vernacular component to make the Digital India initiative a success, an expert said here Friday.

The blog entry originally published by IANS was mirrored in Zee News on January 9, 2015. T.Vishnu Vardhan was quoted.

"Whatever money it (Centre) is spending on culture, heritage conservation and preservation etc., it is always a very centralised activity.

"It is very, very essential to partner local communities," T. Vishnu Vardhan, programme director (Access to Knowledge), The Centre For Internet and Society, Bengaluru, told IANS here.

Vardhan was attending the 10th anniversary celebrations of Athe Bengali Wikimedia community at the Jadavpur University here.

Aiming to turn the country into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy, the Narendra Modi government has envisaged the Rs.1 lakh crore Digital India project.

Global IT giant Microsoft and Google have offered to help with the programme.

Vardhan said that while going forward with the project, the Centre must integrate the vernacular components. Else it will be restricted to Delhi and metro cities. Access to culture on digitised platforms should not be limited, he observed.

"The current government talks about Digital India. But when you talk about digital India, the key thing that one needs to take into consideration is not the India but the Bharat -- the vernacular imagination of India, the regional imagination of India.

"Otherwise whatever grand plans they have will only be limited to Delhi and other metropolitan cities," said Vardhan.

He suggested that the central government take note of examples like Wikipedia's regional language domains to further the Digital India project.

"Wikipedia or wikisource where you put up the original prints source in digitised form and make it searchable... these are the examples that the government should look at because these are done with the help of local volunteers who come from the remotest regions," said Vardhan.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/zee-news-january-9-2015-centre-should-partner-local-communities-in-digital-india

January 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-02-26T17:02:23Z

Our newsletter for the month of January can be accessed below.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcomes you to the first issue of the newsletter (January 2015). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

Highlights

Forbes India in an article titled “Minds that (should) matter” names Sunil Abraham as one of the Thinkers who best explain a rapidly-changing India to the world (and the world to India).

Subhashish Panigrahi won the 2015 Opensource.com Community Awards under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
Sumandro Chattapadhyay has joined CIS team as Research Director. Sumandro has replaces Nishant Shah who stepped down from the position.
Rishika on behalf of CIS prepared an analysis of the disability exceptions in Copyright Legislations . The blog post provides in detail the country-wise exceptions in copyright legislations.
NVDA team conducted a training programme on Malayalam eSpeak with NVDA in Thiruvananthapuram on January 24 and 25, 2015. Chakshumathi's main trainer Akhil M. took eSpeak Malayalam classes and Dr. Homiyar took classes on NVDA and accessible equipment.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. CIS made its submission.
As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Nehaa Chaudhari has produced a research methodology document which maps the existing literature around questions of competition law intersecting with intellectual property law on the specific issue of enabling access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices .
Maggie Huang, an intern at CIS as part of the Pervasive Technologies project has written a blog entry which documents, synthesizes, and analyses learnings from attending various music industry trade conferences.

CIS-A2K team on December 28, 2014 organized a MediaWiki hackathon event for Telugu Wikimedia community members to enhance their skills and understanding of technical matters related to MediaWiki usage. The theme of the workshop was “Mediawiki, its extensions and tools to work around” and it aimed at allowing Wikipedians to use MediaWiki tools more effectively.

Subhashish Panigrahi authored an op-ed that highlights the need for taking Odia language to the international fora instead of keeping it confined in the books. The op-ed was published in the Samaja on January 30, 2015.

A journal article by Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran the steps taken by scientists and librarians in the West to reclaim ease of access to research findings with what is happening in India along with a few suggestions was published by the Indian National Science Academy Journals.
The Supreme Court, in Sabu George v. Union of India and Ors. (WP (C) 341/2008), is looking into the presence of material regarding pre-natal sex determination on search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo that has been falling foul of section 22 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 as amended in 2002. Geeta Hariharan and Balaji Subramanian analyse this in their blog post.
As part of its Making Methods for Digital Humanities project, CIS-RAW organized two consultations on new figures of learning in the digital context. For a proposed journal issue on the theme of 'bodies of knowledge' which draws upon these conversations, participants were invited to write short sketches on these figures of learning. Tejas Pande wrote an abstract which examines the figure of the visual designer, and emerging practices of mapmaking.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The publication has been finalised and is being printed. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

January 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; January 31, 2015).

Event Organized

Training of Malayalam eSpeak with NVDA (Co-organized by CIS, DAISY Forum of India and Chakshumathi Assistive Technology Centre; Thiruvananthapuram; January 24-25, 2015).

Other

Blog Entries

Disability Exceptions in Copyright Legislations (Rishika; January 12, 2015).
Response to RTI Applications from Different States on Accessibility (Anandhi Viswanathan; January 31, 2015).

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Pervasive Technologies

As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Maggie Huang conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings from the samples are highlighted in four part series. The third and fourth parts have been published:

Blog Entries

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 2 Literature Review on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 1, 2015).
Relationship between App Developers and App Platforms: An Intellectual Property Perspective (Anubha Sinha; January 7, 2015).
Beyond Alcohol and Angel Investors: Building Business Models in an Age of Mobile Music Streaming (Conference Learnings) (Maggie Huang; January 20, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: The Development of the National IPR Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 22, 2015).
RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 31, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 31, 2015).

Participation in Events

Global Intellectual Property Convention (Organized by ITAG Solutions; Mumbai; January 15 - 17, 2015). Rohini Lakshané attended the event.
Library and Information Professionals Summit (LIPS) 2015 (Organized by Society for Library Professionals, National Law University Delhi with UN Information Centre for India & Bhutan and Special Library Association (USA), Asian Chapter; January 23 - 24, 2015; New Delhi). Nehaa Chaudhari was on a panel discussing Internet Technology and Challenges for Libraries in IPR Regime. She made a presentation on Technology (Internet?), Libraries and the Law (?).

Upcoming Event

Announcing the Institutional Partner for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015 (Organized by the National Law School of India University; New Delhi; December 2015).

Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Op-ed

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja, January 31, 2015).

Blog Entries

Telugu Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 (Rahmanuddin Shaik; January 31, 2015).

Telugu Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 (Rahmanuddin Shaik; January 31, 2015). The event was conducted on December 28, 2014. However, the blog post was published in January 2015.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web (Hans India; January 1, 2015).
Centre should partner local communities in 'Digital India': Expert (IANS and mirrored in Zee News; January 9, 2015).
Musician donates Gwalior Gharana songs to free e-library (Times of India; January 20, 2015).

Announcement

2015 Opensource.com Community Awards : Every year, Opensource.com awards people from our community who have excelled in contributing and sharing stories about open source. Subhashish Panigrahi from the CIS-A2K team won the award under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
CIS-A2K team also published the Telugu Wikipedia Stats tables. Most metrics have been collected from a partial dump (aka stub dump), which contains all revisions of every article, meta data, but no page content.

Participation in Event

Citizen Media Summit 2015 (Organized by Global Voices; January 24 - 25, 2015). Subhashish Panigrahi was a speaker.

Openness

Journal Article

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: The Intransigenc of STM Publishers (Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran; Indian National Science Academy Journals, Proc Indian Natn SciAcad 80 No. 5 December 2014 pp. 919-929).

Internet Governance

Articles and Blog Entries

Indians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; December 30, 2014). The article was published in the month of December but mirrored on CIS website in January.
Indian Netizens Criticize Online Censorship of 'Jihadi' Content (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; January 6, 2015).
Security and Surveillance - Optimizing Security while Safeguarding Human Rights (Elonnai Hickok; January 19, 2015).
Search Engine and Prenatal Sex Determination: Walking the Tight Rope of the Law (Geetha Hariharan and Balaji Subramanian; January 29, 2015).

Event Co-organized

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy (Organized by CIS and Observer Research Foundation; January 8, 2015, New Delhi). Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash, Elonnai Hickok, Bhairav Acharya and Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event.

Participation in Events

Symposium on Human Rights and the Internet in India (Organized by the Center for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg; New Delhi; January 17, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a panelist.
Winter School on Privacy, Surveillance and Data Protection (Organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg and the Hans Bredow; Delhi; January 19 - 23, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a facilitator.
ASSOCHAM National Council on IT / ITes (Organized by ASSOCHAM; New Delhi; January 30, 2015). Geetha Hariharan participated in the event.

Blog Entries

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act (Pranesh Prakash; December 15, 2014).
Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling (Tarun Krishnakumar; December 22, 2014).

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Government blocks 32 websites to check ISIS propaganda (Kim Arora; The Times of India; January 1, 2015).
Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites (Jaison Lewis; Mumbai Mirror; January 1, 2015).
India 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger (BBC; January 2, 2015). This was also mirrored in Puffington Post.
Govt cracks down on cyber jehad network, blocks access to 32 websites (India Today, January 1, 2015).
Indian Government still blocks 20+ websites - Indian Censorship on Internet (Times of Assam; January 2, 2015).
350% surge in Cyber crimes in last 3 years (Devanik Saha & Indiaspend.org; Hindustan Times; January 20, 2015).
TOI literary festival kicks off today (The Times of India; January 31, 2015).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

Staff Movement

Sumandro Chattapadhyay has joined CIS as Research Director. His academic interests span over topics of history and politics of informatics in India, new media and technology studies, and data infrastructures and economies. He is also keenly interested in questions and techniques of digital humanities. Recently, Sumandro has completed a study on policy and practices of open data in India as part of the Open Data Research Network managed by the World Wide Web Foundation. He is an involved member of DataMeet, a leading community of open data and data science enthusiasts from India. Sumandro studied economics in Visva-Bharati, Shantiniketan, and in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has variously worked on topics of urban development, information technology in governance, data visualisation, and early electronic governance in India with MOD Institute, Azim Premji University and the Sarai Programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

Blog Entry

Figures of Learning: The Visual Designer (Tejas Pande; January 30, 2015).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/january-2015-bulletin

Disability Exceptions in Copyright Legislations

rishi — 2015-01-12T02:14:53Z

In the year 2006, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conducted a study on different national approaches to copyright exception for persons with disabilities. Over 60 countries have an exception in their Copyright laws permitting conversion of works into accessible formats for the benefit of persons who cannot read print. The scope of the exception varies, in terms of the beneficiaries covered, formats permitted, restrictions on who can convert, etc.

On June 28, 2013 the Marrakesh Treaty was signed by 51 countries, to facilitate the creation of accessible copyrighted works for the disabled. The treaty, however, will not come into force until 20 countries ratify it. India, in June 2013, became the first country to ratify it. In this report, we aim to provide an update to the 2006 WIPO study, whereby all relevant details, including whether the countries are signatories to the Treaty are given in a simplified manner. This is to ensure that the information is readily accessible in a simple and comprehensive table for all readers.

A consolidated list of copyright legislations can be found here. See table below for the country-wise exceptions.

Country-wise Exceptions in Copyright Legislations

Country	Legislation	Scope	Works Covered	Formats covered	Who can convert	Marrakesh Treaty Signatory	Ratified UNCRPD
Armenia	Article 22 (h), Law on Copyright and Related Rights adopted by the National Assembly of Armenia on 15 June 2006	Persons who require Braille and other formats designed for blind people	Lawfully disclosed work, except those created for the blind	Braille and other special means for the blind	No restrictions	No	Yes
Australia	Sections 47A, 112, Part VB Division 3, 116A, The Copyright Act 1968 as amended up to 2014	Persons with print disability, persons who by reason of old age, disability or literary problems are unable to handle books or newspapers or to read or comprehend written material	Sound recordings of literary or dramatic works, published editions of literary or dramatic works,	Sound recordings, Braille, large print, photographic or electronic, sound broadcast	By body administering an institution assisting persons with print disability, persons holding print disability radio license	Yes	Yes
Austria	Section 42d, Federal law on Copyrights on Literary and Artistic works and Related Rights as amended up to 2011	Covers all 'disabled persons' however does not define who is disabled	Published works, which are not possible or it is substantially difficult on account of their disability for the person to access a published work	Any suitable format	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Azerbaijan	Article 19.6, Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1996 as amended up to 2013	Persons requiring Braille and other formats designed for blind people	Any lawfully disclosed works, except those created especially for the purpose	Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind	No restrictions	No	Yes
Belarus	Article 19, Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1998 as amended up to 2003	Persons requiring Braille and other formats designed for blind people	Any work other than those created especially for this purpose	Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind	No restrictions	No	Yes
Belize	Section 83, The Copyright Act, as amended up to 2008	Persons who are hearing-impaired, or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways	Television broadcasts or cable programs	Copies which are sub-titled or otherwise adapted for the special needs of the persons	A body designated for the purposes of this section by order of the Minister	No	Yes
Brazil	Section 46.I(d) of Law No 9610 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, 1998	Visually handicapped persons	Literary, artistic or scientific works	Braille or by means of another process using a medium designed for visually handicapped users	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Bulgaria	Articles 24(1)10, 24(2), 23, 25a(1) and 25a(2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1993 as amended up to 2006	Persons requiring Braille and analogous specialized formats	Lawfully disclosed works, except computer programs	Braille or other analogous formats	No restrictions	No	Yes
Cameroon	Section 29(1)(g) of Law No. 2000/011 on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 2000	Blind persons	Works published with the authorization of the author	Limited to Braille	No restrictions	Yes	Signed but not ratified
Canada	Section 32, Copyright Act, 1985 as amended up to 203	Persons with 'perceptual disability' and 'print disability' which is any disability which prevents or inhibits a person from reading or hearing a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work in its original format, including disability resulting from (a) severe or total impairment of sight or hearing or the inability to focus or move one's eyes; (b) the inability to hold or manipulate a book; (c) an impairment relating to comprehension.	Literary, musical or dramatic works other than cinematographic work and not where the work is commercially available in a format specially designed to meet the needs of a person with the disability	Formats specially designed for persons with a perceptual disability, but not large print books	Any person at the request of a person with a perceptual disability or non-profit organization acting for his or her benefit	No	Yes
China	Section 22(12), Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended up to 2010)	Persons requiring Braille	Published work and additionally applies to the rights of publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations	Braille	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Croatia	Sections 80, 86, 98, Copyright and Related Rights Act as amended up to 2013	Persons with disability.	Lawfully disclosed work	Any format required by the disabled person	No restrictions	No	Yes
Czech Republic	Article 38, Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright as amended up to 2006	Persons with disability	Lawfully published works with the exception of computer programs	Reproduction to the extent required by the specific disability	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Denmark	The Consolidated Act on Copyright, 2010	Blind, visually impaired and deaf people, people suffering from a speech impediment and people unable to read printed text on account of a handicap	Lawfully published works	Any format specifically intended for those with such disabilities	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Dominican Republic	Article 44, Law No 65-00, on Copyright of 21 August 2000	Sightless persons and persons with other physical disabilities. However, only public communication if permitted	Scientific, literary or artistic works	No reproduction is permitted	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
El Salvador	Article 44 (d) of the Law on Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property, 1993	Blind and other handicapped persons	All works of the mind including literary, scientific, artistic, musical and dramatic works. However, mere public communication is permitted and not reproduction	Reproduction is not permitted	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Estonia	Section 19, Copyright Act (as amended up to 2000)	Blind persons	Works made available to the public except those created especially for the blind.	Braille and other technical formats for the benefits of blind persons	No restrictions	No	Yes
Fiji	Section 185, Copyright Act 1999	People who are hearing-impaired or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways	Television broadcasts or cable programs	Copies which are sub-titled or otherwise modified for the benefits of the beneficiaries	Designated body	No	Signed but not ratified
Finland	Section 17, Copyright Act, 1961, as amended up to 2010	Persons with visual impairments and others who, owing to the disability or illness cannot use the works in the ordinary manner	Published literary or musical works	Text readable by visually impaired persons	No restrictions. However, sound recordings can be made only by institutions	Yes	Signed but not ratified
France	Articles L122-5 and L331-5 to L331-21 of the Intellectual Property Code as amended up to August 2006	Person with motor, psychological, hearing or visual disability which must be at least 50 % assessed against specified relevant standards	Any lawfully disclosed work	Any format used to the extent consistent with the nature of the disability	Disabled persons or organizations listed by the relevant administrative authority	Yes	Yes
Gabon	Article 33, Copyright Law	Persons with a disability including people who are visually impaired	Lawfully published work	Limited to formats for "welfare purposes"	No restrictions	No	Yes
Georgia	Article 23, Law of Georgia on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (as amended up to 2010)	Persons requiring Braille or other means for blind people	Lawfully disclosed work other than those specially created for use by blind people.	Relief dotted print or other special means for blind people	No restrictions	No	Yes
Germany	Articles, 45a, 63 and 95b, Copyright Act, 1965 as amended up to 2013)	Disabled persons	All works, except where the accessible version is available	Formats accessible to the disabled persons to the extent required	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Greece	Articles 28A, 28C and 66A, Law No. 2121/1993 on Copyright, Related Rights and Cultural Matters (as amended up to 2003)	Blind and deaf-mute persons	Any lawfully disclosed work	Formats directly related to the disability and specifically required by the disability	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Hungary	Articles 41(1) and 33, Act No LXXVI of 1999 on Copyright (as amended up to 2007)	Disabled persons	Any lawfully disclosed work	Formats designed specially to benefit the disabled	No restrictions	No	Yes
Iceland	Article 19, Copyright Act No 73 of 1972, as amended up to 2006	Blind and visually impaired persons	Published literary or musical works	Braille	No restrictions	No	Signed but not ratified
India	Section 52, Copyright Act 1957 (as amended up to 2012)	Disabled persons	Any lawfully disclosed works	Any accessible format	Any person to facilitate persons with disability to access works including sharing with any person with disability and any organization working for the benefit of the persons with disabilitites	Yes	Yes
Indonesia	Article 15d, Law of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Copyright, No 19 2002	Blind persons	Scientific, artistic and literary works	Braille	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Ireland	Sections 104, 106, 374, Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000	Persons with physical or mental disability	Any lawfully disclosed work	Modifications permitted to meet the special needs of a the disabled persons	A designated body	Yes	Signed but not ratified
Israel	Section 28A, Copyright Law, 2007	Persons with disabilities	Any lawfully disclosed work	Formatted to meet the needs of the disabled persons	Any Not for Profit Institution where one of its objectives or primary activities is education, training or welfare of persons with disabilities, A Government Office, or An educational institution determined by the Minister	No	Yes
Italy	Articles 71 bis and 71 nonies of the Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, (as amended up to 2010)	Persons with disability in the categories as defined by Ministerial decree	Any lawfully published work	Formats directly related to the disability and only to that extent	No restrictions, but could be set by Ministerial decree	No	Yes
Japan	Articles 33bis, 37, 48, Copyright Law as amended up to 2004	Visually handicapped persons and visually handicapped children/pupils	Works that have been lawfully disclosed and school textbooks (for children)	Braille, including electronically recorded Braille and Large prints	No restrictions found, Braille libraries and other establishments designated by the Cabinet order for sound recordings	No	Yes
Kazakhstan	Articles 19 and 16, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1996, as amended up to 2012	Blind persons and persons requiring Braille	Any work, except those created in special formats for the blind	Braille or other special means for the benefit of the blind	No restrictions	No	Signed but not ratified
Republic of Korea	Articles 30 and 34, Copyright Act No 3916, 1989 as amended up to 2013	Blind persons	Works that have been made public	Braille or sound recordings	No restrictions for Braille, sound recordings can be used only at facilities established for the promotion of the blind as prescribed by Presidential Decree	Yes	Yes
Kyrgyztan	Articles 19, 16, Law on Copyright and related Rights,1998 as amended up to 2014	Persons requiring Braille and Blind persons	Lawfully published works, except those created for this purpose	Braille copies or those produced by other means for blind persons	No restrictions	No	Signed but not ratified
Latvia	Sections 19, 22, Copyright Law as amended up to 2011)	Visually and hearing impaired persons	Any work published lawfully	Formats that permit a visually or hearing impaired person to use it	Organizations for the visually and hearing impaired and libraries providing services to such people are permitted to undertake this activity. However, other persons are not barred other than by limitations imposed	No	Yes
Lithuania	Article 25, Law on Copyright and Related Rights No VIII-1185, 1999 (As amended up to 2014)	Visually and hearing impaired persons	Lawfully published works other than those created in special formats for this purpose	In any format that would benefit the persons having hearing or visual impairment	No restrictions found	Yes	Yes
Macau	Articles 65, 66, Decree-Law No 43/99/M of 1999	Blind persons and those who require Braille	Published works and lectures by Professors	Braille copies or any other format for blind persons	No restrictions on making copies on Braille. However, fixation of lectures may be done only by the Blind persons	No	No
Malaysia	Section 13, Copyright Act 1987 as amended up to 2006	Persons who require Braille copies and persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, physically or mentally handicapped in other ways	Any published work, and television broadcasts	Braille copies and copies with subtitles or other modifications for the end beneficiaries	Braille copies can be used only by the Braille MAB Library, and for television broadcasts, bodies and institutions which the Minister has prescribed	No	Yes
Republic of Moldova	Article 22, Law of Republic of Moldova on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 2004	Blind persons	Published works except those created for this purpose	Braille only	No restrictions found	Yes	Yes
Mongolia	Article 24, Law of Mongolia on Copyright as amended up to 2006	Visually and hearing impaired persons	Lawfully published works	Any format that can be used by the disabled	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Netherlands	Articles 15i, 15c and 29a of the Copyright Act 1912 as amended up to 2008	Handicapped individuals	Literary, scientific and artistic works	Formats directly related to the handicap and necessary because of the handicap	No restrictions found	No	Signed but not ratified
New Zealand	Articles 69, 89, Copyright Act 1994 (version 2014)	A person with a print disability [as defined in Article 69(4)] and persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, or physically or mentally handicapped in any other way	For print disabled, literary or dramatic works and for others, television broadcasts or cable programmes	Braille copies or copies with other modifications for the special needs of the people, and copies that are subtitled or otherwise modified for the special needs	A body prescribed by regulations	No	Yes
Nicaragua	Articles 32 (2), Law on Copyright and Related Rights, 1999 (version 2001)	Visually impaired people	Any lawfully published work	Copies made using the Braille system or any other format necessary	No restrictions	No	Yes
Nigeria	Second Schedule, Copyright Act, 1988 No 47 (No. 42) (version 2004)	Blind people for Braille copies, disabled persons for sound recordings	Any lawfully published works	Braille copies or sound recordings	For sound recordings, only institutions or establishments approved by the Government for the promotion of the welfare of other disabled persons	Yes	Yes
Norway	Sections 17, 17a, 17b, 11, 53b and 12, of Act No 2, relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Etc (version 2005)	Blind persons and other disabled persons	Any published literary, scientific, musical work, film and, any published film or picture or transmitted broadcast program , except any work which has been made specifically for this purpose	For blind persons, any form other than a sound fixation and for the disabled, a fixation on a device that can reproduce the fixation.	No restrictions for the Blind, however, for the disabled, only organizations and libraries as specified by the Kind	Yes	Yes
Panama	Article 47 of Law No. 15 of 8 August 1994	Blind and other handicapped persons. Mere public communication is permitted	Any lawfully published work	No reproduction permitted, hence no accessible formats can be made	No restrictions founds	Yes	Yes
Paraguay	Articles 39 and 45, Law No. 1328/98 on Copyright and Related Rights	Visually handicapped persons	Lawfully disclosed work	Braille or another specific form for the use of visually handicapped	No restrictions found	Yes	Yes
Peru	Articles 43, 50 of Copyright Act- Legislative Decree No 822 of 23 April 1996	Blind people	Lawfully disclosed works	Braille or another specific format to assist blind persons	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Poland	Articles 33¹, 34, 35, Act on Copyright and Related Rights, 1994	Disabled persons	Lawfully disseminated works	No restrictions on the format; any format which is required by the disabled shall be permitted	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Portugal	Articles 75, 76, 80, 221, 222 of Copyright and Related Right as amended up to 2008	Blind people and people with disability	Lawfully published works	Braille or another system for blind people, and formats directly related to the disability	No restrictions	No	Yes
Russian Federation	Articles 19, 16 of Law of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1993	Persons needing access to Braille copies or other formats for the blind	Lawfully published works, other than those specifically created for this purpose	Braille copies or other special formats for the blind	No restrictions	No	Yes
Singapore	Sections 54, 261D of Copyright Act (Chapter 63) version 2008	Handicapped readers	Literary or dramatic works that have been published, and where the format has been published, it can be made under the exception that it is not possible to obtain the published copy in a reasonable time and at an ordinary commercial price	Sound recording, Braille copies, large print or photographic version	Body administering an institution assisting handicapped readers, which includes educational institutions	No	Yes
Slovakia	Sections 29, 25, 38 of Copyright Act, 2004	Handicapped persons	Lawfully disclosed works	Formats used exclusively for the needs of the handicapped people	No restrictions	No	Yes
Slovenia	Articles 47a, 46, 166c, Copyright and Related Rights Act, 1995 (amended up to 2001)	Persons with disability	Any work that is not available in the desired format	Formats used directly to assist the disability	No restrictions	Yes	Yes
Spain	Article 31, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, (amended up to 2011)	Blind persons	Lawfully disclosed works	Braille system or another specific method	No restrictions	No	Yes
Sweden	Articles 17, 52f of Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works	Persons with disability	Literary and musical works and works of visual art	Formats that can be used to assist the disabled	No restrictions, except for communication of any work to those with a disability, and making, distribution and communication of a sound recording, when the activity can only be undertaken by libraries and organizations as decided by the Government	No	Yes
Ukraine	Articles 21, 15, Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2011	Blind persons	Lawfully disclosed works	Braille only	No restrictions	No	Yes
Uzbekistan	Article 28, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, 1996 (2011 version)	Blind persons	Lawfully published works, except those specially created for blind people	Relief-dot font or other means for blind people	No restrictions	No	Yes
United Kingdom	Sections 31A to 31F, 74, 28, and 296ZE of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (2003 version)	Visually impaired people, people who are deaf or hard of hearing or physically or mentally handicapped in other ways.	Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or published editions, which a visually impaired person has in their lawful possession and which are not accessible to him because of the impairment, television broadcasts, including those delivered by a cable	Any accessible copy, and copies that are subtitled or otherwise modified for the special needs of the beneficiaries	(i) For making accessible copies of works that the person have in their possession, only the visually impaired or someone on his behalf; (ii) for making copies by approved bodies for supply to visually impaired persons, an approved body which is an educational establishment and (iii) for making subtitled or modified copies of broadcasts for supply, only a designated body	Yes	Yes
United States of America	Sections 121, 110 and 1201 of United States Code -Title 17, as amended up to 2004	Blind persons, or other persons with disabilities	(i) For making specialized formats by authorized entities, previously published, non dramatic literary work, but not standardized, secure or norm-referenced tests and related testing material, or computer programs, other than the portions in conventional human language that are displayed to users when the program is in use (ii) For publishers, instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools (iii) For transmission of performances of literary works to blind/handicapped persons, any literary work which has been published at least ten years prior to the date of performance	(i) Specialized formats, i.e, Braille, audio or digital texts, exclusively for use by blind people or people with other disabilities (ii) Copies of electronic files as described in legislation relating to individuals with disabilities. The copies must be used solely for reproduction and distribution of the contents in specialized formats (iii) Copies are not permitted except transmissions specifically designed for and primarily directed to blind or other handicapped persons who are unable to read normal printed material as a result of their handicap	(i) Activity must be by an authorized entity, which is non-profit organization or governmental agency that has primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind/persons with disabilities (ii) Activity by publisher of print instructional materials (iii) The transmission must be made through the facilities of a governmental body, a non-commercial educational broadcast station, a radio sub carrier authorization or a cable system	Yes	Signed but not ratified

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/disability-exceptions-in-copyright-legislations

India at Leisure: Media, Culture and Consumption in the New Economy

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T15:34:30Z

Maggie Huang attended the event and presented a paper titled “The Future of Music Streaming: Business Practices and Copyright Management in India”. The paper was co-authored by Maggie and Amba Kak.

A striking feature of India's ongoing transformations is the runaway success of one sector of its economy. This is India’s leisure economy, often overlapping with the media economy, which entails a range of pursuits from sports to movies, from texting to TV---all of which forming a significant constituent of the country’s social and economic social life. While various activities within this sector were almost entirely neglected by India’s early planners, fuelled by narrow conceptions of media as an instrument of the state, today they remain little understood by national scholars and international analysts. With this background, a bi-national working group of scholars from India and New Zealand emerged in 2013 to reflect on the dynamics of India’s media economy. To build on this, an international conference is being organized, under the inaugural round of the India New Zealand Education Council programme, to broaden reflections on the dynamics of media industries and practices of media-culture constituting India’s leisure economy.

For more see the original published by Jamia Milla Islamia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-at-leisure

Announcing the Institutional Partner for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

sinha — 2015-01-07T13:34:51Z

We are pleased to announce that National Law University, Delhi will be hosting the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest in December 2015.

About National Law University, Delhi

National Law University, Delhi ("NLU-D") is a premier law school located in Dwarka, Delhi. NLU-D aspires to be a University producing stellar research and has already undertaken steps in that direction. The excellent infrastructure offered to its students is in sync with progress on the academic front. The University regularly plays host to international and national events.

About the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest ("Global Congress") was instituted in 2011 at Washington D.C. Since its inception, three editions of the Global Congress have engaged national and international governmental entities, the private sector, civil society, and academia in providing perspectives and future scenarios for intellectual property, innovation and development.

Global Congress, December 2015: Save the date

We will soon announce the exact dates for the Global Congress to be hosted in December 2015. Please share with us funding proposals for conferences/events and details of potential funders, or help out with funding, if possible.

You may contact the following CIS members to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:

CIS Global Congress Planning Team

Anubha Sinha- anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj- nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang- maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash- pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane- rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham- sunil@cis-india.org
Nehaa Chaudhari- nehaa@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/announcing-the-institutional-partner-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015

India Public Libraries Conference

praskrishna — 2015-01-07T02:02:57Z

The India Public Libraries Conference is being held from March 17 to 19, 2015 at the India International Centre in New Delhi. It is being organized by DELNET and Digital Empowerment Foundation. The Centre for Internet & Society is a Knowledge Partner for this conference.

IPLC 2015 : Invitation of Best Practices

Applications are invited from public libraries run by the government, communities, civil society and others in India that are doing good works innovatively in public library management in areas of – content and services, better management of resources, citizen engagement, library staff development, new methods, applications and strategies, use of technology including digital library initiatives, partnership development and in other ways that have served the citizens, communities, local agencies and others better.

For more see India Public Libraries Conference website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-public-libraries-conference

Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web

praskrishna — 2015-01-01T14:49:05Z

Andhra Loyola College in association with Centre for Internet and Society (CIS- A2K) is conducting a six-day camp titled ‘Wiki Winter’ at Wikipedia Lab in the campus.

Click to read the PDF of the original article published by Hans India here.

The camp will conclude on Wednesday. Around 45 volunteers from BSc (Physics) and BA (Telugu) streams are attending the camp. The students are being trained to be the contributors for Wikipedia and they are authorised to add, edit and delete articles in Wikipedia using validated user ids.

The articles in the field of Physics which are not in Telugu language are being prepared by the students. The articles are scrutinised by experts from other parts of the world and are accepted on permanent basis. The students of BA (Telugu) are preparing the classical works of Kandukuri Veerasalingam. His works are being digitalised and are made available to people.

Kola Sekhar of Department of Telugu and the organising secretary said that Kandukuri Veerasalingam is a well-known social activist and a writer. His works reflected the social evils prevailing in the society which are still relevant today. The solutions Veerasalingam showcased through his works are not available to current generation. This camp aims to put his works online. Sekhar said that they would strive hard to add more and more classical works in Telugu to the Wikipedia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/the-hans-india-december-31-2014-works-of-veerasalingam-pantulu-on-web

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 2 Literature Review on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices

Amulya Purushothama and Nehaa Chaudhari — 2015-09-03T02:02:51Z

This note is the second document in the series of Working Documents that I will be creating for my research under the Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace (“PT Project”).

View the first document here. Note: The research was for this blog post was done by Amulya Purushothama which wasn't acknowledged earlier.

Preliminary

This note will serve as the literature review for my research paper under this project. This note- to be revised periodically- maps the existing literature around questions of competition law intersecting with intellectual property law on the specific issue of enabling access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices; which might be impaired as a result of intellectual property protections, particularly standard essential patents.

This note will explore the literature around the relationship between intellectual property and competition law; with a specific focus on the antitrust/competition concerns that arise around the licensing of standard essential patents. This note will study the approach adopted in other jurisdictions in the employment of existing mechanisms in competition law as possible solutions to issues with the licensing of standard essential patents.

Literature Review

Smartphones and Access to knowledge.

The Avendus Capital report[1] on mobile data usage in India provides important information about mobile internet users in India. Particularly the striking fact that more than half of the internet users in India use it on their low cost mobile phone and that access to these phones therefore becomes a step toward access to the internet. John Harmen Valk and others [2] have through their report demonstrated how mobile phones with internet access have been used to further educational outcomes in India and Asia and underscores the idea that access to such technology is important.

Competition Law and Intellectual Property

Academic writing around the nexus between intellectual property law and competition law presents varied perspectives; particularly on the question of whether they each acted as incentives for innovation, or whether competition law hindered innovation that intellectual property (seemingly) promoted. This narrative does not question a more fundamental concept; of whether intellectual property protections necessarily incentivized innovation; but takes that as the underlying assumption that they do.

Gitanjali Shankar and Nitika Gupta have noted that antitrust law and intellectual property have in the past seen to diverse and work against each other with different approaches to monopoly and that the two have also been viewed as related to each other in so far as intellectual property has been viewed as one of the tools to regulate competition in the market place. they propose that if the latter approach is taken and the two branches of law are seen to converge, two guidelines must be followed in to balance the various interests and ensure clarity, first that IP laws must only be extended by legislation and not through judicial interpretation, the second that when two interpretations are available during the enforcement of any intellectual property, that interpretation must be chosen which is in line with encourages the free market and promotes fair competition.

They have argued that both antitrust law and intellectual property have separate operational areas and their functions must be kept independent of each other. They argue that the domain of intellectual property concerns the assignment and defense of intellectual property rights and the domain of antitrust deals with the use and exercise of such rights within the market. They argue that competition law does not call into question that basis of IPRs that it doesn't question the exclusivity of legal rights, merely their abuse which results in unfair trade practices. They argue that the distance between economic and legal monopolies should be maintained and these fall within the domains of antitrust law and intellectual property respectively. They further argue that antitrust law exists to ensure that the IPR owner does not abuse his rights and thus bolsters intellectual property rights. [3]

Robert Pitofsky while reviewing a work of Prof. Mark Lemley explains that while anti-trust laws and intellectual property laws have the same long term goals of incentivizing innovation and investment in innovation, they are bound to conflict with each other in the short term as anti-trust law seeks to achieve this goal via limiting the possibilities of a monopoly and further ensuring that monopolies do not abuse the power they enjoy in the market place. Antitrust policies assume that the free market will fairly allocate resources and thereby encourage innovation efficiently. Pitofsky goes on to state that intellectual property on the other hand believes in rewarding innovation and thereby incentivizing investing in innovation, intellectual property is basically a grant of limited monopolies to ensure that costs of innovation are recovered and product quality is maintained. He argues that it is critical to ensure that patents are granted after thorough analysis to ensure a balance between anti-trust policies and intellectual property rights and to ensure that the larger goals of incentivizing innovation are achieved.[4]

Katrina Perehudoff and Sophie Bloemen have argued that anti-competitive strategies such as defensive patenting (the creation of weak and frivolous patents around their main patent) and vexatious litigation (the use of litigation as a threat to smaller and medium enterprises who cannot afford costs of litigation) have ensured that the bestselling originators medicine dominates the market for artificially long periods of time ensuring that the company therefore profits at the expense of public interest and obstructs widespread access, it is argued that such practices go against the aims of the patent system which were to ensure that the innovator could recoup costs of invention and in fact hamper incentives to invent. [5] It is submitted that while in this instance the discussion of defensive patenting as well as holding out is in the context of healthcare, similar trends have been witnessed in the space of technological patents as well. With standard essential patents for instance, there exists a very real danger of frivolous litigation and hold-outs ensuring market dominance by larger players, forcing out smaller and medium sized enterprises.

While acknowledging that intellectual property law and competition law might both seek to achieve a common goal of incentivizing innovation, Daniel Ravicher and Shani Dilloff have argued that the scrutiny of intellectual property exploitation from an antitrust perspective lacks economic and political merit. They argue that governments and courts have time and again preferred to enforce antitrust policy at the expense of enforcing intellectual property rights as evidenced by the cases of International Salt Co. v. United States[6], United States v. Lowe's Inc. [7], and Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc.[8] among others. They argue that the law depends on the flawed assumption that intellectual property confers upon the rights holder some kind of market power through creation of monopolies as evidenced by Jefforson Parish Hospital District No.2 v. Hyde[9] and the U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines on licensing of intellectual property[10] and is therefore in the wrong.

They argue that no such power is conferred on the rights holder because intellectual property rights do not confer monopolies so much as they ensure that a certain standard of uniqueness is assured, and that this standard of uniqueness falls short of the uniqueness required to obtain monopoly power within a market. They argue that IPRs do not grant the ability to raise prices above the competitive level and do not grant the right to exclude a rival or to exclude new entrants in the field, they only grant a right to prohibit others from exploiting their creation in an unfair manner and provide for sufficient limitations and exceptions to ensure that fair exploitation of their works is still allowed. And therefore while sound economic theory that ensures free marketplace through government regulation underlies most of antitrust policy, scrutiny of intellectual property through an antitrust point of view is economically flawed.

In a departure from other perspectives, the authors in this paper also argue that the factors affecting the employment of antitrust policies are not entirely legal; and that this preference is often a reflection of non-meritorious factors such as arguable predictions for the future, difference in financial stability of the competing parties, the political persuasion of the decision maker or the posturing of the parties and the courts being simply hostile to intellectual property rights and is unfair to intellectual property owners. They further argue that this preference is politically indefensible as it undermines the intent of the legislature. They argue that because of these things the case law so far that deals with this conflict is unreliable, unpredictable and not credible. They lastly argue that the solution out this conflict is to ensure economic efficiency by exempting intellectual property rights from scrutiny based on antitrust policies.[11]

Robert Anderson argues that IPRs do not inherently confer market power on rights holders and that in many cases restrictions on licensing could encourage competitive behavior and economic efficiency while not losing sight of the fact that IPRs can result in anti-competitive behavior in certain circumstances, particularly in context of network industries and that competition law must respond to these issues. This paper also makes a reference to the Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement"), and the provision that it makes that allow member countries to curb anticompetitive practices through Article 8.2 and Article 40 and thus catering to the interests of developing nations. The paper also notes that the TRIPS Agreement does not set out a specific list of practices that should be treated as abuses. Further, this paper goes on to analyse intellectual property regimes in the US, Canada, Japan and the EU and concludes that the US has maintained a liberal environment for granting of intellectual property rights while being cautious of abuse of IPRs for anticompetitive purposes, that Canada on the other hand has been suspicious of legislative efforts to curb the proper use of IPRs that the EU has adopted a far stricter approach to the issue to achieve market integration, and that Japan has chosen a somewhat middle path by providing for a case by case evaluation of practices. It is argued that certain restraints on international trade such as the restriction on parallel importation due to IPRs segment markets and is harmful to trade and collective innovation and some mechanism for exhausting of these rights must be considered. [12] This cross jurisdictional analysis is particularly useful, and will be examined in detail in my research paper.

Elieen Mc Dermott, in a discussion on FTC public hearings in December 2008 to discuss the overlap between intellectual property laws and antitrust and competition laws, identifies that Innovation Alliance, an organization that represents technology patent owning companies put forward three principles to govern antitrust policies, the first to define antitrust policy to promote consumer welfare and to limit its role to conduct that has "a demonstrable anticompetitive effect", second to bring on board the diverse range of interests and business models involved and third to ensure that principles behind patent law have evolved before allowing antitrust enforcement agency involvement in patent cases.[13] This submission by Innovation Alliance will now be studied in greater detail while attempting a submission on India's stance on competition law issues in the licensing of standard essential patents.

Herbert Hovenkamp has argued that for most of history, antitrust law and intellectual property law have undermined their own purpose of encouraging innovation by protecting too much, whether it is the shielding of inefficient business from competition or the shielding of IPRs beyond what is necessary to incentivize innovation, in both cases the consumer is harmed and the costs of innovation increases. He argues that while it is good that we have lately come to view patents as a kind of property as opposed to a kind of monopoly, since there is no real proof that patents lead to market power, we haven't extended to patents the same kind of conditions we extend to other kinds of property, like the obligation to define the boundaries of ownership another being the obligation to ensure that notice of the claim to property is rendered in time, neither of these obligations, he says, are imposed upon patent holders. He states that this leads to over protection and wastage of state resources.

He goes on to offer a few principles for antitrust in innovation intensive markets that involve exercise of patent rights; the first being that the purpose of antitrust must not be to fix defects in other regimes, but only to correct private markets, second that any antitrust or intellectual property intervention is justified only when congress or a tribunal has a reason for thinking that such an intervention is necessary to ensure more competition or more innovation, third is that many IP practices do not conflict with antitrust laws and antitrust policies shouldn't intervene in such cases, fourth that innovation provides society with more gains than simple production and trading under constant technology and therefore, when we have to choose between innovation and competition, we must choose innovation, fifth that innovation is more than what is simply defined under intellectual property law and at times, when practices seem clearly anti-competitive and IP statutes do not provide us with answers, we should consider antitrust policies as guidelines, sixth that IP protections can at times protect competition more efficiently than antitrust legislation, seventh that IP law must constantly examine its roots as antitrust legislation has and ensure that any expansion of IPR is well thought out.[14]

John Barton examines antitrust treatment of oligopolies that use IPRs defensively to block new entrants into the market. These oligopolists each have substantial patent portfolios that are infringed by its competitors but never a matter of litigation as there is the fear of counter litigation. Therefore there is an implied licensing of patent portfolios among the oligopolists. It is further argued that under systems like this, while there is an incentive for firms to acquire more patents to build defensive portfolios, there is no incentive to actually carry out new research therefore firms will obtain patents on existing research base and therefore this stunts innovation. Further oligopolists holding cross-infringing patents may put up entry barriers for new entrants and thereby dis-incentivize innovation. Due to all of these reasons, the paper argues for patent law reform and appropriate application of antitrust analysis to ensure that the IP system encourages innovation.[15]

Essential Facilities Doctrine

This section of the note looks at the literature surrounding the Essential Facilities Doctrine- an aspect of antitrust law that is employed in order to adjudge behavior as anticompetitive or the lack thereof.

Essential facilities doctrine is an aspect of antitrust law that imposes a duty upon firms that have patents/ copyrights or trade secrets with regard to an essential facility to ensure that they do not put in place a monopoly and make the facility available to their rivals. In the context of IPRs, an essential facilities doctrine functions in a way that is equivalent to compulsory licensing regimes. Different jurisdictions adopt different standards and approaches to the employment of this doctrine. By tracking the literature around this doctrine, these different approaches across jurisdictions will be studied, including landmark cases, and submissions made in the research paper on whether this doctrine may be employed in India - specifically to adjudge whether there was a case to be made out for anti -competitive behavior in the smartphone wars on standard essential patents.

MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T[16] is the landmark case with regard to the essential facilities doctrine, in this case MCI argued that AT&T's switching equipment was an essential facility and access to such an essential facility was necessary to conduct telemarketing business. The court in this case laid down the necessary elements to establish a claim to essential facilities:

a) Control of an essential facility by a monopolist

b) Competitors inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility

c) The denial of the use of the facility to a competitor and

d) The feasibility of providing the facility.[17]

Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro have argued that a unilateral refusal to deal (which is often one of the conditions that needs to be met before the essential facilities doctrine is employed) can be justified in the context of profit-maximizing firms in certain cases such as: cases where the owner of the facility wants to ensure a certain level of service quality with his facility, cases where the owner wants to prevent free riding, prevent new entrants into the market, cases where the owner wants to promote price discrimination in the sale of the final product, and cases where the owner is not adequately compensated for licensing out his essential facility. These justifications it is argued increase economic efficiency in the market, ensure quality of services rendered, increase incentives for investment and innovation etc. It is further argued that in the long run, it is more economically efficient for companies to refuse to deal rather than to set higher prices, simply because in a system where one cannot refuse to deal, the incentive for firms to misrepresent their actual costs to obtain licenses etc., and further that an obligation to license can have negative effects on economic welfare, it can reduce welfare in the short run by forcing inefficient licensing, it can also reduce welfare in the long run by reducing incentives for innovation and investment and creation of intellectual property.[18]

Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson and Jonathan Hooks on the other hand have argued in support of the essential facilities doctrine and supported the use of this doctrine in cases concerning intellectual property rights, the authors here argued that the harshness of the anticompetitive effects of denial of access take precedence over business justifications, especially when specific animus to injure a rival has been proven. The authors argued that while it was important to ensure that the doctrine was not expanded to include a vague and amorphous set of rights, it was important to ensure that the monopolists arguments against the doctrine should not succeed regardless of the nature of the essential facility, whether it is intellectual property or even if the case did not involve vertically related markets.[19]

Paul Maquardt and Mark Leddy in their response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks argued that it is not anticompetitive behavior if the normal enforcement of an intellectual property right results in market power is getting skewed in favor of the rights holder, and the intellectual property rights should not be limited by compulsory licensing. They have argued that the essential facilities doctrine should only apply in cases where the rights holder attempts to leverage his exclusionary rights from the market in which the innovation competes into a related market or in cases of abuse of those rights because in cases where the rival is competing directly with the facility incorporating the intellectual property protection, the rights holder would not be damaging incentives to innovate as he would in cases of abuse or in cases of leveraging the protection to attain profits in a related field. They argue that to force compulsory licensing in other cases where the rival is in direct competition to the right holder would harm incentives to innovate and create intellectual property, a goal that both intellectual property rights and anti-trust laws are supposed to achieve. [20]

Martin Cave and Peter Crowther have argued that the European Commission seems to have embraced the essential facilities doctrine quite well despite not properly codifying the criteria used to determine whether a facility is essential and access to this facility should be mandatory. They have found that in the U.S., a) the courts have decided the question of whether or not a facility is "essential" on the basis of whether new entrants to the field would be able to duplicate the facility as evidenced by the cases of MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T[21] and Hecht v. Pro Football Inc It is as yet undecided at what point a refusal to deal in a facility will render the rival without an alternative option. In Camco Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg.[22]it was decided that a facility was essential insofar as alternatives were inferior. There is no requirement of a duplication of the facility to be impossible as evidenced from Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States[23] . They have also found that as per Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. [24], there is no general duty to deal on the monopolists. They have also found that liability under the essential facilities doctrine can be found in the presence of the following conditions: a) control of an essential facility by a monopolist, b) a competitor's inability to duplicate the facility, c) the denial of the use of the facility to the rival, and d) the feasibility of providing the facility

Under analysis of the law in Australia, they found that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 proscribes taking advantage of a substantial degree of market power for the purpose of a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor, b) preventing the entry of a person into a market or c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in a market. They found two important cases in Australian law, Queensland Wire, the first Australian case to consider adopting the US essential facilities doctrine which ruled that the monopolistic firm couldn't refuse to sell facilities to the smaller firm if had been subject to competition in the supply of that product while not actually mentioning the essential facilities doctrine, the second case of importance would be Pont Data litigation where Pont Data wanted to supply stock exchange information which the Australian Stock Exchange had a monopoly on, the court on appeal held that ASX should be ordered to supply information but "on terms designed to obtain a broad and substantial justice between parties"

They have further argued that there is even less certainty in respect of the price at which access to an essential facility should be made available. This is evidenced by their study of the laws in New Zealand. They found that in New Zealand the landmark judgment to study would be the Privy Council judgment in Clear Telecommunications Ltd v. Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. This case arose out of a dispute between the state owned telecom which monopolized the public telecommunication system and Clear a new entrant into the market after Telecomwas privatized. The dispute mainly concerned about the price which Clear should pay Telecom for providing access to the Telecom network, while Clear argued that it should only be required to pay Telecom for the direct costs of providing access, Telecom held that Clear should pay the equivalent of profits which telecom would lose by granting access- the opportunity costs. The Privy Council agreed with Telecom in that insofar as Clear had not proved that it would be forced to pay monopoly prices because it was paying opportunity costs, it had not been proved that there were any entry barriers to the market.

In their analysis of the European Union, these authors found that Article 86 prohibits the abuse of the dominant position within a common market by under takings that consist in particular of a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or unfair trading conditions, b) limiting production markets… to the prejudice of consumers, c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions. The European Court of Justice has already decided that dominance can be assessed by a reference to the dependence of the consumer on the supplier inCommercial Solvents v. Commission. [25] And in Hugin v. Commission[26] The court first mentioned essential facilities in the United Brands case[27] where the ECJ held that the charging of discriminatory prices against and the refusal to supply a longstanding customer and distributor who had taken part in a sales campaign on behalf of a competitor had infringe article 86. Therefore if a firm acts in such a way that it could possibly affect rivals by precluding access to an essential facility, it would be an abuse of intellectual property.[28]

Albertina Albors-Llorens has reported on the recent judgment of the ECJ in Oscar Bronner CmbH and Co. KG v.Mediaprint Zeitungs -und Zeitschriftenverlag CmbH & Co. KG and others[29], the ECJ in this case has defined "essential facilities" as a "facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers"[30] under the doctrine, any dominant undertaking that owns or controls an essential facility and refuses without an objective justification [31] to make the facility available to its competitors or makes it available under discriminatory terms abuses its position of dominance. The court here distinguished the case from earlier case law including the case of Commercial Solvents and from the Magill case[32] where the court held that copyright holders who published guides of television programmes for their channels refused to license an independent company which wanted to publish a comprehensive television program guide had based their position of dominance and prevented a the emergence of a new beneficial product to the consumer and therefore it was not objectively justified and that it was otherwise impossible for Magill to obtain the information that was essential to carry on its business. She reports that the court in Bronner held that this case was distinguished from the precedent as there were less advantageous methods of distribution available and it wasn't impossible forBronner to set up their own home delivery system.[33]

Gregory Gundlach and Paul Bloom have analyzed the history of the essential facilities doctrine and cases refusals to deal , they have noted the refusal by Microsoft to deal with firms seeking to provide compatible software products and share its knowledge of its key operating systems for IBM compatible computers and its investigation by the Federal Trace Comission (FTC). They trace back the essential facilities doctrine from the case of United States v. Grinnel Corporation[34] which held that monopolization necessarily had to include the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and the acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of superior product, business acumen or historic accident. Preventing a rival from accessing an essential facility was held to be evidence suggestive of intent to monopolize and a challenge to the Sherman Act. They argue that this doctrine presents a challenge to marketers as they now have to ensure that they don't compete themselves into antitrust challenges, ensure that rivals don't attempt to free ride on their research and investment, they argue that while forcing firms to enable their rivals to access their essential facilities is at odds with the idea of competitive behavior, prudent application of this doctrine may ensure that welfare is substantially enhance and innovation is encouraged. They propose that the duty to deal be imposed only when commercial viability of the rival is at stake as a measure of protecting the rights of the firms. They also propose that new modes of competition such as strategic alliances, long term partnership be kept in mind before when forming future policy development in the area. [35]

Spencer Weber Waller and William Tasch have compared the law in the US with the law in the European Union and several other countries, and argue that there is a growing international consensus that it is sometimes appropriate to require a regime of nondiscriminatory access to infrastructure and related facilities. They have pointed out that common law countries and civil law countries have responded to the issue in different ways, for example, Germany has dealt with the issue by passing the German Act Against Restraints that contains provisions regarding abuse of dominant position in refusal to allow other undertakings access to essential facilities without proper justification. South Africa, they note has adopted a two pronged approach to unilateral refusal to deals, one through the South African Competition act that prohibits refusals to deal and another through the same legislation that prohibits refusal to supply scarce goods to a competitor when supplying those goods is economically feasible. They argue that since the essential facilities doctrine has become an accepted law in most competition jurisdictions, the US must work to harmonize their laws with the rest of the world to ensure better trade practices. [36]

Daniel E Troy has argued that post the Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc. case, jurisprudence in competition law shifted from intent to the actions of the monopolists. He argues that there are no clear rules regarding when the essential facilities doctrine should be invoked or a consensus as to what the doctrine requires once invoked. He proposes that the resulting confusion be resolved by ensuring that the essential facilities doctrine cover all arbitrary refusals to deal when such a refusal threatens the commercial viability of the rival party, or when access to the facility is necessary for entry into the market or when duplication of the facility exceeds the standard cost of entry.[37]

Howard Shelanski has argued that unilateral refusal to deal must be susceptible to antitrust scrutiny, he argues that neither economics not IP policy considerations provide a sound basis for exempting refusals to supply IP from antitrust laws on unilateral refusals to deal. He argues that while there may be a case for treating IPRs different on some occasion that should be based on logical links between IP and the considerations that weigh against antitrust mandates to deal in any property: deterrence of innovation, investment or precompetitive conduct.[38]

Royalty Stacking in Smartphone Industry

Ann Armstrong, Joseph J Mueller and Timothy D Syrett[39] have collected and analysed data on the royalty burdens to be faced by a standard smartphone supplier and the adverse effects royalty stacking might have on competition in the smart phone industry. It is an article rich in detail and carefully explains the costs of each of the components that make up a smartphone, in doing so they also trace the mobile phone Standard Essential Patents (SEP) litigation occurring in United States of America (USA). They conclude that royalties demands on a smartphone could exceed the cost of the devices components, and that due to royalty stacking, costs of patent royalties act as an entry barrier for many suppliers thereby limiting competition in the market. They have argued that in calculating the royalty for a component, licensees, advocates and courts should base their conclusions on the price of the component and not on percentage of sales price of the entire smartphone which is the current practice. They have argued that this valuation is even more important for standardized technologies because patent holders usually only have a small slice of the declared patents for a particular standard and where that standard is just one of the many supported by the device. They present data to prove that when royalties are so vigorously calculated, they turn out to be a fraction of what patent-holders claim. This article was used mostly for background information on how royalty stacks work and how FRAND prices must ideally be calculated, and as a source of information on litigation surrounding royalty stacking in USA.

Damien Geradin in his articles[40] on pricing abuses by SEP holders in SSOs in EU and USA documents the evolution of competition law in these courts and the work of the Federal Trade Commission in this regard. He examines the role of the FTC in quite some detail, and this article provided important background information on the question of the potential role of the CCI.

Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola[41] have argued that in creating a right enabling environment for the ICT, one of the goals of regulation is to create a stable, open and future-proof environment that encourages access and doesn't limit it.

Tracing Mobile Phone SEP Litifation:Treatment by European Commission and Federal Trade Commission

Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato[42] have inquired into the question of whether SSOs provide for an environment of exploitation and abuse due to royalty stacking, weak enforcement of FRAND terms, and hold-ups. They have identified three criteria for the establishment/adoption of an industry standard - first, that it is a set of technical specifications; second, that these technical specifications provide a common design; and third, that the common design provided may be for a product or a process. These criteria have been used in the paper.

Michael A Carrier in his article[43] focuses on the smartphone industry and the ongoing patent and FRAND licensing litigation wars. He traces court rulings on holdups and injunctions granted on SEPs and discusses EC investigations into Motorola and Samsung in detail. This article was useful in that it provided for a good resource on recent judgments surrounding FRAND Licensing and SEP litigations focusing on the smartphone industry.

Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro[44] in their article demonstrate that even a threat to obtain a permanent injunction enhances the patent holders negotiating power, leading to royalty rates that exceed a natural benchmark based on the value of the patented technology and the strength of the patent. They argue that such overcharging occurs more noticeably in the case of weak patents covering a minor feature of the product with a sizeable price/cost margin. They present data to show that these holdup problems are reduced if courts regularly grant stays to permanent injunctions. , that they are magnified in the presence of royalty stacking, and that royalty stacking can become a huge problem especially in a standard setting context. This article was useful in understanding the holdup issues with regard to SEPs and the effect of royalty stacking.

Lemley and Shapiro in another article[45] have argued that one method of efficiently settling FRAND disputes would be to impose an obligation on the SEP owner to entire into a binding final offer decided in arbitration with any willing licensee to determine the royalty rate. This article provided important insights into the holdup problem and possible solutions that could be considered.

Phillipe Baechtold in his presentation[46] makes the argument that the central problem with the approach to solving the issue of ensuring Standard Setting organisations achieve interoperability and allow for licensing on FRAND terms is that a problem with patent laws is being solved in a manner that focuses other legal systems such as competition law, health law etc. He argues that there is a need to address these issues within the patent system itself. This article has been used to understand different solutions to the issue that have been proposed so far.

Richard Schmalensee[47] in his article argues that competition policy should not favour patent holders who would use their patents to stop innovation and that SSOs should determine standards based on lower post-standard royalty rates. The claim of interest in his article is that in the absence of a deceptive act, it would be difficult to prove in a case that a differing standard could have been adopted had there been a full disclosure of patent.

Gertjan Kuipers[48] has provided a useful resource on the Apple v Samsung cases in Netherlands and this has been useful to understand non-disclosure of patents as an anti-competitive practice within SSOs. Leon Greenfields article that surveys non-US decisions on SEP disputes also makes for a useful resource in the same regard. [49]

In their article, Damien Neven and Miguel de la Mano[50] discuss the activities of the Directorate General for Competition at the European Commission during the course of one year and discuss cases and policy developments during that time. It served as a useful resource on cases relating to violation of FRAND Commitments and in understanding the functioning of SSOs.

Bjorn Lundgvist[51] has analysed EU and US antitrust/competition law, and argued that Orange Book Standard case where it was held that abuse of dominant position is a valid claim if a patentee refuses to conclude a license agreement on non discriminatory and non-restrictive terms, is problematic as the potential licensee only has the option of paying the customary royalty rate or accepting the rate that the patentee offers by applying "reasonable excercised discretion" and that this doesn't give much leeway for licensees to question the validity of the rate.

James Abell[52] documents cases in the US federal courts regarding standards development organisations, antitrust law and fraud his analysis of the Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm Inc., was particularly well done and proved to be useful in tracing SEP litigation in the US. Koren W Wong Ervin [53] in her important article traces SEP litigation across the world in various countries. This makes for an important resource on the subject as it serves as a primer on SEP litigation in many jurisdictions including China, Japan, India, EU and the US among others.

Mobile Phone SEP Litigation in India

Ravikant Bharadwaj in his article[54] provides a broad overview of standard setting in India and the competition and IPR issues associated with it. He makes the important argument that once an industry standard has been set, and since the goal is to ensure inter-operability, denial of access to these standards on FRAND terms could become barriers to trade.

Anubha Sinha[55] in her report on Spicy IP traces the Ericsson- Micromax dispute at the Competition Commission of India (CCI), this has been used as a background document to trace the timeline in the dispute while tracing mobile phone SEP litigation in India.

Prashanth Reddy in his article [56] argues against interim injunctions stating that these injunctions should be used as an exception and not as a matter of a rule. He argues that in many cases courts either don't provide reasoning or provide insufficient reasoning behind orders granting injunctions. He argues that protection of IPRs cannot be a convincing reason on its own in this context particularly because patent infringement cases are complicated and can only be decided after a full trial and appreciation of evidence. In this context, he argues that issuing interim injunctions as a matter of course is a harmful practice that must be done away with.Vaibav Choukse makes a very similar argument in his article as well.[57]

John E Matheson in his article[58] seeks to understand how standards must be developed and what best practices can be followed by India in forming its IPR policy. He specifically argues that the litigation costs that invariably occur during hold ups and reverse hold ups ensure that smaller companies and newer start-ups ultimately give in to patentees who enjoy more market power and can bear the litigation costs for as long as it takes.

Pankaj Soni and Satyoki Koundinya in their article[59] outline the questions at the heart of the mobile phone FRAND disputes and focus on the disputes in India including Ericsson-Micromax, Intex, Vringo and Asus and ZTE disputes providing a fairly comprehensive timelines of the same. They argue that the threat of injunctions often bring licensees to the discussion table which otherwise would not have happened and that disallowing this would disincentivise patentees from disclosing their patents. This article makes important arguments in terms of what would incentivize pro-competitive behavior and how policy surrounding holdups could influence anti-competitive behavior.

Abuse of Dominance and Competition Law and Policy in India

The Competition Commission of India Guide to Abuse of Dominance[60] lays out in clear simple terms what constitutes abuse of dominance under competition law in India, while it does not refer to case law on the matter, it does make for a great source for interpreting and understanding Indian competition law and was used for the same purposes.

Samir Gandhi[61] in his article analyses trends in enforcement of competition law in India. He provides data to prove that the CCIs decisions seem to want to establish a greater familiarity with complex tools of assessments like including economic measures etc. He argues that the CCI is eager to make up for lost time and therefore doesn't shy away from issuing judgments quickly and imposing severe penalties. This is useful in understanding whether or not the CCI is the appropriate and competent authority to deal with cases that are likely to come up involving the smartphone industry.

Pratibha Jain and others[62] conduct a fascinating study of how competition law is enforced in the country, in a fairly comprehensive report with individual case studies. They demonstrate quite clearly that the CCI refrains from laying down broad principles and restricts its rulings to the facts of a particular case. It also provides important data on how many cases are dismissed and in how many cases the CCI has found anti-competitive behavior. This data helps understand how effective or otherwise the CCI has been.

Archana Shanker and Shraddha Singh[63] in their article have argued that competition law and IP must both be used in a harmonious manner. In doing so they have analyzed relevant legislation and important cases such as Micromax and Intex, They have analysed how capable the CCI or courts in India are when it comes to determining FRAND terms in the context of SSOs and SEPs. They argue that the CCI has shown a lack of understanding of the IP aspects in these cases and have focused on competition law to their exclusion. While this is a well written and informative article on mobile phone SEP litigation in India, it is important to point out that the article does not deal with how courts in India have failed to appreciate concerns regarding hold-ups while issuing stays or ex-parte orders.

Kanika Chaudhary[64] has written about jurisdictional issues that the CCI might face due to the wording of the Competition Act that states that the act is applicable to anti-competitive behavior notwithstanding other laws and yet another section stating that competition law must be harmonized with existing laws. She argues that there is a need to restructure competition law in this regard to avoid conflicts.

The CUTS International report on the CCI[65] provides for an important resource on comments about the CCI and its judgments and media reactions to the CCI. The report submits that while the CCI is generally seen to be doing well in the media, several academics have argued that the CCI is riddled by legal lacunae, that it lacks teeth and that because most of its orders have been appealed in courts, and it lacks autonomy due to rules of procedure, it is not an effective or efficient forum and needs to be improved by further legislation. The same has been corroborated by a report in the Indian Express that speaks of new bills that were in the offing in 2012 that were aimed at giving the CCI more teeth. [66]

Peter Alexiadis[67] in his outlines general principles of ex post and ex ante intervention and how the two disciplines come into tension with each other when competition law is involved in a dispute along with any other legal regime such as IPR laws. He explores ways in which these two disciplines must be balanced. This article was used to understand how the ex-post decisions involving competition law inevitably are backward looking and adopt a narrow view of the product, looking largely at its demand side-substitutability. This helps explore the argument that a sector specific regulatory body could better address complex technical and economic questions specific to the industry, as opposed to litigation merely being played out in the courts.

George Cary and Mark W Nelson[68] have delved into the question of the role of antitrust in policing abuse by patent holders with royalty stacks in standard setting organisations. They have argued that it is important for a legal tool to police this abuse because while other areas of law may prove capable of addressing these issues, these disputes are, at their core antitrust disputes. And only antitrust law can ensure that private parties and government enforcement authorities can seek redress where there is harm to competition.

Suzanne Michael in her article[69] argues that SEP holders who have their patent incorporated as a standard stand to gain by increasing royalty rates beyond RAND terms and beyond their actual economic value as they hold a monopoly simply because they own the standard. She argues that this will harm consumer interest and slow innovation. She further argues that an ex-ante approach should therefore be taken in ordering remedies in these cases to protect consumer interest. She also looks into the question of holdups and injunctions in cases involving RAND commitment. But her argument about ex ante remedies in RAND cases is an interesting point relevant to the paper.

Anne Layne-Farrar, A Jorge Padilla and Richard Schmalensee[70] in their article delve into the question of what exactly would constitute FRAND terms in the context of licensing terms for essential IP in a standards setting organization. They have also analyzed the Georgia-Pacific guidelines and extending it to a standard setting organization and the numeric proportionality method proposed by courts in EU. They conclude that the Georgia-Pacific guidelines might work in FRAND disputes, that while this would leave FRAND basically undefined, it would be made an enforceable promise with an SSO and that these guidelines would provide sufficient direction and predictability in litigation. This article has been used to understand what kind of guidelines a regulatory body could be expected to codify for patent remedies in India.

Rahul Singh in his article[71] analyses how due to its nature, the CCI is not sector specific and is supposed to look at "anti-competitive behavior" in all sectors most of whom already have their own sector specific regulator. He argues that unlike sector specific regulators, the CCI can privately enforce orders and pursue claims for damages and that this makes the CCI better situated to deal with consumer welfare areas. He further argues that to reduce transaction costs, enhance legal certainty and predictability, enforcement of such disputes must be left in the hands of the CCI. This argument has been extended to argue that courts enforcing IPRs would be less suited to handle these matters and more likely to cause inefficiencies and unpredictability and a re-imagined, empowered CCI would be the best suited judge of these issues.

K.D.Raju in his article[72] analyses broadly the connection between IP laws and competition law in India. He argues that while the jurisprudence behind IPR and competition law has traditionally been viewed as incompatible with each other, in effect, they seek to further the same goals. He argues that the competition laws as they exist in India currently cannot effectively deal with the nexus with IPR and suggests that the CCI come out with IPR specific guidelines to deal with upcoming litigation in the area.

Apoorva and Shreeja Sen[73] in their report trace the stay orders in courts across India holding up CCI investigations and how this is symptomatic of the fact that courts do not understand concerns regarding hold-ups and reverse hold-ups in IP related cases where time is of the essence.

Karthik Jayakumar[74] has written about the Bhatia International case regarding arbitration, we use this to merely draw parallels with IPR laws in that just as in Bhatia the court held that arbitrations having their seat outside India were still within the jurisdiction of Indian courts and this was overruled in the BALCO case , the role of the CCI also has to be made clear through legislative reform or judicial pronouncement for the regulator to address questions of competition law across different sectors without a threat of stay orders from courts.

Nick Robinson in his article[75] speaks of good governance courts, and of how courts in India have used good governance and right to life to become essentially second governments regulating everything from encouraging the use of natural gas to regulated encroachment on preservation of public forests to guidelines for school safety at the expense of government and independent regulators. While Nick Robinson makes a larger argument about good governance courts, it is used only for the limited purpose of supporting the argument made in the paper about judicial interventions allowing for anti-competitive behavior.

[1] Avendus Capital, India's Mobile Internet: The Revolution Has Begun: An Overview of How Mobile Internet Is Touching the Lives of Millions, Avendus Capital Private Limited, September 2013, available at http://www.avendus.com/Files/Fund%20Performance%20PDF/Avendus_Report-India's_Mobile_Internet-2013.pdf (last accessed 14 May, 2015).

[2] John-Harmen Valk et.al, Using Mobile Phones to Improve Educational Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence from Asia, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol 11, No 1 (2010), available at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/794/1487 (last accessed 10 May, 2015);

[3] Gitanjali Shankar & Nikita Gupta, Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Divergence, Convergence and Independence, NUJS Law Review, Vol.4, (2011), pp.113-132.

[4] Robert Pitofsky, Comments on Lemley: An Introduction to IPR and Antitrust, Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas, Vo.13, (2006-07), pp.257-263

[5] Katrina Perehudoff & Sophie Bloemen, Anti-Competitive Strategies Hamper Access to Medicines in Europe, Amsterdam Law Forum,Vol.3, 2011, pp 81-87.

[6] 332 U.S. 392 (1947)

[7] 371 U.S. 38 (1962)

[8] 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971).

[9] 466 U.S. 2 (1984).

[10] Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr.public.guidelines.ipguide.htm (Last Accessed: 1/12/14)

[11] Daniel B Raviche & Shani C Dilloff, Antitrust Scrutiny of Intellectual Property Exploitation: It just don't make no kind of sense, Southwester Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol.8, (2001-02), p.83-158

[12] Robert D Anderson, The Interface Between Competition and policy and Intellectual Property in the Context of the International Trading System, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, (1998), pp.655-680.

[13] Eileen Mc Dermot, Managing Intellectual Property, No.187, March 2009

[14] Howard Hovenkamp, Antitrust and Innovation: Where we are and where we should be going, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.77, (2010-11), p.749-759

[15] John H Barton, Antitrust Treatment of Oligopolies with Mutually Blocking Patent Portfolios , Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 69, No. 3 (2002), pp. 851-882

[16] 708 F.2d 1081(7th Cir.) Cert. Denied. 464 U.S.955 (1983

[17] Id.

[18] Richard J Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, An Economic Analysis of Unilateral Refusals to License Intellectual Property, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vo.93, No.23 (Nov.12, 1996), pp.12749-12755.

[19] Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson & Jonathan Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, No.2, (2002), pp.443-462

[20] Paul D Marquardt & Mark Leddy, The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, No.3, (2003), pp.847-873

[21] 410 U.S. 366 (1973)

[22] 436 U.S. 585 (1985)

[23] 194, F. 2d, 484,487 (1st Cir), cert. denied, 344, U.S. 817 (1952

[24] 326 U.S. 1 (1945).

[25] 472, U.S. 585.

[26] Ref. Case 6 and 7/1973, Commercial Solvents v. Commission 1974 ECR 223.

[27] Case 22/1978 (1979), ECR, 1869.

[28] Ref. C. 27/1976, United Brands v. Commission (1978) , ECR 207.

[29] Martin Cave & Peter Crowther, Competition Law Approaches to Regulating Access to Utilities: The Essential Facilities Doctrine, Rivisita Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, Anno 103, No.1, Interconnection Pricing Workshop (Milan April 7-8 , 1995), pp. 141-157

[30] Case C-7/97, (1999) 4 CMLR 112

[31] B&I Line plc. V. Sealink harbors Ltd, a Commission of 11 June 1992, (1992), C.M.L.R 255 at paragraph 4.

[32] Objective justifications such as shortage of the product were accepted in Case77/77 Benezine en Petroleum Handlesmaatschappij BV v. British Petroleum (1978) ECR 1513

[33] Case T-69/89 Radio Telefis Eireaan v. Commission (1991) ECR II-485 on appeal Cases C-241P and 242/91P RTE and ITP v. Commission (1995) ECR I-743.

[34] Albertina Albros -Llorens, The Essential Facilities Doctrine in EC Competition Law, the Cambridge Law Journal, Vol.58, No.3 (Nov.,1999) , pp. 490-492.

[35] 1966, p. 570-71

[36] Gregory T Gundlack & Paul N Bloom, The Essential Facility Doctrine: Legal limits and Antitrust Considerations, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol.12, No.2 (Fall,1993), pp.156-169.

[37] Spencer Weber Waller & William Tasch, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3 (201), pp. 741-767.

[38] Daniel E Troy, Unclogging the Bottle neck: A New Essential Facility Doctrine, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 83, No.2, (Mar., 1983), pp.441-487.

[39] Ann Armstrong et al., The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Smartphones, available at http://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/The-Smartphone-Royalty-Stack-Armstrong-Mueller-Syrett.pdf (last accessed 15 May, 2015);

[40] Damien Geradin, Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in A Standard Setting Context: A View from Europe, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 1 (2009), 329-357; Damien Geradin, Ten Years of DG Competition Effort to Provide Guidance on the Application of Competition Rules to the Licensing of Standard Essential Patents: Where Do We Stand?, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/programs/searlecenter/workingpapers/documents/Geradin_DG_Competition.pdf (last accessed 19 May, 2015).

[41] Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola, Creating the "Right" Enabling Environment for ICT, in ROBERT SCHWARE (ED.), E-DEVELOPMENT: FROM EXCITEMENT TO EFFECTIVENESS (2005, World Bank Publications).

[42] Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato, Can Standard-Setting Lead to Exploitative Abuse? A Dissonant View on Patent Hold-up, Royalty-Stacking and the Meaning of FRAND, 3 Eur. Competition J. 101,103 (2007).

[43] Michael A. Carrier, A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing, Competition Policy International, CPI Antitrust Chronicle April 2012 (2) at 2.

[44] Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, Texas law Review, Vol.85, 2007, 1991-2050.

[45] Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard Essential Patents, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol.28, 2013 at 1136-1137

[46] Phillipe Baechtold, IPRs and Standards Setting: Some Issues, available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_smes_ge_07/wipo_smes_ge_07_www_81604.ppt (last accessed 19 May, 2015) at 1

[47] Richard Schmalensee, Standard-Setting, Innovation Specialists and Competition Policy, 57(3) THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, 526-552 (September, 2009).

[48] Gertjan Kuipers et.al, A Further Perspective on Apple v. Samsung: How to Successfully Enforce Standard Essential Patents in the Netherlands, Berichten Industriele Eigendon, Aug. 2012, available at http://www.debrauw.com/News/Publications/Documents/artikel1_Kuipers-Groeneveld-Lamme.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015) at 222

[49] Leon Greenfield, et al., SEP Enforcement Disputes, Beyond the Water's Edge: A Survey of Recent Non US Decisions, Antitrust, Vol.27, No.3, 2013 at 3.

[50] Damien Neven and Miguel de la Mano, Economics at DG Competition, 2009-2010, 37(4) REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION, 309-333 (December, 2010).

[51] Björn Lundqvist, Standardisation under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws, (2014).

[52] James E Abell, Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based approach to Antitrust pleading in standard development, 75(4) UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 1601-1631 (2008).

[53] Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Standard-Essential Patents: The International Landscape, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/key-speeches-presentations/standard-essential_patents_the_intl_landscape.pdf (last accessed 22 May, 2015) at 14.

[54] Ravikant Bharadwaj, Standard Setting in India: Competition Law and IP Issues, IMJ, Vol.5, 2013 at.1, 2.

[55] Anubha Sinha, Micromax Files Complaint: CCI Orders Investigation into Ericsson's FRANDLY Licensing, SpicyIP, 29 November 2013, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/11/micromax-files-complaint-cci-orders-investigation-into-ericssons-frandly-licensing.html (last accessed 22 May, 2015).

[56] Prashanth T Reddy, Interim Justice: Troubling Trend, Business Standard, 30 March 2013, available at http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/interim-justice-troubling-trend-113033000223_1.html (last accessed 23 May, 2015).

[57] Vaibhav Choukse, The Debate on Essentials, BUSINESS LINE, (March 29, 2015).

[58] John E Matheson, Patents and Standards, FRAND Challenges for India's ICT Sector, SpicyIP Discussion paper series, Paper no. 201401, 2014, available at: http://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FRAND-Challenges-for-Indias-ICT-Sector.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015) at 7

[59] Pankaj Soni and Satyoki Koundinya, Taking the FRANDLY Approach, a First Look at FRAND Battles in India, Remfry and Sagar, available at http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IAM-Yearbook/2015/Country-by-country/Taking-the-FRAND-ly-approach-a-first-look-at-FRAND-battles-in-India (last accessed 21 May, 2015).

[60] Competition Commission of India, Guide to Abuse of Dominance, available at http://www.cci.gov.in/images/media/Advocacy/Awareness/Abuse_Dominance.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015).

[61] Samir Gandhi et al., Enforcement Trends in India under Competition Act 2002, Practical Law, 1 June 2013, available at http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-532-3777?q=&qp=&qo=&qe=#a456237 (last accessed 11 May, 2015).

[62] Pratibha Jain et.al., Competition Law in India, A Report on Jurisprudential Trends, Nishit Desai and Associates, available at http://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research%20Papers/Competition_Law_in_India.pdf

[63] Archana Shanker and Shraddha Singh Chauhan, How to use Patent and Competition Law Effectively in Tandem, 1 September 2014, Managingip, available at http://www.managingip.com/Article/3382427/How-to-use-patent-and-competition-law-effectively-in-tandem.html (last accessed 20 May, 2015).

[64] Kanika Chaudhary Nayar, India: Jurisdiction of the CCI: Navigating Through Muddy Waters, 28 April 2015, Mondaq, Available at: http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/392738/Antitrust+Competition/Jurisdiction+Of+The+CCI+Navigating+Through+Muddy+Waters

[65] CUTS International, Competition Commission of India Through the Eyes of the Media: Doing Well!, 17 September 2012, available at http://www.cuts-ccier.org/pdf/Competition_Commission_of_India_through_the_eyes_of_the_media-Doing_well.pdf (last accessed 13 May, 2015) at 13.

[66] Bureau, Bill Aimed at Giving CCI More Teeth Tabled, Indian Express, 11 December 2012, Available at: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/bill-aimed-at-giving-cci-more-teeth-tabled/1043320/

[67] Peter Alexiadis, Balancing the application of ex post and ex ante disciplines under community law in electronic communications markets: square pegs in round holes? RIGHTS AND REMEDIES IN A LIBERALISED AND COMPETITIVE INTERNAL MARKET (2012).

[68] George S Cary, Mark W Nelson et al, the case for Antitrust law to police the patent holdup problem in standard setting, 77(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 913-945 (2011).

[69] Suzanne Michel, Bargaining for RAND Royalties in the Shadow of Patent Remedies Law, 77(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 889-911 (2011).

[70] Anne Layne-Farrar, A Jorge Padilla and Richard Schmalensee, Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organisations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments, 74(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 671-706 (2007).

[71] Rahul Singh, The Teeter Totter of Regulation and Competition: Balancing the Indian Competition Commission with Sectoral Regulators, Washungton University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.8, Issue 1, January 2009 at 97-102.

[72] K D Raju, The Inevitable Connection Between Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Emerging Jurisprudence and Lessons for India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.18, No.2, 2013, at 111-122.

[73] Apoorva, Shreeja Sen, Multiple Court Stays Hold UP CCI Investigations, Livemint, 28 November 2014, available at http://www.livemint.com/Politics/5Lm7tjIuogbBsm6qRb4exH/Multiple-court-stays-hold-up-CCI-investigations.html (last accessed 23 May, 2015).

[74] Karthik Jayakumar, Bhatia v. Balco, Who Should Stand?, 18 August 2013, available at http://blog.athirtyeight.com/2013/08/bhatia-v-balco-who-should-stand.html (last accessed 22 May, 2015).

[75] Nick Robinson, Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.8, Issue 1, January 2009 at 21.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-document-2-literature-review-on-competition-law-ipr-access-to-100-mobile-devices-1

Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Sakshi

praskrishna — 2015-01-01T16:58:23Z

Media coverage for the Wiki winter camp held at Andhra Loyola College.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/sakshi-december-31-2014-wiki-winter-camp

Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Eenadu

praskrishna — 2015-01-01T17:17:42Z

Media coverage of Wiki Winter Camp held at Andhra Loyola College.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/eenadu-december-31-wiki-winter-camp

December 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-01-12T16:56:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) wishes you a very happy new year and welcomes you to the twelfth issue of the newsletter (December 2014).

Highlights

CIS prepared a policy brief that identifies the problem areas with the current work flow being used to publish documents and proposes suitable modifications to make them easy to locate, authentic and accessible.
NVDA team conducted two workshops. The first one was held at the Hyderabad Central University for reading and writing in Telugu. The second one was held at the Blind Empowerment Foundation in Kolkata for reading and writing in Bangla.

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the 29^th WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from December 8 to 12, 2014 and on behalf of CIS gave statements on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations , Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities , made a brief pointed intervention on the Broadcast Treaty , and briefly interviewed Prof. Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives .
Nehaa Chaudhari analyses the broadening of definitions/concepts in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty versus those in pre-existing international instruments.
Maggie Huang, an intern at CIS as part of the Pervasive Technologies projects conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings are highlighted in two separate blog entries. The first one explores some of their views on the current intellectual property system and the second explores the tension between market forces and governmental intervention in providing access to mobile technology .
Tejaswini Niranjana, a distinguished fellow at CIS wrote an op-ed in the Hindu telling readers to see the ongoing Sanskrit versus German controversy as a welcome opportunity to discuss the real and persistent problems of our education system.
Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya have co-authored a white paper that seeks to identify aspects of privacy in Islamic Law and demonstrate that the notion of privacy was recognized and protected in traditional Islamic law.
Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya have produced a white paper seeks to locate privacy in Classical Hindu Law, and by doing so, displace the notion that privacy is an inherently 'Western' concept that is the product of a modernist legal system.
Vipul Kharbanda authored a white paper establishing the relationship between privacy and confidentiality.
Geetha Hariharan in a blog entry examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.
Shyam Ponappa in an article published by the Business Standard writes that India's current policies for telecommunications don't serve our interests and tells readers what must change.

Accessibility and Inclusion

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

December 2014 Report (Suman Dogra; December 30, 2014).

Events Organized

Telugu eSpeak Training with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Hyderabad Central University, Hyderabad; December 1-2, 2014).
Bangla eSpeak training with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Blind Empowerment Foundation, Kolkata; December 19-20, 2014).

Upcoming Event

Training in Use of eSpeak with Malayalam (Co-organized by CIS, DAISY Forum of India and Chakshumathi Assistive Technology Centre; Trivandrum; January 24 - 25, 2015, Trivandrum).

►Other

Blog Entry

Availability and Accessibility of Government Information in Public Domain (Sunil Abraham, Nirmita Narasimhan, Beliappa, and Anandhi Viswanathan; December 9, 2014).

Participation in Event

First meeting of the high level committee on National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility (Organized by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology; December 30, 2014; New Delhi). Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting.

Media Coverage

When technology is able but the mindset is not (Governance Now; December 1-15 issue). Sunil Abraham and Nirmita Narasimhan gave their inputs.

Access to Knowledge

►Pervasive Technologies

Blog Entries

[Open] Innovation and Expertise > Patent Protection & Trolls in a Broken Patent Regime (Maggie Huang; December 26, 2014).
"Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music" - Living Methodology Document (Maggie Huang; December 26, 2014).

►Other

Blog Entries

Nehaa Chaudhari attended the 29^th WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from December 8 to 12. The following are the outputs:

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 9, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 11, 2014).
The Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 11, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention: Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 14, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 20, 2014).
Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 21, 2014).

Participation in Event

Save the Date - 10 December 2014: The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem? (Organized at WIPO; December 10, 2014). Nehaa Chaudhari was a speaker at this side event. The details were originally published by Knowledge Ecology International.

Media Coverage

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty (Knowledge Ecology International; December 9, 2014).
SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews (Knowledge Ecology International; December 11, 2014).
At WIPO, Study On Copyright Exceptions Stimulates Broad Discussion With Author (Catherine Saez; December 18, 2014).
WIPO Delegates Hear Concerns of NGOs on Exceptions for Libraries (Catherine Saez; IP Watch ; December 19, 2014).

►Wikipedia

Newspaper Article

Beyond the Language Tussle (Tejaswini Niranjana; The Samaja, November 17, 2014).

Blog Entries

Odia Wikisource campus project at Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 3, 2014).
Several Publications Now Available under Creative Commons License (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 28, 2014).
Odia Wikisource workshop at New Delhi (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 30, 2014). The event was organized by CIS in collaboration with "The Intellects" on December 14.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Odia Wikipedia (Dhatri; December 1, 2014).
Odia Wikipedia (Odiapua; December 1, 2014).
Access to Rare Books Made Easy (Diana Sahu; Indian Express; December 5, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia gets some push (Hindu Businessline; December 13, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (Kannada Prabha; December 14, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (Vijaya Karnataka; December 15, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (VijayaVani; December 27, 2014).
Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web (Hans India; December 31, 2014).
Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Sakshi (Sakshi; December 31, 2014).
Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Eenadu (Eenadu; December 31, 2014).

Event Co-organized

Odia Wikisource Sabha 2014 (Co-organized by CIS-A2K and Odia Wikimedia Community; November 28, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

Participation in Events

ICT for Development (Organized by Christ University; December 3, 2014). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja was a speaker at this event.
Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala (Organized by ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala; Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum; December 18 - 20, 2014). T. Vishnu Vardhan chaired a session on Wikimedia and Access to Knowledge in India and Rahimanuddin Shaik co-presented on Making DLI Accessible.

►Openness

Blog Entry

Department of Science and Technology & Department of Biotechnology adopt Open Access Policy (Anubha Sinha; December 29, 2014).

Participation in Events

Tech for Citizen Engagement 2014 (Organized by Omidyar Network; New Delhi; December 11, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker in the session "Rules of Engagement: Emerging Trends in Citizen Outreach".
Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala (Organized by ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala; Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum; December 18 - 20, 2014). Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam was a speaker and made a presentation on Open Science.

Internet Governance

►Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. During the month we published the following blog entries:

White Papers

Locating Constructs of Privacy within Classical Hindu Law (Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya; December 29, 2014).
Relationship between Privacy and Confidentiality (Vipul Kharbanda; December 30, 2014).

Blog Entry

Identifying Aspects of Privacy in Islamic Law (Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya; December 14, 2014).

Upcoming Events

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy (Co-organized by CIS and the Observer Research Foundation; January 8, 2015; New Delhi).
CPDP 2015 : The eighth international conference on computers, privacy and data protection will be held in Brussels from January 21 to 23, 2015. CIS is a moral supporter of CPDP.

Event Organized

Security and Surveillance: A public discussion on Optimizing Security while Safeguarding Human Rights (CIS; December 19, 2014).

►Free Speech

Under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, CIS is doing research on the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute studies, reports and policy briefs to feed into the ongoing debates at the national as well as international level. As part of the project we bring you the following outputs:

Blog Entries

ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues (Geetha Hariharan; December 8, 2014).
Revolving Door Analysis: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (Lakshmi Venkataraman; December 10, 2014).
Is India's website-blocking law constitutional? - I. Law & procedure (Geetha Hariharan; December 11, 2014).

►Other

Participation in Event

National Seminar on Cyber Security & Cyber Laws - Issues and Concerns (Organized by the Advanced Centre for Research, Development & Training in Cyber Laws & Forensics; National Law School of India University, Bangalore; December 27 - 28, 2014). Sharath Chandra Ram was part of a plenary session on "Multi-Disciplinary Challenges in Ensuring Cyber Security".

Blog Entries

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act (Pranesh Prakash; December 15, 2014).
Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling (Tarun Krishnakumar; December 22, 2014).

---------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
---------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

India sees biggest improvement in Internet freedom, says report (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; December 5, 2014).
Are Cab Apps safe? (IBN Live; December 8, 2014).
FrndiNeed; an app for passengers' safety (Athira A. Nair; Economic Times; December 10, 2014).
Thank You To Our 2014 Sponsors (Medianama; December 22, 2014).
Why did India fail to discover the ISIS Twitter handle? (Anita Babu; Business Standard; December 26, 2014).
Targeting surveillance (Ajai Sreevatsan; The Hindu; December 28, 2014).
Centre blocks 32 websites for security reasons, restores some later (S. Ronendra Singh; Hindu Businessline; December 31, 2014).
DoT Reportedly Orders Blocking of 32 Websites Including GitHub, Archive.org, SourceForge (NDTV; December 31, 2014).
Govt blocks 32 websites, including Vimeo and Github (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; December 31, 2014).
Vimeo, DailyMotion, Pastebin Among Sites Blocked In India For 'Anti-India' Content From ISIS (Jeff Stone; IB Times; December 31, 2014).
Pastebin, Dailymotion, Github blocked after DoT order: Report (Anupam Saxena; The Times of India; December 31, 2014).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Newspaper Column

A Road Map for Digital India (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; December 3, 2014 and Organizing India Blogspot; December 4, 2014).

Digital Humanities

Blog Entry

The Spaces of Digital (P.P.Sneha; December 30, 2014).

About CIS

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/december-2014-bulletin

Odia Wikisource workshop at New Delhi

subha — 2014-12-30T01:08:00Z

The Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team in collaboration with "The Intellects" organized a seminar in New Delhi on December 14, 2014. Subhashish Panigrahi gave a talk.

The seminar was on the Relevance of Bhagabat Tungi in the evolution of Odia language from Buddha era to digital age. After attending the event one of the participants Pankajmala Sarangi took great interest in Odia Wikisource which was then an incubator project. Since then she has digitized three books and is now proofreading Odia Bhagabata, an Odia language classic from the 14th century. Having the highest number of edits in Odia Wikisource, Ms. Sarangi took interest to build a community in Delhi. Another Odia Wikilibrarian Sitikantha Kheti also joined in to organise the first Odia Wikisource workshop in Delhi. These Wikimedians, a Delhi based group The Intellects and CIS-A2K collaboratively conducted a workshop.

The Intellect's president Debendra Rout addressed the participants and broadly spoke about the goal of the workshop and long term plans in Delhi. Both the Wikilibrarians shared their experience on Odia Wikisource. The workshop started with self introduction of the participants followed by screening of a documentary "Odia: Silalekharu Mobile".

Video

A handbook with details on the project, Odia input and keyboard layout was distributed among all. Subhashish Panigrahi demonstrated Odia input and the process of digitization of books on Wikisource. Plans for more workshops and digitization sprints were also charted out.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/odia-wikisource-workshop-new-delhi-december-14-2014